Tomorrow, during the investigation there is supposed to be the Lady who has promised to take the 5th
Does this mean there is at least one amendment someone involved in D.C. politics takes seriously enough to adhere to it?
The IRS could be drastically reduced with common sense tax code changes. What qualifies any political group to be tax exempt? Why are churches totally tax exempt? Congress provides revenue exception upon exception then wants to spend more. The same favor showing is happening with the AHCA with exemptions then more exemptions.
Over 1 trillion for U.S. investment or paying dividend dollars to Americans are held by companies in foreign accounts because congress and the president insist on them paying 35% taxes although they paid taxes in the country where the money was earned. Some have sold bonds at less than 3% interest in order to have U.S. dollars to spend on their business instead of repatriating the dollars and paying 35% taxes. How smart is that of congress? Altria is one example with a 35.4% effective tax rate last year. Others, favored by congress pay much less with some being zero although profitable, why? Why not abolish all the loop holes and set an internationally competitive rate. Congress knows the American consumer is too gullible to realize that business taxes are included in the cost of the goods or services purchased, it is a hidden tax, the fools tax as some privately call it. The high rates also gives congress more room or ability to manipulate and show favor to some businesses.
Congress gives the departments significant authority and latitude including spending. They then act surprised that people will be people with some being mavericks that over reach their authority and many that over spend, over hire and over pay. They seem to be surprised that some are flat incompetent for their position just as congress has a high percent that are not competent for their elected position with no qualifications other than citizenship and age.
I seriously doubt any criminal charges will come out of any of the four issues in the headlines since incompetence and responding to encouragement to behave in a certain manner is not a crime. The American voters short attention span and lack of memory will assure there is no affect on the 2016 elections, sorry about that republicans, you are wasting your time. But, keep it up since the economy seems to be improving more without government interference than when you are attempting to manipulate the free markets.
Is that so implausible to you? Do you believe that the President, any President, knows what every person in every Governmental department is up to every single day?
I didn't even hint that he should know everything. However, as many people around him knew about the IRS behavior and a plan to reveal it in an orchestrated press conference it is not unrealistic to expect him to know about it before the IG report.
Defending Obama is like an offensive lineman blocking for a QB on a pass play that never throws the ball.
We can agree you think he is great and I think he is a weak manager. His limited experience at anything not political is obvious. His ratings are no surprise since most people react to the photo ops and sound bites talking points his handlers orchestrate very well.
"You didn't ask for a strong example. You don't think having your own people in control of the NLRB can yield results some find totally inappropriate? To them it is not a weak example."
Every Presidential administration appoints people to key positions that they consider allies. Now, you're free to correct me if I am wrong, but those NRLB appointments have been in place for more than 15 months.
Has anything unusual or partisan resulted from those appointments? Has any business been harmed as a result of those appointments?
The answer is yes. But if the court ruling stands they will all be repealed retroactively.
His appointment attempt, as you likely know, was very different than those by former presidents.
He does not routinely meet with his staff, at least weekly, and his staff does not routinely meet with their direct reports. A short meeting to communicate what is going on? What is being reported? What is being talked about and what are they currently working on? An update on active items. He depends on a summary of what is in the news and in various print media. I nearly fell over when he said his first knowledge of the IRS issue was when he was told of the IG report. He has said I don't know, I didn't know or keep in mind I inherited this or that, I can't get congress to do anything about this or that more than any president in history. I know we don't agree but he is weak and getting a solid answer is like trying to corner melted butter in a hot skillet.
Fairmon wrote: "Assume anything you want to but not having the option is a right lost."
I'm confused by your inconsistency. You're one who believes it is wrong to seize taxes to be handed over by the Gov't to others for social programs, if they don't deserve such funds, yet you consider it a "right" for people to choose to be uninsured for health care expenses and to have funds paid on their behalf to keep medical providers solvent, again from the pockets of those who pay taxes?
I suppose in this nation, we all have a right to be a bum or to be financially irresponsible, but ObamaCare stands to hold people who can afford to be self-reliant, responsible for their health care costs, rather than to be a drain on the taxpayers all the time.
Pay the premium or pay the tax. What's wrong with that?
Refer to your question which was if any right was not available because of Obama. You didn't ask if it was a good loss or a bad one. The results of the AHCA are yet to be seen and I am of the opinion even the most supportive will have second thoughts. The final regulations are still being developed and enforcement personnel have yet to be hired. In addition to the known taxes are a number within the bill such as a tax on joint replacement hardware. I understand your inability to be objective with the benefit you realize due to the AHCA being passed. The intent is good but this piece of crap legislation is not a good way to help those needing it most.
I personally don't think women should be in a role that may result in direct combat. However, since there is a knee jerk reaction on the political front to allow it there is inadequate consideration of all the ramifications. The typical military justice system is not equipped or staffed to handle the increased and sensitive civil charges that may result. The day will come when some awful experience will have the same public that supported this decision joining those the did not in an outcry that forces those in power to make the necessary system changes. Is there one preventive measure that has been part of this decision?
From yesterday...I was only responding to your questions regardless of my personal opinion.
Your Q. What right has been lost during Obama's presidency?
Fairmon wrote: "The major right lost has been the option of not having a health care policy without paying a fine or so called tax."
I see. So by that, I am left to assume that you support the current system of health care, which only thrives if those without health care insurance and/or who refuse to pay for their health care costs, are allowed to milk the taxpayers through governmental payments to health care providers?
Assume anything you want to but not having the option is a right lost.
Your Q: What power has he seized?
"He did attempt to load the NLRB with an end run that was found to be not appropriate."
That's a very weak example of a seizure of power. Recess appointments have been a controversy for nearly every President.
You didn't ask for a strong example. You don't think having your own people in control of the NLRB can yield results some find totally inappropriate? To them it is not a weak example.
You didn't ask if other presidents had done similar things. The truth is the president selects has cabinet and they can have a hell of an impact on how the departments operate. It is my impression that Obama often doesn't know what is going on and has no idea how to assure he knows what has happened or what is going to happen in each department. I don't think he could manage a business of any size much less the federal government which is larger than all major companies combined. I don't see anyone in either party that may be a candidate that has the KSA to handle the job.
1.) What rights have any of you lost that you once had, before President Obama entered the Oval Office? and;
The major right lost has been the option of not having a health care policy without paying a fine or so called tax.
2.) What are any examples of power that the President has seized that threaten this nation, under any criteria?
He did attempt to load the NLRB with an end run that was found to be not appropriate.
His failure to use the power vested in him may be a larger threat than seizing of power. Between him and Bush the number of young Americans crippled by missing limbs and other life altering injuries is beyond belief. The worry about collateral damage and other politically correct B.S. caused far too many of our young men and women their life. We are either at war or we are not. Get aggressive and unmerciful or get out. My preference would be start packing and moving out today. I have no sympathy for those in those corrupt countries and certainly no interest in trying to change or financially support them.
In 2010, Charlie Rangel was stripped of his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee amid an investigation into a corporate-funded trip to the Caribbean. Later that year, the House of Representatives formally censured him after he was convicted of 11 counts of violating House ethics rules. Among the violations: failure to pay taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and failing to disclose over $600,000 in assets on a financial disclosure report.
He still sits on the ways and means committee. His response was it is wrong to abuse the tax system. He suggested that conservative groups filing for tax-exempt status as social welfare groups actually do deserve government scrutiny, but that government employees also did a poor job of applying the law.
He is no longer the W&M chairman but still on the committee. So much for congress policing their own. This is only one example of both parties being very lenient with their own.