This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense.
If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes?
Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?
How does "Patriot" make you think of tax dodgers?
Also, if the IRS were looking for tax dodgers, they wouldn't have been asking for information like family member names and their political affiliation. This was not about taxes. This was about shutting down conservative groups until AFTER the election. This was a delaying tactic, not an audit. I should also add that NONE of the targeted groups, over 300 lost their tax exempt status.
Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members.... Zawistowski's group was among many conservative organizations that battled the IRS over what they saw as discriminatory treatment. The group first applied for nonprofit status in June 2009, and it was finally granted on Dec. 7, 2012, he said — one month after Election Day.
Most tea party members tend to lean libertarian, who are generally more socially liberal than Democrats.
Oh really? Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage or government provided social services, then go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh with them and see if they object to it. That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations. That's not saying that libertarians are evil, instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil would rise unopposed in the sort of society they are advocating.
I'm a libertarian and I can tell you that if the federal government does not have explicit permission from the Constitution to do something, than it is supposed to be unconstitutional for them to do so. At least that's what the 10th Amendment says. It also says that those powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. The 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, by the way.
So, in using your Bangladesh example, it would be up to the state and local governments to handle the regulation of the business listed in your example. If the building collapsed, then it's your governor's fault, not the president's. That's the beauty of how it's SUPPOSED to work. If your state has lax regulations and you don't feel safe at your job, you are free to move to a state that has stricter regulations. Same thing goes for health care, speed limits, education system... everything that the federal government is not given permission to regulate.
(Of course, there is some wiggle room with the Commerce Clause, but if a company exists entirely within a single state and does all their business in that same state, the feds have no Constitutional authority to regulate them until the Constitution is amended giving them that right.)
the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media
I have more than a few qualms about the MSM and what they do and don't cover. However this one isn't getting a pass. That story is from the Associated Press, which is not exactly samizdat. It's also in McClatchy papers, which if anything are known for leaning left.
What's today? You will notice that damaging stories are always released on Friday when they want something forgotten. The press gets a pass because they can claim to cover it, but it will be forgotten by Monday and we'll be back to the American Idol judges getting fired.
Sorry, but when the IRS starts asking for the names and political affiliations of family members and a list of donors, it starts to get a bit creepy.
Also the "TEA Party" is not really a party at all, at least not on the national level. Mitt Romney was the nominee for the Republican Party. Barack Obama was the nominee for the Democrat Party. Who was the nominee for the TEA Party? No one! Why, because it's not really a party. See, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. The rallies were called TEA Parties because it sounded cute and exemplified a tax revolt. The name stuck. But it's not an official political party and yes, they are legally tax exempt.
You seriously believe this was an innocent mistake? Tell me again why they were asking for the names and political affiliations of family members?
It's only in cleartext during installation, and only while the password field has focus. This is hardly something to get up in arms about, unless you regularly re-install your OS in front of a crowd.
Why not a choice? What's wrong with a button that says, "Unmask Password"?
And, sorry, but when developers decide what's best for me, that absolutely IS something to get up in arms about. Maybe I do install my OS in front of a crowd. Maybe I'm installing a real world system at a company that with a policy that says all systems must have the same password in front of people as part of a training course or at a cubicle next to someone who has not business knowing the password.
My point is, the people who make these decisions have no idea where I'm going to be installing these systems or what my circumstances may be. If shadowing the password is a bad thing, then give me a damn button and let ME make the choice. Choice is good, right?
All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true. Good Luck with that....
Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.
Actually, that "well regulated militia" part is proof that the Second Amendment was not to protect deer hunters, collectors or hobbyists. It was to protect the citizens from invaders and an abusive government. "Well regulated militia" is completely open to interpretation. My family can make up a "well regulated militia". Understand that at the time it was written, a "well regulated militia" meant farmers who could grab their gun and hit the streets to stand in a straight line and fire en masse. "Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"
As for the national guard, that can no longer qualify since it is under the control of the federal government. I know, it's not "officially" under the federal government, but I know a lot of guardsmen who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who would disagree.
Wow. No one I've ever met has said, "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." No one.
Actually, there are quite a few people who remain on unemployment and welfare because they can't find a job that will pay what they are making from the government. It's not that they are saying "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." They are saying, "I'd get a job, but I can't afford to!"
Isn't that wonderful 15% tax on capital gains great?
Based on the lowness of taxes for the wealthy, and trickle down economics, we've has the best economy since WWII.
