When President Obama is re-elected!!

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:29 pm

^Agreed. Though it's no mystery why it hasn't been "fixed." Hedge fund prinicpals are big campaign contributors I think.

Personally though I am not sympathetic to the policy that says once a dollar of income has been taxed it is free to generate infinite capital gains taxed at a preferential rate (or as some might have, not at all) - bearing in mind that from time to time I have enjoyed capital gains and their preferential treatment. Accretions to wealth are accretions to wealth and should be taxed the same, whether earned or unearned. That seems fairer to me all the way around. Besides that you have the whole thing about dividends being treated as ordinary income and capital gains not, when in reality there's no difference in the way that the corporate wealth is transmitted to shareholders. Certainly it would be different if we were talking about some sort of annual net worth tax on a person, but we are not. To me the estate tax seems harder to justify although apparently there was some supposedly beneficial policy behind it other than raising revenue, or so it was thought. Harder to justify econiomically, though as tax policy I can't say I'm agin' it either. The problem with the tax code generally in my view and the main impediment to reform is that the pols see it as a valuable tool for social engineering, not to say doling out perks to consituents and campaign donors. No right-thinking politician would ever conscience some sort of simple, flat tax. Flatten away, the thing will be riven with exceptions/loopholes/deductions/credits in no time.

manton · Post by **manton** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:40 pm

True they are big contributors, but lots of people are and if something is that dumb and than unpopular, usually money alone can't keep it going.

manton · Post by **manton** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:44 pm

Well, dividends really are "income", that is money earned through commerce and then paid out. Capital appreciation is more like wealth creation de novo. The idea is that rising asset values = aggregate economic growth, so let's discourage that as little as possible.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:56 pm

But it's OK to discourage hard work more? I mean where this goes is that all taxes are unfair and ... but even the hypothetical model small gov't must be paid for, even if you only love tanks, planes and bombs.

As a shareholder I'm indifferent as to whether my investment is returned to me in dividends or capital gains, except for the tax treatment, it seems.

manton · Post by **manton** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:02 pm

well, look, you might be indiffernt to how it is returned, but the company's management has control over dividends, but not gains. Gains are totally at the mercy of the market. Your company can be doing great, profitwise, and paying out a huge divident but the market might still discount you below book, for whatever reason.

Anyway, I am for the simplest possible tax code, even one that taxes all income and gains the same, but it will never happen.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:25 pm

>>
Now, this is pretty stupid, IMO, and could be easily fixed. Why it hasn't been is kind of a mystery.
>>

Gridlock. Closing that one loophole won't make a dent in the deficit. The Repubs are committed to no new taxes. The Dems are not, but would take political heat for raising taxes and not have a real gain in income for the government.

>>
Cap gains rates should be low because income tax has already been paid on the principal.
>>

So what? Capital gains tax applies only the appreciation. The "right" arguments for low CG taxes (IMO) is that(1) low rates encourage investment and (2) high rates tend to encourage investors to hold specific investments longer and thus may actually decrease government income. There is good evidence for (2); less for (1), I think. I read a while back (but don't remember where) that the government might do best, income wise, to raise and lower CG rates in cycles to maximize income from CG taxes!

But there is also the fairness issue. I don't begrudge the feds taking .22 in income tax from every dollar I earn. I do begrudge someone who earns more than 100 times what I earn paying .14 on the dollar, no matter where the income comes from. I don't blame Romney for taking advantage of tax avoidance measures as a citizen; I do blame him for not pledging to change the system as president. THAT is why I would not vote for him.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:46 pm

....and out of the blue, Patraeus resigns. Of course, he won't be able to testify now regarding Benghazi. Quelle surprise.....

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:09 am

I'm not sure why it's relevant to the tax treatment that gains are unpredictable and dividends are not. Cap gains also have a huge benefit from deferral of recognition. And I can borrow against my gains and "realize them" with impunity. My bank won't lend against my future income without collateral. I think cap gains are getting a swell deal already.

Besides capital gains really should just reflect a discounted earnings stream, i.e. they represent "'income', that is money earned through commerce" or that is expected to be.

