Forum: pol
Page 3752
Subject: IRS Scandal


  Posted by: Boldwin - [513542817] Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 21:27

Hyperpartisan Media Matters gets 501C status but this outstanding and longstanding [since 1998] tax exempt just had their status revoked proving the current DOJ and IRS won't obey the law until jail bars start closing around the Holder's and Lerner's of this administration.
 
1Boldwin
      ID: 37347291
      Tue, Apr 29, 2014, 03:47
A pattern of corrupt IG's.
 
2Frick
      ID: 29235107
      Tue, Apr 29, 2014, 08:08
The IRS determined that they were not meeting the standards

"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals."

Based on the Centers mission statement, it seems to more political then any of the exempt purposes above.

Abusing 501c status is nothing more than a tax scam and the IRS is, and should, be trying to crack down on abusers.

 
3Boldwin
      ID: 37347291
      Tue, Apr 29, 2014, 15:58
Yeah, like they are legitimately disqualified and Media Matters isn't.
 
4Boldwin
      ID: 37347291
      Tue, Apr 29, 2014, 16:01
Frick

Are you actually asking us to believe the Obama administration is capable of a fair assessment? After all that's been revealed? After all the 'taking of the fifth', non-testimony? Their a bunch of self-admitted criminals.
 
5Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 11:18
Like a lot of Tea Party groups, Frick, many of them want it both ways: To get tax exempt status so as to keep more of the money donated to them, but yet openly break the law about political activism that apply to the same groups.

The fact that so many of these applications are coming from Tea Party groups who are actually breaking the law seems lost on the far Right. For them, it is about "abuse" and "payback" and whatnot. The Far Right simply isn't interested in following laws that apply to them when those laws are administered by an Executive Branch headed by a Democrat.

Its all "law and order!" until a Democrat sits in the White House.
 
6Frick
      ID: 29235107
      Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 11:43
I was digging around on the IRS website, and it still shows the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty as being a 501c. The list is only updated monthly, so they may have lost their status, but mainly for the reasons that PD listed in 5.
 
7Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 13:18
Food for thought.

Perhaps I am out of touch. Is it ILLEGAL to be prejudiced in this country now? Or is it only ILLEGAL to discriminate in business and government?

If I created a non-profit called the NAAWP, would I be considered a racist? If it was my goal to have favored status in all things for my race, could I still apply for IRS non-profit status? If I want the government to recognize my particular ethnic group for a month long celebration, how do I do that?

What if I started a Church, purchased a family oriented vacation spot, a meeting hall, recreational facilities and buses, making them all available for use to my congregation at no cost. Would all of those things be tax free as long as I was properly registered? What is the difference between a church and a cult? Is there a legal definition somewhere, or do we just wing it.

Fuggit, going to the bar and watch some sports. Being 1/8th American Indian and 7/8ths WV hillbilly, I have a solution for the REDSKINS naming issue that keeps both sides of me happy. Just call them the Rednecks, its a great compromise.

 
8Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 14:06
How to legalize prostitution:

Start a church with some kind of sexual rituals.

Ask your customers, I mean flock (wait that's disturbing) to tithe.

Voila
 
9Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 16:48
PD "The fact that so many of these applications are coming from Tea Party groups who are actually breaking the law seems lost on the far Right. For them, it is about "abuse" and "payback" and whatnot. The Far Right simply isn't interested in following laws that apply to them when those laws are administered by an Executive Branch headed by a Democrat.

Its all "law and order!" until a Democrat sits in the White House."

You may not like the policies of the Tea Party but evidence is showing they were targeted by the IRS because of their political views.It seems many on the Left can justify any horrendous act by saying the Right does it. That is scary .
 
10Seattle Zen
      ID: 3310162612
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 17:17
but evidence is showing they were targeted by the IRS because of their political views

There is no evidence of this. If you can provide a link to this evidence, please do so. Not a link to opinions that there is evidence, but actual evidence.
 
11Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 17:48
link They are calling it inappropriate criteria.
“The three allegations considered during our review were proven true. The IRS targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status. It delayed the processing of these groups’ applications, and requested unnecessary information, as well as subjected these groups to special scrutiny.”
“The inappropriate criteria discussed in this audit were the IRS’s targeting for review Tea Party and other organizations based on their names or policy positions, a practice started in 2012, and which was not fully corrected until May 2012. Actually the practice was started in 2010 and not fully corrected until May of 2012.”

They targeted any names with Patriot or Tea Party in them. There are more unsavory allegations but for this debate lets stay with the evidence even the IRS has admitted occurred.
 
12Boldwin
      ID: 2246117
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 18:27
It is circular reasoning to tell me the administration found them to be guilty of violating the guidelines so that finding means the findings were valid and the administration is therefore not biased.

Other administrations had no problem recognizing they obviously qualified for the exemption. Neither the selection process for auditing status or the grading were unbiased in this administration. Shocking stuff that make Nixon look like a boyscout by comparison. They brazenly continue doing stuff Nixon was only suspected of doing.

Nixon only made a tiny enemies list for which he was castigated because he might target his enemies for government harrassment. Obama is doing that exact actual criminal conduct...on an industrial scale...even after he's been exposed doing it...and after highest level actors in his admin took the fifth so as to not go to jail over those exact actions.

Lois Lerner decided they didn't qualify for 501C? Are you kidding me? That settles it?
 
13Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 19:05
It blows me away that both sides of these arguments dont see the obvious solution.

The elimination of tax free status for all charities/political organizations/churches.

Eliminate these itemized deductions and the problem is solved. There is no social value from any of them that could not be resolved by putting those lost tax dollars in the nations coffers and voting on how they should be distributed. Removing the tax exempt status doesnt stop you from contributing, it just stops you from contributing at my expense.

Go ahead have your little pissy debates over one organization vs another. Go ahead deploy your dissected legislation that only leave more unanaswered questions. The answer is obvious.
 
14Boldwin
      ID: 2246117
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 20:01
What, and leave society to the tender mercies of the DMV?
 
15sarge33rd
      ID: 593111219
      Thu, May 01, 2014, 20:17
The elimination of tax free status for all charities/political organizations/churches.

BOOM! Solved...next.
 
16Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 00:40
Next up: Take away guns. BOOM! Problem solved...

:)

I don't mean to be flip (truly I don't) but there are lots of reasons why churches are tax exempt (including several SCOTUS decisions--most notably Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York). So taking away the tax exempt status of all churches is no small thing.

