Printable View
WTF am I supposed to do now? The Dems are now violating civil liberties left and right, while the Reps remain their usual bigoted asstards. Can someone please start a political party that isn't full of jackasses?
If anyone tells me to vote Green or Libertarian, I will choke you with my belt.
Whig perhaps, or Federalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
At this point, I just write-in Kodos.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
When you have political groups applying for tax exemption as social welfare groups, with gloriously unclear rules from Congress, you have to admit it's a little complicated. And like I said, I don't know that the IRS is the best venue for sorting that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
violating civil liberties is against the law...Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
It was not a waste of time when I wrote in Marty Huggins for every office because it made me feel better.
As an outsider, it is a bit rich that Tea Party groups complain about what effectively amounts to profiling by a government agency. Hope the irony is not lost on them.
Of course it is completely reprehensible that the IRS stoops so low. The executive has overstepped its bounds on many, many occasions. Civil rights mean nothing, if the system is inaccessible, or if the system, for whatever, reason refuses to acknowledge them. Or if the executive simply appropriates the right to itself to decide whether you are allowed to live or not. Even if it came to impeachment, nothing meaningful will change. Obama would then simply be replaced with another morally bankrupt guy. There is a depressing thought.
The two big parties are part of the problem, and the way they gerrymandered the system to keep "upstarts" out. Media as well. If they would consistently do their job right, the USA would not be in this mess. But it is not surprising that they fail to do so, especially since they are now corporate entities, which serve the vested interests.
Worrying times for Americans. I hope they can reclaim their country from the corporate toadies.
I know I sound like a broken record here..... but maybe more government isn't the answer? If the IRS abused it's power, how does it make sense as a solution to create another agency? It's up to the IRS to makes sure we pay taxes. They apparently suck at that job, so I guess we need another agency to make sure they do their job.... until we discover the new agency isn't up to the task, then we'll have to make another panel to watch the watchers.... :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Simplify our ridiculous tax code and watch the problem go away.
I didn't say what should be replaced by what, I just said the current system is rotten and it's not just the the whole habeas corporation law thingamajig, it's the whole voting system and political process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
What's the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/
They'll never get elected and you just make sure the party you want less has a better chance to get elected. Which brings me back to the system being rotten...
Well, you know I'm in favor of radically simplifying the tax code. But what to do about political groups claiming they are "social welfare organizations," when they obviously are not? What to do with the tax-exempt status? Grant it to everyone? No one? I'd like to hear your proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
It is not about "less" or "more" government. That is a fallacy, that only serves to obscure the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You can have all the rights in the world, but if you can't access them, they are not even worth the paper they are written on. Conversely, you can have no rights at all, but if no one interferes with your (would be) rights, there would not be a problem either. It is about having proper checks and balances. Meaning that these do not exist as merely theoretical abstractions, but are actually accessible to the American people. Those checks and balances seem to get destroyed on a daily basis, meaning that the US increasingly becomes a country where corporate might is right, and the Executive can do as it pleases. The Republicans are only more blatant about it.
The Democrats are better at portraying the illusion that they really care about Joe Doe. But the main contribution of the Democrats is that they legitimize this "democracy", by virtue of being a second party so that people can "choose", between what is essentially almost the same thing. Essentially Americans are having to choose between voting for a horrible party or a terrible one. Needless to say, public life cannot be sustained by voting for either of them. Or abstaining.
Americans need to find a way to reclaim their political spheres. Whether that is through a functional political party, protests or some other mechanism. What is important is that they really involve a lot of Americans. I think most Americans realize that government is not working properly, and a fairly large portion of Americans realize that changing the executive won't solve the major problems. Tried that with Obama, and he is hardly an improvement (if at all).
We can argue ad infinitum about what an ideal society would look like, what an ideal tax code would look like etc.. But until Americans successfully reclaim the public and political spaces, they are more or less reduced to discuss these things in relative obscurity. Whether that is on online forums or in empty town halls does not make much of a difference. You need to engage the citizenry on these issues. And since Americans get screwed over left, right and center, it should be possible to organize yourselves in a meaningful manner - an elitist stance of bystanders "it ought to be so and so", has never really changed the world, has it? Don't let differences of opinions on the details paralyze you in taking action.
Yes, d'Arthez, and I believe this problem comes from the two party system, which in turn is a result of FPTP voting. Essentially the two parties do not have to cater to a whole lot of people, they move relatively close to eachother and behind the scenes they are both manipulated by big business. Here for example we have two major parties as well but they're still pretty dependent on coalitions with smaller parties and the votes can shift significantly between all these parties. It keeps them more on their toes because it's entirely possible that a minority party takes a huge chunk of votes from any other party away and thus can become part of a government, demeaning the impact of the large parties and so on. The two party system seems to do nothing but shuffle between the only two contenders that are left, which do not really represent most people and so on, I already posted the explanation.
