Slashdot Mirror
Employee Morale Is Suffering At the NSA
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Ellen Nakashima reports at the Washington Post that morale has taken a hit at the National Security Agency in the wake of controversy over the agency's surveillance activities and officials are dismayed that President Obama has not visited the agency to show his support. 'It is not clear whether or when Obama might travel the 23 miles up the Baltimore-Washington Parkway to visit Fort Meade, the NSA's headquarters in Maryland,' writes Nakashima, 'but agency employees are privately voicing frustration at what they perceive as White House ambivalence amid the pounding the agency has taken from critics.' Though Obama has asserted that the NSA's collection of virtually all Americans' phone records is lawful and has saved lives, the administration has not endorsed legislation that would codify it. And his recent statements suggest Obama thinks some of the NSA's activities should be constrained. 'The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it's been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,' says Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general from 2002 to 2006. 'They feel they've been hung out to dry, and they're right.' Former officials note how President George W. Bush paid a visit to the NSA in January 2006, in the wake of revelations by the New York Times that the agency engaged in a counterterrorism program of warrantless surveillance on U.S. soil beginning after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 'Bush came out and spoke to the workforce, and the effect on morale was tremendous,' Brenner said. 'There's been nothing like that from this White House.' Morale is 'bad overall' says another former NSA official. 'It's become very public and very personal. Literally, neighbors are asking people, 'Why are you spying on Grandma?'"
That Snowden got all the attention, maybe others were planing on blowing some whistles
The scum should be made to squirm even more.
I would say these are exactly the sorts of questions we should be asking, and they should be able to answer.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
n/t
That Obama would condemn and stop being ambivalent, but I suppose letting them stew is enough.
Silence is a state of mime.
That's OK too. Shrink 'em down to the constitutional essentials.
Well, I sure missed *that* call.
Literally, neighbors are asking people, 'Why are you spying on Grandma?'
So, they're hoping that the public approval of the president will keep them from having to come up with an answer to that question?
I guess nothing alleviates the need for thoughtful introspection like a big pat on the head from the master.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
The problem is, no one has a clue what the NSA is doing. Even if they are the kind of people who would normally support spying for defense purposes, it's not even clear what defensive purposes the NSA is serving.
When Obama defends the NSA spying programs, he says, "If we're gonna do a good job preventing a terrorist attack in this country, a weapon of mass destruction getting on the New York subway system, et cetera, we do want to keep eyes on some bad actors."
OK, but that's not very convincing, especially when a few months ago Obama was saying the war on terror is over.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
to the employees who have worked there tens of year knowing what they are doing. Now one man opened his mouth, and the rest of the cattle is feeling bad.
Bou hou. Cry me a river.
wvmbe wbpzm mnwcz nqdma qfamd mvmqo pbvqv mbmvm tmdmv bemtd
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
You must have a spine.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Violating the constitution SHOULD make you feel like shit.
Hint to NSA minions who want to redeem themselves: there is no apology more sincere than hara-kiri. Spill your guts, and we might forgive you.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I retired a couple of years ago from a near-30 year career with the Internal Revenue Service.
People tried to kill me on more than one occasion. Dogs were set on me more times than I can remember. A man once openly threatened to kill me, in front of witnesses, while we were standing in a courthouse hallway, on a break, during a jury selection.
People comitted suicide from dealing with us even when doing so made no sense; they simply let their ignorant fears of the Big Bad put them in a bad place, mentally.
When a parade of kooks and idiots testified to Congress in 1998 that we were all baby-eating monsters, NO ONE stood up for us. Horrific legislation that left the agency permanently hamstrung resulted.
Over the last 3 decades, the IRS has actually deserved about 1% of the vitriol poured out on it. Morale is a thing of the past.
Yet, still, no one stands up for the IRS. Those of us who worked there had to adapt. It's possible.
To those at the NSA who are just awakening to the new reality that people are, now and forevermore, going to hate you whether you deserve it or not, I can only say "Welcome to my world. Learn to deal with it. It'll drive you nuts if you don't."
Sure, Obama should take the heat, and certainly he is standing up for them in my experience.
But it's hard to buy the narrative of NSA employees and leadership as innocent victims. They are following poilcy, but Obama doesn't personally design and approve all activities of the million person, trillion dollar executive branch. Much of their activity is of their own design and initiative.
They may be unhappy but they need to stop targeting it at someone else. They are responsible. Perhaps they should feel a little guilty that Snowdon was the only one with the nerve to act responsibly.
Washington Post:
"Last month, we reported on LOVEINT, the facetious term used to describe NSA analysts who misuse their surveillance powers to spy on romantic interests instead of terrorists. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asked the NSA to get more specific about the misconduct the NSA had uncovered. So the NSA sent Grassley a letter with details of the 12 LOVEINT incidents it has uncovered since 2003.
The incidents have a number of things in common. Almost all of them involved spying on foreigners outside of the United States (one man targeted his American girlfriend, and a few others spied on communications involving both Americans and foreigners). In seven of the 12 cases, the misbehaving employee resigned while the disciplinary process was ongoing. The rest received letters of reprimand, got demoted, lost pay, were denied security clearances or faced other punishments. None of the individuals were prosecuted for their actions."
"Not prosecuted"? No wonder they're not getting any support. (amongst many, many, many other reasons)
'It's become very public and very personal. Literally, neighbors are asking people, 'Why are you spying on Grandma?'"
Were they my neighbors, I would be asking the same thing.
Were they my friends, I would shun them.
Were they my significant other, I would leave them.
The notion in the USA that the minions are innocent and "just following orders" is ridiculous. Unless conscripted (which these people are not), they are as complicit as their masters. These people are damaging the USA in profound ways. They deserve it to be uncomfortable every step of the way.
Learn to deal with it indeed. It won't be changing anytime soon. It's part of the price you pay for a sweet government gig.
but agency employees are privately voicing frustration at what they perceive...
Jeez, of all people, you'd think the ones working at the NSA realize that this can't be!
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
... It kind of happens when you are found out for conspiracy against the people you are meant to serve and protect.
It's called having a conscience. Or lack of, since morale is only suffering after you've been caught.
Perhaps they could check with colleagues from older agencies that used to do the same kind of work.
I wonder what the Stasi and the Gestapo did to bolster employee morale.
While I know there are some crazies out there, I think more than 1% of the scorn heaped on you guys is deserved. I don't know about you personally, but the IRS is responsible for ruining people's lives and lacking proper accountability and due process for the individual taxpayer.
Here's an amusing anecdote about power-tripping IRS agents that luckily didn't end up ruining anyone financially:
I have a friend who got audited one time; the IRS found a minor problem and my friend simply offered to pay the penalty on the spot (it was very minor, like a couple hundred dollars for an improper deduction or something). The IRS auditor told him to sit down and shut up so that he could berate him. My friend wasn't going to have any of that and simply left the IRS office. He never heard from them again about the supposed improper deduction and wasn't asked to pay.
You know what this sounds like? "Aw shucks, people don't like me because they caught me peeping in their windows and jerking off. Don't they know I'm helping to keep them safe? What's wrong with them?"
It sounds like a lot of them are sad people don't like them, not that they were unwittingly helping to ruin America. They need a big ol' whack across the head with a cluebat.
However maybe some of them actually have souls. I'd feel like crap too if I was a party to trampling all over the constitution and promoting a police state. Maybe we'll see another one with a brain and a conscience grow a pair and do something about it. It's hard to do when you have people you love who depend on you but that's life. Life isn't fair. Shit needs to get better and it requires sacrifice. If you can't handle that then you're a crappy patriot.
Especially when the US didn't accept such logic in the Nuremberg Trials. "Just following orders" does not excuse things.
It's really a pain to get a letter from the IRS, informing you have a fine, but not explaining the fine and also not telling you how to challenge the fine.
And that's just the beginning.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I have a friend who got audited one time; the IRS found a minor problem and my friend simply offered to pay the penalty on the spot (it was very minor, like a couple hundred dollars for an improper deduction or something). The IRS auditor told him to sit down and shut up so that he could berate him. My friend wasn't going to have any of that and simply left the IRS office. He never heard from them again about the supposed improper deduction and wasn't asked to pay.
They are just biding their time until the penalties compound enough for them to simultaneously garnish his wages and seize his house.
People comitted suicide from dealing with us even when doing so made no sense; they simply let their ignorant fears of the Big Bad put them in a bad place, mentally.
And you don't see that as a problem that the agency has a responsibility to deal with in some manner?
When a parade of kooks and idiots testified to Congress in 1998 that we were all baby-eating monsters
If you want to appear truly candid and unbiased then stick to facts instead of injecting crap like that.
'The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it's been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,' says Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general from 2002 to 2006.
Maybe you haven't been listening to the reaction Joel, but NOBODY APPROVES of your stupid fucking agency and the stupid fucking things they do. Except perhaps your authoritarian, imperialist, warmonger friends in Congress (Feinstein and the like).
You probably won't realize why this is happening until you figure out how to admit how utterly fucking wrong you are. It's YOUR FAULT that your agency (and all other intelligence agencies) are hated because you decided to run out of control without a single shred of oversight. Don't blame this embarrassing atrocity on any one else.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
they should stop harming the country.
I think you are being a bit mean, but you do have a point. There are systems of taxation where it is impossible for most folks to be in arrears, where filing returns is not necessary, and which don't require such a large bureaucracy. The IRS - at least in its current form - is probably unnecessary. You don't hear this kind of vitriol directed towards state sales tax officials.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Although the IRS can be costly, brutal, and offensive to those who do not deserve to be harassed, the functionality of the IRS is arguably necessary. On the other hand, the NSA spying on every innocent citizen of the U.S. (and the world), is NOT not necessary; and to civic-minded individuals it is pure evil. Such actions by the NSA are 1000x worse than the collective mistakes made by the IRS.
I remember this really old adage that my mom used to tell me... Something about reaping or sowing or some shit. Been a while since I heard that one.
Those guards meant to do good. They didn't mean to do anything wrong.
What they were doing was "making justice" and the bad guys deserved it - they are after all "bad". (think extraordinary rendition)
But now the guards find out they are unpopular, so what do they do?
They want a pat on the back from the warden. That makes children feel better, right - daddy telling them something their conscience does not.
Whether or not they "broke the letter" of the law they radically transgressed the fundamentals of freedom as the world understands it and million and millions of people are offended by this offensive behavior.
The important thing isn't about congratulating guards. It is to establish guidelines for "good" and for "evil" that are valid, that are universal, and then the guards who live by them don't need pats on the back. It will also keep you from actually spying on all the grandma's in the world in order to find a non-grandma terrorist. Grandma actually has a right to not be spied on, or permanently recorded, without judicial protections. Maybe someone needs to tell the NSA that they shouldn't be spying on Grandma. Seriously.
"Oh God, I feel so terrible about being the kind of gestapo/stasi/kgb instrument of opression that I was taught to despise when I was growing up. Not so terrible that I did anything to prevent it, or alert the people I was supposed to be protecting, or leave, or stop taking the money, but pretty terrible anyways."
NSA employees operate in a strictly compartmentalised environment where the need to know is enforced. Some people are in positions of extreme trust, but the vast majority are not. We all need to understand that the revelations coming from Snowden's leaks are just as surprising to the vast majority of NSA employees as they are to the public at large. A good number of these people will be equally dismayed at the actions of their employer. We don't need to hound the individuals. The organisation is fair game though.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Everyone is seizing on this "why are you spying on grandma?" line and saying 'Damn right they should be ashamed and demoralized, stupid jackboots!'
Except the NSA has something like 30,000 people. It's hardly as though every one of them are involved in monitoring US civilian communications. Maybe, just maybe, some of them are demoralized because they have not a damn thing to do with anything in the news, yet they're being treated like demons.
They're not the KKK, they're not the Westboro Baptist Church. The agency has redeeming qualities, and being a security organization there are probably *thousands* of them who know nothing more about these surveillance programs than we know. I'd be upset, too, if people were asking me to answer for something I knew absolutely nothing about simply because a huge division of my company two floors down were assholes.
Stop lumping them all together as one giant boogeyman. Look for the people responsible rather than naming the entire agency an inscrutible, invisible hand with nefarious intentions.
...why ARE you spying on Grandma?
1) There was never any day of "virtually unlimited budgets."
2) Do you assert that the United States currently faces specific real resources shortfalls, even given the current large output gap? If not, can you propose a specific, realistic mechanism why the United States would currently face fiscal constraints, even given persistently low inflation?
