jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (29 posts)

Why are taxpayer funds given to political action non-profits ?

  1. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

    Why are taxpayer funds given to political action non-profits who contribute to political campaigns?
    Payback to campaign donors for support during an election seems to be just another way to waste taxpayer money. The politics of Washington and our Government are corrupt.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It would be nice if the federal government of the United States would restrict itself to activities required of it by the Constitution but the paramount problem is self serving politicians.  The Congress was originally intended to be a part time legislature it has now turned into a lavish featherbedding and retirement scheme.

  2. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

    It was reported this week that Media Matters has received government grants. It is a fact that Media Matters has been supported by active members in our government.
    Any non-profit using monies received from the federal government to promote a political party or candidate in any election ,FEDERAL or State  should not continue to receive any grant taxpayer funding.
    MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA (MMA)
    Self-described “progressive” media “monitor” which tracks content that “forwards a conservative agenda.”
    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/prin … grpid=7150

    1. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Now, go ahead and address all of the conservative groups (hundreds and all of the bigwigs) who have done the same for years and years. I'll provide you a list of you want.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How about just one as egregious as the United Auto Workers Union, recipient of billions in GM and Chrysler bail outs.  If they had been forced to endure the standard bankruptcy process the lucrative contracts of UAW bosses and members would have been subject to court managed renegotiation.  The end result would have been lower pay for union bosses and more standard health, welfare and retirement for current UAW retirees and members.

        Do you have one organization whose members are told to vote Republican that has ever received such public largess?

        1. 0
          Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Are they classified as a 501(c)(3)? No, then they aren't in the argument are they?
          With regards to unions, which have absolutely no bearing on this argument whatsoever, the decline in unions can be directly linked to the decline in the middle class. Period.
          But again...since we are talking about 501(c)(3) organizations, and you appear to not want to own up, would you care for a list of Republican organizations and how long each of them has been doing this? The Dems finally get into the mix and it is a travesty. Seems a bit hypocritical eh?

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Democrats finally get in the mix?  Just give your link to those giant evil Republican offenders and have done with it.

            1. 0
              Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I already have on another thread, and you don't care anyway. You go look them up...pick one and then check on wikipedia if they are 501(c)(3), AFP, Freedomworks, Biggivovernment.com, etc.

          2. 68
            logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Guarantee you that the Dems have been doing it as long as the Repubs.  Neither should be funded by taxpayer money.  You call out the Dems and I'll call out them both.

        2. 0
          Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Stump is correct...if you want a list of churches who are told to vote Republican, I am sure I can find those pretty easily as well. SO, unions vs megachurches. Want percentage figures as to participation?

        3. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The UAW did not receive billions in the restructuring of GM. I have yet to see proof that the unions got ANY money.

          Three years ago, conservatives were opposed to the auto bailout and predicted the auto US auto industry (with unions) could not compete. Wrong.  GM is making money, and the US taxpayer will see a profit for investing in America.

    2. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'd support closing them ALL down, but would you?

  3. Stump Parrish profile image59
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Look at the number of political candidates that churches promote and their members contribute to on the advice of their church. If churches want to enter the political arena, by your reasoning they should also begin  paying taxes. As far as I know, almost every church out there is non-profit organization and yet, look at how many of them instruct their members on which candidates will best support their wishes. Nit picking to be sure but I do so enjoy it.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Look at the complaints leveled at Republicans who even hint at a religious affiliation while Democrats regularly campaign in churches with no consequence.  There is a double standard regarding campaign conduct.  Barry, Hillary, Algore all can go to black churches and campaign to what end?

      1. 0
        Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Show me once where they campaigned in a church...I'll wait.

    2. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are absolutely correct.

    3. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      By that reasoning, the Catholic and Mormon churches would have to pay taxes for butting in on public policy re marriage and abortion. For the record, I think churches can and should encourage members on moral issues, but when churches try to extend their morality to non-members through legislating their morality, all their revenues should be subject to income tax.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Just when I was about to agree with you, no matter how disturbing that notion.  The rescue of GM was a sop to the unions.  GM now belongs to the UAW and GM will fall again because no long term structural changes have happened.

        The massive tax write off, the billions transferred and forgiven - if GM shows a profit it is not because of increased efficiency, productivity, cost cutting measures or increased sales but because of massive intervention by government.

        GM will hit hard times again and probably just in time for the 2012 election but most of us by that time may be too broke p-a-y attention while another giant loan from CHINA goes to the UAW.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You just make up whatever you like?

