1 - 10 Next
"Regardless, Holder is still required to produce a list of documents by October 1, which will give us significant insight into the kind of documents the Department of Justice is trying so desperately to hide." Holder will make that list of documents so vague it will preclude getting any insight.
It is the nature of bureaucracies. All bureaucrats operate under 3 Prime Directives: 1) Follow the organization's rules 2) Obey the boss 3) If Directives 1 and 2 come into conflict, follow Directive 2. When the wrong people end up in the position of "boss", bureaucracies can go really bad really fast.
In response to:

DML 2016?

RichardsKY Wrote: 9 hours ago (7:51 AM)
Exactly. Because, unlike what they did with Barack Obama, the LSM will find them.
That's the thing about bureaucrats. It really doesn't have to be a big thing for them to try to cover up something that would put them in a bad light. They will do it for small things. From Hillary's perspective, this was a small thing. Some bad guys killed some of her people and at that first moment she probably had no idea whether she had any direct culpability. So, she went into default mode: manage the message first, then worry about the facts later if you have to. This was nothing but message management to her, this was not a cover-up of any kind.
How did she come up with that story so quickly if she didn't already have it in hand?
Regarding the bogus videotape story, how did they even conclude the Cairo protests were tied to it? Did they walk around asking the rioters what made them mad? You can't tell me that every single rioter saw that video and instantly became a rioter because of it. You can't tell me that the video was the sole cause of the Cairo uprisings at that time. Has anyone ever checked to see if the video-Cairo connection was even legitimate? What if that was largely made up, too? What if the administration first threw out the "bad video" idea about the Cairo protests, saw that it worked (i.e., no one questioned it)? Then, when Benghazi happened, they had a ready-made response; it worked in Cairo, it ought to work on Benghazi. The assault was still in progress when Hillary rolled out the video line.
In response to:

When Corporations Flee

RichardsKY Wrote: Sep 16, 2014 8:53 AM
Expanding on my note below, what if we reduced the U.S. corporate income tax rate to ZERO!! The average U.S. company, earning a net profit of about 12% on sales, would see its after tax net profit jump by 66%. It would be like getting a permanent jump in sales of 66%. A company with $100 million in sales would see its after tax net profit jump from $7.2 million up to $12 million for as long as we kept the rate at zero. Imagine the economic impact! Imagine the reinvestment to grow their businesses and the further impact that would have.
In response to:

When Corporations Flee

RichardsKY Wrote: Sep 16, 2014 8:47 AM
Imagine the economic impact if U.S. corporations all of a sudden could see a 33% jump in sales.
In response to:

When Corporations Flee

RichardsKY Wrote: Sep 16, 2014 8:46 AM
Someone explain to me this. What exactly is the policy purpose of taxing business income? Usually, we tax things we want less of, like cigarettes. Are we saying we want less taxes. Do the math on the ONLY THING THAT COUNTS FOR BUSINESSES, which is NET PROFIT AFTER TAX. The average net profit of U.S. companies is about 12% of sales. Doing the math on that if we took the 40% corporate income tax and cut it in half, the effect on net profit after tax is the equivalent of boosting that company's sales by 33%. Say it another way: By moving to Ireland a company can, in effect pick up a 33% increase in sales - immediately.
In response to:

When Corporations Flee

RichardsKY Wrote: Sep 16, 2014 8:29 AM
We need this logic pounded over and over into the heads of the low information voter. Most politicians understand it, but they also understand that by shrinking government we would shrink their power, which explains why they are willing to expound the idea but do little about it.
1 - 10 Next