.: Semper Absurda
The difference here is that the fuckers who work at the NSA spy on their fellow citizens.
It is true that other federal employees and contractors have legitimate jobs that serve the public. IMHO the workers at the NSA work against the public.
Wow. Progress. Maybe next they'll start thinking about what they've been doing all these years.
dare I say it: working at _commercial_ spying places should also be met with the same hatred.
I'm looking at you, google. and others, but google is the current poster child of unwanted tracking and spying and is the definition of 'power, out of control'. and yet, people are still lining up to go work there. even full well knowing what they are doing.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Yeah, most concentration camp guards thought they were blameless too.
The bastards got caught, and the poor little dears are upset..
Fuck 'em.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
I took an english class in college on the "rhetoric of intimidation". that is, how to write in order to intimidate. Not surprisingly, example #1 was the IRS. the professor had spent years studying with them and working with them. One of her favorite stories was when she learned that the majority of the time, an audit occurred because the IRS's records on you didn't match, and rather than figure it out they audit you to make you figure it out.
My best friend works with a lot of self-employed people. One of them had several (3 or 4) years in a row where his tax refund would have been miniscule, something like $10 or $20 in the black, so he didn't even bother sending in the forms. He figured he'd just let the government keep the money. The IRS responded by sending him a bill for roughly $10,000 owed, because they figured that was a nice round number to make up.
I'm sure everybody here has anecdotes like this. That "1%" of bad eggs you talk about must have been terribly terribly busy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw
(notice how much hasn't changed in 15 years)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
They could do what Edward Snowden did. I bet he can look himself in the mirror each morning when he gets up.
I know this isn't a popular belief, but I actually am willing to buy into the idea that most of them had no idea this sort of stuff was going on. You gotta figure that with it being a compartmentalized intelligence agency, the right hand may not know what the left is doing in many cases, particularly for the rank-and-file employees. And by all indications, most of the things we're hearing about really were the result of initiatives being pushed through by top people who had a couple of small teams of developers willing to do their dirty work.
For instance, one of PRISM's selling points was that it was low-budget on account of it only having a few developers. Considering the budget the agency has, I'm guessing they employ a LOT of people, yet we're mostly hearing about programs that only need a handful of people at most. Seems to me that it's entirely plausible that the vast majority of NSA workers actually are decent people doing legitimate (and legal) work, and for them, it's a shame what's happened. By no means am I excusing the ones directly responsible for this stuff, nor the ones who had awareness of it, but I'm willing to bet that quite a few of the rank-and-file are just as outraged as we are, but know that abandoning their mission would only make things worse, since the work that those people are doing is still necessary.
But if acknowledging such a thing is too difficult for most of us here, let's go ahead and believe that every last one of them is irredeemable scum who deserve to die a slow death. Because none of us here have ever been in a situation where people we were associated with did bad, perhaps even unconscionable, things without us having a say in it. Right?
2) Do you assert that the United States currently faces specific real resources shortfalls, even given the current large output gap? If not, can you propose a specific, realistic mechanism why the United States would currently face fiscal constraints, even given persistently low inflation?
The deficit would be fact #1 - definitely a resource shortfall there. The real problem is we tax income including worker income, and our imports greatly outweigh our exports. Imports do not add to the tax revenue, meaning that those left working the in US subsidize taxes for all imports. A shift to a GAT applied universally to all transactions, including at all borders, no exceptions, would quickly set things right with the revenue picture, and have the benefit of encouraging domestic production. 10% might be a good starting number. That means imported goods would have a 21% tax, minimum, as they are taxed at the border and again when sold to the end user.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I don't know how you missed this while working there, but the IRS deliberately cultivates that reputation. They WANT to be known as baby-eating killers, they want people to fear dealing with them so much that they don't even risk anything which could result in an audit even if it's 100% legal. The IRS has been doing government by terrorism for a very long time now, and it's quite effective.
Every so often the people get uppity, so the IRS has to pull something like holding day care students hostage until the parents pay the school's taxes. That usually works.
Add to this the fact that that NSA has resisted, at every turn, telling Congress the truth about what they do.
You can't provide oversight to a group that does not tell you what they do or how they do it.
Vast amounts of effort put in to dodge taxes apparently resulted in to a lot of complexity to remove loopholes. Each state has less tax dodgers to deal with. Blame people like the Scientologists playing very extreme games (up to and including breakign and entering) to avoid tax and not those that have to put in new rules to cover such escalation.
Fine print: "Ticket not to be taken internally"
Homer: "They wrote that on there because of me!"
This intelligence agency is not very intelligent if they expect Obama to support them.
He cares only about himself and will throw anyone and anything under the proverbial bus, to save his worthless skin.
Snowdon's vast collection of stuff very strongly argues otherwise. The LOVEINT thing argues otherwise.
When a contractor in Hawaii can get hold of all this stuff it shows that there is a lack of "need to know".
I'm surprised to find myself feeling conflicted in thinking about this situation from that point of view. On the one hand, the people making decisions at the NSAare acting like spoiled brats whining that Daddy doesn't love them anymore because he showed displeasure at their misbehavior.
On the other, our fucked-up economy has left a lot of people desperate enough to hold onto their jobs (especially if they have dependents to support) that I can easily see an average employee letting themselves believe their superiors' reassurance that their orders were legal/necessary or that their role is so minor that it didn't make a big difference. It's also very possible that many employees were chosen specifically based on a lack of knowledge about our rights, so they didn't even realize they were doing bad things. Either way, after all of those years of reassurance, having their leader turn his back on them to save his own ass when they're under attack would suck beyond belief -- and Ican only feel disgust for that behavior on his part.
We all like to believe that we wouldn't be as 'weak' as the people that violated the Constitution/Bill of Rights as part of following orders, that we'd stand up to our boss/superior or maybe even pull a Snowden... But we also all like to believe we wouldn't cause horrible harm to others through abusing power or following orders, and virtually all of us are wrong.
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
To the disgruntled NSA employees: you feel this way because you know what you're doing would have our founding fathers rolling in their graves! Take a stand, dammit. While easier for me to say than you to do, quit your job if it sounds wrong and send a clear message that this violation of privacy and more is wrong and you won't have any party of it. I bet then you could sleep better at night about your professional life, but maybe not as far as paying your bills.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I give my information to Google willingly. The NSA, on the other hand, takes my information from me without recourse. The gap between the two entities is wide enough that I feel vastly more animosity towards the NSA.
I welcome our new 99% overlords.
Address it to: ...well, if we want the NSA to see it, I guess it really doesn't matter who it's addressed to, does it?
Well they sure as hell know now, so their continued employment makes the complicit. Anyone who does not leave an organisation on discovering that it is behaving badly becomes complicit.
Some doctors are upset for not getting support after they helped torturing detained suspects.
In both cases, that maybe shows that very deep inside them, there is still a human being trying to confess the crimes that even they realize that are doing. "I was just following orders" don't cut the pain anymore.
Unless conscripted (which these people are not), they are as complicit as their masters.
I disagree. Conscripts are also just as complicit as their superiors.
They've been upset for a long time, about doing secret, unapproved missions. It's a snowden LEAK that make their discontent ... public knowledge.
Meh. I disagree - I think most NSA employees love that they get to do something really james-bond-ish, get a blank-check budget, and have essentially unlimited power over everyone else. There is no doubt a strong voyeuristic angle to the whole thing. They're also, by and large, getting paid obscene amounts of money.
I've met a number of people who work government jobs with clearances and they all act so goddamn smug about it, I've wanted to punch them in the mouth.
I think they were all quite happy nobody knew the power they had; they were "getting away with it." Now that we do, they're demoralized because they don't get to lord over us with the mystique. Plus, robbing the cookie jar isn't fun when everyone sees you do it.
Fuck 'em. I hope the place becomes a miserable place to work and the whole thing falls apart at the seams.
Please help metamoderate.
Yet, still, no one stands up for the IRS.
It took me a few years in customer support to grasp this. Customer support, doctors, police, the IRS -- none of them set rules or policy. In the case of the police and IRS, from the top down, they're just executing an accumulating tangle of non-expiring laws that others have put in place.
Other than really large-scale easily-understandable malfeasance, only the actions of the customer-facing employees see these kinds of results of the public's anger and disrespect. You won't have that kind of understanding unless you've worked in a position like that.
But it sounds like the NSA non-customer-facing rank-and-file are experiencing the fallout of the malfeasance. I don't know if they can suck it up or pass the buck, but the end result might be the same.
Best of luck surviving the plane crash caused by the pilot getting food poisoning while flying through a toxic industrial waste cloud when attempting an emergency landing on an unmaintained Eisenhower-era highway overpass after losing contact with air traffic control because Verizon decided to take over the frequency band.
I'm sure that's what the framers intended.
"vilification ... sadly"
Why sadly? Seriously -- here you have a group of people doing everything in their power to undermine core American values in very salient and massive ways. They fucking deserve to be vilified. Because they're traitorous fucking villains.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons...
They knew what was going on. My grad school was funded by the NSA. I never had clearance, but did visit Ft. Meade a few times. Based in the public stuff they were funding (*cough* GNU Radio *cough*) and the types of projects we did, it was very obvious what the applications were.
Everyone I met there was very smart (way smarter than me). If I could figure it out 8 years ago from some funding and vague conversations, they definitely could.
I turned down the offer to work there for ethical reasons. Too creepy even without knowing everything.
Regular Guy: My employer doesn't embrace open source and took away our free sodas every friday.
Slashdot/Internet: OMFG! Don't put up with that shit! You are obligated by morality to dump that job and find another!
NSA Guy: Everyone is mad at me for participating in violating the constitutional and every inherent right of the entire American public and our biggest cheerleader won't even come visit us and make us feel better about what we do!
Slashdot/Internet: Oh, you poor baby. That is awful. Clearly you have no choice but to work there and it isn't your fault that you are participating in something so fucking hideous and heinous as this.
To those at the NSA who are just awakening to the new reality that people are, now and forevermore, going to hate you whether you deserve it or not, I can only say "Welcome to my world. Learn to deal with it. It'll drive you nuts if you don't."
Or they could find honest work that betters society. It's hard to feel sorry for them when you read about how much more they make than the rest of the US.
Morale should be low, "the public" doesn't want them to do what they're doing. They are a threat to democracy. The US has long been a threat to any Democratic Government that doesn't favor it, just read about the "Other 9/11".
The fact of the matter is, they are pawns to non-Democratic interests that do nothing to serve the American People as a whole. They serve big monied interest, mega corporations and conglomerates protecting their entrenched positions and bottom lines. Concepts like "freedom," and "liberty" are merely espoused to make the rank and file feel warm and fuzzy about their unconstitutional work, which is ironically the biggest threat to "freedom" and "liberty" that we face today. Higher ups get corrupted by the power. All the rank and file should know, the moment you expose any sort of inconvenient truth, the full weight and force of the apparatus you served will be turned on you and you yourself can be labelled a "domestic terrorist." Just look at the case of Julia Davis which has open court records that backup such facts.
When you job helps create and maintain a system where ordinary citizens can be assassinated and political discourse controlled in the most un-democratic of manners, you -should- feel bad. But hey, if you're working through a contracting firm, I bet that big tax-payer funded pay check will go a long way to making you feel better.
Anyway, it's hard to believe the NSA isn't adept at finding the sociopaths focused purely on career advancement and power gain that it needs. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is some big boogie man we need to be worried about, but if there is, they've done a really bad job of informing the public as to what actual danger, besides inconvenient truths and things that worry big MegaCorp, they are protecting against. Maybe if we didn't focus on fucking with the rest of the world so much people wouldn't want to strike at us.
Don't worry, in the next scene, our heroes find a doctor in the back, along with a jive lady, and another pilot with a drinking problem.
which should be pursued by newspapers... who don't care if their phones are tapped. The question is who decided not to prosecute - and then invite a court to overule that decision. The criminal would then be offered a plea bargain to rat on some of the other illegal things they knew about - and so the prosecutions would spread... Well it's a nice dream!
