How do you "show fairness"? By lack of unfairness? Is there an real evidence of any lack of fairness? All I keep hearing about is people complaining about being identified as having broken the existing laws.
If you don't think the laws are fair. get Congress to change them.
Using the IRS, or any other agency to silence opposition is not right., but that's not been shown to have happened here with any of the evidence presented so far.
The only issues raised so far, is the fact that IRS rules and the federal law are in conflict. The decades old law says no tax benefits for political contributions, while the IRS rules seem to say the opposite, in some cases. So far, Congress has done nothing to correct the situation.
No, it is not illegal to make political contributions, and i doubt it ever will be. But, it is illegal to write those contribution off on an income tax form (which is exactly what I wrote before). Harass, maybe not, but certainly the IRS must point out the "error" and make sure they pay the same taxes that everyone else pays, with penalties, if necessary.
Exactly! Everyone who tries to write off political contributions should be harassed by the IRS because that's not legal - at least not until Congress makes it legal.
Does Walker really want to do for the country what he has done for Wisconsin? There appear to be much better alternatives.
Compare Wisconsin and it's neighbor Minnesota:
Both states are fairly similar states with strong manufacturing and corporate businesses built on a solid farming foundation.
Both states elected new governors in the depths of the recession in 2010, with Walker winning in Wis. and Mark Dayton in Minn. Both governors had to deal with growing unemployment an huge state deficits: $3.6 billion in Wis. and $5 billion in Minn. Each governor chose different solutions.
Walker chose massive tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest citizens. He also cut state spending profoundly. Public employees, and especially teachers were asked to talk reduced pay, along with reductions in health care, and pensions. He also very publicly removed the ability of public employees to unionize and negotiate their pay and working conditions. Walker did not accept federal Medicaid money to help insure the poor, nor did he increase the state minimum wage.
Meanwhile, in Minn., Dayton raised taxes for the wealthiest 2%, and then increased tax credits for renters, reduced middle class taxes and cut business taxes. Minn. took Medicaid money for health care and created its own insurance marketplace. Minn. also increased their minimum wage to $9.50/hr.
How did the 2 states fare, now 5 years after these different approaches were applied?
- In November, the Wis. unemployment rate was 5.2%, while in Minn. it was 3.7%
- Forbes now ranks Minn. as the 9th best state for business, 7th in economic climate and 2nd in quality of life. Wisconsin is ranked 32nd, 27 and 17 on the same measures.
- The cost of doing business in Minn. is 0.2% below the national average. Wisconsin is 1.7% above the average.
- Wis. still faces about a $2 billion deficit, while in Minn. they have a $1.2 billion surplus.
Now do we really want to repeat what Walker did in Wis. in Washington?
"Oligarchy or rule by a privileged class."
You talking about the Bush family, Springer?
Certainly not those who grew up at or near poverty, with single mothers, or grandparents, and pulled themselves up on their own, like the presidents who preceded and followed GWB.
"100 million Americans"
Yes and they are called retirees, housewives, and 4th graders. What's your point?
95% of Americans who want a job has one. You haven't checked the population of the country in a while if you think that 100 million people is just 5% of the population.
Certainly jobs and wages remain a problem as we recover from the deep recession. When do you think that Congress will discuss the problem and actually do something about it?
Who's taking over the internet? AT&T? The Koch Bros? China? Scott Walker? FOX Broadcasting?? Facebook? Who's taking over the Internet? Mine still works. Are you sure you are still plugged in?
How do you define "patriotic"
Is someone who wants and works for good jobs, good healthcare, and good education for all Americans patriotic?
And it doesn't look like you read what i wrote again, springer. (But there is one typo. I meant to say " it's NOT exactly clear what apple is planing to do"
And I never said that Apple was planning to build a car (although they may be), I simple said the electronics for a car)) Read it again. Apple is pretty good at a lot of electronics and user interfaces. Perhaps their plan is to focus on what they already do well.
Also, it's exactly clear what apple is planing to do. Auto companies already outsource many of their components: tires, wheels, seats, windshields, lights, generators, and lots more. Perhaps apple might decide to supply all the electronics, control, and software for a Chrysler or Ford, and let them handle the wheels and eats, and also the distributorship channels. Apple could certainly make their interfaces flexible enough so that every car brand could still be very different, even though they have "Apple inside". (And maybe Intel, too!)
Balancing seats on wheels is old technology. Anyone can do that now. It's the new electronics needed to keep those wheels moving in the right direction that is what's new, and what what a bunch of newer companies may think they can do better than the old auto guys. A revolution in transportation is coming, and the new guys think they may be able to pull the rug out from under the old guys if they can't keep up. We'll see.
Sure, let's try Harry Truman.
- Truman was accused of harboring Communists in his state department and other administration agencies by Richard Nixon and Senator Joseph McCarthy.
- Truman tried to take over a number f steel mills during a long stroke, in order to put them back to work. (Note the mills, not the unions). (This action was later overturned by the Supreme Court).
- Truman proposed a civil rights bill to Congress, focusing on voting rights and employment. This was opposed by a storm of outrage by the real conservative (Southern) Democrats.
- Truman fire General McArthur, for which some more conservative legislators wanted to impeach him. (Truman said this: "I fired him [MacArthur] because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President ... I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a #$%$, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail."
Supports unions over employers, voting rights, and employment rights, harboring Communists, firing generals. strongly opposed by Republicans and southern conservative Democrats. Yes, sound very conservative., almost the same as LBJ and Jimmy Carter.
Sure there have been conservative Democrats., but as nd says, not for quite a while. The last conservative Democrat to be elected president was probably James k. Polk of North Carolina. He was also the last Democratic president to own slaves, as president. That was back about when the Republican party was created in order to put their more liberal and progressive policies into place, as they found the other political parties too conservative to be able to accomplish what they wanted to see happen. Many of today's past "conservative Democrats" would perhaps still agree with this quote by Polk: “A slave dreads the punishment of stripes (i.e. whipping) more than he does imprisonment, and that description of punishment has, besides, a beneficial effect upon his fellow-slaves.”
There are two ways to "take them out". which one would be used?
One is to thousands of boots o the ground and billions of dollars work of bombs, which will take them out, along with thousands, if not millions of others.
The other is to starve them out. Make it s they can't attract new recruits. Make it so they can't sell oil, archeological artifacts, or anything else. and make it so they can't buy guns and bullets, or food or clothing.
How does he plan to "take them out"?
I agree ALL immigration law changes must be discussed and passed by Congress. When is Congress going to start their discussion of the issue and get a new law passed? And while we are waiting for them to get started on a new immigration law, Republicans think it's appropriate to stop funding dhs, our best protection from terrorists, in order to cut Obama's return rate of illegals in half, or even more if the is no longer any money to do any of it? (Note that Obama is retiring illegals at twice the rate that his predecessor did. Why are the Republicans so keen on cutting the return rate so much that they must completely unfund dhs?
so the faux Republicans are putting all their efforts now into a faux dhs shutdown. Why are we not surprised!
So how is he (and we) favoring ISIS over Israel? It has always looked like we are giving a he!! of a lot more foreign aid to Israel than ISIS. If that's not the case, you should immediately get started on a "Stop ISIS foreign aid payments" campaign right now.