Oh, wait.
Actually, the money that was invested initially was already taxed once. If you do the math, you'll find that the government would actually make MORE money if they taxed capital gains at the standard income tax rate, and allowed investors to deduct any investments.
Let's do the math:
If Joe makes $1000 extra he wants to invest, the government takes 35% off the top, or $350. Joe can only invest $650. Let's say his investment makes 10%, or $65 profit. The government takes 15% of that, or $9.75. The government gets a total of $359.75. Joe gets a total of $705.25
Now, let's say that the government DIDN'T tax Joe's $1000, allowing him to differ the tax. He is allowed to invest a full $1000. If he makes the same 10%, he makes $100. When he cashes out, the government taxes it all at the full 35%, or $385. So the government gets $385, which is more than $359.75, and Joe gets $715, which is more than $705.25.
Current: Government: $359.75 Joe: $705.25
If investment were deducted: Government: $385 Joe: $715
It's a win-win. Both Joe and the government would get MORE money. However, it will never happen because people like you would rather see Joe suffer, even if it means more suffering from you.
They are the Government. They can do it. If they are now allowed, they'll make a law. Period.
The Constitution trumps any laws created by the legislative branches of the federal and state governments as well as any executive orders by governors or the president. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, or it's supposed to be anyway.
Lots and lots of antiquated soviet equipment does not make an army strong. Quality is much more important than quantity in threat analysis.
The T-72 and Mig 29 were not "antiquated soviet equipment" in 1992. Hell, they are still considered quality hardware today. Sure, there were an awful lot of T-54's out there, but they popped just the same as the T-72s.
It was training that made the difference. Not equipment.
You also have a funny definition of "liberate". While Saddam was certainly no prize as a head of state, I certainly wouldn't want to be "liberated" back into the rule of an autocratic abusive monarchy.
I got my definition of "liberate" from speaking with Kuwaitis shortly after the war in, of all places, Kuwait! Walking through downtown Kuwait City with my BDU's on, I had a hard time making it from place to place and no one wanted to take my money. I would stop by a coffee shop and as the waiter was refusing to charge me, a couple of other guys in the shop demanded that they be the ones to pay for my coffee. One chased me down the street to give me my tip back. (I still don't know if I was supposed to tip).
So, yeah! The Kuwaitis I spoke with certainly felt liberated.
It is the only thing that protects them from the wrath of US army... ever wondered why the US only attack weak countries?
You do realize that when the US liberated Kuwait in the '90's, that Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world, don't you? This military was not only large, but battle hardened after fighting Iran for years. That kind of blows a whole in your whole " the US only attack weak countries" theory, doesn't it?
Yeah, we could trust corporations to do this so much better. Libertarians - cut out the middle man in our plutocracy.
Libertarians are about a smaller federal government and expanded states' rights. Under a Libertarian Utopia, it would be up to your state to limit the power of big business... or not. Either way, your voice gets louder and your vote counts for more the smaller the election gets. In other words, your vote counts more in smaller, local elections than it does in large federal ones.
You see a direct attack on the Fourth Amendment, and the best you can come up with is, "ha ha, it was your side that did it, not mine." Do you listen to yourself or are everyone's civil rights just another baseball game to you?
Maybe it's because when Bush was president and something like this is proposed, we heard repeatedly how evil Bush was. Now that Obama is president and this is a bill by a Democrat introduced into a Democrat led Senate, all we hear is that both parties are the same.
Maybe everyone should go back and look at the vote they cast a couple of weeks ago and wonder if they made the right decision. What's the old saying about power corrupting?
Or it could be we don't like breathing and drinking that crap. I suppose we could come around if the oil companies paid the medical bills, and for the clean up, instead of just passing the costs onto the consumers.
Then make them clean up their crap. No one is implying otherwise. But before you assume that all oil producers leave behind a mess, I suggest you drive from Detroit MI to Traverse City MI and look at all the oil wells pumping oil directly in the middle of a farmed field. The plants there seem to be doing just fine, btw.
Oh, and ALL costs are passed along to consumers. Overhead, taxes, EVERYTHING is eventually passed down to consumers.
When was the last time a retailer leaked hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of gallons of toxic liquid into an environment?
Go walk around the parking lot. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't monitor drilling sites. I'm saying that the very same people who bitch about some endangered fly being harmed by an oil rig don't seem to mind when something they like is built on the same spot.