          Billions were NOT given to the UAW.

          GM is making money.

          The government will get back more than they paid. In business that's called a profit.

          The union does NOT own GM.

          Can you occasionally use objective facts?

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            GM paid us back with our own money. They took TARP funds and paid back bailout money with it. So we are being screwed for Unions as usual.

            1. 0
              Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really? So, you have GM's accounting documents huh? Oh...you are just talking out of your arse again. That's it.

          2. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04 … out-money/

            http://radioviceonline.com/gm-repays-lo … ot-really/

            -"Here is how we know this.  During an April 20 hearing on Capital Hill, Sen. Tom Carper, (D-Del.) asked some pointed questions of Neil Barofsky, the “special watch dog” on the Wall Street Bailout, aka, TARP.

            It’s good news in that they’re reducing their debt,” Barofsky said of the accelerated GM payments, “but they’re doing it by taking other available TARP money.”…

            “It sounds like it’s kind of like taking money out of one pocket and putting in the other,” said Carper, who got a nod of agreement from Barofsky.

            “The way that payment is going to be made is by drawing down on an equity facility of other TARP money.”

            Humm…wonder why we didn’t hear about that.

            Update (Steve): Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) blasted the Obama administration and Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner concerning this shell game in a letter sent yesterday. My emphasis in bold, with a hat tip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air."-

            OR would you rather it come from a Leftists rag like the NY Times...

            Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general overseeing the troubled asset program, revealed this detail when he spoke before the Senate Finance Committee on April 20.

            “So it’s good news in that they’re reducing their debt,” Mr. Barofsky said of G.M. But he went on to note that G.M. was using other taxpayer money to make the loan repayment, according to the transcript of his testimony.

            Armed with this information, Mr. Grassley fired off a letter to Mr. Geithner on April 22, asking for details of the transaction. “I am concerned ... that this announcement is not what it seems,” he wrote. “In fact, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle.”

            Mr. Grassley heard back from the Treasury last Tuesday. Herbert M. Allison Jr., assistant secretary for financial stability, confirmed that the money G.M. used to repay its bailout loan had come from a taxpayer-financed escrow account held for the automaker at the Treasury.

            Emphasizing that the cash in the account was “the property of G.M.,” Mr. Allison said that the department had approved the company’s use of the money to retire the original debt because it was “consistent with Treasury’s goal of recovering funds for the taxpayer and exiting TARP investments as soon as practicable.”

            It’s certainly understandable that G.M. would want to spin its repayment as proof of improving operations. But Mr. Grassley said he was troubled that the Treasury went along with the public relations campaign and didn’t spell out how the loan was retired.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/business/02gret.html

            Amazing the lies you all try to cling to like they are truths from God.

            Next time check your facts before spout idiocy abut what I know, and do not know. That way you all do not look any .....er than you all already do.

            Now move to the Left of the classs and sit down. I will be back to school you all some more in a minute, so you children wait quietly.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are saying the bailout was repaid with TARP funds, which is not worth arguing one way or the other, because TRAP was also paid back- 5 years ahead of schedule. The profit I mentioned comes from the equity (stock) the US government took as security in the deal. The investors see GM as a solid investment, so as the US sells their interest, the revenue will exceed the investment.

              I source my statements.

              http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/congra … s-repaid-5

              1. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If you say so...how about some proof of that. I believe we still own 32% of GM stock and lost on the sale of the other 30+%... so prove it with a credible source, Doug.

                1. JON EWALL profile image47
                  JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  TMMason
                  It's all about the '' smoke and mirrors Obama accounting''. The news media won't report the whole truth about what's going on in the Obama administration.  The Obama administration has been wrong 40% of the time on their projections. The CBO  CONTINUES TO REVISE THEIR PROJECTIONS after the true numbers are uncovered.

                  1. TMMason profile image72
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes sir.

                    The Media has been spinning and lying for the Left and Progressives in this country for 90 years. They cannot be trusted.

  4. Stump Parrish profile image59
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Well said Doug.

  5. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    TM: Think I read where you said you lived in New Orleans. Was wondering if you've seen Treme, ongoing HBO production from the people that did The Wire. New Orleans three months after Katrina featuring New Orleans music and life. Netflix just got it in, so
    have only seen disk one, the first two episodes - good. Maybe a little to lefty for you but -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treme_(TV_series)

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I saw some of that the other night on HBO. It was okay. And no, knol, I live in Florida.

 
working