Provided that the churches in question abide by commonsense regulations regarding politicking, the tax exempt status should remain, IMO.

The problem isn't that churches are tax exempt. It is that churches who go over the line rarely face punishment.
 
17Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 02:57
PD,

All laws are subject to change. However, you dont really think I believe it would ever happen do you? Too much vested interest in the status quo.

Fact is that charitable contributions is prolly the most abused loophole in the tax code and likely the biggest source of tax fraud that goes undetected. So all the thieves out there would have to find another Bundyesque way of ripping off the public if the tax fraud con goes away. Nobody wants to lose a perfectly good con.

I havent itemized in about 20 years, so I've been paying the taxes while all you tithers/philanthropist/political activists have been making me carry your burden while you been having all the fun.

Like I said before, go ahead and donate all you want, just quit making me pay for it. But if i hear another whiner tell me that somebody else got more than they did, I am gonna puke.

By the way, is it possible to do a hostile takeover of a church, selling off all its assets for pennies on the dollar? Surprised Romney didnt think of that one. Hehe, just saying.
 
18Boldwin
      ID: 2246117
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 05:12
is it possible to do a hostile takeover of a church

The homosexuals in the Episcopal church are doing exactly that to a large fraction of their former 'brothers'. Evicting the congregations who built and supported those churches and sometimes selling them off.

Ironically in the process of destroying that denomination the homosexuals who took it over can no longer afford their headquarters.

Many denominations have a sneaky and little known reversion clause embedded in their agreements.

A few years back the Catholic church in my area pulled this tactic to fund their legal defense. They closed half the local catholic churches...churches who sometimes had just completed uber-expensive facility upgrades...seized their cash-on-hand/assets and sent them down to Peoria.
 
19Boldwin
      ID: 2246117
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 05:25
Check this out.

You should start understanding why I am not inclined at all to take at face value that these denominations are all headed to the same destination.
 
20Boldwin
      ID: 2246117
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 05:41
Losing their headquarters to pay for their hijackings...
“An interesting moment came at a press conference on Saturday,” reports convention attendee David Virtue, “when I asked Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, if she saw the irony in that the House of Deputies would like to see the Church Center at 815 2nd Avenue, New Yorik, sold (it has a $37.5 million mortgage debt and needs $8.5 million to maintain yearly) while at the same time the national church spent $18 million litigating for properties, many of which will lie fallow at the end of the day.”
Surreal, is it not?
 
21Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 09:35
All laws are subject to change.

Of course. But this is a pretty basic one. If I had to bet, one this close to the heart of the nation would have a very low chance of changing.

And your post actually confuses two different things: charitable donation tax write offs (which aren't, of course, limited to churches) and tax exempt tax statuses of churches (meaning that the churches are exempted from having to pay certain taxes). Just pointing that out.
 
22Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 12:47
19 Nice, I have a horror story of my own from personal experience about this kind of thing. I'll just say that our pastor invited the wrong element into the church and it was a hostile takeover with fairly substantial property booty amassed over 100+ years of donations. Its their church now and none of the original members have attended for many years. Much of the property holdings have long since been sold off.

However, that was my childhood, maybe that's where my cynicism comes from.

Religion is fine, we all need some form of ominipresent god, Santa Clause, Big Brother, permanent school record, dishonorable discharge, criminal record, eternal soul etc to keep us honest when nobody's watching. Along with other teachings of empathy it is what gives us a conscience, which is essential for any large fair society to work. Without it, a police state is the only option.

Churches do need more scrutiny in our society though. It may well be that your church is a fine institution worthy of the respect of all. Recent observations of the justice system in the Catholic Church should make everyone see the danger of allowing churches to grow so powerful though. Its funny that we have people outraged by sharia law, and military law but few demanding the catholic church turn over their criminals.

If its membership is not open to all, a church is not worthy of tax free status. If it has unbending rules that seek to further define what is law in this country, it is not worthy of tax free status. If it teaches the young things that are counter to the safe continuance of this country it should not exist, let alone get tax free status. Pretty soon you ask the question of then who should be the judge? The only logical conclusion is lets not judge and by eliminating the tax deduction for donating to the church you eliminate the need for the judge.

Since churches give power to someone, corrupt people will want to use that power. These alpha personalities will spot a vacumn and move in. Turn the other cheek Christians in small communities have been prey to evangelists for centuries in this country. Oh and then there is the Scientologist...or Wacko TX. We all use the expression "drink the kool aid", and yet we shouldn't be suspicious of the motives/sanity of all church leaders?

Thanks for the pulpit guys
 
23Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 13:03
21 Unless I am mistaken more taxes are avoided through the itemized deduction scam route than the church for profit route. If I am mistaken then I am even further outraged.
 
24Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, May 02, 2014, 15:28
Almost certainly, since itemized deductions don't have to be to churches.
 
25Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sun, May 04, 2014, 19:42
Gator -

Tea Party groups complaining that they were investigated by the IRS is a lot like airplane pilots flying out of Medellin, Columbia complaining that their planes get inspected frequently for cocaine. When the majority of your compatriots are tax cheats, the good people suffer.
 
26Boldwin
      ID: 345837
      Sun, May 04, 2014, 20:30
I guess that's why every liberal politician seems to cheat on their taxes. They just assume everyone does it.
 
27sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sun, May 04, 2014, 21:00
You have evidence B that EVERY liberal politician cheats on their taxes?
 
28Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 04:06
Sarge, I am pretty sure Boldwin was being facetious
when he said EVERY liberal cheats.

Zen, I am not crazy about the Tea Party but your comments in 25 is pure hyperbole. Good people suffer because donations are not tax? If you are talking about rich people in general... "Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office" (July 2012) and 47 percent of the poorest pay 0 income tax.

I don't feel any organization that receives the bulk of its money from donations should be taxed whether it be churches or unions.

 
29Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 07:15
You'll note that #25 said nothing about the wealthy.
 
30Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 08:53
I read 25 a few more times. I believe his referring to some of the Tea Party members as 'good people' threw me off.
 
31Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 13:47
Take a look at this

This is a report prepared by the direction of Congress so that they could assess the value of eliminating itemized deductions and what it would do for the budget, who would be most affected etc.

Table 2 gives some insight into who is avoiding taxes through what itemized deduction.

Take it all in gentlemen.
 
32Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 14:47
"Although higher-income tax filers claim a larger average amount of deductions, these tax filers make up a small share of itemizers."

