(V): The entire republican party supports nothing but big business and communist union busting. It was the republican party that deregulated Wall Street and allowed outsourcing jobs.

(V): I don't trust one word that guy says. I wish you'd come up with a more reliable and less biased source.

Artful Dodger: Regardless of who he is, you know he is right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJCfESavCn8&feature=relmfu

Ten years of fighting to close loopholes and no closure?

Why?

The UK government willing in the current situation to write off £25,000,000,000 in tax fraud?

Why?

We see the headlines all full of wage freezes, loss of support for those who need help in the community, benefit fraud costing the UK £1,000,000,000.

... but little on the £25,000,000,000.

Is that because the majority of the UK press is right wing owned, ie in bed with the businesses??

(V): No, I actually don't know he's right. And if he were, it would be all over the news that Newt broke the law. That guy is a radical left wing lying fact twisting moron. He's unreliable. And in this case, he's not presenting anything factual. No evidence, just his big blowhard mouth stumbling along. He's an idiot.

What I'm asking of you is to provide a reliable source that backs up this idiot's claims. If you can't do that, then it simply proves my case. You can find anything on the internet. And idiots on the left can make any claim they want but that doesn't make it true. Remember Rather-gate? Proof positive that the left will say whatever they can to attack someone on the right. But in this case, Rather lost his career over it and still has plenty of mud sticking to his ugly face.

Artful Dodger: It was in the news when he first did it...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/01/25/Group-seeks-info-on-Gingrich-ethics-probe/UPI-56641327539926/

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- A government watchdog group Wednesday requested the release of all documents in the 1990s ethics investigation into U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, said all information should be made public so voters can decide for themselves if Gingrich was let off too lightly, The Hill reported. The group filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

In 1997 a House ethics panel's investigated allegations Gingrich improperly used a college course, funded by political donors, to promote political causes, potentially violating federal tax laws and House ethics rules. The House voted 395-28 to adopt the committee's report that recommended reprimanding Gingrich and imposing a $300,000 penalty.

....
....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm
House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

"Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment." .........

.....The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. The complaint took on greater significance when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades, propelling Gingrich into the speaker's chair.

With so much at stake for each side -- the survival of the GOP's speaker and the Democrats' hopes of regaining control of the House -- partisanship strained the ethics process nearly to the breaking point.

All but two of the votes against the punishment were cast by Republicans, including Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), many of whom said they believed the sanction -- especially the financial penalty -- was too severe.

....
....

"Fifteen Years Ago Today, Newt Gingrich Became The First House Speaker In American History To Be Reprimanded By His Colleagues"

Today is the South Carolina GOP presidential primary and, as this Mitt Romney campaign reminds us, another special date, too:

Happy 15th Anniversary, Mr. Speaker
The House Voted “Overwhelmingly” to Reprimand Gingrich and Ordered Him to Pay a $300,000 Penalty After He Violated House Rules and Misled Ethics Investigators:

On January 21, 1997, Gingrich Became The Only Speaker In History To Be Formally Reprimanded By The House For “Ethical Wrongdoing.” “The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. … Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.” (“House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker,” The Washington Post, 1/22/97)

The House Voted 395-28 To Reprimand Speaker Gingrich – With Roughly Nine In Ten House Republicans Voting Against Gingrich. (H.Res. 31, Vote #8: Passed 395-28: R 196-26; D 198-2; I 1-0, 1/21/97)

And now the Newt has been caught again..
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2012/01/gingrich-thinks-romneys-tax-returns-are.html

I guess tax fraud is not big press in the right wing press now, even though I find it reported everywhere but....

" “It appears that he is not paying his fair share of Medicare tax,’’ Robert E. McKenzie, a partner in the Chicago law firm of Arnstein & Lehr LLP concluded, in an email to Forbes, after reviewing Gingrich’s 2010 tax return. McKenzie, a past chairman of the Employment Tax Committee of the American Bar Association Tax Section and a member of the IRS’ Advisory Council, added: “There are a multitude of cases where the IRS has successfully challenged the improper tax strategy of this candidate and his accountants. Service businesses are only allowed to distribute a fair return on investment from an S corp. as profits exempt from Medicare taxes. The remainder of profits must be paid as salary subject to a 2.9% Medicare tax levy.”

As Forbes notes, the IRS has specific rules on how payments from a small business like Gingrich Holdings should be treated for tax purposes, and the amount Gingrich says he invested in his companies — between $500,000 and $1 million — is likely “far too little” to “justify booking $2.4 million as profit.” The ploy, however, is used widely. According to the Government Accountability Office, S corps. like Gingrich Holdings underpaid wages by $24 billion in 2003 and 2004, allowing owners to avoid payroll taxes.

Gingrich’s dodge of Medicare taxes, though, pales in comparison to the tax break he’d give himself should he get to the White House. His tax reform plan calls for a flat 15 percent tax rate, slashing his effective rate to 14.6 percent and giving himself a $540,000 tax break in the process."

http://www.nationofchange.org/gingrich-used-gimmick-avoid-paying-taxes-millions-income-1327424546

(V): are you talking 20 years ago?

Artful Dodger: Not unless my maths is 5 years out

"And we both know politics is mud slinging. which is why the Repubs can't seem to find a decent candidate to run against Obama."

I thought that was a just a left wing attribute.

"As for Newt, you're stating old news and apparently it's not enough to keep him from running for office."

True, it doesn't. But it reminds me of an argument in the UK over directors who have businesses closed down for fraud, etc. They then go and open up elsewhere, just change their position. How certain disgraced UK politicians/advisers just fade for a while then turn up elsewhere in the world of government.