The reason the NSA metastasized into what it is now is because that is what the American people wanted. After (and before) the 9/11 attacks they wanted government protection from the big bad world. Why did the Bush administration go nuts after 9/11 (Gitmo, rendition, etc)? -- it's because they knew they could stand the heat from the pundits and legal beagles who said a lot of it was illegal. And they also knew that the Bush administration would not have survived another 9/11 style attack. Same for the Obama administration -- they cannot tolerate a big attack on Americans as long as the Republicans will claim it was "lax vigilance" which allowed it (look at the insanity over Benghazi and that was only four Americans in a foreign country!). So the rational actor in that case errs all the way on the side of preventing another terrorist incident no matter the legality or cost to civil liberties. Same for the NSA now -- if the US suffers another big attack then there will be 290 million (out of about 300 million) Americans blaming the NSA for letting it happen and demanding that the NSA do "whatever it takes" to prevent another. This is irregardless of the facts of the situation. That is just the way it is. You won't fix that anytime soon. As time goes on without an attack we can get some more oversight of the NSA, perhaps, but in the big scheme of things it's not going to change until the American public gets a lot better at risk estimation, which they never will. If you don't like it -- tough, and no place else in the world is any better -- the foreigners don't have any better governments and for most of them it's a lot worse. Life isn't fair -- you were born to live in the 21st century, not the paradise of liberty which the 18th and 19th centuries were (yeah right!); or you can try living completely off the grid like it was the 18th century, for a fun time. Or you can accept that (in the Democracies, at least) the jack booted thugs aren't likely to kick your door in tonight and try to get policies changed over time, through voting and persuasion of others in the public and your government.
...won't visit the NSA to show support, because doing so would show acknowledgement that he is in charge of their actions. He prefers to remain at a distance, so he can politically separate himself from their actions to the maximum extent possible. Judging how few comments there are here blaming him for their activities, it appears to be working well.
'The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it's been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,' says Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general from 2002 to 2006.
Which "public" was that? Spying on foreign leaders, collecting unlimited data on US citizens, tracking cell phones...I think I'm seeing the problem. They know they're doing wrong and still feel justified. Now they want the president to make them feel better.
It's like the phone companies wanting retroactive immunity for cooperating with spying. They want Congress to pass new laws making everything they've done legal.
Nevermind all the spying didn't stop the Boston Marathon bombers or the Sandy Hook shooter or any of the more common threats.
Maybe they deserve to feel bad.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
They work for an agency that violates the rights of the people. so fuck them.
No wonder cold fjord hasn't been seen around here lately.
Well, he's around here now.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I have gotten fines from the IRS, and it was always because I missed something and it was my fault. Sometimes it took a little work to figure out what the problem was, and even called them up when I was trying to figure it out. The people were never rude and always helpful.
Was I happy with it? No, who really wants to admit they made a mistake and have to pay to fix it? No many people, but you know what? I sucked up my ego, which all it really was, and admitted my mistake and paid up.
For all the scorn people heap on the IRS, they do a very good job, especially considering all the crap they get from anyone who seems them as an easy dog to kick.
Most likely he thought the IRS would somehow magically figure out all the same deductions and credits he thought he qualified for. If you don't claim it, it doesn't apply, and you'll end up owing. Self employed people usually have a long list of things like home office, the self employment tax (soc sec and medicare employer portion), insurance premiums, telecom, wining and dining, etc.. that they must file to take care of. Missing out on the benefits negates them, and you'll be paying what your original liability would have been plus penalties and interest.
My gosh, the Agency has taken a pounding for spying on American citizens? Why?
If the NSA wants to do these deeds, all I ask as an American citizen, is that it get written approval from the current incumbent President. That's all.
Everyone wins!
Mark
Tacoma, WA
...He comes from the future.
Here's my "Are You Fucking Kidding Me"(tm) list.
1) Employees at the agency that is chartered to be the most secretive agency the US government has is telling the press they aren't happy?
2) They want the President to visit because they've been doing their jobs, and it made the news?
3) They want a pitty party because a contractor has been leaking information? The fucking NSA? Let a contractor leak anything? They let a contractor walk away with classified documents? How is he still alive?
4) Are they not being paid for their jobs?
5) Were they under some insane misconception about what their job would be when they were hired? It's one of the largest intelligence agencies in the world. What did they think they were getting hired for? Play solitaire and collect paychecks?
This story makes me think that next week we'll be hearing about massive layoffs, and new openings with the agency.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
One - I'm now downloading Good Will Hunting to watch it all over again.
Two - If you are smart and have a conscience you won't work for them in the first place.
Three - If you are lacking the first quality in number two, you will and we end up where we are.
The employees of the NSA deserve to be heckled. Maybe they will start to challenge their superiors, quit, make different decisions if they are in charge, or listen to that little voice in their head that says this is wrong and try to help like Snowden did.
They should be ashamed of themselves, they should know deep in their bones that they are a stain on America, they should be on a public registry the way sex offenders are on a registry, they should have their kids taken by CPS to live with foster families, they should know in their hearts that every history book written from this point onward will cite them as a reason for America's loss of moral standing in international affairs, they should be required to pay back $3 for every dollar they received in salary for doing what they did, they should just.....
Before 1913 the Federal government collected duties on good entering the country and tariffs on certain goods. However the amount of collected is very small and easily avoided by any person choosing to vote against Federal policies by not buying dutiable goods.
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz2mwDj6t23
Under some circumstances the Federal income was collected from the individual States, such as:
The direct tax of 1798 imposed taxes on “lands, houses and slaves” totaling $2 million over the next two years, apportioned to states in amounts according to representation (as measured in the U.S. census).
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax
States placed taxes on real property some of this money was apportioned to the Federal government based on the population of State, hence the need for the census. Along with the money collected each State was represented by two seats in the US Senate. It is important to note that before 1913 these Senators were chosen by each States elected body not necessarily by general election. While congress has always been directly elected and always the origination of bills of appropriations.
The people are taxed and in return the people ask for stuff. The State which took the money with difficulty attempts to limit spending via the Senate which can only approve or deny an appropriations bill. Hence money collected with difficultly and spent with difficultly designed to naturally limit unnecessary spending.
Before 1913 taxes on Income (or any direct tax) was seen as unconstitutional because the Founders felt it was important for people to have a way to protest a government in the only meaningful way: deprive the government of income.
In addition the Founders were distinctly against a privately held central bank such as the Federal Reserve which was also approved in 1913. This has additionally provided the Federal government an essentially unlimited supply of money with which it can enforce any position without any realistic opposition of the individual States.
Post 1913 we can clearly see what happens in a democracy with the effective restraint on spending removed.
Or should I say poor little treasonous babies. You actively participate in the desecration of the Constitution and then you feel all pouty that America is unhappy when it finds out?
Guess what, bitches, America doesn't need your uber algorithms, satellites, or any other fancy toys. You (the intel community) has demonstrated that you can't handle HUMAN INT (see: 9/11, boston bombers) so stop claiming you need this geek starship of SIGINT to protect us little lambs. Losers.
Although overall that was a very enjoyable film, that particular section is an unserious polemic consistent with the fawning over Chomsky* in the film.
As to your comment about nothing changing in the last 15 years, do you mean terrorists trying to attack the US? I'll guess not, I'm not sure that concern is one you'd have even though Bin Laden issued his fatwa declaring war against the US the year before it came out and attacked two US embassies in Africa causing a large loss of life and limb the year after.
* There's a certain irony in this since the monologue is regarding a purely rhetorical bombing of a village whereas Chomsky was a denier of the Cambodian genocide and associated with Holocaust deniers.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Good. You want a new sense of "morale"???
Fucking quit.
All of you. En masse. Find a real job, and move on.
Now if only we could get people to treat the TSA the same. At least I, for one, can take personal credit for a public shunning... But no one else seems to care.
Baaaaah!
I made a $3 mistake on my income tax return (Scottrade updated my tax info *after* I'd sent mine in, but they didn't notify me).
The IRS apparently took that as an excuse to torment me for most of a year. I got audit for the above $3 claim, as well as for "falsely claiming that I was due a tax deduction for student loans" (I took some night classes at the local community college). Apparently that $3 claim was justification for a fishing expedition.
First time, I take an entire day off to redo my taxes, discover that I have made a $3 error, cut them a $3 check, and sent them the 1098-T from the college to prove that the other claim is false.
Couple months later, they send me the exact same form. I again take another day off to recompute my taxes (I was correct), and again send them the same 1098-T info that they requested.
Third time, I told that I will be taken to court because I haven't provided the proof required. I take yet *another* day off to go to the local IRS office in Nashville and sit down with a lady to explain that I've already sent the 1098-T form in.
She logs into her computer, turns it toward me, and starts hitting page-down. "We don't have any record that you sent it in." I see it flash by and tap on the screen. "Yes you did, it was just on your screen a second ago." She pages up and stares at it in silence for 2-3 minutes. "Well I just don't understand that."
Great. So now that the IRS knows I've sent it in, we can put this whole misunderstanding behind us, right? "I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do to fix this". My choices were pay it off, send an appeal to the IRS, and hope that suddenly grow a brain after the **4th** time, or go to tax court, lose yet another day's salary, and hope the judge was smarter than the IRS. So I paid.
The IRS's excruciatingly, devastatingly, mind-numbing incompetence cost me roughly $1000 in lost salary for a $3 difference. And the whole collective IRS can go pleasure itself with a saguaro cactus.
"Today I mourn for two things: for the fate of those millions of people who were murdered by the National Socialists. And for the girl Traudl Humps who lacked the self-confidence and good sense to speak out against them at the right moment." -- Gertraud "Traudl Humps" Junge, Adolf Hitler's secretary.
She was pardoned at the Nureberg trials. "She was young, she couldn't have known any better. She was only guilty of consistently going along with what her society demanded. She was not the one who had brought death to Europe and the East, and in fact was ignorant of the Nazi's crimes as they were being committed."
Later in life, she said:
"It was no excuse to be young. It would have been possible to find things out."
http://www.viruscomix.com/page474.html
Ignorance among the rank-and-file is not an excuse. Collaborating with evil is evil.
Not a sentence!
"'It's become very public and very personal. Literally, neighbors are asking people, 'Why are you spying on Grandma?'"
If you see something, say something.
We did, and we did.
You really want unemployment rates to soar?
Essentially, a lot of those "public workers" are nothing but hidden unemployed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Er, I thought everyone knew by now that story was a bs fabrication of the right-wing media?
but let me finish that with stating the obvious, when obvious needs stating: ...and if you can't answer with an waterproof convincing answer then you have to stop doing what it is you're doing.
But what you don't do is whine about how ungrateful people are for the work you do when you've abused power. Can't really blame all on the NSA though - power will always be abused so it should not be given and instead processes to prevent it engineered.
A blog I run for the wealth
you need to sabotage your workplace
do it discreetly, covertly, however you see fit
because your employer defiles founding principles this country was founded on
and you don't want to think of yourself as a vile goon working for a paycheck, right?
you have principles and you love your country, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance#In_colonial_America
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The government needs competent, moral people. If the only people working for the government are the kind who either blow off all responsibility or enjoy doing the wrong thing, we'll simply see more of this kind of crap.
That was why I worked for the government for a few years. There are people in the civil service (NSA is part of that) who want to do the right thing, want to work hard and want to spend tax money responsibly. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy is set up to punish those people with extra work and extra scrutiny with not very much to feel good about.
Most of us ended up spending time on projects we don't feel good about because they were well funded or high profile. Things we wanted to work on got pushed back and compromises with management became simply doing what management said to do because the alternative was losing any influence we'd already built up.
That's part of why I left government service. If these NSA guys don't like what they're doing, they should leave too. Yes, the government needs good workers, but sometimes the only way a good worker can get heard (and stay a good worker) is by respectfully leaving.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Then they should be as pissed off as the rest of us, and raising hell internally, threatening to quit, or quitting, not bemoaning how misunderstood they are.
No, but I can understand why folks would want to spread that line. Here's an excerpt of the latest news on the subject:
The Oversight Committee .... is expressing gross dissatisfaction with Wilkins’s testimony and, in a letter sent to him on Wednesday, offering him the opportunity to amend it. “In your testimony, you stated ‘I don’t recall’ a staggering 80 times in full or partial response to the Committee’s questions,” committee chairman Darrell Issa and Ohio representative Jim Jordan wrote. “Your failure to recollect important aspects of the Committee’s investigation suggests either a deliberate attempt to obfuscate your involvement in this matter or gross incompetence on your part.”