I do understand this distinction and maybe it accounts partly for our solicitousness to capital. A dollar bill can go a lot of places or it can do nothing at all. So it needs to be treated right to make it perform. A person has to labor or (absent a welfare state I guess) die. So the wage earner hasn't any choice.

But later. In an hour I'm going to watch "A Fistful of [Capital Gains]" on TCM. I need to prepare.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:15 am

Patraeus just happened to have that ema in his desk drawer, handy when needed. This has got Oliver Stone written all over it.

manton · Post by **manton** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:39 am

I wasn't really trying to argue that the tax treatment should be different or the same. I'm just saying that it's clear why the law treats dividends like income. A dividend really is income. It's earned money, from commerce/transactions. Capital gains on the other hand are appreciation distinct from earned income.

Look at this way, you have a business. When you make and sell stuff you earn income. Your investors then say, We deserve some of that income. So you pay it as a dividend.

Meanwhile, you also have some assets, say, cases of wine. You buy them and then do nothing with them but properly store them. But they don't do anything for you except appreciate. Eventually you sell them for more than you paid. (This of course could easily have gone the other way, as not all assets appreciate). That's not earned income, the result of business activity, like a dividend.

The intersection of course is when equity value in your business rises because you are good at selling stuff, earning income, and paying a high dividend. But then there are some stocks--apple for a long time, eg--that go bananas in terms of share price and never pay any dividend. And there are others that are gangbusters at earnings but that trade at discount to book.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:06 am

Tmass,

You wrote: "Sorry Jim, certainly not my intent. I believe I have conducted myself with reasonable decorum"

Some decorum, calling me - somone you don't even know - "repugnant" twice....

You come off as a bitter old man.
But then I don't know you.

Alex R.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:30 pm

I'm not ideologically opposed to taxing capital gains differently than earned income or dividends, or taxing them at the same rate, or even cycling the rates as alluded to by Stefan, if there's a logical reason to do so and it's applied fairly. To me the issue is what's fair. Finagling a way to define fees as cap gains ain't fair and doesn't come close to passing the smell test, but hedge fund managers are an easy target and there are bigger more elusive ones. Flat vs progressive vs regressive is a tougher target, especially considering we have such a complex mix of them and so many loopholes. We're going nowhere because of gridlock but that's not really new or uniquely Republican. It's just that the Republicans have been inelegantly brazen about it.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:21 pm

Alex, if you insult anyone here again I will ban you for a week.
As a manager you should be setting an example, not adding to the personal insults.
And that goes for anyone else.
If I read one more remark that, within my discretion, is an insult or attack on another member, that person will be banned for a week.
State your positions as passionately, as filled with bile, as you want.
But don't insult other participants.
Shame on those who have jumped into this thread in the past couple of weeks and turned a fun, witty, civil dialogue into the usual crap we see on other sites.
There will be no further warnings.
Thank you.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:46 pm

Agreed, Jim. Alex and tmas, take it to email.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:55 pm

JScott wrote:....and out of the blue, Patraeus resigns. Of course, he won't be able to testify now regarding Benghazi. Quelle surprise.....

Seriously? He resigned over an extramarital affair but the real reason was so he wouldn't have to testify about Benghazi? The premise that he was keeping the affair ready to spring just in case he needed a sword to fall on isn't 100% laughable - I mean the guy is (was) head of the CIA - but usually they come up with something a lot less inflammatory. I'll give that a 99.4% ridiculous rating. The premise that resigning as CIA chief would somehow protect him against testifying? That's even more unbelievable. There may be something and someone to criticize, but we're getting into grassy knoll territory here again.

Maybe we should get Ken Starr to investigate, give him a billion dollars, subpeona authority, and permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques. He's sure to find something the right could use to derail Obama's second term efforts.

manton · Post by **manton** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:25 pm

I would not assume that he will never testify. The House could subpoena him after all.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:59 pm

I know, let's impeach Obama! <rolls eyes>

I've been watching Fox this past week, relishing in the pain I'm seeing there. Hannity was kind of subdued on Wednesday night but Thursday I literally thought he was going to have a stroke.