Maybe they didn't like drilling because of the ecological damage drilling causes? If it were gravy they were drilling for, they'd still feel the same. Stop looking at things so simplistically. It's really not helping you look rational.
Strange that they don't seem to mind the "ecological damage" caused when a Whole Foods or Starbucks is erected, even though an oil well is less permanent and takes up less space.
When the partisan political aspect of an issue is already included in the original post.
Bettter to shut down discussions about AGW before they start! It's settled science!
Well, you could reply in kind and say, "There is no way in Hell that environmentalists or our current administration will allow us to become energy independent if it rained oil!" And, sadly, it's true. They will find some cost of extraction that is just too high to spend like they are trying to do with fracking now.
Fact is, liberals hate oil. They were fighting oil drilling long before global warming was ever considered an issue. So, we know it's not GW they are worried about. I think they don't like people making money or they think that we all live in cities where only the very weatlhy have their own cars (with drivers) and think everyone should have to take the subway.
The cellphone is less of the cost than the service.
Because they can sell the phone at just below "off contract" prices. Remember, the cost of cell phones if you purchase them outright is about 2-3x what it is if you buy them on contract. If you are on contract and lose your phone, the replacement is full price. Or, people can buy these phones and use them on non-contract networks that tend to be cheaper since they usually don't offer phone discounts.
Unless you are storing HD movies on your device, it really should be. Apps are relatively small and 16BG is five non-stop days of music at 320kbps MP3's without hearing the same song twice.
In Texas they throw a fit if you try to cut the budget for the football program or try to teach evolution.
Strange. I went to Texas schools for 13 years and learned evolution in science class. Although, my daughter goes to a Baptist private school in Texas. They teach evolution as well.
It's not like they are going to be putting an oil derrick up in the quad. Universities own land all over the place, not just the primary campus. Lots of land too! Consider university land to be public land that the public didn't have to pay for. These are like large parks, only they are not parks.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense.
If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes?
Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?
How does "Patriot" make you think of tax dodgers?
Also, if the IRS were looking for tax dodgers, they wouldn't have been asking for information like family member names and their political affiliation. This was not about taxes. This was about shutting down conservative groups until AFTER the election. This was a delaying tactic, not an audit. I should also add that NONE of the targeted groups, over 300 lost their tax exempt status.
From The AP:
Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members. ...
Zawistowski's group was among many conservative organizations that battled the IRS over what they saw as discriminatory treatment. The group first applied for nonprofit status in June 2009, and it was finally granted on Dec. 7, 2012, he said — one month after Election Day.
Oh really? Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage or government provided social services, then go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh with them and see if they object to it. That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations.
That's not saying that libertarians are evil, instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil would rise unopposed in the sort of society they are advocating.
I'm a libertarian and I can tell you that if the federal government does not have explicit permission from the Constitution to do something, than it is supposed to be unconstitutional for them to do so. At least that's what the 10th Amendment says. It also says that those powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. The 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, by the way.
So, in using your Bangladesh example, it would be up to the state and local governments to handle the regulation of the business listed in your example. If the building collapsed, then it's your governor's fault, not the president's. That's the beauty of how it's SUPPOSED to work. If your state has lax regulations and you don't feel safe at your job, you are free to move to a state that has stricter regulations. Same thing goes for health care, speed limits, education system... everything that the federal government is not given permission to regulate.
(Of course, there is some wiggle room with the Commerce Clause, but if a company exists entirely within a single state and does all their business in that same state, the feds have no Constitutional authority to regulate them until the Constitution is amended giving them that right.)
You said to ask a libertarian. I answered.
Well someone sic'ed the IRS on Obama's enemies list. Tell me, who's in charge of the IRS? Where does the buck stop?
the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media
I have more than a few qualms about the MSM and what they do and don't cover. However this one isn't getting a pass. That story is from the Associated Press, which is not exactly samizdat. It's also in McClatchy papers, which if anything are known for leaning left.
http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2013/05/republicans-call-for-an-inquiry-into-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups.html
What's today? You will notice that damaging stories are always released on Friday when they want something forgotten. The press gets a pass because they can claim to cover it, but it will be forgotten by Monday and we'll be back to the American Idol judges getting fired.
Sorry, but when the IRS starts asking for the names and political affiliations of family members and a list of donors, it starts to get a bit creepy.