The most pertinent subject on which Wilkins’s memory failed him was the nature of his communications with Treasury Department officials: in particular, whether he discussed the applications of tea-party groups with anybody at the Treasury Department, whether he discussed with Treasury Department officials regulatory guidance for 501(c)(4) entities engaged in political activities, and whether he discussed with them the inspector general’s report that blew the lid off of the targeting scandal in mid May.
"I don't recall" is how you prevent later perjury charges when you're on the wrong side of an investigation and you're doing your best to cover your ass while not advancing the investigation. But you probably knew that.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A suimilar outfit, East German Stasi, lasted a long time. Presumably the less-dedicated sort moved elsewhere, but you can always find people with that mentality.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To those at the NSA who are just awakening to the new reality that people are, now and forevermore, going to hate you whether you deserve it or not, I can only say "Welcome to my world. Learn to deal with it. It'll drive you nuts if you don't."
Oh boy, where do I begin? Prior to 1990, the IRS was a terrorist organization with virtually unlimited power. Senators and upper level administration folks were terrified of you. You guys would seize millions of dollars of property, lock all bank accounts, and freeze all assets over trivial amounts of disputed payments which left the victim no chance to defend themselves. Fuck you if you think you did not deserve the hatred you received. You were plain fucking evil. I saw the trail of devastation and shattered lives you guys left behind.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What are a conscripts options again? They can choose prison/death or obey?
If they obey, they also face death. But really, I think those are valid options when I consider that opposing conscription is opposing the idea that the government owns you and can send you off to die somewhere. I don't think any free country should be conscripting anyone.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I'd think that there was a similar morale drop in the 1970's, but the NSA has managed to survive that decade unscathed. Once Snowden is finally stopped (not an if, but when), the morale will eventually go back up like it did in the 1980s.
Some people aren't fit to have a security clearance. For some people, they learn that when they learn that they can't get a clearance. Others learn that when they break the rules and lose their clearance. Snowden was one of the latter and thinks that he's more special than anyone else than releases secrets - just because he contains PR-friendly ones.
Sorry Seth, it just doesn't work text-only without the "Darth Vader" lung-ventilator audio FX track.
Not buyin' it, man.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
And his recent statements suggest Obama thinks some of the NSA's activities should be constrained.
Gosh, if only Obama were their boss and could order them to obey the law!
Oh, wait. Who am I kidding?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Fuck their employee morale.
I am not an American citizen, nor do I live there, nor have any family ties to anyone who lives there. I have no malice towards America, but neither do I have any reason to care about their national security. If the NSA were to be disbanded tomorrow, I would feel it's a good thing for the people who it was unjustly spying on. I don't believe the loss of the NSA would bring the country down.
If anything, it seems like the country is on its way down anyway, and the NSA is at best not able to do anything to prevent that and at worst one of the factors actively (though not deliberately) contributing.
NSA guys will have to do some soul searching. Hopefully the U.S. will have a long, reasonable discussion about how much 1984 surveillance is really needed and healthy, and give the NSA new (more limited ) orders.
Because they should be being asked this. And wondering about this. And even at times saying 'no, this is too far'.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Are the intelligence missions the public approved of the ones they had no knowledge of? Irrefutable logic, that. Clearly if no one vocally objects, they must tacitly approve.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
after reading white house staff emails/facebook/IMs and realizing the president wasn't planning to visit the agency.
-- A change is as good as a reboot.
The price I paid for my sweet government gig was being paid less than half what comparable private sector employees earned. I once consulted with a group of 16 employees who worked a project for 3 years that netted the government just over $16B.
That's billion, with a "b".
Their average pay was about $60K/year plus benefits. They got no bonus for bringing in that staggering sum. That sort of treatment was normal.
My sweet gig will only pay off if I live for quite a while more, since the only advantage I have over the private sector is that I earned a small pension and decent health insurance, both of which are unlikely to be threatened because my employer goes into bankruptcy.
I had to spend 30 years behind the earnings curve to get where I am now; I wouldn't call that a "sweet gig". It was a trade-off I made with my eyes open and if I live another 20 years, it'll turn out to have been the right choice, but please disabuse yourself of the notion that there are more than a small handful of federal jobs that can accurately be termed "sweet gigs." They just don't exist.
The story of your friend needs some more details.
If a final report from a Tax Compliance Officer (the people who audit you in the office) is for a net tax increase and the taxpayer doesn't wait around, it will be mailed out for a signature. Thus, I doubt your friend; his story is very low-percentage.
Of course, there is that low percentage. If the amount is low enough, the TCO and their manager may decide to close the case with no further work (called a "Survey"; there are several sub-types) which means that they just dump it back into the central files because the cost of processing the new assessment is more than the IRS could collect.
That power-tripping you referred to? People who screw up on their taxes and get a lecture along the lines of "You did this wrong. Please don't do it again." will frequently perceive that as a power trip. The IRS looks at it as an educational opportunity.
I suspect the real truth of this story is somewhere in between.
By statutory requirement, all such letters contain an explanation. The explanation is frequently a reference to a code section and, admittedly, to most people that may make no sense. However, the explanation is always present.
Call up and ask for an explanation. Most of the people who work the phones are pretty good at turning a letter full of legal jargon into plain English. They do it all day long.
Pro-tip: Tell the person who answers the phone the form number on the bottom of the letter. There are limited number of boilerplate paragraphs that go into each numbered letter and if they know the form number, they can help you zero in on your problem double-quick.
That's a valid way of characterizing an audit. I see nothing wrong with that. If the records are screwed up, the IRS is going to have to ask you for help figuring out why the records don't seem to be in order. That's an audit.
I don't see why anybody would consider that a problem. How else would the problem get fixed? Would you prefer the IRS just guess why the records don't match up?
That person was an idiot. If they don't claim their deductions, they don't get them. How would the IRS know they deserved those deductions? Would you like the IRS to just guess?
Hmmmm...considering the top quote in my reply, maybe that is what you had in mind. If so, it doesn't work very well, as your anecdote makes clear.
...even though it's been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions...
The "public approval" has come though a representative government that has single digit approval ratings. That were gerrymandered into being allowed to keep office. That most progressives have railed against the President for his failures to keep even some of his basic promises, even his 2nd term promises, about transparency and trying to respect civil liberties.
Ok...deep breaths.
If you continue to lie to us we will call you out on that. What you just said is a lie. It might be not a direct lie but it is a lie of omission. Stop fucking doing that. I could start talking about how your director should be in federal prison for doing exactly that but I'm going to stop right now.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Yep, some employees get off on that crap. We hate those guys. They make the papers in unflattering ways that reflect on all of us.
By shortly after the beginning of this century, most of them had retired or been put on a short leash. Things are changing now...and not for the better, I'm afraid.
Technically, that's not what happened. However, that's how it was perceived.
(What actually happened was that when parents came in to pick up their kids and drop off their payments to the school, the IRS Revenue Officer present asked them to wait while he prepared a form for each of them seizing the checks. There was a delay for anyone who cooperated which meant they were delayed in being reunited with their kids. There was nothing to stop any of them from simply saying "Get stuffed. Mail it to me. I'm taking my kid and leaving." other than their fear of authority.)
In the aftermath of that incident, every single Revenue Officer at the IRS got a special training session on "This is how you screw up public relations. Don't do anything this stupid!" That case study is actually a part of the formal training for new Officers now, along with a strong admonition that any Officer who makes the Bureau look that bad in public again is committing career suicide.
But, yeah, a lead Revenue Officer on a seizure really screwed up one time. I don't think that justifies condemning the whole agency.
If you can find a way to change the tax system to make it easier where more people automatically comply, the loudest cheers you'll get will be from the folks at the IRS. They have to deal with the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code every day and they hate it more than anybody else.
Over the last 3 decades, the IRS has actually deserved about 1% of the vitriol poured out on it
You're getting a lot of "1% stories". Here's mine. I'm American and my wife is German. Before we moved to Germany, we proactively called the IRS to ask what special things we needed to do to make sure we paid our taxes properly before we moved to Germany. Should have been pretty simple stuff, actually. We were escalated several times and finally got someone who knew the answers to many of our questions, but he said there was no answer to our big one: How should we split up the taxes between paying the U.S. and paying Germany since we were not moving on December 31st. He couldn't answer that simple question. I said we couldn't be the first couple in this scenario. He said there no good rules we could follow and we were on our own.
Tax programs couldn't accommodate us either. Our scenario was too complex for Turbo Tax and H and R Block. Basically, we had to guess our way through, hope the IRS is happy, and hope we don't get audited for trying to do the right thing. We'll have this hanging over our heads for a long time.
As an NSA contractor, I will confirm this. The vast majority of the people who work for the NSA do important stuff like figure out who is spying on us and what they know. The revelations due to Snowden came as just as much a surprise to them as to everybody else. You wouldn't believe how much training I have to go through every year about just what information we're not allowed to collect -- and that includes pretty much any info related to US citizens.
Unfortunately, there's not much they can do about it. Go to your supervisor and tell him how you feel? First, you're not even supposed to be reading that classified material even if it's been released to the public. Second, now you're going to be very closely scrutinized under the fear that you're going to release information two.
Want to quit your job? Yeah right. The job market is tough enough right now without having "I worked for the NSA and can't tell you what I did" on your resume. I've got a family to feed, and even though the public (especially Slashdot!) likes to paint every employee of the NSA with the same brush, the vast majority of them are not actually involved in any domestic spying programs. Most people aren't willing to let their families starve just because public perception of them is negative.
Oh, and if you do quit, rest assured that the agency is going to want to know why you quit. When it comes up that you don't feel morally comfortable with the agency's actions, expect to get put on every watch list imaginable.
What else can you do other than stay quiet and hope that the people in positions of power fix things?
Yes, I see suicides as a problem. The agency is rocked every time it happens.
At the first seizure I worked on as a trainee, the couple involved committed suicide. Three of their four grown children came into the office and went over the case, in excruciating detail, with our management. They realized we did absolutely nothing wrong except add another stressor to a family situation that was already right on the edge of disaster, a situation we knew nothing about.
The fourth grown son went on Geraldo and told the world how the IRS murdered his parents.
So, yeah, I understand that suicides are a problem. That's why we had yearly suicide awareness seminars after that. That's why every phone has a form on the table next to it, one side for what to do if someone calls in a bomb threat and the other side with instructions on how to talk to someone who sounds suicidal or threatens suicide.
The IRS recognizes a responsibility and takes it very seriously. While our actual response scenarios to these cases are not made public to prevent people from gaming the system, they have been successful. AFAIK, there have been no taxpayer suicides even tangentially blamed on the IRS for over a decade.
Now, you object to a couple of my word choices. Fair enough.
I called the people who testified before the Congressional committee that had some responsibility for the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1998 "kooks and idiots". You object to that.
I say you don't remember those hearings. They brought in anyone who wanted to speak. One panel included a guy who spent quite a while telling Congress that the CIA was using weather-control machines to create droughts. Of the people who testified directly about the IRS, one specifically alleged that the IRS conducted a raid that sounded like something out of Farenheit 451. After the fact-checkers got through with him, it turned out that he was testifying about a raid that occurred at his business while he was out of the country and he was just repeating what he had been told by his family...all the while representing that he was present and exaggerating wildly.
Yeah. Kooks and idiots. I'll stand by those words.
As for "baby-eating monsters", the use of hyperbolic phrases to characterize an emotional state (i.e., people react so emotionally towards the IRS, it's as if they think we're baby-eating monsters) is a completely valid way of communicating.
I think I'll stand by that one, too.
If, on the other hand, you thought I was being literal...then I hate to break the news to you but much of that stuff you see at the movies is fiction. It didn't really happen. Likewise, people at the IRS don't really eat babies. I know that telling the difference between using literary devices to communicate the essence of a situation and making documentaries can be hard for some people, but we're willing to cut you some slack on the issue.
Oh, and by "cut you some slack", I don't mean we actually wield knives. I mean...well...Oh, I give up.
AMT is evil. Most of the Revenue Agents at the IRS would agree.
I assume your friend had adequate counsel and that an Offer In Compromise based on inability to pay with a public policy addendum failed.
I hope he gets political and gets attention with his case. Most IRS employees would love to see the AMT go away.
I spent several years as a Revenue Officer. It was within my authority to recommend that assessed taxes be temporarily or permanently forgiven. I made exactly those sorts of recommendations hundreds of times. I can't remember a single time when my recommendation was not accepted.