Seems to be solving for the wrong problem here. The fact that higher-income filers is a smaller percentage of the total number of tax filers is a wash.

I realize that the report is done in response to various proposals about deductions (and so, in many ways, this is like hearing only one side of a phone conversation). Nevertheless, this doesn't advance the discussion much about the elimination of particular deductions since the report is trying to answer macro questions about deductions (such as limiting the dollar limit of all itemized deductions).
 
33Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 14:52
My contention is that we should just eliminate itemized deductions. I do not see that happening in my lifetime though.

The tax revenue it would generate would be enormous. Of course the right would say that that's not what they meant by simplifying the tax system though. However, what could be simpler.

 
34Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 15:02
It would eliminate the incentive, when crafting legislation, to encourage investment through deductions. For example, municipalities and other quasi-governmental groups (such as sewer boards, or school districts) issue bonds which are attractive to investors almost solely because the interest on those bonds are tax-free.

Overall I think there are lots and lots of unforeseen bad effects with a blanket elimination of itemized deductions. But there may be other ways to eliminate some of the more unreasonable (to me!) ones, such as mortgage interest deductions and others.
 
35Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 15:44
Didn't realize that the interest on muni bonds was just an itemized deduction, I've never invested in them. Silly me, I thought that you simply didn't claim the interest.

There have been so many legislative incentives buried into the itemized deduction tax code that dont make sense to me. The mortgage interest one is perhaps the more complex one, an incentive to buy your own home and chase the American dream it was touted as. It can be argued its a tax incentive for domestic jobs and I can buy that a bit. However, to me its more like an incentive for indebtedness. At least congress made the deduction for all interest go away and made it JUST home loans.

Here's an article you may or may not agree with.
 
36Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 15:52
As an aside, by just doing away with the mortgage deduction, you would eliminate nearly all itemizers, and thereby eliminate alot of charitable contribution fraud. It would, however, disproportionately tax the middle class.
 
37Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 16:24
sorry guys the link seemed to change where it pointed after i posted it.

Theres plenty of stuff on the web that can give you insight about its origin, purpose and effectiveness though. Just google it.
 
38Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 16:28
Have you guys met a tax you didn't like?
 
39Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 16:42
Don't know who the "you guys" you are referring to is. Doesn't matter, if you are referring to me in any way.

Bean: Other countries, when they did away with the mortgage interest deduction, saw no real drop in ownership levels. If that were to hold here, it would remove the primary reason for having it.
 
40Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 16:56
Fact: All of us believe that we should be taxed less and the other guy should be taxed more.

Fact: Bean has stated on several occaisions that he would like to see the itemize deduction be eliminated from the tax code, citing it as a source of much of the undetected tax fraud in this country and a political football that distracts us from what is really important.

Fact: We have a dangerous trend in our country's deficit spending and debt accumulation.

Fact: We have a dangerous situation with the average consumer's leveraged "living beyond their means" behavior.

Fact: Our trade imbalance is absurd.

Fact: The number of unemployed, underemployed and disenfranchised in the country is at alarming levels, resulting in the need for entitlements to reach astronomical levels.

Fact: We have too many foreign governments and NGOs with incentive to see us continue these trends.

Fact: Bean believes that a flat rate across the board tarriff can contribute to fixing many of these problems. A proper solution should find a creative way to ensure that foreign companies do not undervalue parts sent to this country for assembly of the final product on US soil to avoid these tariffs.

Fact: Tarriffs tax foreign suppliers only, they do not tax American suppliers unless they have chosen to offshore production to avoid taxation. So why would an American supplier object to tarriffs, it only helps him increse market share. The only valid argument against tarriffs is to provide financial assistance to a country and to keep consumer costs lower.

Fact: Anything I havent cited as a fact in this post is speculation on the part of the person who would choose to alter perception of my position.
 
41Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 17:37
Bean, your tariff idea would cause a worldwide depression. Google what happen last time that was tried. Liberal economic views are illogical, yours are dangerous.
 
42Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 18:24
Oh, a few more facts that might help you to understand how I view the world if you are interested.

Living in this country is both a right and a privelege to its CITIZENS. It is only a privelege to non-citizens.

Doing business in this country is both a right and a privelege to its CITIZENS. It is only a privelege to its non-citizens. Its Citizens need to always be mindful that businesses only exist to benefit the common good, not just for the profit of those who own them.

Defending this country or selflessly contributing to its success is a right, privelege, and obligation of its CITIZENS. That includes any make believe legal entities they may invent to hide from their obligations.

Anyway, the prolonged demonstration of these ideals should provide the LEGAL non-citizen with a pathway to citizenship only to the extent that it contributes to the welfare of the existing citizens.

Though there was a time when we needed additional population as a work force, and there may be a time in the future that we need increased work force in this country. It is definitely not now. I do not believe that citizenship is a birthright as our current law dictates unless it is a result of a legally documented non-citizen worker. You may interpret that as any -IST thing you would like, I prefer Realist though.

Call me a Redneck if you like, I really like the sound of it.
 
43Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 18:40
Gator,

The current condition of the economy, the recent fraudulent behavior of Wall Street and sooo many other things should show even the most uneducated that right wing economists cannot be trusted in anything they say. They just say...it will be dangerous if you do when told they are out of options.

We gave you your chance to trickle down, and you did...on us.

We gave you your chance to invest our pensions for our future and you just stole it all from us.

We listened to your thousand points of light and fell for that crap.

We gave you your chance to move the American businesses outside the country to earn us a "higher standard of living". No jobs now.

When do the lies stop?
 
44Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 19:30
Boldwin or Weykool can one of you address this for me. I don't have the energy right now to deal with this gibberish.
 
45Tree
      ID: 438482411
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 19:36
Have you guys

of course, this is nonsense.

met a tax you didn't like?

taxes pay for us to not be a third world country. i'm ok with that.
 
46Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, May 05, 2014, 19:48
Gator,

Could you please explain to the masses the concept of Ceteras Parabis. I'm sure they would all love to hear it.
 
47weykool
      ID: 474402717
      Tue, May 06, 2014, 08:23
Boldwin or Weykool can one of you address this for me. I don't have the energy right now to deal with this gibberish.
Its a waste of time arguing with someone who has already made up their mind.
I will just heed the warning in Matthew 7:6 about offering any pearls of wisdom here.
 
48Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, May 06, 2014, 11:38
Resorting to quoting scripture are we?

