For GOP only

[kapkomet]

In an ideal system, your argument leads to the classic "Laffer curve", the assumption that we're on the right hand side of which has been the driving force behind Republican economics for 30 years now and which has helped us build something like $8 trillion in debt.

 

Not to just bash though, I think that curve and your argument gives the answer to your question. For every individual, there is a tax rate beyond which they will decide that it is not worth their time to work more hours because too much will go to the government, and in this case, the high taxes will depress the economy, and therefore, increasing beyond that tax rate does in fact do you no good. On the other hand, the other driving force is that if you cut taxes, you will stimulate the economy somewhat, but you will also have a lower rate. These are 2 forces that move in opposing directions, and therefore, it must be possible to find a tax rate that maximizes revenue to the government by balancing those 2 forces.

OK, I understand that. But I'm not trying to talk about a curve. I'm talking in theory. I do agree that there is an optimal area at which we can achieve both (of course my thing is if these dolts in Washington would stop spending money like they had it, we wouldn't have this problem, but that is another issue).

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Here's a little history lesson for you. If you don't know the answer, make your best guess.

 

Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

 

Who said it?

 

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx

B. Adolph Hitler

C. Joseph Stalin

D. None of the above

 

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin

B. Mussolini

C. Idi Amin

D. None of the Above

 

3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some

people"

A. Nikita Khrushev

B. Josef Goebbels

C. Boris Yeltsin

D. None of the above

 

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Tung

B. Hugo Chavez

C. Kim Jong Il

D. None of the above

 

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx

B. Lenin

C. Molotov

D. None of the above

 

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet

B. Milosevic

C. Saddam Hussein

D. None of the above

 

Scroll down for answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep scrolling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answers

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) D. None of the above. Statement was m ade by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

 

 

[Texsox]

From a Survey of Out of Context statements perhaps?

 

Perhaps a visit to snopes.com?

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

[southsider2k5]

From a Survey of Out of Context statements perhaps?

 

Perhaps a visit to snopes.com?

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

 

Too bad they don't have anything about the multipier effect on Snopes... Maybe then, I wouldn't get all of the "Out of Context" posts everytime taxation gets mentioned.

[kapkomet]

From a Survey of Out of Context statements perhaps?

 

Perhaps a visit to snopes.com?

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

Out of context or not, she is saying that she wants to enact socialistic policies, PERIOD.

 

[Texsox]

Out of context or not, she is saying that she wants to enact socialistic policies, PERIOD.

 

I guess this shows how effective sound bites are. So the Federal Trade Commission is a socialist agency? That overview of the oil industry is a socialist item. That trying to reduce our reliance on foreign oil is socialism?

 

So Republicans favor stopping all monitoring of the most profit industry, the oil industry.

[Texsox]

And the free market failed. That's socialism at it's finest according to the GOP? The free market failed, if you read where that sound bite was taken from, in making abortion rare. I guess that reducing abortions is socialism?

 

You guys are usually at least accurate when you take someone to task for comments. This is just unfair. There are plenty of things to criticize Hillary for without this sort of stuff.

[kapkomet]

The lady basically says she wants to stop the free market process and redistribute their wealth and that's a GOP problem? GMAFB. Some days, you're not even worth talking to.

 

[Texsox]

The lady basically says she wants to stop the free market process and redistribute their wealth and that's a GOP problem? GMAFB. Some days, you're not even worth talking to.

I'm not going to sit here and argue, anyone that would like to understand her quotes *in context* follow the snopes.com link.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/f3365966-75...af-9546a5b834f6

 

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Bloggers File FEC Complaint Against Hillary Clinton

Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at 10:11

Conservative bloggers Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan will file a formal complaint about Hillary Clinton's shady fundraising practices with the Federal Election Commission today.

 

On the heels of the Norman Hsu scandal, the Clinton campaign was rocked by questions of even more Hsu-like shakedowns in connection with a $380,000 fundraiser in New York which saw contributions ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 from cooks and dishwashers. At least one donor admitted to being an illegal immigrant. Another said she was illegally reimbursed for her contributions. Others said they felt pressured to give.

 

Unlike the Hsu cash, Hillary's campaign has yet to return the bulk of this tainted money.

 

This complaint brings these charges into a formal FEC process. The Clinton campaign will have 15 days to respond and publicly defend itself from charges of illegal campaign fundraising.

 

When lefty blogger Lane Hudson filed FEC complaints against Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, the press couldn't get enough of the story. I expect Margolis and Noonan will get similar treatment.

 

This is really smart on Margolis and Noonan's part, who know the issue of Democrat corruption backwards and forwards as the authors of Caucus of Corruption. For about the time it would have taken to write a blog entry on this issue, they can demand real accountability from the Clinton campaign. I wish I'd thought of this.

 

The full complaint is after the jump.

 

 

October 31, 2007

 

Office of General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

 

 

Dear Counsel:

 

We write to file a complaint against the Hillary Clinton for President Committee for violation of Federal Election Law under the Commission's jurisdiction.

 

It is clear from recent news accounts that the campaign and its donors and fundraisers have violated 2 USC 441f, the provision of law that prohibits campaign contributions in the name of another, and that some donors may have violated 2 USC 441e which prohibits donations by foreign nationals without permanent resident status.

 

A recent Los Angeles Times article, [available here], indicates that several reported donors to the Clinton campaign are non-existent persons, illegal immigrants, or were reimbursed by others for contributions. The article documents several instances in which reported donors could not be found, even by those living at the same address reported in the campaign’s FEC filing:

 

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records. […]

Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

 

[…]

 

The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000. […]

 

A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.

 

Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.