"it's old news and that Turk is a Jerk and his blather won't work"

Turk picks up on stuff just like everyone else does.

"And if you have something more current, with a reliable data source."

What like Murdoch run Fox, who's empire is now facing in the UK more scrutiny over the "The Sun" paper and it's bribing of police for information.

... But this is a matter that dates back over ten years!! Should it be ignored, counted as dated?? Or just noted that it has just been exposed, just like NOTW caught intercepting and then deleting the messages of a murdered girl... That caused Murdoch to close down the NOTW last year

... Something that they tried to bury under the rug due, as it exposes police corruption and politician a*** kissing of Rupert Murdoch's butt!!

(V): V, I don't know to much about British politics but I read one time that politicians were not allowed to take gifts from anyone because they were paid to be on the job not on the golf course. Is that true?

Jack: The rules are that UK politicians are not allowed to take gifts.... .... Yet we all know at some level it does happen. But if caught 'red handed' .. then you will be held accountable for your actions.

We know from recent news that political parties have made deals with the likes of Murdoch to get good press. N' we can extrapolate from certain cases (such as the building companies price fixing scandal) that public officials are somehow turning a big blind eye to blatant fraud.

So it happens... but not legally.

(V): Murdock is something else. His FOX Media is a joke here, if they don't have a real headline to support political corruption they just make one up.

Politicians here are not supposed to take gifts either but it's never prosecuted. Somehow we need to get our justice department to enforce the rule of law again.

Jack: You'll need a serious event like the Phone hacking in the UK to make that happen. Something that'll make even those who kiss up to Murdoch want to distance themselves.

... Kinda like with Glenn Beck and the advertisers but bigger.

If it turns out "The Sun" is just as screwed and corrupt in it's abuse of standards as "NOTW", then there might be a call for News Corp to be booted out of the News industry.

(V):<b> V FOX is being watch now by the justice department and I am sure Murdock will screw up here just like he did in Britain. These people have no shame and no loyalty to anyone or any thing. FOX has been found guilty of creating fake headlines to support corrupt republican scam artists and the only way they get away with these fake headlines is because they are registered as an entertainment service and not a media outlet.

FOX makes tabloid news like Enquirer look good.

(V): You won't have a repeat event like in the UK. And it will take more than that little event to bring Murdock down.

Artful Dodger: It already has brought him down.

Do you think a child being murdered a little event?
..Do you think hacking the phone of that child causing the parents to think she was still alive a little event?

... Do you think that hacking interfering with the police investigation into that child's disappearance a little event?

Do you?

(V): I think you have a fetish for Murdock. Fox is the number one cable news program in the US for TEN years and it will only continue to climb. MSNBC is in the pits and CNN is second by way down on the list. I love that people whine about Fox but that FOX is the most popular cable network anywhere. Oh yeah, Bill O'Reilly smashes the competition in his time slot all the time. Most Fox programs dominate. Even the liberals love to watch Fox.

Artful Dodger: I think it's you more.

Milly Dowler, one name that caused the closure of NOWT paper. Why.. because the paper had people hack the murdered girls phone before she was known to be dead. They listened to the messages left by the parents and then deleted them, causing the parents to still think she was alive. The paper also had hacked the phones of deceased British soldiers and their relatives, and victims of the 7/7 London bombings.

The News group has had to pay out millions in compensation to individuals.

This event and more has exposed that Murdoch used his papers as a way to manipulate politicians. If they were not his friends, they were subject to mud slinging throughout Murdoch's press. That the police knew and were manipulated again by Murdoch's companies through bribery.

Most people in the UK are disgusted by the activities of News Corp.

Hence this by Murdoch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rupert-Murdoch-ad-001.jpeg

(V): Can't be me. I never bring him up. Just stating a fact that you seem to lose sleep over. Fox is number one. That means that most people who watch the news get it from Fox. In a demographic study, they found that a huge number of college educated folks watch Fox regularly. hmmmmmm

(V): And we both know politics is mud slinging. which is why the Repubs can't seem to find a decent candidate to run against Obama. It's a nasty business. As for Newt, you're stating old news and apparently it's not enough to keep him from running for office. I'll bet there are more like Newt (like Pelosi) who fudge on their taxes (like Rangle did and so do many other dems). They write the laws but can't even keep track of them!

Either way, it's old news and that Turk is a Jerk and his blather won't work. And if you have something more current, with a reliable data source, then you've got something. But with the media mostly for the Left, where's the beef?

Artful Dodger: The bigots on the right took Gingrich out of the house under guard. Gingrich is a wing nut not a democrat they don't allow that caliber of scum in the party.

"The bigots on the right took Gingrich out of the house under guard. Gingrich is a wing nut not a democrat they don't allow that caliber of scum in the party."


Jack: I'm asking of you to provide a reliable source that backs up this idiot's claims.

Gingrich is a wing nut not a democrat they don't allow that caliber of scum in the party."

Jack: specify


*Edit" Two posts gone

Jack: "The bigots on the right took Gingrich out of the house under guard."

Explain. This sentence is incomplete, believe me, I understand english better as my writing.

"Gingrich is a wing nut not a democrat they don't allow that caliber of scum in the party."

specify, it would be interesting to hear more about.

Why so flushed?

gogul:

I agree. The sentence reads strange. I think a few words are missing.

Übergeek 바둑이: Ulterior motives. He is a saboteur of dialogue.

Übergeek 바둑이: A post below may desapear.. Yes, this sentence has been left by itself by it's author.