I am most proud of my work with folks with HIV/AIDS. I was an Officer back in the '80s when it was a death sentence. No one reaching the end of their life in that situation deserves to have to deal with the IRS. I was personally responsible for outreach to the community and case processing for AIDS patients who owed money. I cannot remember the number of times I sat next to the bed of a dying man for hours, slowly asking all the questions needed to fill out a few forms so that I could make the letters from the IRS stop.
I can't share all the times I "ignored the programs and policies" because I didn't have to. There are programs and policies to help people who can't pay. No one goes to jail for not paying. And no one needs to feel that they're oppressed. All my taxpayers had to do was talk to me. It was my job to help them get past their problems, not make their lives miserable.
Should I tell you about the best Revenue Officer I ever knew who got cookies and Christmas presents every year from delinquent taxpayers that she had guided back to solvency? Should I tell you about the lady who pretty much hugged that RO to unconsciousness after the RO seized and sold her business because, for the first time in decades, the emotional burden of trying to make a profit from a family business that should have been shuttered long ago was lifted from her?
No Revenue Officer worth their salt just goes along with everything they are told to do. They are hired for their judgement and they're not shy about telling management when a directive "just isn't right." I've seen it more times than I can remember.
You screwed up and paid a price for your mistake. And you blame the IRS?
Interesting. Dumb, but interesting. And a really tough way to learn that investing in things you don't understand can cost you a bundle.
But I don't see any reason for the IRS to shoulder any of that blame.
In other news, the SS guards in the concentration camps suffer from depression.
You have an excellent point. The problem with being secure in their effects and papers is subordinate to the presumption of guilt, so "effects and papers" is not a productive course of study.
The presumption of guilt, though, is a biggie. (Fix that and the "effects and papers" problem goes away.) Many folks who work at the IRS recognize that the presumption of innocence is turned on its head by our current tax administration system. They are not comfortable with it.
We recognize that this is the case in pretty much every country, though. The alternative is for the government to gather so much intelligence on the financial dealings of every citizen that they can make a case against anyone for tax fraud even without the cooperation of the citizen. We don't want that. That would be far more generally intrusive and have a greater chilling effect on freedom than the way things work now.
Of course, it is possible. There are people guilty of tax fraud who refuse to cooperate with their investigations. Every bit of evidence must be tracked down by the Revenue Agents, Revenue Officers, and Special Agents who work those cases. They are *extremely* expensive and difficult to make.
As a result, most tax cheats are not treated as suspects who must be assumed to be innocent. They are treated like parties to a civil contract who screwed up.
What middle course do you propose? I'm open to radical simplification of a highly progressive income tax combined with a refundable credit for poverty-level incomes. Add to that certain consumption taxes (like a VAT) and there may be a system that's simpler to administer, harder to game, and less oppressive to the people.
Or maybe I'm full of it. Again, what course do you propose?
That's just silly. There has to be a way to collect whatever taxes are going to be collected so the existence of a tax collection agency is not incompatible with freedom and the Constitution. Now, we may both agree that the current system is substandard so let's fix it. But saying that just having a tax collection agency is incompatible with freedom and the Constitution is a ridiculous overstatement.
Further, if it's OK to collect taxes at all, then civilized and moral people may certainly work at the agency that does that work without feeling in the least bit ashamed.
Your final sentence was so hyperbolic as to render the entire rest of your post suspect. Please don't do that. You actually had a good point or two.
Maybe you check up on a Mr Herbert Yardley. He would be called "NSA director" today. And he actually kind of "Snowdened" with his book "American Black Chamber".
They collected ALL telegrams they could get hold of then.
They wont be hurting for work, since they have proven themselves by getting hired by the NSA - not an easy task. Those people would provide another entity a competitive advantage for their knowledge and skillsets. They wouldnt have to bother with people that would discount competence just for being associated with the government.
The Snowden types, on the other hand, would have trouble due to their recorded disloyalty to their employer overriding any technical competence. They would represent a risk to an employer that is exemplified by action at an employer, not presumption by association with the NSA.
I wouldnt discount someone that worked at the NSA, but would welcome them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
For all its servers and software, Google does not have an Army or a Navy.
May the Maths Be with you!
You would, apparently, be surprised.
I have personally recommended the forgiveness or suspension of debt for hundreds of people. It happens hundreds of times a day.
Are you due a big refund that's been held up for unknown reasons but you've got a huge medical bill or you're about to lose your house? I've seen case workers move heaven and earth to process transactions and get refund checks manually cut and personally delivered to people in need.
Your post is near the bottom of the list, so I'll just put this here. I've seen a bunch of responses from people who had problems. That's to be expected. The tax system is complex and screwups happen.
But I am shocked that so few people understand that the IRS reaches out to communities and prepares tax returns for free, forgives or suspends debts when people are in a bad way, and sometimes goes to extraordinary lengths to use their great power to alleviate suffering.
I could go on and on. I have, already, up-thread. But I get the feeling I'll never make a dent.
Maybe the IRS needs a better PR department more than it needs anything else.
OK, that was a joke. The truth is that the IRS does lots of wonderful things for people but is prohibited by law from talking about them. We have Disclosure Officers whose entire job is making sure nobody talks about anything they're not supposed to. We're simply not allowed to adequately defend ourselves when we're attacked in the press; it's illegal to do so.
Ultimately, then, it's the IRS that's screwed when it comes to public perception and there's nothing they can do about it.
No wonder morale is non-existent. As proud as I am of my service to my country, I'm actually glad I've retired.
I hear morale in the Stasi was pretty low immediately after the wall came down and revelations about exactly how pervasive their surveillance had been began leaking out too..
The only incentive I can think of to simplify the tax system is to require all elected officials to personally fill out their own tax returns - no paid preparers allowed, no advice allowed.
I actually think this should be required across all government agencies. We might see a different attitude towards the structure of the government if members of congress had to wait in line at the post office, the passport office or the immigration checkpoints.
The IRS is filled with humans as employees. The government has created a tax system that is overly complex which makes it easy to find simple errors in any complex return. Combine the potential for abuse with the scale of the system and it doesn't become too hard to find a large number of people who have had negative experiences.
You'll never reach 100% honesty on either side of the equation and in a system as large as ours it doesn't take a large percentage to correspond to a large number of individuals.
We can all suffer together under the Patriot Act!
This is really heart wrenching, but not so much as it is, as what it over all has done to US economy...
The cynic in me would say that they're inefficient. More powerful enemies would make sure that you're more efficiently reducing the number of unemployed people because the slots they fill get vacant quicker again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wait... you mean you didn't set that up on purpose?
This doesn't bode well for any sense of social psychology they might have.
For example, here's a good discussion of some the adverse effects surveillance has on society: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.br/2013/12/why-privacy-power-of-mind-over-mind.html?m=1
No, it doesn't. The justice system does not operate on guilt by association, and thank God for that. To be complicit, you need to be a party to the crime, either through action (e.g. active participant) or inaction (e.g. saying nothing when you had knowledge of the crime).
But, in this case, many of them gained an awareness of the crimes at the same time that the public did. So in what sense could they be considered complicit? And if these crimes really are the actions of the few, as opposed to the many, and the mission of the agency truly is a valid one with the majority of the people there pursuing it as it was intended, then why should they be expected to quit a well-paying job that's doing work that needs to be done just because you want to lump them in with the people responsible for trampling the Constitution?
The fact is, we could probably go down the list of Fortune 500 companies and find utterly atrocious things that nearly each and every one of them have done at some point or are doing right now, yet we don't hold each and every one of their employees accountable for the actions of the few who were directly involved with those crimes. Unless we're talking about something like a criminal organization (e.g. the mafia), the way we deal with stuff like this is by firing, prosecuting, or otherwise dealing with the bad apples, while allowing the rest of the business to carry on as normal.
The only way I can see your statement about them being complicit making any sense is if you'd consider the NSA to be a criminal organization, that is, one whose entire purpose is illegal. If that's the case, then sure, you'd have reason for believing each of the employees was complicit, since they couldn't be a part of the organization without understanding what it was and its nature. But if their mission is a valid one, then there's no reason why the bad apples shouldn't be ousted while everyone else gets back to work on the stuff they're supposed to be doing. Everyone here seems to be advocating for throwing the baby out with the (extremely filthy and loathsome) bathwater.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons...
They knew what was going on. My grad school was funded by the NSA. I never had clearance, but did visit Ft. Meade a few times ...
You understand the NSA programs, but you think posting as AC will protect you?
Snowden blew the whistle on stuff that he was aware of. I'm talking about the folks who DIDN'T know what was going on, whom we have every reason to believe make up the majority of employees at the agency. To repeat what I said in my last comment, I am by no means excusing the folks who had an awareness of this stuff and did nothing about it.
But, to put a little wrinkle on what I said, Snowden accumulated his evidence over an extended period of time, and then sat on it for quite awhile as he got everything lined up. Who's to say that others aren't doing the same? Or else waiting to see if he'll reveal the things they have knowledge of and thus spare them from having to make the same personal sacrifices he's made? In the latter example, I'm not excusing those people for their inaction, but I do offer that line of reasoning as a rationalization for why they haven't taken action and reported their knowledge of criminal activity.
You should submit this for publishing in the biggest newspapers. Rupert Murdoch should approve!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You're anynomous and the NSA isn't monitoring this, right?
Let's suppose you are a reasonably intelligent and resourceful individual.
How much are you making as an NSA contractor and how much would be enough to keep your family from "starving"? (Before Snowden's revelations, contractors were openly boasting about their awesome pay packages, fwiw)
And the fear of the Agency coming after you if you were to leave? For real?
Yeah it's all too damn inconvenient so why rock the boat? After all, you're just a cog in the machine and "just following orders". All of you.
All the rationalizing and self-justifying notwithstanding, you must realize that there are reasons why your employers are somewhat less than well-liked by people in your own country, not to mention by the billions of "targets" living outside your borders?
Basically every institutionalized injustice in the history of mankind has *depended* on men like yourself to remain quiet and do nothing except complete the tasks assigned to them. Some just file papers while others have more hands-on tasks to undertake. And how is all of this funded? Well the machine also controls the taxes of course.
And here you are, the land of the free, the land of opportunity, fearful of your own government agency whom you work for and fearful of starving if you were to leave that current secure and comfortable position you've landed yourself in.
In China. In Russia. In North Korea. Under all the other control-obsessed regimes embracing the possibilities of this new era of limitless surveillance of subjects and now in the USA as well, the machine depends on a convenient status quo.
But why bother with the fears and vain rationalizing at all? Just wrap it all under the banner of heroic patriotism and all is truly well. For you and your family at least.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
This is a real problem.
So tell Congress to order the IRS to not work that way. Right now, they're obviously not obligated to explain their decisions, but that's entirely changeable.
Doesn't mean that you will get out of paying your taxes though, and challenging a decision can in some cases make your tax situation worse overall, and that's with the IRS just enforcing the laws and regulations exactly as written. (Really. See an expert if you've got any real complexity. I know of a case where someone who insisted on getting a tax break of a quarter million ended up getting an extra tax bill of three quarters of a million because of it. Absolutely classic piece of causing trouble for oneself.)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
"Maybe the IRS needs a better PR department more than it needs anything else."
That's you, and you just did a better job of it.
(I've had only a few dealings directly with IRS; in the two doozies, someone there was able to slice through the crap, provide clear answers, and resolve the situations - in one I paid, in the other the Treasury did, no hard feelings. I do feel fortunate in that I know a few people who've had greater difficulties in getting things made right. (My own experience in dealing with almost every issue with almost any company or agency is that half the solution is to be found in finding the correct person to speak with.))
There are hearings and there are hearings. Congress doesn't necessarily call hearings to get to the bottom of something (Daryl Issa's shows are cases in point).
I recently saw a hearing where the committee was grilling the head of EPA. The nasty side was the Republicans this time. The Democrats only lobbed softballs. Then they go to the Emeritus Chairman from Texas who was old when the dinosaurs were young. His line of questioning went:
Dino: "Did you stop beating your husband yet, yes or no?"
EPA Woman: "Congressman is isn't a simple yes or nor question...." (Ellipses are where the CongressDino interrupted her answer)
Dino: "Just answer the question, yes or no?"
EPA Woman: "Congressman, in all due respect, the research shows that..."
Dino: (now in apoplectic rage) "YES OR NO???"
EPA Woman: "Congressman, if you would turn to the research paper you asked us for..."
Dino: (now swinging from the rafters for the voters back home) "LET THE RECORD SHOW SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!!"