 

In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee's name there; they knocked on one another's doors in a futile effort to find him.

 

Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.

 

In yet another case, a “donor” denied ever giving money to the campaign:

 

Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.

The article also demonstrates that the Clinton campaign received large campaign contributions from illegal immigrants barred from contributing under Federal law:

 

One New York man who said he enthusiastically donated $2,500 to Clinton doesn't appear to be eligible to do so under federal election law. He said he came to the United States from China about two years ago and didn't have a green card.

These incidents are far from isolated occurrences at the fringes of the Clinton campaign. Campaigns routinely stay in close contact with their most prolific fundraisers and encourage them to raise even more money from associates. Community organizers even organized a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton that netted $380,000, implying substantial knowledge of and involvement in procuring these donations on the campaign’s part.

As Clinton campaign bundlers, these community leaders also placed improper pressure on those who could least afford to donate:

 

Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.

Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

 

[…]

 

"Everybody was making a donation, so I did too," [He Duan Zheng] said. "Otherwise I would lose face."

 

The New York Post conducted a further examination of the Hillary Clinton for President Committee's campaign finance data. Their story is available here.

The New York Post story indicates that several unlikely donors, including cooks and dishwashers, made $1,000 contributions to the campaign.

 

 

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.

Shin K. Cheng is listed twice in federal records for giving $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17.

 

But the address recorded on campaign reports is a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, hemorrhoids and skin disease.

 

No one at the address knew of a Shin K. Cheng.

 

Another donation came from a Shih Kan Chang on Canal Street. But the address listed is a shop that sells knock-off watches and other pirated goods. The sales clerk there did not know the donor.

 

The investigation by the New York Post also found evidence of illegal “straw donations.”

 

Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check.

But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution.

 

 

In addition to the aforementioned evidence, it is worth noting that the Hillary Clinton for President Committee has clearly decided to take no action to remedy these violations. According to the New York Post, “The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.”

Accordingly, the Clinton campaign's disinterest in and failure to remedy these violations along with the potential scope of the abuse indicates that that the Commission should investigate and take action against those responsible for violation of the law.

 

The information in this complaint is based upon information and belief, and not on our personal knowledge.

 

Respectfully,

 

Matthew Margolis & Mark Noonan

[kapkomet]

*crickets*

[Texsox]

She should be tried and her campaign shut down.

 

And remember which candidate *cough McCain* wrote the book on campaign finance reform.

[NorthSideSox72]

*crickets*

I have to say, some of these fundraising things with Hillary are looking quite sketchy. This has been going on for months. Where are these people with no money coming up with thousands of dollars? It just screams proxy. And I wouldn't be surprised if other candidates are doing similar things.

 

[Texsox]

And I wouldn't be surprised if other candidates are doing similar things.

 

I agree. But I seriously believe the candidate least likely to be running afoul of any campaign financing laws is McCain. He has too much at stake as the leader of at least trying to clean up this cesspool.

[Balta1701]

I have to say, some of these fundraising things with Hillary are looking quite sketchy. This has been going on for months. Where are these people with no money coming up with thousands of dollars? It just screams proxy. And I wouldn't be surprised if other candidates are doing similar things.

Actually, I would be somewhat surprised if other candidates were doing similar things, because aside from Obama no one is even close in the money race (and Obama has a much larger group of small donors than Hillary)...and perhaps more importantly, we haven't yet heard of any of them despite this race having been on for nearly a year. That is one benefit of such a long campaign; if you're breaking the rules, there's plenty of time for the press to find out, and the press is generally more than happy to get an above-the-fold piece on illegal fundraising shenanigoats.

[Texsox]

Or because of the shear volume it is easier to catch Hillary. Also, based on history are you more likely to look at Hillary or someone else? She makes a better headline. Reporters don't build careers by finding non stories, you don't get headlines with guys who are polling .5% .

 

Another way of saying it, the University of Texas - Pan American has twice this decade been caught for violating NCAA recruiting laws in their basketball program, which happens to be Division One. Why do you now know about it? They cheated, and still don't have a top 100 program in the nation. So nobody cares.

[kapkomet]

Or because of the shear volume it is easier to catch Hillary. Also, based on history are you more likely to look at Hillary or someone else? She makes a better headline. Reporters don't build careers by finding non stories, you don't get headlines with guys who are polling .5% .

And yet, Hillarity still will win because everyone will look away.

[NorthSideSox72]

And yet, Hillarity still will win because everyone will look away.

Look away? The Hsu mess, and the large donations, have been right on page 1 of newspapers and on the main page of CNN.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I had posted earlier how people on both sides were disguising donation above the limit by having their children donate to a campaign. The example in the story was of one family where a 2 yr old had donated the maximum to Obama, and the mom was quoted as admitting that she did this to get around the limits.

[kapkomet]

Look away? The Hsu mess, and the large donations, have been right on page 1 of newspapers and on the main page of CNN.

Reaction of people:

 

Really? Cool! Who cares? Now let me go run and vote for her.

 

/does the American Democrat thing.

[Rex Kickass]

I had posted earlier how people on both sides were disguising donation above the limit by having their children donate to a campaign. The example in the story was of one family where a 2 yr old had donated the maximum to Obama, and the mom was quoted as admitting that she did this to get around the limits.

 

This happens with almost every candidate out there.

[YASNY]

This happens with almost every candidate out there.

 

That may, just may, be the problem.

[Texsox]

Coke and Pepsi operate about the same. The business side of politics does not change because there is a D, R, or I over the door.

[mr_genius]

going to sit here and argue

 

 

well, alrighty then.

 

[Texsox]

well, alrighty then.

 

 

Nice.