Also the "TEA Party" is not really a party at all, at least not on the national level. Mitt Romney was the nominee for the Republican Party. Barack Obama was the nominee for the Democrat Party. Who was the nominee for the TEA Party? No one! Why, because it's not really a party. See, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. The rallies were called TEA Parties because it sounded cute and exemplified a tax revolt. The name stuck. But it's not an official political party and yes, they are legally tax exempt.
You seriously believe this was an innocent mistake? Tell me again why they were asking for the names and political affiliations of family members?
It's only in cleartext during installation, and only while the password field has focus. This is hardly something to get up in arms about, unless you regularly re-install your OS in front of a crowd.
Why not a choice? What's wrong with a button that says, "Unmask Password"?
And, sorry, but when developers decide what's best for me, that absolutely IS something to get up in arms about. Maybe I do install my OS in front of a crowd. Maybe I'm installing a real world system at a company that with a policy that says all systems must have the same password in front of people as part of a training course or at a cubicle next to someone who has not business knowing the password.
My point is, the people who make these decisions have no idea where I'm going to be installing these systems or what my circumstances may be. If shadowing the password is a bad thing, then give me a damn button and let ME make the choice. Choice is good, right?
All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true. Good Luck with that....
Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.
Actually, that "well regulated militia" part is proof that the Second Amendment was not to protect deer hunters, collectors or hobbyists. It was to protect the citizens from invaders and an abusive government. "Well regulated militia" is completely open to interpretation. My family can make up a "well regulated militia". Understand that at the time it was written, a "well regulated militia" meant farmers who could grab their gun and hit the streets to stand in a straight line and fire en masse. "Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"
As for the national guard, that can no longer qualify since it is under the control of the federal government. I know, it's not "officially" under the federal government, but I know a lot of guardsmen who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who would disagree.
Wow. No one I've ever met has said, "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." No one.
Actually, there are quite a few people who remain on unemployment and welfare because they can't find a job that will pay what they are making from the government. It's not that they are saying "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." They are saying, "I'd get a job, but I can't afford to!"
Isn't that wonderful 15% tax on capital gains great?
Based on the lowness of taxes for the wealthy, and trickle down economics, we've has the best economy since WWII.
Oh, wait.
Actually, the money that was invested initially was already taxed once. If you do the math, you'll find that the government would actually make MORE money if they taxed capital gains at the standard income tax rate, and allowed investors to deduct any investments.
Let's do the math:
If Joe makes $1000 extra he wants to invest, the government takes 35% off the top, or $350. Joe can only invest $650. Let's say his investment makes 10%, or $65 profit. The government takes 15% of that, or $9.75. The government gets a total of $359.75. Joe gets a total of $705.25
Now, let's say that the government DIDN'T tax Joe's $1000, allowing him to differ the tax. He is allowed to invest a full $1000. If he makes the same 10%, he makes $100. When he cashes out, the government taxes it all at the full 35%, or $385. So the government gets $385, which is more than $359.75, and Joe gets $715, which is more than $705.25.
Current:
Government: $359.75
Joe: $705.25
If investment were deducted:
Government: $385
Joe: $715
It's a win-win. Both Joe and the government would get MORE money. However, it will never happen because people like you would rather see Joe suffer, even if it means more suffering from you.
They are the Government. They can do it. If they are now allowed, they'll make a law. Period.
The Constitution trumps any laws created by the legislative branches of the federal and state governments as well as any executive orders by governors or the president. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, or it's supposed to be anyway.
Lots and lots of antiquated soviet equipment does not make an army strong. Quality is much more important than quantity in threat analysis.
The T-72 and Mig 29 were not "antiquated soviet equipment" in 1992. Hell, they are still considered quality hardware today. Sure, there were an awful lot of T-54's out there, but they popped just the same as the T-72s.
It was training that made the difference. Not equipment.
You also have a funny definition of "liberate". While Saddam was certainly no prize as a head of state, I certainly wouldn't want to be "liberated" back into the rule of an autocratic abusive monarchy.
I got my definition of "liberate" from speaking with Kuwaitis shortly after the war in, of all places, Kuwait! Walking through downtown Kuwait City with my BDU's on, I had a hard time making it from place to place and no one wanted to take my money. I would stop by a coffee shop and as the waiter was refusing to charge me, a couple of other guys in the shop demanded that they be the ones to pay for my coffee. One chased me down the street to give me my tip back. (I still don't know if I was supposed to tip).
