Posted on 07/12/2002 11:00:42 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON (AP) --
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Any liberals in good standing with the DNC on that list? 'Nuff said.
In fact, I agree with the KPMG representative - this is an appalling violation of taxpayer privacy. At this point, the matter is between KPMG and the IRS. KPMG packaged the product and represented it as a tax shelter; Simon and friends bought it. There is nothing at all illegal or unethical about it.
Tax shelters exist because the government wants to encourage people to do certain things, such as build affordable housing. In the aggregate they are probably bad for the economy because they distract taxpayer attention from earning as much of a return as humanly possible. But if you feel they are morally questionable, talk to Congress about it.
I might add that many of you enjoy the best tax shelter at my expense: You own a home and deduct mortgage interest. This is because many people in the government feel - quite reasonably, in my opinon - that citizens should be encouraged to own their homes. Since I live in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation, I can't afford a home, so I am helping to subsidize yours. This is no different than what Simon did.
D
And many on this forum criticized Bush for it... Well it appears that Bush knew more than many on this forum...
Simon stands a very good chance of winning as we have not had a Democratic Governor as corrupt as Davis in our State history nor one as stupid since the beginning of WWII (not even Moonbeam was as stupid as Davis, but he came close).
Bet you're a Hitlary Clinton fan also... and bet you didn't vote for Bush.
No, Riordan blew his chance early this year. He lost the primary election in March by 18%, even though it was a "modified open primary," in which the large block of voters not registered with a political party could vote partisan ballots, and he showed that he didn't know how to campaign.
He also failed to differentiate himself from Davis on liberal social and fiscal issues. Bill Simon is a much better candidate, and he is the one with the real chance of being elected.
Simon: 49%,
Riordan: 31%,
Jones: 17%, and
Others: 2% total in the March 2002 California primary.
What ever would make you think I was liberal????
My first child was born on Rush Limbaugh's birthday. Conservatism runs in my veins baby.
Oh give me a break!!!!! This is another campaign jab and nothing more. Bill Simon hasn't done anything wrong. i am appalled that the IRS would release the names of people not charged with any crime. As someone else pointed out, this is smearing by partisan holdeovers.
Davis has a 57% negative rating right now. He is the one wh CANNOT win.
My my the tories certainly do come out of the woodwork when the redcoats are advancing. Where were all you people the past few months as the polls have been swinging in Simon's favor.
Davis has 57% negatives. The people in his OWN PARTY can't stand him. This scurrilous little jab is not going to make a sliver of a difference in this race.
The most recent political poll released has Simon up 8 points.
If the Republican party went back to nominating men who didn't accomplish their lot in life on their father's coat tail's, which is Simon's claim to fame, they wouldn't be in this pathetic situation. Men like Reagan, Goldwater (before he went senile) and Senator McCarthy (I'll gladly take some hits on this one) stand head and shoulders above these "boys" that are running the party today.
Hear, Hear! It is about time Republicans stop blaming everything on CLinton. The clowns who did this in the IRS may very well be Clinton appointees, but why did Bush let them stay there?
Why don't we simply truncate the last phrase of the National Anthem and leave off "the home of the brave." Hell, everybody's guilty now, until proven innocent. Every CEO, every candidate, everyone in any position of authority or responsibility.
Every charge thrown around by any crack-pot environazi or other politically obsessed fruitcake and amplified by the media seems to demand that candidates, electeds or anyone else that is successful be suddenly required to prove a "negative!"
For example: Larry Klayman, Harvey Rosenfeld, Jesse Jackson, that Suckling dude from AZ, et al. It's getting frightening and funny all at the same time. It's so easy to destroy what take years and millions to establish, with some of these cheap, but unchallengable challenges!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.