It’s time to throw these clowns into the pile with the rest of the crooks and have them face the music like everybody else. Way to go ABC! Make the DA sweat a little, then a little more, then a little more…

So why didn’t the DA pursue it?

Professional courtesy.

hell their is a lot of SCREWING going on around here

To Quote my faovite philospher the immortal
“Bugs Bunny”
Theirs something awfully screwy going on around here

sorry but, all that’s on MY mind are those legs in the pic used for this thread!..hmm..gotta a better one of that? ;o)

You might want to eyeball that ‘gal’ a little closer. Tall, big feet, no butt….

MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM

:)

Mark Garnett on February 6, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I never have a problem with the root of your message. You’re aware we largely agree. I have a problem with people who tape down their caps lock and put the bold tag around their entire post. Rants which are designed to appeal with font rather than substance are obnoxious.

MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 10:09 AM

However you did forget to say I was right about how radical this Messiah was going to be… I guess even us far right wing nut jobs can get one right every now and then… My warnings, rantings and calls for action (calling, e-mails, ect.) have been varified. The attacks on Rush and freedom of speech, ect. have again proven how radical this POS is.

You forgot your internet warrior tag. And that was back to your old obnoxious standard.MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Thanks for reminding me and thanks for the compliment!

So why didn’t the DA pursue it? Prosecutors have a double standard regarding prostitution, especially high-end rings like Davis ran. Police have no trouble busting johns from streetwalkers in sting operations, but they almost always avoid people like Eliot Spitzer

They should prosecute the big fish as well as the small, perhaps more than the small in this case. Tax fraud is tax fraud. Who do these men think they are — Obama Cabinet appointees?

Oh hell, why not just come right out and say it Ed, you know it’s true, we have devolved into a caste system not unlike India, we’re still just in denial in this country about how far it has gone.

Andrew?

Andrew?

Are your there?

You’re correct, neo-liberalism knows no party and our elite class decided to become corporatist as early as the seventies. But Reagan could have made different decisions and, at the very least, corporate culture was somewhat more responsible prior to Reagan.

DeathToMediaHacks on February 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Reagan was dealing with the effects of a severe recession fouled up by his three predecessors. Unless he wanted to start moving on government-owned businesses, and he didn’t, he tried to do the impossible: shrink government, return the power to the people, while fighting the evil empire through military and arms spending. He turned out to secretly be Stretch Armstrong, and for all intents and purposes, succeeded. The ensuing attitudes taken by the companies were not of his doing. They were free to revitalize domestic production, and they didn’t. Had he made the decisions for them, he would have gone back on the core of his principles: getting government the hell out of the way.

To an extent, Bush was dealing with the same situation, except he gave up on government trimming pretty damn quickly. Conservatives who tried to curb that were cast aside as the current GOP came into power, which was just a few years before we lost congress. Hopefully, Michael Steele’s purge will cleanse us of these dips**ts once and for all. Maybe we can look forward to some real “Hope and Change” in 2012.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/paulson-misled-tarp-overs_n_164589.html

MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM

You’re correct, neo-liberalism knows no party and our elite class decided to become corporatist as early as the seventies. But Reagan could have made different decisions and, at the very least, corporate culture was somewhat more responsible prior to Reagan.

Gee, someone wrote about class stratified society…guess they feel everyone is “equal”, that everyone makes the same amount of money, everyone contributes the same.

God you’re purposefully and unnecessarily dumb. The thing that makes a class stratified society bad is when differences in income give people an advantage or a disadvantage before the law. Lady justice is meant to be blind and her scales are not to tipped by a shiny diamond put on one side of the other. Clearly that’s what my post was about. But if you really want to have it out about taxes, lets.

If you make $35,000 a year as a salesman, then hit a big year or two with a large account, bounce up to $150,000, then you are killed with taxes. You are just paying off the college debt, the 2nd on the mortgage, just getting ahead…but taxed up the yazoo for a couple of good years.

Yes someone making 35,000 a year and someone making 150,000 a year should pay different tax rates. Is your argument that the taxes and mortgage (which isn’t a tax, but an investment) make your standard of living unchanged from the person who’s making 35,000 bucks a year? You’re only able to afford the same things, the same kinds of life? I seriously, seriously doubt that. After income taxes, after your chosen investment of a house via a mortgage payment you there’s money left over to enjoy yourself a bit, the whining from folks who make 6 figures falls on deaf ears for me.

Meanwhile the really big buck guys, the guys who support Obama, they have all the shelters set up, so they pay no taxes…Buffet, the big supporter, paid less taxes then his secretary, and will pay less under Obama.

Amazing. And yet your side looks at them and shrugs while looking at someone with a job that puts them in the “rebate” zone and says “those lazy f*ckers should die.” If you get a tax rebate that means you have a job and considering how sucky those jobs tend to be, you’re probably not lazy. To me the ire should be against those at the top who use shelters to avoid paying their obligation to a society that has given THEM so much by buying their products or working for their corporation (at increasingly low wages) but to even suggest that they might have an obligation to society just to pay the tax rate as it is, is to be called a socialist. I’ll never understand it.

DeathToMediaHacks on February 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM

So wait…you’re claiming that, because Reagan put in incentives for investment and abilities for more recapitalization, that he himself somehow brought about globalization of industry? Are you out of your mind? It was well on its way before he was even governor of California, my friend. I’d quite sooner blame people like David Rockefeller with their globalist rhetoric for that. Reagan was the one attempting to bolster domestic industry. Unlike your new boy Obama, he wasn’t keen on nationalizing industry in order to bolster domestic growth.

DTMH: Put the crack pipe down. And why does someone who calls themself “DeathToMediaHacks” always seem to toe the MSM line?

When you can show me anyone in the MSM using the word “corporatist” you’ll be on the verge of almost making a legit argument. Until then I suggest you watch/read/listen to the MSM alot more closely than you currently do.

Bush attempted to in the early years, but the lingering effects of the dot com crash were played up as a result of the tax cuts Bush implemented, so he played politics.

And I’d contend that the major shift in corporate culture from Reagan forward is what precipitated things like the dotcom crash. We slowly but surely de-emphasized the importance of domestic production in the name of higher profits. We emphasized speculative markets, lightning fast trading, and Madoff style ponzi steams and said “look! this is what happens when you have the capital gains tax cuts/corporate tax cuts that Reagan put into effect, more capital investment, yay!” And yay indeed…for a while. But when your economy is principally organized around wall street investment rather than the ability to actually make something that people and the world want to buy, eventually the system crashes. Boom, bust, boom, bust. It’s what our economy did in the 1880s, at the Great Depression and then once again it’s what our economy has done under Reagan style policies. I mean did people see Glengary Glenross? Talk about prophetic.

As for what Bush did or didn’t do. I don’t blame bush for the wall street crash. I also don’t blame the CRA as originally intended, as I (and Ben Bernanke) have said, the communities which were meant to benefit from the CRA were doing what they were supposed to do. It was those who saw an opportunity to abuse the act that need to be shot (many of them Democrat politicians). I blame Bush for cutting taxes during a massively expensive war and during other expansions in the Federal government. Don’t get me wrong, Reagan did this too. But he didn’t do in a world with other strong currencies or a rising rival superpower in China. In fact, we know, he did it as the Soviets were crumbling under their own weight. And he also didn’t do it while spending 500 billion dollars on one war, lord knows how much we’ve spent in Afghanistan as well. And if people aren’t going to own up to the economic disaster of “free market conservatism” at least own up to the economic follies of neo-conservatism which also has run the roost this past 8 years. It is kind of amazing to me that conservatives look at 6 consecutive years of GOP control and say “none of this is our fault.”