So, the right wing guy thinks we are all dogs and pigs, unworthy of sacrifice or his pearls of wisdom?

That is classic.
 
49Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, May 06, 2014, 11:44
As a reminder, the ability to quote scripture and understand its meaning is not the exclusive territory of anyone's specific sect of Christianity or Judaism.

Quoting scripture is a very effective way, to remind both of us of many things. It does not give the utterer the moral high ground however. You'd do well to remember that, even if it isnt in the bible.
 
50Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, May 06, 2014, 12:57
We'll all see what we want to in this....the full chapter in its entirity, not out of context:

Judging Others

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Ask, Seek, Knock

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The Narrow and Wide Gates

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

True and False Prophets

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

True and False Disciples

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

The Wise and Foolish Builders

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
 
51Boldwin
      ID: 505151321
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 23:22
The dog ate her emails. All of them. For two years. Across all IRS computers.

But how dare Nixon expect us to believe there was an 18 minute gap.
 
52Boldwin
      ID: 57650716
      Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 17:51
Lois Lerner has been at these unethical political shenanigans for a long time. Very profitable career path.
 
53Boldwin
      ID: 54641010
      Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 15:44
Long withheld e-mails show that 12 days after Lois Lerner found out the IRS IG was going to issue a report revealing IRS political targetting...

Lois Lerner discovers from IRS techie that IM's were not traceable, trackable, nor stored...

Her response; "Perfect".

Ten days later her computer crashes along with 7 other IRS VIP's.

I want her google searches subpoenaed so we can find out what day she learned how to wipe a hard drive beyond recovery.
 
54Tree
      ID: 438482411
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 12:34
this is still a thing?
 
55Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 12:39
It is Tree. There are currently congressional hearings on the matter looking into 'lost emails' and a specific request by Lois Lerner to find out what kind of inter-departmental electronic communications are always saved, which aren't and which are discoverable.

There is no hard evidence yet but there sure is a LOT of pretty damning circumstantial evidence that something was going on which shouldn't been.
 
56Mith
      ID: 21130811
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 14:25
The official explanation is basically that the IRS found repeated issues with Tea Party groups, enough that they began taking a closer look at them.

I have no idea whether or to what extent that is true. But at long last we have social conservatives in America resenting the process of social/cultural criminal profiling.

Funny how quickly the opinion changes when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?
 
57Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 15:53
Thats a new one MITH. I have yet to hear about repeated issues 'with tea party groups.' Rather there was issues with many different political groups claiming certain tax exempt status' they were not entitled too - tea party included along with other conservative groups and many liberl/progressive groups. Yet these other groups were not included to the extent the tea party was.
 
58sarge33rd
      ID: 386251216
      Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 17:25
Best part of the IRS 'oversight" into the charity groups? The only one denied, was a liberal group out of AZ. Thats how biased and shameful the 'persecution' was of the conservative groups.
 
59Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 11:34
Do away with tax free status of charities, political lobbying and churches and you do away with the problem. They are all free loaders.

Abolish the itemized deduction and you abolish this nonsensical debate.
 
60biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 13:46
Why shouldn't political lobbying groups pay taxes?

I can understand if you are feeding and housing the hungry and homeless.

If you are spending your time lying and demonizing, I don't understand the claim that this crap behavior should have special tax status.

Perhaps Lois was tweeting/emailing/texting something like "fcuk these nasty baggers. They ain't running any food banks. Tax 'em".

And you know, I don't have a problem with that. That she may have covered up her straight talk is a problem, but not the intent.
 
61biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 13:47
And I agree about the itemized deductions. And the mortgage interest deduction, specifically. These are incredibly regressive, and by-and-large help the rich. Get rid of all of it.
 
62Khahan
      ID: 66361614
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 15:36
Why shouldn't political lobbying groups pay taxes?

Good question. Let me think a moment....hmm, Nope. Can't think of a single valid reason why they shouldn't.
 
63biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 16:33
Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.


I find this far too broad.

Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.


Though I think there are some admirable things in the list I struck out, it's too easy to stretch the definition of those beyond the intended "charitable causes".


 
64ChicagoTRS
      ID: 46481616
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 17:48
Crashed hard drives = lost emails is perhaps the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. The cover up should be a bigger story than the actual issue.
 
65Khahan
      ID: 46631617
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 18:03
63 - Bili you could easily keep the clause w/out striking anything from and just add: This does not include political lobby groups.
 
66biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 18:51
I think that's implicit, Khahan. If you make it explicit, they'll just spend time monkeying with the definition of lobbyist.

CTRS - yeah, ain't that always the case.
 
67Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 20:19
Except that 'implicit' is meaningless in the law. If its not there, it doesn't exist.
 
68weykool
      ID: 586491619
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 20:50
And I agree about the itemized deductions. And the mortgage interest deduction, specifically. These are incredibly regressive, and by-and-large help the rich.
Seriously Bili you have zero clue on what you are talking about.
The mortgage deduction is overwhelmingly a middle class tax deduction and offers little to no benefit to the rich.
Just because you keep repeating it isnt going to make your statement any less false.
 
69holt
      ID: 38338181
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 21:06
I normally steer way clear of all the political jousting on the internet but I have to make a response to #59.

The idea of taxing charities and churches and describing them as freeloaders is just loathsome. You really want a tax on your charitable contributions? If so, I'm going to take a wild guess that you never donate to charity.

As far as churches go, yes you have the Joel Osteens of the world but the vast majority of churches just barely get by. My dad has been a preacher for 50 years and his income level has ranged from poor-house to very low middle class. He has a Doctorate in Theology and Masters in Divinity. Had he chosen a life path that had anything to do with making income he certainly could have done it. As a pastor he is self employed and pays a pretty high % in taxes each year, and even though he has always been poor he has tithed 10% of his salary back to the church every single week for almost 50 years (I also find thank you letters from various non-religious charities in his mail on a regular basis). There really are people who give til they bleed. Small churches don't typically have much in reserve for month to month expenses. If you start taxing them I'm sure a high percentage of them would just vanish.

There are definitely churches out there that exist for profit-making purposes. The ones that you see on TV with the millionaire preacher and the 1-800 number. But most churches are not anything like this. They aren't some pinata with gold coins waiting to fall out.