So, yeah! The Kuwaitis I spoke with certainly felt liberated.
It is the only thing that protects them from the wrath of US army... ever wondered why the US only attack weak countries?
You do realize that when the US liberated Kuwait in the '90's, that Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world, don't you? This military was not only large, but battle hardened after fighting Iran for years. That kind of blows a whole in your whole " the US only attack weak countries" theory, doesn't it?
Yeah, we could trust corporations to do this so much better. Libertarians - cut out the middle man in our plutocracy.
Libertarians are about a smaller federal government and expanded states' rights. Under a Libertarian Utopia, it would be up to your state to limit the power of big business... or not. Either way, your voice gets louder and your vote counts for more the smaller the election gets. In other words, your vote counts more in smaller, local elections than it does in large federal ones.
You see a direct attack on the Fourth Amendment, and the best you can come up with is, "ha ha, it was your side that did it, not mine." Do you listen to yourself or are everyone's civil rights just another baseball game to you?
Maybe it's because when Bush was president and something like this is proposed, we heard repeatedly how evil Bush was. Now that Obama is president and this is a bill by a Democrat introduced into a Democrat led Senate, all we hear is that both parties are the same.
Maybe everyone should go back and look at the vote they cast a couple of weeks ago and wonder if they made the right decision. What's the old saying about power corrupting?
Or it could be we don't like breathing and drinking that crap. I suppose we could come around if the oil companies paid the medical bills, and for the clean up, instead of just passing the costs onto the consumers.
Then make them clean up their crap. No one is implying otherwise. But before you assume that all oil producers leave behind a mess, I suggest you drive from Detroit MI to Traverse City MI and look at all the oil wells pumping oil directly in the middle of a farmed field. The plants there seem to be doing just fine, btw.
Oh, and ALL costs are passed along to consumers. Overhead, taxes, EVERYTHING is eventually passed down to consumers.
When was the last time a retailer leaked hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of gallons of toxic liquid into an environment?
Go walk around the parking lot. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't monitor drilling sites. I'm saying that the very same people who bitch about some endangered fly being harmed by an oil rig don't seem to mind when something they like is built on the same spot.
Maybe they didn't like drilling because of the ecological damage drilling causes? If it were gravy they were drilling for, they'd still feel the same. Stop looking at things so simplistically. It's really not helping you look rational.
Strange that they don't seem to mind the "ecological damage" caused when a Whole Foods or Starbucks is erected, even though an oil well is less permanent and takes up less space.
When the partisan political aspect of an issue is already included in the original post.
Bettter to shut down discussions about AGW before they start! It's settled science!
Well, you could reply in kind and say, "There is no way in Hell that environmentalists or our current administration will allow us to become energy independent if it rained oil!" And, sadly, it's true. They will find some cost of extraction that is just too high to spend like they are trying to do with fracking now.
Fact is, liberals hate oil. They were fighting oil drilling long before global warming was ever considered an issue. So, we know it's not GW they are worried about. I think they don't like people making money or they think that we all live in cities where only the very weatlhy have their own cars (with drivers) and think everyone should have to take the subway.
Its news as its a bad precident that could easily be abused if allowed to proceed as it is.
I agree criminals should be dealt with, but not at the cost of another's rights.
The Constitution says you have a right to free speech. Nowhere does it say you have a right to anonymous speech.
The cellphone is less of the cost than the service.
Because they can sell the phone at just below "off contract" prices. Remember, the cost of cell phones if you purchase them outright is about 2-3x what it is if you buy them on contract. If you are on contract and lose your phone, the replacement is full price. Or, people can buy these phones and use them on non-contract networks that tend to be cheaper since they usually don't offer phone discounts.
Oh come on, 16GB should be enough for anybody.
Unless you are storing HD movies on your device, it really should be. Apps are relatively small and 16BG is five non-stop days of music at 320kbps MP3's without hearing the same song twice.
I need a tinfoil house!
Just use lead based paint.
In Texas they throw a fit if you try to cut the budget for the football program or try to teach evolution.
Strange. I went to Texas schools for 13 years and learned evolution in science class. Although, my daughter goes to a Baptist private school in Texas. They teach evolution as well.
It's not like they are going to be putting an oil derrick up in the quad. Universities own land all over the place, not just the primary campus. Lots of land too! Consider university land to be public land that the public didn't have to pay for. These are like large parks, only they are not parks.