From what I can see, the Republicans have learned nothing since Tuesday night. They will continue to attack, and they will continue to alienate women, blacks, Latinos, and the young. And they will eventually shrivel up and die. The party of Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh will probably do fairly well in the midterms in 2014 -- the party out of office always does in second term midterm elections -- but the same old battles will be fought in the Republican primaries in 2016, and in the general election there will be even more latinos, women, and youth voting for Hillary or whomever the Democrats put up.

By the way, I've been really impressed by that senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar, watch out for her, she is really something, I see her going places.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:30 pm

Of course I'm disappointed that I only got the 99.4% ridiculous rating, but I'll take it.

You know I love you guys, but I think the blinders go on for the home team. The alleged affair was many months ago, but he chose to submit his resignation just after the election and just before his congressional appearance, which is now scrapped. He certainly could've waited until after the testimony so he had the chance to clear the administration on this. No one was calling for his ouster, it got no attention publicly. I'm sure the timing is complete coincidence. And now he doesn't sit in on any more of the meetings. What a shame. And I'm sure that if was a Bush administration issue it would already be forgotten. <also rolls eyes>

Wouldn't worry too much about a mega dollar Ken Starr investigation. This will disappear. I mean its no Valerie Plame type scandal. Just four dead guys.

Aye carumba. And I'm the one who said we should move on from this issue. I promise that's my last word on this (so hold your fire, Alex!

)

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:36 pm

Jim, comments this week from Boehner and Mitchell make it look like they've decided their path is to dig in. Maybe it's just a negotiating tactic, but I don't think so. If they just capitulate on everything, they no longer have a raison d'être. Besides, it's not just about fiscal responsibility, societal collapse and the future of Western Civilization.... their political future is at stake!! They are going to take so much heat over the next two months - two years, really. Will be interesting to see how it plays out, and how it plays with the public.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:24 pm

They'll reach an agreement. If I were in Congress I'd be taking the Patty Murray approach:
Screw them, let them go over the cliff.

Good article by Carville. It's no longer Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. It's: Demographics, demographics, demographics.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/opinion/c ... ?hpt=hp_t2

manton · Post by **manton** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:50 pm

Look, lots of people resign or get fired after a President is reelected. That's not unusual. What's unusual is the way they made it predicated on the affair AND made the affair public. The WH has known about the affair for a long time. If they wanted to fire him over that they could have done so ages ago. Or, they could have just let him resign for "personal reasons" and then let news of the affair leak out, or not, in the course of the FBI investigation. It held for a very long time so there's no reason to assume it would necessarily come out.

If the WH did this now to prevent him from testifying, that was really bone-headed and ham-handed, since it will just make Issa et al want to hear from him all the more. Like I said, the House Rs can make this happen if they want to, and my guess is, they will want to.

tmas · Post by **tmas** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:55 pm

AlexR wrote:Tmass,

You wrote: "Sorry Jim, certainly not my intent. I believe I have conducted myself with reasonable decorum"

Some decorum, calling me - somone you don't even know - "repugnant" twice....

You come off as a bitter old man.
But then I don't know you.

Alex R.

JimHow says: " Alex, if you insult anyone here again I will ban you for a week.
As a manager you should be setting an example, not adding to the personal insults.
And that goes for anyone else"

Guess I've been "Candy Crowelied" , so I'll have to make this milder than would be appropriate given your above statement. You should go back and look at some of the things you said in your posts. And you're a "manager"?, time for someone to reassess methinks.

I am not permitted to be specific here, suffice it to say that my previous statements regarding my opinion of you are accurate.

You know me only through what I have said here, and I know you by what you've said here. It is plain we have no fondness for each others' fundamental beliefs.