For the record, I haven't attended any church for over 20 years and my political views aren't right-wing by any stretch. I just believe that charities and churches should be able to exist without being prey to the IRS. I'm 100% sure that if you told my dad that his church freeloads that he would turn the other cheek, but it's the kind of comment that you can throw around from behind a computer but wouldn't dare to say out loud in public. Why not just get a "Salvation Army are FREELOADERS" bumper sticker if you really feel that way? The answer is because everyone would think you were out of your mind.
 
70sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 22:50
I dont think holt, donations to small churches would dry up, doing away with the tax deduction to charities. Most of their money, comes from small donations from within the local community. Those folks arent dropping $10 in the collection plate. for a tax deduction. I think doing away with the deduction, would hurt the phony mega-churches.
 
71biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:05
No, weykool. You don't know what you are talking about. I've run the numbers. I am middle class. My first house, it helped me not one dollar.

I can run the numbers for you again, but you should probably run them yourself in private. I ain't looking to shame anyone.
 
72sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:15
the mortgage deduction does almost nothing for most middle class. Why? You have to itemize to take it, and for most, the standard deduction exceeds the itemized. So the benefit of the mortgage deduction, needs to be reduced BY the standard deduction amount. This makes it, of highly dubioous value to most.
 
73weykool
      ID: 586491619
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:25
Please post your numbers then.
I look forward to ripping them apart.
You too Sarge...post your numbers.
When you add R/E taxes, state income taxes and your charitable deductions the vast majority of the middle class reduces their tax bill when the take into account their mortgage deduction.
 
74sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:27
wrong. Most middle class earners, are unable to itemize and take the standard deduction. Maybe not most of YOUR clients, but the client base of a paid tax preparer is hardly a representative sample of the population at large.

 
75weykool
      ID: 586491619
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:34
I didnt think you would have any numbers to offer.
 
76sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:34
from FOX....Five Tax Deductions that Favor the Rich


Bloomberg

It’s available only to the one-third of U.S. taxpayers who itemize their deductions, and that means it disproportionately benefits higher-income earners with higher marginal tax rates.

There ya go. The REAL beneficiaries, are the wealthy and very wealthy deducting the mortgage interest on their SECOND homes.
 
77sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:35
you could have just stopped, after your 3rd word.
 
78ChicagoTRS
      ID: 1550160
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:43
It does not take a very large mortgage/property tax bill to exceed the standard deductions. My property taxes alone almost reach my standard deduction.
 
79sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 23:59
1 in 3 taxpayers itemize. Almost all of the wealthy do. SO to bring the ratio down to 1 in 3, then less than 1 in 3 of middle class can itemize.

If the deduction benefits less than 1 in 3, then I stand by my statement, the MAJORITY are not helped by it.
 
80ChicagoTRS
      ID: 1550160
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 00:24
How many people own homes? How many new home owners are helped by taking a mortgage deduction? Does it benefit the country to promote home ownership in the middle class? It is already to the point where it is not an economic benefit to own property...why would you want to make it less affordable for the middle class to own property?

Wealthy people do not itemize because of mortgages. It is nonsense that you think mortgage deductions primarily help the rich. In most cases someone truly wealthy is not going to have a mortgage. The wealthy people may own your mortgage but doubt they have one of their own. Mortgage deductions primarily benefit the middle class homeowner.
 
81Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 00:40
Sarge, I looked at your link and even though it is Fox news, that does not make the author correct. The biggest problem I have is with charitable deduction benefiting the rich. He claims because the rich are in a 35% tax bracket they are getting more money. They are not getting anything, they are not paying taxes on the amount given. I don't care who this guy works for, he is wrong.
 
82sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 00:48
No Gator, he is spot on. If I am on a 35% bracket and give $1,000, I realize a $350 benefit. If I am in a 15% bracket and give $1,000 then I only see a 4150 benefit.

CTRS....home ownership, is not necessarily a good thing. There are those, for whom buying a home is an anchor they dont want. Whether it incentivizes a purchase or doesnt, is not the question. The question was and is, does the deduction prove more benefit to the rich than to the middle class. Obviously, it does and all the statistics show it so. Only a bias, keeps one from admitting what is clear.
 
83sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 00:49
No Gator, he is spot on. If I am on a 35% bracket and give $1,000, I realize a $350 benefit. If I am in a 15% bracket and give $1,000 then I only see a 4150 benefit.

That 4 should be a $ sign
 
84weykool
      ID: 586491619
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 02:00
There ya go. The REAL beneficiaries, are the wealthy and very wealthy deducting the mortgage interest on their SECOND homes.
Are you aware of the limitation on mortgage interest? A simple google would educate you on this matter.
Add to that the phase out of itemized deductions and the alternative minimum tax and you will realize how completely absurd/false your statements are.

A middle class taxpayer with a 2,000 to 3,000 mortgage payment will be paying between 24,000 and 36,000 in interest considering most of the payments in the first 10 years is almost all interest.. The standard deduction for a married couple is only 12,000. The math is so simple but yet somehow it escapes you.
 
85biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 04:45
You know how much how a $3000 mortgage payment is (PITI)? That's somewhere around $500K mortgage.

Not exactly entry level for a middle class family.

80-90% of families in the US shouldn't be in a mortgage that large.

I think you hang with different "middle class" people than I do.
 
86biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 07:23
A quick google shows that the median first home was purchased for a $150K. So probably around a $130K mortgage.

Politicians often justify the mortgage interest deduction as a gateway to home-ownership, suggesting it helps the first-time home buyer.

Please do the math. It helps the first time home buyer not at all, assuming they don't have other large deductions such as crisis-level health issues (in which case they probably aren't buying their first house), or a fantastically large state-income tax bill (in which case they don't need the public at large subsidizing their home purchase).

Conclusion - it helps those that don't really need the help, and not those who do.
 
87Razor
      ID: 811221116
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 11:29
Household income for the the top 20% is ~$100,000. At 80%, it's $25,000. So for the middle 60% of households, yearly household income is $25,000 - $100,000. If we say that people should buy a house 3x their yearly income, then the top end of the range of home purchases for the middle 60% is $300,000k. On the bottom end, people should not be buying homes.
 
88Frick
      ID: 17640169
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 11:55
Geographic regions and property tax rates make this discussion difficult to look at, unless you define specifics. Home values can fluctuate in small areas for similar homes e.g., a home in a school district could be $250k, but a different school district could only be $175k. That doesn't even account for larger distances and large cities. I live essentially in the middle of nowhere if you ask most people and a 1,800 sq ft 3 bedroom, 2 bath home is going to be $120-$175k. Take that same home, move it 100 miles west to Chicago and it will be $300k-$500k in a similar neighborhood, possibly more.