Honestly, if it had been me in the EPA administrator's position:
Dino: "Did you stop beating your wife yet, yes or no?"
EPA Me: "Are you really that stupid?"
Dino: "Just answer the question, yes or no?"
EPA Me: "Congressman, you are too stupid to understand a reasonable reply."
Dino: (now in apoplectic rage) "YES OR NO???"
EPA Me: "Congressman, respectfully, blow it out your Dinosaur Ass."
Dino: (now swinging from the rafters for the voters back home) "LET THE RECORD SHOW HE REFUSES TO ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!!"
And I'd get nailed for contempt of Congress, a charge I'd agree with.
*teary-eyed* Leave the NSA alone!!! What did they ever do to you?!
Then maybe in future, more of them will do the right thing and say 'no, we should not do this!'
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
this:
"feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it's been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions"
means
White House doesn't support it, but the public supports it
this:
Literally, neighbors are asking people, 'Why are you spying on Grandma?'"
means
the public doesn't support it
So, it looks like, NO ONE supports the NSA, except some power hungry rogue elements.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I'm not sure why everyone is so upset with the NRA. After all, they only started doing this after we clamored for them to. We had people in the streets calling other Americans traitors for opposing the "Patriot Act" We DEMANDED that they spy on us, and now we are mad at them for doing so. Perhaps that is part of the reason why their morale is low.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Tax loopholes are there there deliberately, to benefit specific classes of tax dodgers. It's the kind of system one gets when you let lawyers write the laws in such a manner that only they can makes sense of them or how to take advantage of them.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They should feel like pricks.
'The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it's been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,'
Well, golly! Maybe the agency should have looked a little harder at what they were slipping through the "public approval" process. I'm pretty sure *I* didn't vote for the PATRIOT act (which should have expired long ago...camel nose in the tent, though). But in some warped way, I'm sure the NSA feels wronged. Perhaps they need to stop and look carefully at how what they are doing is perceived by the average US citizen, and how that perception came about.
Fat chance of that ever happening...
If you don't like the working conditions, then change jobs like the rest of us have to. Why would a visit from Obama change anything (pretty strange reason for improved job satisfaction anyway)? As an NSA employee, you should already know how the US feels about the concerns of it's military branches. Staying in a job you dislike does not make you like it more.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Three resignations so far aren't enough for you to suspect something is up?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Your personal account of being on the receiving end of hatred for the IRS does not necessarily legitimize the IRS
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
This is extremely simple - abolish the IRS entirely, remove income taxes, and go with a GAT. Done. Happy?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
it does not take an army or navy to make citizens 'clam up'.
but having inside info on them sure does!
which is the more powerful tool in order to fight your own people: bullets or words?
I'll let you think about that for a bit...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Ratchet it up.
Out them, shun them, ostracize them, publicly insult them, treat them like scum.
Everybody who's even suspected of being a TLA employee or contractor should get nothing but a cold shoulder and a middle finger.
Zero sympathy. Sorry. You picked spying on your countrymen as a job. We all have known what's going on. Now, it's time to live with the consequences.
Sucks, don't it?
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Oddly enough, we agree about some of the big issues. I'd love to see the tax system move fundamentally away from income towards transactions.
Unfortunately, there's not much point in discussing it with you.
To wit:
It's been a long time since I was in school on a debate team but I've never forgotten that whoever defines the terms usually wins. You define the job that IRS does and the statutes it enforces as evil. Period.
If, for the sake of this discussion, we accept that definition, then it is of course true that everything the agency does is evil, I've done evil, and every interaction I've had with taxpayers has resulted in me taking action the founders would reject.
To work oneself into a murderous frenzy and live with the consequences of your own hate, it's necessary to convince yourself that the other guy is evil. Where the IRS is concerned, you've accomplished that. Nothing I can say will change your mind.
Good luck in your efforts to revise our tax laws. I agree with much of your goals and, less fervently (obviously) with much of your way of thinking. It would not, however, be productive to continue a conversation with someone who simply dismisses everything I say because they believe I'm evil.
No nuance. Just, in your words and typography, "PURE EVIL". That's not something to which a cogent response is possible.
I wish the lot of them resign and find something productive to do.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
In addition the Founders were distinctly against a privately held central bank such as the Federal Reserve which was also approved in 1913.
Not quite. This was a central tenet of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. However, that was only one of two parties at the time, and the other (the Federalists and the Whigs after them), also populated by "founders", not only were for a big central bank, but felt it was essential to promote growth in the new nation.
You really need to quit fetishizing "the founders". They were flawed human beings who disagreed with each other over nearly everything. The effort required to keep looking at them as divinely inspired demigods is going to give you an aneurism one day.
The NSA is likely doing the best job it can with the resources at its disposal. Intelligence gathering aimed at our adversaries, competitors, allies and terrorists likely makes the world safer by allowing the president and key decision makers to make more informed decisions.
That said, the NSA has been used to cross too many constitutional lines. You can't have such massive unbridled spying on our own citizens without undermining a democratic form of government and a free society. We are losing our Freedom under these policies.
It just needs to stop, so the NSA and all of our government can again focus on protecting our rights, freedoms and lives instead of undermining them. Then we can all be proud of the work we do as a nation and as a free people.
So tell Congress to order the IRS to not work that way. Right now, they're obviously not obligated to explain their decisions, but that's entirely changeable.
Is that supposed to make me like the IRS?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I was confused by your post until you said "lower income areas".
Tax prep services in lower income areas are often hives of scum and villiany, preparing thousands of returns falsely claiming refundable credits. Fraud is rampant in that business.
While I feel pretty sure your details are exaggerated for color, those places do get raided. I've been fortunate enough to be on a couple of those raids.
The worst part of the way those guys work is that their fraud ultimately falls on their customers who must pay back the refunded credits (that were usually stolen by the tax preparer, anyway) along with massive penalties.
The highest-percentage-likely explanation for the situation you've outlined is the only thing that brings out the IRS in that kind of force to that kind of business. If that's the really the case, that mom and pop and daughter tax service deserve whatever happens to them.
While contemplating the Glory of God, it does make you wonder if any of anti-surveillance messages we sprinkle with little phrases, get their attention like ricin grains in letters to Obama?
Do these messages produce little red flags that make someone have to read them? Does the volume of hatred for their intrusion not blow up like semtex packages at the sears tower? Does it not infect them like a small pox release in the New York subway system?
Does it ever make them think? Why do I spy on grandma?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Well that's what you get for supporting an engine of theft, i.e. taking people's money without them necessarily wanting to give it to you, with the threat of violence and jail time if they don't comply. As to whether this theft is ultimately beneficial for the country as a whole, that is another discussion.
"Post 1913 we can clearly see what happens in a democracy with the effective restraint on spending removed."
You become the richest most powerful country in the history of the world? Seriously, I can't imagine the US economy being even remotely as diverse and large as it is without 100 years of massive government spending on everything from a national road network to the development of computers.
Is that now I have to take all of the not-obviously-batshit conspiracy theories seriously.
Because I can, that's why!
By the way, should I tell your better half that you have another on the side and that those "calls from work" are you setting up your next rendezvous?
No? Then kindly shut up and go back to Obama bashing.
- NSA employee
NSA: Spying on Grandmas since 2001
Freedom isn't free. It costs lives and money. For a country to succeed it must be tolerant of new ideas, thus America has embraced both capitalistic and socialist methodologies and leveraged them to their benefit. When Americans consider the costs of the NSA relative to the lives they supposedly save, it is hard to agree to continue the program considering the threat. Falling down in the bathtub is a far greater threat than the "Terrorist Threat". More lives can be saved by giving away bathtub traction mats than by sponsoring a nation wide spying initiative. As a capitalist I would have to be a fool to spend so much taxes and give up so much privacy for such a little benefit.
Security researchers have a name for things like the NSA: Single Point of Failure. If a contract employee like Snowden can get such data, then state sponsored enemy spies have likely infiltrated too. Thus, the NSA is actually a threat to national security -- They are helping our enemies far more than they help us. The NSA is now deserved of the term used for other invasive, expensive and yet ineffective "protection" schemes: Security Theater. See also: DHS.
Terrorists are a pathetic threat; It takes more bravery to bathe than to stand in solidarity against such attackers as the Boston Marathon Bombers -- An event whereby the NSA failed our nation and proved how worthless they are. Should we outlaw pressure cookers? No: Six times more people die every year from the Flu than a 9/11 scale attack. Every year Cars and Cheesburgers kill Four Hundred times more people than a 9/11 scale attack. Yet, if anyone tried to take away our freedom to drive fast cars or cook and eat fast food we will fight them off, not embrace the "protections"! On 9/11 the terrorists were reminded by the honorable passengers of Flight 93: Attack Americans and Americans fight back. The NSA would do well to remember this: We do not need or want their expensive and invasive erosion of privacy in the name of protection.
To the NSA agents who read statements such as mine as a part of their jobs, and decide whether they will use our porn preferences to discredit the "radicals" who speak out against you: It's no wonder your morale is so low. Your official stance is to lie to Congress. No one can now believe anything you say. No evidence you have ever collected can now be trusted. Your secrecy has become dishonesty and made your job worthless and without honor. How can you even look at yourself in the mirror? Don't like the low morale? Quit your un-American and unconstitutional job. Spineless treasonous traitors deserve far worse than just having low morale.
Sadly, this isn't just a story about the IRS.
This is a story about pretty much any organization that has too little oversight and accountability.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
it's just that the people in whom you won't make a dent are the ones that responded to you with their tales of woe and anger. You'll find that deep down, they're just angry, and want validation for the way they've been treated in the world. However, you did make a dent, because you got modded up in many of your comments and rebuttals. You did make a difference. May not seem like it, but you did.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
You can't just blame the NSA for the fucked up reputation.
Government, Guantanamo Bay, Wall street, big corporations, Sopa, Pipa, TPP......
Privacy is terrorism.
I've never had an issue with the IRS but I did deal with a State tax office. I wasn't living in the state anymore but was still considered a resident. During one of those years there was a special income tax levy for just that year. The tax paper work that I got didn't say anything about it and so I didn't know about it or pay it. So a couple years later I started getting notices that I owed back taxes. It took two years of back and forth to get it sorted out. They could't or wouldn't tell me what my mistake was or how much it amounted to. Eventually they sent me a bill with explanatory letter showing that I had underpaid because of that levy and that they were now charging me that plus 100% for the labor of writing the letter. I happily paid it just to get it over with, it amounted to under $500 all told.
"Serial rapist upset at having his identity revealed, and activities detailed in the press; dejected that the President won't come and visit him and tell him he's doing a great job."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No. I can't hate an entire agency that has at least some legitimate purpose.
I'll save my vitriol (hate is something I don't have time for) for the individuals who have made decisions and given orders to pervert the function of that agency. I think by now it's clear there are a few high-ranking people at the NSA who have violated their oaths and deserve jail time. Cut out that cancer (send them to jail) and the body of the agency will heal itself.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about the IRS. There have been a few (very few) folks who have done some very bad things at that agency. They should be in jail.
The IRS does police its own with some vigor. I've seen people walked out in handcuffs on more than one occasion. However, these were mostly low-level types who got caught for things like selling personal information to private investigators. The executives who make truly stupid, evil decisions always seem to skate. There aren't nearly as many of those executives at the IRS as many people seem to believe...but one is still too many and I hate seeing them drop in, do their damage, then go to work as a lobbyist. It's happened a few times I can remember.
I wouldn't doubt the fear of reprissals, nor their reality. I've known people who had previous employers put holds on their clearance by saying they were investigating something or other. They old employer didn't have to provide any details about what they were investigating, but simply saying they were doing that can invalidate a security clearance until it is cleared up. And once you don't have a clearance anymore or it's suspended you are up shit creek without a paddle if you don't have an employer pushing for your clearance to be resolved it likely won't ever happen.
I would imagine the terror watch lists are even more fun because there is no process for getting your name removed or the reasons for it's addition to the list officially investigated.
So if any of that happened you could kiss working in most any government industry goodbye. And that is a lot of potential jobs to rule out. On top of all that if you lived near DC you will very likely have to relocate. That doesn't excuse sacrificing your morals but it is bound to be part of the equation.
By that definition, all taxes are theft. None can be collected, period, without violating basic human rights.
I find that position sufficiently extreme that I reject it outright. Governments must be able to collect some taxes.