Not the first time in our exchanges that you've said something gratuitous and derogatory about older folks ( "old farts" in one of your previous posts ). Unfortunate you feel this way. I am not a "bitter old man", but rather a reasonably happy one at the cusp of senior citizenship and possessed of what I consider to be my own set of well thought out and firmly held beliefs. I have nothing more to say to you.

manton · Post by **manton** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:11 pm

Jim, pundits have been saying for the past 50 years that the Rs need to, in short, become more liberal. But, really, what's the point? Just to gain power? And then do what when they have it? This same dynamic has played out all over Europe, where all the nominally right of center parties are just statists-light. Go a little slower, maybe, but change nothing. Hell, Chirac was a "conservative." David Cameron is too. And Merkel!

So, OK, maybe the Rs can "modernize" by becoming more liberal and thereby win more elections. Though there are plenty of reasons to doubt that which you ignore. But I can't see the point and neither can many of them.

As to "learning nothing" I guess you have just missed the enormous amount of soul-searching introspection on the right in the last few days, including major reversals by Krauthammer, Hannity and many others who now call for amnesty. Rove was always for amnesty, since before GWB became President, yet you always call out Rove as being a particularly apt example of the horrid Republican. The fact is, the entire R establishment has been for amnesty for more than a decade, only the rank and file and certain pundits have kept it from happening. GWB wanted it desperately. So did McCain. Gingrich and Perry were openly for it in the primaries this year. Romney was a little to their right but still indicated he would make some kind of a deal if he won. This is just one issue, of course, but's the biggest one on the table right now and you don't seem to understand how much the party already agrees with you and how much those who don't have now swung your way, precisely because of the election results.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:33 pm

Manton: Yes. The Republicans need to become more moderate. Or "more liberal" if you prefer.
They need to go back to their Eisenhower/Nixon/Rockefeller/Ford/Reagan/HW Bush/Dole roots.
in other words... The politics that got them elected
They are now run by lunatics..
Hey, Dubya looks liberal compared to this crowd.
If you can't see that Santorum, Bachmann, Prebius, Rush, Hannity, Akin, Mourdock, The Witch, Beck, O'Reilly, Gingrich, Perry, Cantor, McConnell, Sheriff Arpaio, Jan Brewer, Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, the Birthers, the anti-immigrationists, the evangelicals, Sweet Sarah Palin, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Clarence Thomas' wife, Rupert, the anti-abortion vaginal probe nutjobs like the Virginia governor, the angry old white men, and, yes, Mitt "Mr. 47 Percent" Romney have KILLED your party, then you will never see it.
so.. Yes... YES! The republicans need to move more to the center. Of all the arguments as to why Romney lost, the one that he was "not conservative enough" is probably the craziest.
the Republican Party needs to be that party that stood for fiscal moderation, that was gentlemanly, the John Danforths, and the Olympia Snowe's, and Bob Packwoods. Socially moderate. Barbara Bush. Laura Bush. Heck, give me William Rhenquist and Warren Burger.
The old white men are falling hard. It's going to be very ugly.

manton · Post by **manton** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:35 pm

You didn't address anything I said and you don't seem to understand the party at all.

I could go on at great length, and have, but when I do you just breeze right by all of it. That's why I said this is an echo chamber.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:38 pm

>>
maybe the Rs can "modernize" by becoming more liberal and thereby win more elections.
>>

It is not about becoming more "liberal", but rather avoiding taking positions that have little to do with traditional Republican positions. Historically conservative Republicans are for limited government, state rights, a strong military, and fiscal conservatism. They have gotten away from that by allowing the religious right and tea party-ers dominate the agenda. It is one thing to be opposed to abortion personally;, quite another to advocate laws that put the government between the doctor and patient--that is exactly the kind of inappropriate government action that conservatives used to deplore.

Immigration is hardly a conservative vs. liberal issue; why it is painted that way is beyond me.

As I said: the worst enemies of the Republicans are Republicans.

manton · Post by **manton** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:40 pm

I also think it's hilarious that Reagan is in your "good Republican" list. Really, Reagan and Goldwater--the two most conservative national figures in modern political history, are the moderates that should be emulated, as opposed to all the amnesty supporting big spenders who run the party today.

manton · Post by **manton** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:46 pm

Stefan, so, liberals are now the measure of "traditional Republican positions"? Really? Would you take advice from me on what the D party should look like? I really like the party of Truman and JFK, which bears far less resemblance to the modern Democratic party than today's Rs bear to Reagan or Eisenhower.

