This is good news. The money represents the profits on loans that the tax payers were already having to guarantee. TP take the risk... TP should get the reward.
Before the change in the way we approached student loans... the banks made the loans... the tax payers guaranteed the loans... and the banks kept all the profit. It was essentially a profit without risk scam by the banks. Now that the government has cut out the middle man who siphoned off all the profits... there was bound to be a windfall.
Last edited by longhornfan1234 : 05-15-2013 at 05:34 PM.
[quote=KevinNYC]So now PPP is accurate? Also, you're not doing an apples to apples comparison. First off, Benghazi is a republican obsession and it's not suprising that more republicans are generally aware of it than Democrats, secondly you're comparing the general pool of voters to the pool that expressed the opinion that Benghazi is the worst scandal in American history. So you're comparing different things. I'll give you a B+ on this one.[/QUOTE]
We Do Not Need This. You Stupid People. America Is About Using The Irs Against Your Enemies. Do Not Blame Me. You Don't Know How Broad A Subpoena Should Be Written Because You Saw Some Stupid Tv Show. The Yelpers And The Reddits And The Ap Need To Back Off.
To The Associated Press. I Forbid You From Spreading Your Hate In Your News Syndicate. This My Justice Department And I'm Not Allowing You To Use My Justice Department On Your Newsgathering Organization!
We learned what Republicans had assumed happened, that requests were shot down, that the State Department knew well in advance of the heightened situation, that one of those guys got demoted as a result, and that talking points were changed even though intelligence in the area predicted a possible terrorist attack. MSNBC and the other Liberal media outlets weren't even talking about Benghazi until now. And only severe pundits are talking about impeachment, but major media outlets especially ones on the Right are not focused on that.
The problem here is the lying by the Administration to the American people. Sure, it's not as severe as the other two issues going on right now, but to sit in front of Congress and tell the world that you didn't know certain things when the American people pay you to know these things is absurd. The Liberal media is doing their best to protect their Golden Girl, Hillary, but she's already put her foot in her mouth big time and the rest is now damage control. It's funny, for as many sound bites that you can play from her regarding Benghazi, the sheep don't seem to care. She's won a victory before the war and that's quite pathetic from an American's perspective.
I'll try to tease apart some facts from your rant. And see if we "learned" this at the last hearing on May 8th
that the State Department knew well in advance of the heightened situation We knew this last year.Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels
within two bureaus of the State Department(the “Department”) resulted in a
Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly
inadequate to deal with the attack that took place. -State Department Report Dec 2012
that one of those guys got demoted as a result
We actually don't know this. At the very least it's disputed.
that talking points were changed even though intelligence in the area predicted a possible terrorist attack.
Yes, the talking points were changed. Something we also knew last year. The adminstration has admitted the talking points weren't accurate. However, the inaccuracies were not put in by the Administration. The very first draft from the CIA had the stuff about the demonstration that turned out to be false. As for the changes you mention, guess who asked that they be changed? It has been known since at least late November that Rice's talking points were changed. CBS News reported on Nov. 20, 2012, that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — not the White House nor the State Department — removed references to al Qaeda and terrorism from talking points given to Rice.
The intelligence agencies deliberately removed references to Al Qaeda and terrorism because they didn't want to tip their hand about what we knew and the investigation.
The talking points is just so much nonsense. If you want to go deep in the weeds of revisions, you have to understand this, Benghazi is more about the CIA than the State Department. The CIA was running a covert operation in Benghazi. 30 Americans were evacuated from Benghazi, 7 were with the State Department. Most of the rest were with the CIA. There were two buildings that got attacked, one is described as a consulate, the other is described as an "annex." Except the consulate wasn't really a consulate
“In December 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved a one-year continuation of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government.”
The "annex" that keeps getting mentioned was a covert CIA outpost. The "consulate" was probably a way of providing cover for the CIA operation and a way to explain all the Americans in Benghazi. The first iteration of the CIA talking points is all about them trying to put the blame onto to State and the further iterations are about State fighting back.
Man I really hope I don't get riled up with or sucked into politics ever again. I can't believe I supported any politician ever. It's funny how stressed and obsessed people become with all this, when it's a bunch of bull shit and the media is just playing everyone like puppets.
Seriously people, go out, breathe some fresh air or something...these guys don't give a **** about you or this country or anything other than themselves.
A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.