If they can't come up with clear, unambiguous criteria then we should abolish tax exempt status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The criteria should be clear and the results of an application should be the same regardless of who is responsible for approving it that day. If they can't manage that, then do away with the status altogether. There should be nothing left open to interpretation.
Ditto for the income tax code in general. I'm sure anyone of us, if we gained the attention of the wrong people at the IRS could be found in some violation of the tax code. My returns have been simple and I use Turbotax, but I still have no doubt that someone at the IRS could make a case against me regardless. Tax laws are too complex and no one understands them.
... and all of that is up to Congress. Who are currently exploring how to demonstrate dysfunction on ever-more-epic levels. Who have a well-deserved 12% approval rating, because they are such epic idiots.
Well, it's nice to dream, anyway.
There's maybe a handful of people in both chambers of congress who have a clue what's going on and any interesting in doing anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I expect they'll be voted out next election...
Full Inspector General report on the Tea Party/IRS thing was released. Found PDF hosted here.
A group has to be non-political to get tax breaks, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So.... If they're political enemies of Obama, doesn't that make the IRS right in their inquiries?
How can you say that a political group should get benefits reserved for non-political groups?
Of course, It's all crystal clear now!
The Justice Dep't., IRS and Benghazi => Welcome to the Obama-Nation!
The same would then logically apply to the various groups that support Obama. And that has not happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I hope it get's to the point where we can start setting things on fire.
I so rarely get to use my riot playlist
That it has not happened yet is no proof that it will never happen, nor is it a proof that they are being explicitly left out.Quote:
Originally Posted by d'Arthez
An indication, perhaps, but definitely not proof.
You cannot prove the non-existence of any object, even if they are supposedly contradictory entities. Of course we can imagine some pro-Obama group being investigated. Just because we can think it can happen does not mean it has happened, or will happen. Are we to judge the legality of this, by what the Administration decides to do in 2016?
We can only judge by facts as they are, not on thought experiments that have little to no resemblance to reality. If it had happened, some pro-Obama group would have come out by now with the story. It would certainly strengthen Obama's position in this matter.
If it had not happened (and we don't have any indication that is has), there must be a rational explanation to explain the behavior of the IRS in this matter. Organisations do not act in a completely random fashion. Just as the army does not decide to suddenly assemble Gucci bags, the IRS does not act in a random manner. Someone must have come up with directives to guide the employees of the IRS to act in a certain manner. My limited understanding of US government agencies notwithstanding, that leaves only a few people in the entire country who have the power to do so.
I know Bush did the same thing. But two wrongs don't make a right. It ensures the wrongs become systemic.
No matter how much bigger or smaller you make the government it won't work because the politician's are not accountable to the public. Massive electoral reforms are needed if you want representatives that need to care what you think.
Oh really? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Ya rlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
1. FPTP needs to go away. Honestly, you don't need to strive for the most mathematically optimal method here. Just switch to some sort of voting that allows voting based on preferences not absolute decisions.
2. Gerrymandering needs to be reduced by increasing the size of the house. Yeah, I know it would make deliberation practically impossible. But that is to be expected for a chamber that is meant to represent 300 million people. Only the most important things should be decided on the Federal level. That's not right wing ideology, that is just the reality of the situation. Issues like gay marriage are already being done on the state level at a speed that would be unprecedented than if you tried to fight the good fight in Congress.
3. Repeal the 17th amendment. Electing senators is just a joke and a highlight of how money just dominates our elections. This suggestion is not because I feel like the system before was any better, but as it stand now, senatorial elections are a bigger detriment to our democracy by the blatant nature of the corruption and powerlessness of the average citizen. It reinforces apathy and distrust in the system.
Oh, I was just happy not to be the only one saying that.
WHy is it that I only understood that now when I have been drinking?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
With luck this is a "state dependent" thing. As soon as you sober up and rehydrate, harmony and agreement will vanish; you will again perceive Husar as an opponent.
IRS’s Shulman had more public White House visits than any cabinet memberThat in itself strikes me as a bit odd. Shulman would report to Geitner at Treasury- not to anyone at the WH. Why all the visits?Quote:
Publicly released records show that embattled former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times during the Obama administration, more recorded visits than even the most trusted members of the president’s Cabinet.
But then, take this information along with the fact that the IRS was found to have been harassing conservative groups and it even seems more curious. The frequency of his White House visits averages out to about once a week. What were they talking about so much?
Perhaps he was helping White House staff do their taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
After all, talking taxes is "sessy" not boring like that natsec crap.
I miss Rage Against The Machine too bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South