To be opposed to abortion means "to put the government between the doctor and patient" if the proceedure under discussion is abortion. You can disagree with that. It makes you pro-choice. Others are pro-life. What you are trying to do, it seems, is say that the pro-life position is legitimate only as a personal conviction. Which means that the pro-choice position is the only legitimate one as a matter of public policy. Well, over half the country does not agree. As for anti-abortion not being a traditional position of the party, it has been since the late 1970s.

It's also strange to see you mention "fiscal conservatism" as a good issue for true Republicans, bu then condemn the Tea Party, which is a movement completely devoted to spending and debt.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:55 pm

So you think Hannity saying he has "evolved" on immigration is a step towards solving your problems, huh?
His sudden "evolution" within 24 hours after the Republican catastrophe is absolutely laughable.
The Fox News crowd is RABID right now.
I don't care if Sean Hannity says he's ready to kiss Al Gore on the lips.
Until the Republican Party cuts out the disease, divorces itself from the vile old white men that run the party, it will be irrelevant.
That's one of the beauties for me of this campaign:
It occurred to me that these blowhards have just become irrelevant.
The diverse young liberal population that we are becoming is just laughing at these fools.
And here's the big secret: It's only getting worse! like every day! Exponentially!
What was that statistic they were citing this week, don't hold me to this, there are some crazy number of Latinos reaching voting age, something like 5,000 every week, or something like that.
If you think that your Republican Party is going to turn it around because of the views of Krauthammer, Rove, and Hannity on amnesty, then you don't even know what you don't know.
It is not about those fools!
Just the opposite!
The Republicans need to divorce themselves from those fools!
But they aren't!
Instead, thety're crying about Benghazi.
And they're whining that the Chicago Gang was too "mean" to such a keen guy like Mitt Romney.
waaahhh. waaaahhh. Look at the pretty little babies.
the party that embraces birthers, whose last two vice presidential candidates have called obama anti-Christian, etc... That's the party that's saying the Dems are too "mean"....
Or, as that great pro-amnesty sage Karl Rove put it: Obama "suppressed" the Republican vote.
I mean... These guys are too good to be true!
You know, I have absolutely no doubt that Romney was thunderstruck as the results came in on Tuesday night.
I have no doubt they were convinced that they were gonna win.
I have no doubt that they, like you and others here, thought that the Democrats were being overrepresented in the polls.
Remember that big theory you guys were making just 4 days ago?
Just like Jack Welch believes that the career bureaucrats at Labor were fudging with the job numbers.
Just like Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
The Republican Party has lost its mind!
The Democrats are far from perfect.
But the Republicans have gone off the deep end.
Hey Gov. scott: I see they just called Florida for Obama.
How'd that voter suppression effort go for ya, big guy.
And where's that guy in Pennsylvania who said the voter ID law had "handed the presidency to Romney."
Anybody seen that clown around lately?
Hey Dick Morris. I called all 50 states, called it at 332-206.
How much did you get paid for your Romney landslide prediction?
Just give me a call next time, I'll tell you how it really is, big guy....

Manton, believe it or not, I don't disagree with everything you say.
And I do enjoy reading your posts, even though you are wrong for the most part.
Unfortunately, I had to ban tmas.

Gotta run now, gotta take my father to Walmart.
walmart.... Now there's another story.....

manton · Post by **manton** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:06 pm

Jesus, what an embarassing rant.

OK, it's been fun, this would have been a nice board, but it's not for me.

Last word from me, Jim: your calls for civilty and reason ring totally hollow and hypocritical, you chose to politicize this board and rant like a lunatic on subjects totally unrelated to wine. You can't or won't listen to any outside views. I wonder if this is the first time you've ever had your world view challenged. One of the blessings of being a conservative is our views are in the minority almost everywhere, we are used to hearing the other side.