Different states also view property taxes differently. I have family in Texas that pays 3-4x what I pay in property taxes, but they have no income tax.

Home ownership in the is around 65% of the population. So 1/3 of the population already doesn't benefit from it.
 
89Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 11:59
If the rich are sincere in their desire to simplify taxes, then doing away with the itemized deduction is a great first step. We can raise the standard deduction if required to make the tax bill more gradual.

Get rid of the free loaders!
 
90Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 12:43
I think we can easily get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction without the need to get rid of all deductions.

That deduction is typically taken by those who are most able to pay anyway, and does not actually encourage home ownership (we saw this in the UK, then they dropped the deduction and home ownership levels stayed the same).
 
91Frick
      ID: 17640169
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 16:37
Getting rid of the mortgage deduction will result in most taxpapers taking the standard deduction.

Although that might change as student loans keep getting larger and larger.
 
92Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 17:28
Honestly, I doubt it about the switch to standard deductions only. Many of the people who itemize do so through a tax preparer, or accountant. Those people aren't going to give up on other deductions simply because the easy one is now unavailable. There are still far more deductions available to those people -- pretty much anyone making over $200K (over 90% of whom itemize now) would be leaving money on the table if they went to the standard deduction.

And raising the standard deduction would not help with the billions of dollars per year not going into the federal budget right now because of the interest deduction.

The most immediate effect was that those people might not buy as big a home as they would if taxpayers weren't subsidizing their purchase. That's not a bad thing.
 
93sarge33rd
      ID: 336581716
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 17:58
A middle class taxpayer with a 2,000 to 3,000 mortgage payment ...

There ya go. Middle class taxpayers, dont have $3,000/m mortgages.
 
94sarge33rd
      ID: 336581716
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 18:02
Middle Class income, 30k to 80k/annually. (This cover the middle 20 percentile and the 20 percentile to either side. So 60% of the working public). Mortgage at 25% of gross = 7500 to 20k annually = 650 to 1650/m.

link
 
95Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 18:24
Middle class taxpayers, dont have $3,000/m mortgages.

In most markets that's true, but there are exceptions. I'm constantly amazed at the percentage of income spent by my friends in Southern California on housing, be it mortgage or rent. 50% is not uncommon.
 
96Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 18:35
The interest deduction encourages such overbuying, IMO.
 
97biliruben
      ID: 81382416
      Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 23:36
It would be easy for me to do the math, given that I lived it, with my first house.

200K mortgage, and I continued to take the standard deduction, even at 5.5% interest.

If you insist, I can dig up my old tax returns, but I'm certain I documented our nation's folly here on the boards in excruciating detail someplace.
 
98Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 16:14
Let's do some math..
If a rich guy gives $1000 to charity he pays $350 less on taxes (he is not given anything). So, he is GIVING (this is where 'giving' is the correct term) $1000 to a worthy cause at a net loss of $650. Sounds like a good deal for everyone, but liberals think they should dictate how every bit of someone else's money should be distributed, mostly for their half-brained, logicless, left wing policies and corrupt organizations (see U.N.), and they are are trying to undermine the charitable contributions of moderates.
 
99sarge33rd
      ID: 556381915
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 16:38
Let's do some math..

Followed by a 3-line partisan tirade. *smdh*
 
100Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 18:00
There was some math in there.
 
101Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 21:14
<98> My concern is that your choice of charity, lobbyist/candidate or church is at the expense of the general fund. So in effect, the taxpayer is subsidizing your donation, even if he disagrees with your religion, politics or choice of charity.

Conservatives defend the right of the corporation to follow its religious beliefs, not letting the government position have any influence on it. They disregard the beliefs of employees while insisting their beliefs are superior to those of the employee. Meanwhile, conservatives think its OK to dictate to the public what they will believe in through donations, all the while being subsidized by taxpayers.

Something fundamentally F***ed up about that view. It's an arrogance of entitlement that defies common sense or common decency.

What an employer, or someone who has disposal income to donate, believes, should not become the word of the government through tax deduction. Yet that's the state of things today. That it's allowed to happen is just one more form of corruption in our government.
 
102Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Jul 19, 2014, 22:17
This circles back to the original point of the thread: The IRS makes some minimum-level rules about organizations claiming tax exempt status (in this case, ensuring that those political organizations are not advocating on behalf of a party, or candidate). New conservative groups have often failed the minimum tests, for which the predictable reply is: "The government is biased!!"
 
103Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sun, Jul 20, 2014, 01:04
Bean, what makes no sense is what you typed.
 
104weykool
      ID: 586491619
      Sun, Jul 20, 2014, 09:48
200K mortgage, and I continued to take the standard deduction, even at 5.5% interest.

Prior to 2008 the standard deduction was less than 11K.
2008 10900
2009 11400
2010 11400
2011 11600
2012 11900
2013 12200
2014 12400
Which means you live in a state with no income or real estate tax and you gave nothing to charity.
Sounds about right.
 
105biliruben
      ID: 81382416
      Sun, Jul 20, 2014, 12:48
That's about right. No income tax. Very low property tax - 1.1%. A couple hundred to charity.

And that's near double the typical homeowner's first mortgage.

Mortgage interest deduction is almost or nearly completely useless for the first time home buyer.

Now let's run it for a household making 250K (about where the dividing line is between middle and upper class, I would say) with a million dollar home and a 750K mortgage. Since I have never been fortunate enough to pay the AMT I don't know exactly how it works. How do take that into account?
 
106Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 13:58
<103> Gator, sorry for my ineloquence, but I do want you to understand what I am saying. Please tell me which part of what I typed you are having problems with.
 
107Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 02:43
The entire post makes no sense but let's start with this.."Conservatives defend the right of the corporation to follow its religious beliefs" What corporation has religious beliefs?
 
108sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 11:02
According to SCOTUS, Hobby Lobby does.
 
109Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 14:56
I think sarge answered that, I'd just add that it was a conservative SCOTUS decision. Anything else you dont understand?
 
110Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 19:29
Big deal. So Hobby Lobby does not have to buy rubbers for its employees. That should not be a religious reason but a common sense one. Bean, you want your opinion to count in a business, then start one and see how you feel when a minimum wage gofer decides his opinion is equal to yours. To subsidize, you have to give money, people donating are not subsidized they are not taxed on the amount of the donation, big difference.
 