We can all agree that the current system could be improved but to simply wave your hands and pronounce all taxes to be theft is not, by any stretch, a workable position. Are you really arguing that anarchy, the inevitable result of all government being denied the ability to collect any taxes until that government ceases to exist, is a viable social system?
Or are you saying that you'd be OK with a little theft, just enough to support the basic functions of government, thus allowing your to maintain your righteous hate of all evil government entities while still enjoying basic government services like a common defense and a court system? If that's your position, you must work up quite a sweat with all those moral and ethical contortions you've been practicing.
Yep.
Yep.
Don't trust me. Ask your CPA. It's a common phenomena that people will become emotionally invested in a business to the point that they simply can't shut it down.
Any CPA can tell you stories of clients who have one successful business and one unsuccessful business. The unsuccessful one, inevitably, is built around some passion the owner has. Time after time after time, I've seen (and all CPAs with a few years of experience have seen) people in that position sell the successful business so they can spend all their time working on the business that has captured their heart, even when any disinterested observer can easily tell that the remaining business is *never* going to work.
I've put a few people out of business. None of them was particularly angry at me. I'd say about half thanked me. Their businesses were dead already but they just couldn't bring themselves to shut it down and move on with their lives. I made that decision for them and, as is the case the overwhelming majority of the time when the IRS shuts down a business, what those taxpayers felt more than anything else was simple relief.
You really don't know much about how businesses fail and how that impacts taxes, do you?
No, the IRS cannot collect taxes from businesses that are not profitable. Obviously.
However, when a business is in such bad shape that they aren't paying their 941 taxes, every day they remain in business means the debt to the IRS grows. The IRS shuts down businesses to stop the accrual of even more debt.
As perverse as it sounds, when the IRS shuts down a business it is actually saving that business money in that the IRS prevents the business from continuing to rack up delinquent taxes. When you talk to your CPA about people who sell good businesses to work on lousy (family or other emotionally-impactful) businesses, ask them to explain it to you. It's generally referred to as a "seizure to prevent pyramiding."
Some people do. That's why the IRS conducts small business seminars. That's why Revenue Officers will work with businesses that owe taxes to help them make some hard decisions and return to profitability so they can start paying their taxes timely, again.
You'd be surprised how many people that own a business know their business but don't know anything about business. For those people, a visit from the right IRS Revenue Officer can be a godsend. Uncomfortable, but ultimately a godsend.
I specifically addressed criminal organizations later on in my comment.
Yet. Don't give them ideas!
Guns and Ammunition Tax?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Heh, that's easy:
1. What was your gross income last year?
2. Multiply that number by x.
3. Send money.
The problem is that politicians like to have all sorts of levers to pull. Thousands and thousands of pages worth of levers.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I do agree with what you're saying, but there's a big difference between an organization such as the Nazi party, which was engaged in widespread acts of evil at all levels of the organization and over an extended period of time, and the NSA, which has clearly overstepped its bounds, yet still has a valid mission and a majority of people working there who are pursuing that valid mission using legitimate means.
Put differently, there's a big difference between an organization that has a wholly corrupt nature and one that is significantly off-base in a few areas, but is in general doing work that is good and necessary.
Fair enough. I don't disagree.
I'm retired and could use some extra income. What's involved in this $hill business and how much does it pay?
The NSA is one part. Guantanamo is another. The scale is smaller, but the acts are similar. The USA is torturing people and imprisoning them until they die. This is evil. The stated goal of the NSA's spying programs is to catch "terrorists" who are then sent to Guantanamo or other holding camps. To do this they violate the constitution of the US, then very thing they're supposed to be protecting.
A firefighter who goes on an axe-murder spree shouldn't be allowed to stay out of jail because most of the time he's not using the axe to kill people.
Not a sentence!
As to your comment about nothing changing in the last 15 years, do you mean terrorists trying to attack the US?
No, of course not - that sort of attack* is not preventable. No amount of infringement on freedoms can stop that. The FBI was informed that there were Saudi men taking flying lessons ($$$) who were completely unconcerned about landing or take-off, and the issue was buried within the FBI. The amount of intelligence is not the issue, it's the Feds' general incompetence that is (and always will be).
In fact, information theorists strongly warn that all of this extra "intelligence" makes things worse because it raises the noise floor significantly.
The NSA didn't stop the Boston bombings, and in Congressional testimony the NSA chief would admit that there were fewer than four potential events over a decade upon which all of their programs had any involvement in detecting, and in none of which was the NSA's intel required.
* asymmetrical, not 'airplanes as missiles' which hasn't been a viable strategy since 2004 when the last cockpit doors became hardened - the TSA is behavioral conditioning, not security.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I know this isn't a popular belief, but I actually am willing to buy into the idea that most of them had no idea this sort of stuff was going on. You gotta figure that with it being a compartmentalized intelligence agency, the right hand may not know what the left is doing in many cases, particularly for the rank-and-file employees. And by all indications, most of the things we're hearing about really were the result of initiatives being pushed through by top people who had a couple of small teams of developers willing to do their dirty work.
Isn't compartmentalization a big part of any terrorist organization structure? They want to keep the different parts unaware of what the other parts are doing. So it sounds like the NSA is just another terrorist organization that needs to be taken out with remote drones. In this case we have the proof that they are illegal and unconstitutional so I have no problems with drones or just armies of upset citizens storming their compound and taking them all out execution style. We need to take back our government from the illegal terrorists that have stolen it from us!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Isn't compartmentalization a big part of any terrorist organization structure? [...] So it sounds like the NSA is just another terrorist organization [...]
Terrorists breathe too. *gasp* You must be a terrorist! And me too, since I just gasped! </sarcasm>
Repeat after me: correlation does not equal causation. Just because terrorists compartmentalize does not mean that everyone who does it is a terrorist organization. "$bad_thing does $something, so everyone that does $something must be bad too!" is an example of a logical fallacy.
Once again, just because a part of it may be bad does not mean that the whole thing is. Cull the bad, leave the good, and let the good guys get back to work.
If you're going to extend things out that far, then you're implicating everyone in government, essentially. After all, Congress cut off funds that would have been used to transfer or release prisoners, the judiciary slapped down executive orders Obama issued that would have helped address the situation, and Obama later reversed course and signed executive orders keeping the place open indefinitely. The way to fix the problem is by removing the responsible parties so that the remaining folks can clean things up and get them back on track, since both the government and the NSA serve valuable purposes that need to be fulfilled. Occasionally they get off track, sometimes far off track, and when that happens we need to assist them in cleaning out the bad apples, but we generally don't fix things by expecting everyone working in an organization or the government to quit, except in cases where something like a revolution is necessary.
During the first year of employment, yes. By then, management dumps the hiring mistakes. Yes, some people develop problems later, unfortunately.
Yes to both. Why on earth would you think the two questions are in opposition? Firing a civil service employee simply requires telling them what they're doing wrong, giving them a chance to fix it, and then firing them.
Most bosses are too busy dealing with underfunded programs to take time to fire people since the process is required to be fair and fairness takes time. However, it was *common* for underperforming employees to be moved to less-demanding jobs.
The federal government is not a for-profit business, so no. However, I spent a great deal of time as a Revenue Officer. We used to joke that if we were compensated based on our profitability to the government the same way people are compensated in private industry, we'd all have 1000-square-foot offices, 3 assistants, and 7-figure incomes.
Me? 100% of the time. I got sent to speak to conferences and teach seminars specifically because the degree to which I loved my job was both obvious and infectious. (Well, I'd say that was true for all but a half-dozen years of my career. There are bad times in all jobs.)
I got customer service kudos more numerous than I can remember, from every customer I served. Hell, when I first started as a low-level paper-processing clerk, I got a plaque from a group of Revenue Agents just because I actually paid attention to making them feel welcome as I processed a few boxes of paper that they needed expedited. (It was a big-dollar case and they were running up against statutory deadlines.)
I once lived in a hotel, training new people, for 7 months. An exec with the hotel tried to recruit me. He said my aptitude for customer service was "off the charts".
OK, I think on this question I'm a bit of an exception. I take your point.
Lemme throw you a bone: I have observed shit that drives me crazy. My pet peeve: If you're on break and can't serve the customers, get the hell out of their sight!
No and no.
Actually, yes. There are political animals out there who translate their irrational hatred of all federal employees into various actions, including proposals to screw over our pensions. Some of those political animals are in Congress. Some troll message boards.
We all make those decisions based on our own hierarchy of needs. I signed on knowing I'd get 3 decades of substandard pay in exchange for reasonable work rules and benefits.
If you prefer to work in a crappier environment under pressures that have an outsized impact on your happiness while being paid more - that's your choice.
Almost no one has a "sweet gig." I worked for a living. So do you. We may be different but we're more similar than you might think.
This is another example of Obama throwing anyone or group "under the bus" who is politically embarrassing to him, even though they are following his directives. It's no wonder this administration is the LEAST transparent of any administration in memory. They don't want anyone to know they are clueless about the directives they issue. Americans are not ignorant. Unfortunately, in electing this administration, the Public has shown themselves to be extremely gullible.
I look forward to shaking hands with Matthew the Apostle when I get there.
By that definition, all taxes are theft. None can be collected, period, without violating basic human rights.
Correct.
I find that position sufficiently extreme that I reject it outright. Governments must be able to collect some taxes.
But why?
We can all agree that the current system could be improved but to simply wave your hands and pronounce all taxes to be theft is not, by any stretch, a workable position. Are you really arguing that anarchy, the inevitable result of all government being denied the ability to collect any taxes until that government ceases to exist, is a viable social system?
I'll admit I don't have all the answers. All I'm pointing out is that taxation is indeed theft, and by arguing that taxation is OK because it's required for the government to survive which then has X benefits, you are essentially arguing that theft is OK if it's done in a well-organized-enough manner and the people robbing you give you at least some of the money back in whatever form.
Or are you saying that you'd be OK with a little theft, just enough to support the basic functions of government, thus allowing your to maintain your righteous hate of all evil government entities while still enjoying basic government services like a common defense and a court system? If that's your position, you must work up quite a sweat with all those moral and ethical contortions you've been practicing.
I'm not OK with a little theft either. I'm just at the unsatisfactory point wherein I know the current system sucks and is fundamentally flawed but I don't have any better solutions.
Oh and hi NSA & the IRS, yes I do pay my taxes!
Gawd... I'm responding to an AC troll...
Good thing your wife was able to deduct the cost for the licensed tax counselor that you hired to answer this question from your German taxes. Oh wait... you actually didn't seek qualified advice and instead relied on the recommendations (or leack thereof) of some one-size-fits-all software.
No, not really. I was merely keeping the story simple. We went to tax people in America who couldn't figure out our taxes properly before our move. I'm not super happy with the one we're using in Germany either. Oh... and on both sides of the pond, they use either H and R Block or Turbo Tax. We tried bigger tax corporations too. They wanted a really complicated set up for my wife's business of one person. WTF? She didn't make that much money so we could afford all the complications of they things they were suggestion.
For a business of one person (only her), we shouldn't need qualified advice. No, the problem is with the IRS and the laws that Congress made. Period. End of story.
power corrupts people and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
politicians should volunteer themselves to 24x7 surveillance.
Casteism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Casteism
The deficit would be fact #1 - definitely a resource shortfall there.
A federal deficit is when the federal government issues financial liabilities (such as dollars or bonds) in excess of those extinguished by taxes.
On the other hand, a resource shortfall occurs when there are insufficient real resources (such as food, minerals or labor) given the needs of the people who make up a society.
You have misunderstood the proposition. The fiscal stance of the central government does not imply anything at all with regards to real resources. The fact is that in the US we are currently under-utilizing available real resources (including physical and human capital). For example, we are not suffering from shortfalls in concrete, food or unemployed workers, and there are plenty of outstanding needs (such as infrastructure repair) which could be satisfied by those resources. If we faced real resource constraints, the deficit would lead to price inflation. Inflation is currently low, despite the deficit, in part because of this output gap.
.: Semper Absurda
Fair enough.
If you believe that all taxes are theft and you're not OK with any of that theft, then you must also believe that government is not necessary. After all, if it's not paid for, it won't exist.
There are folks with similar beliefs. Google for them and you'll find people who argue for radically small-scale human social groups that govern by consensus without formal mechanisms.
I think you'll find the record of success of such groups is pretty abysmal but you're clearly not alone in your feelings. There are people who have been there and done that.