"Vile old white men" indeed. To me the saddest thing about this election and our times is the way the left feels free--almost obligated--to politicize everything and spend 24/7 in attack mode.

Ban, me delete me, whatever you have to do.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:29 pm

So it is written. So it shall be done.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:31 pm

manton, being a registered Republican, I have every right to say what I think the Republican position should be even if I disagree with many of the current positions taken by the party (as, e.g., are embodied in the current platforms--the Texas platform, which is opposed to the teaching of critical teaching skills, scares me).

The Tea Party certainly is in tune with traditional conservative Republican values. Unfortunately, many of them are nuttier than fruit cakes with their "no compromise" position that leads to gridlock. Everett Dirksen was as conservative as they came, but he understood that the government had to run, and for it to run there had to be compromise between the left and the right. My new senator, the "darling" Ted Cruz, is joining the minority party in the Senate and is willing to talk about anything with the controlling party as long as it does not involve any tax increases! We go from Kay Bailey to this? A politician who refuses to compromise has no business being in the political arena.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:46 pm

>>
you chose to politicize this board and rant like a lunatic on subjects totally unrelated to wine
>>

That was uncalled for, manton. The BD is entitled to air his views. He said nothing personal against you or any other board member in this thread, as far as I remember. There is nothing "lunatic" in his posts. Note that there is just this one thread that is devoted to a non wine topic. Anyone who wants only to view wine related discussions has only to avoid opening this one thread.

Jim, please take into account that your rant provoked manton. For the most part his contributions to this thread have been positive and interesting and have provided a point of view not otherwise represented. IMO, it would be our loss if he is banned.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:59 pm

Your request for a pardon for manton is granted, Stefan, I agree with your wise argument on his behalf. I will restore him as soon as I get back to a computer. So it is written. So it shall be done.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:06 pm

Manton has been unbanned, per the petition of Stefan.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:15 pm

I don't think anyone should be banned.
We are all older and have thick skin.
Regardless of any viewpoint, everyone is passionate.
I'd rather have that than sanitize the board.

Y'all should have seen some the design sessions I've been in.
This stuff is mild.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:23 pm

Thanks, Jim.

Well, Rob, it is important to keep discourse on the board civil. The BD has on rare occasions used temporary suspensions to keep things civil. I think he has permanently banned only two board members in the 12 years that BWE has been in existence.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:31 pm

Stefan:
I meant in the context of the thread.
And I remember Jeff getting threatened.
That guy needed to go away.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:52 pm

Yes I hate to ban people.
I personally think one of the reasons why BWE is do civil is because we don't ban.
But I can see how my rants might offend if a person doesn't know me, and doesn't know that I often use hyperbole to make my point.
But I agree, manton and tmas articulate their points passionately, and if we can just not direct the bile to anyone personally, then write whatever you want, as far as I'm concerned!
Hey, it's a passionate subject. It's been a very passionate campaign!
I honestly feel that, in many ways, 2012 was even more interesting than the historic 2008 campaign.
2012 is a campaign that people will be talking about and analyzing for a long time to come.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:16 pm

manton wrote:Look, lots of people resign or get fired after a President is reelected. That's not unusual. What's unusual is the way they made it predicated on the affair AND made the affair public. The WH has known about the affair for a long time. If they wanted to fire him over that they could have done so ages ago. Or, they could have just let him resign for "personal reasons" and then let news of the affair leak out, or not, in the course of the FBI investigation. It held for a very long time so there's no reason to assume it would necessarily come out.

If the WH did this now to prevent him from testifying, that was really bone-headed and ham-handed, since it will just make Issa et al want to hear from him all the more. Like I said, the House Rs can make this happen if they want to, and my guess is, they will want to.

I agree with this last paragraph. His resignation won't prevent or protect him from testifying. As to the timing I don't know. Holding it until after the election makes sense for political reasons that have nothing to do with Benghazi. Let Congress investigate. If someone screwed up it should be addressed. If it was a problem with the way the system was set up that also should be corrected.