111sarge33rd
      ID: 216252219
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 20:25
one person, one vote. His opinion *IS* equal to yours.

Now, we all know for a fact, what your real problem is. An unsupported superiority complex.
 
112Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 22:16
That should not be a religious reason

The whole point of the ruling was that the Hobby Lobby owners had a religious reason. It not only should be, but it had to be for them to get the exemption.
 
113Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 01:04
<110> To subsidize, you have to give money, people donating are not subsidized they are not taxed on the amount of the donation, big difference.

Definition: Subsidize - pay part of the cost

The tax general fund is paying part of the cost of your donation.

I could be mistaken, but it seems that BIG DIFFERENCE may have just shrunk a bit under measurement in cold water. Don't worry we'll blame that on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
 
114Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 01:22
Bean, you and Sarge want to dictate how your boss runs the company, dictate how the rich spend their money and dictate how corporations donate money. You two little Castros need to start your own business or take over a country.
 
115sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 10:27
No Gator...we want to ensure that everyone has adequate healthcare, and no one gets to shove their puritanical views, unsubstantiated by science, down the throats of everyone else. The HL case, hinges upon a redefinition of "abortion", which is neither scientifically nor medically accurate.

The "rich" got that way, more and more, because they won the genetic lottery. NOTHIING at all to do, with anything at all they have done. Even those who did acquire their wealth via their work, this society made that possible. They then OWE this society, financial support in proportion to the benefits they derive FROM this society.

Your brand of selfishness, will destroy America.
 
116chode
      ID: 05331014
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 11:46
Where are you working these days, Jim?
 
117sarge33rd
      ID: 386452315
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 16:45
Finance Director at Redding Yamaha. In what way is that relevant?
 
118Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 20:41
115 - Sarge that outlook - that you and/or society is entitled to reap the rewards that others have earned on their own work - that outlook is why you and I will never, ever see eye to eye on many social issues.

Ever.

I'm not in the least bit entitled to any benefit because somebody else worked for wealth.
 
119Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 21:06
But what if that wealth was obtained as a result of your work?
 
120Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 22:47
As an employee, your job is to create wealth for your employer or you serve no purpose.
 
121Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 23:07
No, your job is to do your job. Coordinating workers into a profit-making enterprise is the job of the employer.

 
122Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 23:36
119 - If its my wealth then my family and only my family is entitled to it. What I give to charity, how I spend it, how I save it, who I spend it on - 100% on me and my family. Not a penny of it is owed to anybody by some inherent entitlement.

Does that mean I would never use it to help society? No. But its my choice of who what when where why and how. We, as individuals makes society better. Society does not tell us how we should be. Society should not dictate to us the choices we make. The society we live in should be defined by the individuals who make it up....not the other way around.

Again I believe that is a truly fundamental difference between democrats and true republicans.

Its not that one side is better than the other. Its not that one side or the other doesn't want to give or wont be helpful. Its in the motivation for why one side or the other wants to be helpful and give.
 
123sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 23:55
Khahan...ypur efforts, were only made possible because people before you laid the groundwork upon which you built your success. Now, it is your turn to expand that groundwork for the next generation. Your utter failure to admit that simple truth is why we will not see eye to eye. You see yourself as an island. Apparently, you built single handedly, all the roads upon which you drive. You grew the food and raised the livestock, upon which you dine. You slaughtered the meat, harvested the plants and laid your own waterworks. You single handedly, created the electricity which powers your computer, which you also built with your own hands, so you cpuld post that drivel in 118.



This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy(DOE). I then took a shower and made my coffee with the clean water provided by the municipal water utility regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

While in my morning shower, I reach for my shampoo. The bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient because some crybaby liberal fought for my right to know what I was putting on my body and how much it contained.

After that I turned on the TV to one of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service (NWS) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspected food and taking my daily medicine which have been deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because some stupid socialist liberal fought to ensure the safety of the food and medication.

All but $10 of my medications are paid for by my employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now I get it too.

I walk outside and take a deep breath. The air I breathe is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation (DOT), possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the EPA, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at public school.

I begin my work day. I have a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays, and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. My employer pays these standards because my employer doesn't want our employees to call the union.

If I am hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, I'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think I should lose my home because of my temporary misfortune.

After work I drive my NHTSA automobile back home on the DOT roads because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads and to a house that has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

During my drive to and from work, I listen to my favorite talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit I enjoy throughout my day. I agree: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made person who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

I then log onto the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and then post on Freedomworks and Fox News forums about how this socialist government wants to take away my liberties.
 
124Khahan
      ID: 16341313
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 00:19
Sarge - and you can do nothing but put words in my mouth to make your point. All the while ignoring my point.

You bring up roads we drive on - paid for by taxes which are pre-wealth.
Food - post wealth. I bought it with my money and that money went to pay for the work that others put into producing that food. That is called an exchange. Not an entitlement.
Electricity - again I pay money to the electric company. I pay for that. But again that is an exchange of goods for services.
Health insurance - I pay a doctor for check ups and visits. That is an exchange of goods (money) for services. But why should I pay for somebody else's check up?

Yes I'm an island and so are you. So is PD and so is Baldwin. So is Obama. So is Boehner. I have always believed in the individual over society and I have never hid that on these boards. But you claiming that I take it to some extreme meaning I think I go out and provide myself 100% of all I have is laughable at best Sarge. I'm also not claiming society doesn't exist (which is a natural extension of believing an individual provides 100% of what he needs). Just the opposite, I explicitly state society exists. I just state that we as individuals should define it, not the other way around.

If the best you have is to try to claim that my spending my hard earned money on food and electricity somehow proves that I owe society...then I dont know where to go with this. My whole point is exactly that - I will decide who, what, when, where, why and how I spend my hard earned money. And you are not entitled to a penny of that money any more than I am entitled to a penny of Warren Buffet's money.

But this money I am talking about is earned wealth. Which comes after taxes. I have no problem with taxes. There are certain needs - roads/bridges, civil and national defense, schooling for our children to name a few, that we as a society need to continue. Taxes are great for that. They're not so great when somebody looks and says, "Oh hey, he's got money, lets raise taxes so we can spend his money on entitlement programs for this guy over here." Its way out of hand.