Read up on them. You may find common ground with people who will become lifelong friends. Or you may be a bit disillusioned. Or maybe a bit of both. Whatever the outcome, don't just sit still in a state of "I don't have any better solutions"; that's not satisfying at all.
What bullshit. The IRS investigated all those fake nonprofits because there was a sudden crush of them and they didn't appear to be legitimate. And the investigators were right: many of them were straight-up electoral or lobbying organizations that don't qualify for tax-exempt status.
The right-wingers are screaming, yet again, because they got caught. It's not discrimination when you're the only ones trying to cheat.
If you believe that all taxes are theft [...]
It's not a belief, but rather, a fact. You haven't addressed the issue of why you don't consider taxation to be theft. In what manner is it fundamentally different from theft?
1) It is involuntary - if you don't pay it, then there are consequences, such as people taking your stuff away or imprisoning you. Even if there is a vote, direct or representative, on whether to enact a tax, it's still not voluntary, because if the vote passes you still have to pay it, even if you voted against.
2) It's not in exchange for services. If you don't use the services that taxation pays for, you still have to pay the taxes. This ties into #1.
I could go on but I'd rather address your specific arguments than try to guess at what they are.
[...] and you're not OK with any of that theft, then you must also believe that government is not necessary. After all, if it's not paid for, it won't exist.
This is really another issue. You wondered why the IRS was so vilified, and I pointed out that it's because it supports theft, so you can't expect people to like you no matter how nice you are about it.
There are folks with similar beliefs. Google for them and you'll find people who argue for radically small-scale human social groups that govern by consensus without formal mechanisms.
I think you'll find the record of success of such groups is pretty abysmal but you're clearly not alone in your feelings. There are people who have been there and done that.
None of that changes the fact that taxation is theft. Besides which, your comments are very intellectually lazy and incredibly vague.
Read up on them. You may find common ground with people who will become lifelong friends. Or you may be a bit disillusioned. Or maybe a bit of both. Whatever the outcome, don't just sit still in a state of "I don't have any better solutions"; that's not satisfying at all.
It's quite satisfying for me to know that I don't have all the answers. It's also satisfying for me to know that I won't have all the answers just by reading and discussing various belief systems with some folks. The most likely outcome of that is I won't have all the answers, but then I'll believe that I do, and thus perpetuate all sorts of nonsense like a tool. Besides which, I know that it's impossible to convince anybody by talking to them - the other has to be willing to listen and change their mind, and then it's them that changes their mind based on what I say, not me changing their mind. Further, I don't want to go into politics. So in conclusion, I don't see the point of spending too much effort on this.
My overarching theory though is that humanity's problems won't be solved by any system in particular, because humanity's problems lie deeper than that. It's in our animal nature, our instincts for fear, aggression, violence, domination, love, compassion, etc., that drive us to hurt each other and ourselves in all sorts of ways. Solving the latter issue (which can definitely not be done by any violent or coercive means) would then naturally lead into a system which works well given nobody is driven by some force to hurt each other or themselves. But the system in particular doesn't matter.
Until then, all I can do is point out various inconsistencies - like simultaneously having laws proscribing robbery and laws enforcing taxation - so that open-minded, reasonable people might be inspired to straighten out how their internal reasoning works.
Since you ask nicely, I suppose an answer is only polite.
I believe taxes are fundamentally different from theft because people, as a whole, are social animals who have rules about how to get along. Some call it a social contract, some call it common courtesy; the language is unimportant. The point is, we live in close proximity and get along with each other.
In order to do that without everyone just living on their own plot of land and being totally self-sufficient (which has never been the way tribes of any size existed), we divide labor and exchange our labor and goods with each other. This doesn't require a lot of complex rules but it does require a few.
Inevitably, there will be disputes about what's right and wrong. There will be times when some recognized authority must mediate. In a small tribe that might be the elders.
Also inevitably, because people are not just social but also occasionally covetous and violent, there will be times when groups come together and engage in the wholesale rejection of societal norms. They decide to live by violence, the threat of it, and plunder instead of societal norms. That recognized authority will then be called upon to marshall the collective resources of the group to restore order.
Now, scale that up to over 300 million people. Local tribal elders cannot handle, on a purely voluntary basis, the volume of problems that will arise. Some sort of organized group of folks will need to spend all their time working on, at minimum, the most basic tasks of staffing a justice system and providing for the common defense.
Those administrators are called "government". Courts and some sort of minimal military are administered by that government.
In short, we need a government. For one to exist, it must be paid for.
No one appreciates the need of a government until they personally need it, yet it can't exist without general contributions from everyone. People won't give to it like a charity, so it levies taxes.
Thus, taxes really are voluntary. Most people prefer paying taxes to the alternative which is anarchy. Nobody likes paying them but they recognize the necessity.
Also, taxes really are paid in exchange for something of value. Think of it as insurance; you pay your taxes and what you get is a court system and a defensive collective that will serve the common good when the need arises.
Since taxes need to be a shared burden or they don't work right, some sort of enforcement mechanism for bringing them in is required. Yes, that implies force (of some sort) used on those outliers who don't want to help out.
I find none of this objectionable or equivalent to theft. I find it merely the natural price of living in close proximity to others.
Now, I would not strongly dispute that taxes go to wasteful, unnecessary things. I would not argue with someone who says that taxes above a certain level necessary to sustain a minimal government are theft. That is an argument merely about where to draw the line.
But I do not accept that those initial taxes that pay for the most basic administration of a society are theft. They are, instead, self-evidently necessary, a state that removes them from any reasonable definition of theft.
Indeed it is. I agree completely.
Unfortunately, I consider that our animal nature is a given that cannot be changed su
I would disagree - we do, in fact, face real inflationary pressures. Our currency's value goes up and down on the market. The market going up means nothing if the value of the dollar drops. The market is priced globally, only represented in dollars. The two are in a nice lock step. Once you remove the dollar's variance, you'll see the true market and inflationary picture.
Dealing with the fed gov issue - there would be inflation, but the unemployment level is so high and pay dropped so low, that inflationary pressures are kept at bay by instant drop in demand should prices rise. There has been an effective drop in real wages for decades, and at this point the bulk of the population can no longer accept increased prices. So your simplistic model does not account for enough variables to draw any meaningful conclusions.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
your simplistic model does not account for enough variables to draw any meaningful conclusions
There is no "model" in what I stated above - just facts. The fiscal deficit is the difference between government liabilities issued and extinguished in a given period. These liabilities are financial assets in the private sector. In other words, they are slips of paper with a government stamp and some notional value arising from factors such as the government's willingness to accept them in tax payments and their usefulness as a medium of exchange. In contrast, food, minerals and labor are real resources which have an intrinsic value in that we in fact require them to live (as well as to produce goods, develop military power, etc.). Financial instruments and real resources are fundamentally different entities.
I would disagree - we do, in fact, face real inflationary pressures
CPI has been low and stable for decades now. We still see significantly inflationary pressures in food, but energy prices are beginning a long downward trend due to recent exploitation advancements, and the hefty allotment of real resources which we took from the natives^W^W^W^W are lucky enough to possess. In manufactured products and services, there has been strong price deflation due to globalization and technological progress. The financial crisis also precipitated a major deflationary episode worldwide as commodity prices and employment collapsed. Neither the global or national economies have yet made up for what was lost, and remain depressed far below their former output and growth paths.
There has been an effective drop in real wages for decades
Yes - this is a strong deflationary pressure. Outright consumer price deflation has been rare in developed economies, which is explained by behavioral studies demonstrating that people (employers and employees) actually prefer layoffs to wage reduction. Thus we get persistent low inflation and unemployment rather than widespread deflation.
Meanwhile, people often "feel" that inflation is high, even though it isn't, because it is actually becoming harder for them to afford purchases. However, this should be blamed on wage suppression, and not inflation which as stated is both stable and low by any historical standard.
There are three major sources for deflationary pressures within the domestic US economy (also commonly called demand leakages). Namely, they are productivity growth, population growth and the trade deficit. The combined inflationary pressures of private credit and federal deficits are insufficient to produce either moderate inflation or reduced unemployment against them.
.: Semper Absurda
[...] people, as a whole, are social animals who have rules about how to get along. Some call it a social contract, some call it common courtesy; the language is unimportant. The point is, we live in close proximity and get along with each other.
In order to do that without everyone just living on their own plot of land and being totally self-sufficient (which has never been the way tribes of any size existed), we divide labor and exchange our labor and goods with each other. This doesn't require a lot of complex rules but it does require a few.
Inevitably, there will be disputes about what's right and wrong. There will be times when some recognized authority must mediate. In a small tribe that might be the elders.
Also inevitably, because people are not just social but also occasionally covetous and violent, there will be times when groups come together and engage in the wholesale rejection of societal norms. They decide to live by violence, the threat of it, and plunder instead of societal norms. That recognized authority will then be called upon to marshall the collective resources of the group to restore order.
Agreed so far. I think the only solution will be when people aren't covetous and violent, but the fact of the matter currently is that they are, and we have to do something about it. Pacifism doesn't work because then you just get bowled over by the first violent gang to come your way.
Now, scale that up to over 300 million people. Local tribal elders cannot handle, on a purely voluntary basis, the volume of problems that will arise. Some sort of organized group of folks will need to spend all their time working on, at minimum, the most basic tasks of staffing a justice system and providing for the common defense.
Those administrators are called "government". Courts and some sort of minimal military are administered by that government.
In short, we need a government. For one to exist, it must be paid for.
No one appreciates the need of a government until they personally need it, yet it can't exist without general contributions from everyone. People won't give to it like a charity, so it levies taxes.
Thus, taxes really are voluntary.
Em, no, you haven't shown they are voluntary. You said it can't exist without general contributions from everyone, so the government has to levy (aka forcibly collect) it from everyone. If I don't want to pay taxes, I can't do that without consequences. This means it is not voluntary, but compulsory. Your arguments about the necessity of compulsory taxation don't change the fact that it is compulsory.
Most people prefer paying taxes to the alternative which is anarchy. Nobody likes paying them but they recognize the necessity.
If they preferred paying taxes alternative to anarachy, then there would be no need to force people to pay taxes. For example, people prefer housing to not having housing. Yet there is no need for an entity to force people to pay for housing - people do it voluntarily. The fact that the government can't exist without compulsory taxation shows that people don't think it brings enough value to warrant the amount they are required to pay. And this is really obvious when you consider just how enormous and overblown and wasteful the government is.
Also, taxes really are paid in exchange for something of value. Think of it as insurance; you pay your taxes and what you get is a court system and a defensive collective that will serve the common good when the need arises.
That would be fine, except that I cannot forgo paying taxes in exchange for not taking advantage of the services. Even if I move to another country, where I definitely don't benefit from the majority of what the US government provides, I'm still required to pay taxes. This is whatI mean when I say that they aren't paid in exchange for something of value. They are paid, and then
Yes, dirt/mud roads, very limited services, privately owned infrastructure. Death, starvation and servitude. All the good stuff.
60K a year is extremely poor, compared to any private sector group that small who brought in that much money. It's ridiculously poor.
BTW - Thanks for the post. You prompted me to go back and look at the numbers so I could do a quick calculation to illustrate how poor their pay was. I actually went back over some of my emails from when I was employed to look at the project results.
In fact, what I stated was in error. Those people didn't bring in as much money as I thought.
When I actually ran the numbers, I found that spreading the project results equally over time and the number of participants, those folks actually netted the government just under $50M per year per person.
Despite that error, I stand by my original statement. If your job brings in almost $50 million dollars per year (that would NOT have come in if you weren't on the job) and you're paid $60K (plus benefits, so call it $100K) per year, you are ridiculously underpaid.
Pretty much all reasonably professional government jobs are underpaid but that particular example was one of the two worst I've ever seen.
As for sympathy, everything is relative. Anyone, no matter their earnings, should understand the basic injustice being done to an employee who brings the organization $50M a year and gets pay that low. If you pointed out a way to save your employer $50M/year, even though you're just a $9/hr employee, wouldn't you expect a hell of a bonus?
If you don't, then you're willing to accept a level of self-defeating greed from your employer that staggers the imagination.
Ever since late 2001, anything that falls under the Homeland Security umbrella (a LOT of stuff) might as well have an unlimited budget. Even now its hard for an expense to be denied under the guise of "national security". In 2004 you could get as much money as you wanted if you were a government contractor doing something that might fight "evildoers".