So continue putting words in my mouth and assuming I mean one thing when I clearly have stated another. I have nothing against you personally sarge. I love competing against you in the rifc. I hope nothing but the best. But when it comes to politics you are as challenging and difficult and bullheaded to deal with as Baldwin is. I truly hope you read that and it sinks in for you. You are just as bad as Baldwin to deal with because you do nothing but put words in people's mouths, twist statements and hold to such an extreme view that conversations with you are unpleasant.

 
125sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 00:35
Not putting words in your mouth Khahan. Pointing out the absurdity of your own words and philosophy. Believe in society or not, none of us is an island.
 
126Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 00:38
#122: I don't think anyone is saying one side is "better" than the other. But you seem to feel that people who have exploited others have somehow not only "earned" their money but are also free from criticism. You are wrong on both counts.

Take a look at a family like the Waltons, who make their fortune largely as a result of passing their costs onto state and local taxpayers. But somehow that is OK because they are "entitled" to it?

We're all in this together. Profit comes from capital plus labor, and when people get exploited (as measured by increased efficiency and productivity, accompanied by years of flat wages) then the exploiters will get criticized.

As they should.

When Wal-mart makes profits because my tax dollars are subsidizing their stores, it is my responsibility to call for a more fair system.
 
127Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 03:35
Sarge this is how my day went...
I woke up this morning power by electricity that I pay 3xs too much for because some pin head liberal won't let us drill off shore. I then drink a cup of coffee from clean water which we have had since the turn of the century.

While taking a shower, I reach for the shampoo, I could not careless about the ingredients because I am not a fracking chemist.

I turn on the TV to check the weather channel, but I don't know why the sunny beach hasn't been right in 20 years.

I take my medicine which I paid for because only a small portion of America has a union job.

I walk outside and breath clean air because we are not a third world socialist country yet.

I drive to work but it is taking much longer than normal because some jackass in front of me in a Prius can't drive over 40 miles an hour.

I begin my work day at a crappy job because liberals have destroyed the job market, so employers can do what they want as there is no competition for good employees.

If I get hurt on the job, I am screwed because I am part time, Companies are forced to do this because of so many regulations and government interference.

I drive back home on the roads I paid for and is one of the few things the government does right.

During the ride home I hear a right wing talk show host talk about how liberals have destroyed the American dream and I agree with him.

Sarge, where did you copy and paste that. I know you are not part of the 11% of union workers.
 
128Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 07:40
A post more full of inaccuracies would have been hard to do. Congrats.

You want to fix the job market? Raise minimum wage. Once the economy gets going, all this whining goes with it.
 
129Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 07:58
During the ride home I hear a right wing talk show host talk about how liberals have destroyed the American dream and I agree with him, because my life is driven by emotion and it comforts me to know there's a scapegoat I can pinpoint for my failed, miserable life.
 
130Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 10:49
Fix the job market by raising the minimum wage? Even that moron Krugman would not agree with that statement.

My life is great PV.
I am not affected by Obama, but unlike liberals who pretend to care about their fellow man, I actually do care about people and that is why, since the world economy is tied to America, I hate seeing the socialists drive the economy down to the point where billions are suffering from increase poverty around the world. That may sound like hyperbole but it is a fact that Obama and his socialist practices have a negative affect on the world.
 
131Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 11:33
<114> Gator, you and Boldy want employers to rule and live like kings. You wont be happy until you hire us as indentured servants, run a company store and keep us all in debt our entire lives. You'll tell us what to think and whether or not we are happy.

Now, you may say, that's what the government is doing to us, what's the difference? The answer is we elected our government, so in effect we are doing it to ourselves.
 
132sarge33d
      ID: 206272417
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 18:30
re 130..once again, you are wrong. Both in calling Krugman a moron and in stating what he would say.

History tells us you are wrong, re the min wage. Hell, re just about everything socio-economical.

because I know you wont take my word for it
 
133Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 19:13
it is a fact that Obama and his socialist practices have a negative affect on the world

Similar to confusing the words 'affect' and 'effect,' you seem to have the same problem with 'fact' and 'opinion.'

My life is great....
I begin my work day at a crappy job because liberals have destroyed the job market


Seek psychiatric help.



 
135sarge33d
      ID: 206272417
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:14
and I can not believe, you are so unable to grasp "that" which you ask where I copy/pasted . It is/was not a recounting of my day/life. It was your avg Tea Partiers day. Using and benefiting all day every day, from progressive programs, only to come home and blast those programs, using a device and medium which also came from those same programs.

All of that said, the more you post, the more it becomes apparent needs to be explained to you.

Still not certain which you used to be...JAG or GMONEY. You bear a striking resemblance, aka lack of awareness, to both.
 
136Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:25
GMoney sounds like a name a lily white accountant would use trying to act hip.
 
137Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:41
At least I don't make up facts. Let's look at some of today's world economic news, in an effort to see if Obama's socialist policies are having the claimed negative effects.

Hong Kong stocks close at 2014 high

Japan's inflation rate slows for second straight month

emerging markets are absolutely crushing it, with the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF EEM just knocking out its best close since January 2013

Europe XX:SXXP +0.43% is also having a strong session, fueled by solid PMIs and pretty good Spanish unemployment data


link

And the S&P 500 set a new record today.

However, for those looking for something to whine about and blame on Obama,

The BRICs are starting a bank

Can't believe I have to explain this

You didn't explain anything, but I know how you feel.
 
138Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 21:02
Speculators playing the market does not reflect the economy. On one of your own posts, Volker created a recession to lower inflation, so how is this a sign of a stronger economy?. Obama has not eradicated capitalism, so there will be growth after a large dip in the economy, but that growth is slowed by Obamanomics. 6 years of slow growth is not a reason for a cookie, it is an abomination.
 
139sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 22:24
abomination? No, its a reversal of the rapid decline created by his predecessor.
 
140Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 00:22
Speculators playing the market does not reflect the economy

I suppose you think that's a fact, as opposed to one of the most sophomoric economic comments of all time. Financial markets don't reflect the economy? What do they reflect? Football scores?




 
141Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 02:22
The markets immediately started to rise after the collapse caused by Barney and friends. Did the economy change in a few months? The market bottomed at about 6500 and in less than a year it jumped 4 or 5k. That was speculation and had absolutely nothing to do with the economy.
 
142Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 08:32
Your alternative history book is missing a few pages, Gator. Now the collapse is due to Barney, and Wall Street (which is a speculative market) has nothing to do with the economy, eh? I think a more rigid analysis could be done by Fox & Friends.