Man flies plane into IRS building.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

You know what's the worst news of all this guys?

We just learned that his wife it's going to get a fine, because they just checked and this guy hadn't reported the plane in witch he crashed to the IRS

hahaha

The FirstDown of Cowboys fans.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

The FirstDown of Cowboys fans.

lol got that right

seems to be more the norm with them though

[budw38]

Thats what happens when your gov't screws people ... not that I think he wasn't 100 % wrong ... just saying . Do we have to pay our taxes this year ?

[Skinny Tee]

I don't really like entering political debates but this one is a bit intriguing.

Let me be the first to tell you that I don't really feel 100% informed and educated on all political matters which gives more to my listening to these conversations as opposed to entering them.

I do want to gauge some opinions on this personal idea.

I've always felt that most political matters seem to revolve, and are decided, around big businesses and big money contributions. In our modern era, politicians seem to have their campaigns propelled more by large industries and lobby groups than the individual constituent.

To me, this seems to lend more to conflicts of interest from those elected officials. So let me propose a question to you:

Why isn't corruption (bribes/gifting/position abuse) of any kind at a publicly-elected level, high or low, considered an act of treason and thus punishable by the same stiff penalties?

It's basically just as unpatriotic and detrimental to the country to misuse a publicly elected position and it should be considered as treasonous as espionage. What's your opinion on this?...too harsh of a penalty for our elected officials?...maybe it affects the candidates decisions in office for the better/worse?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

I don't really like entering political debates but this one is a bit intriguing.

Let me be the first to tell you that I don't really feel 100% informed and educated on all political matters which gives more to my listening to these conversations as opposed to entering them.

I do want to gauge some opinions on this personal idea.

I've always felt that most political matters seem to revolve, and are decided, around big businesses and big money contributions. In our modern era, politicians seem to have their campaigns propelled more by large industries and lobby groups than the individual constituent.

To me, this seems to lend more to conflicts of interest from those elected officials. So let me propose a question to you:

Why isn't corruption (bribes/gifting/position abuse) of any kind at a publicly-elected level, high or low, considered an act of treason and thus punishable by the same stiff penalties?

It's basically just as unpatriotic and detrimental to the country to misuse a publicly elected position and it should be considered as treasonous as espionage. What's your opinion on this?...too harsh of a penalty for our elected officials?...maybe it affects the candidates decisions in office for the better/worse?

There will ALWAYS be some level of corruption in government, or any place where power is wielded. That much is true, and people will find ways to skirt/minimize their exposure to consequences. Asking politicians to treat corruption harshly requires them to make laws that could effectively be used against them.

A side tangent to this is that we have essentially pushed all corruption to a national/federal level when it comes to the legislative branch of the government. When the Constitution was written senators were elected by their state governments, not the people of their state. That made the corruption for getting into and on the good side of a senator a very local thing. Now, I accept that it had gotten out of control in many states, and so the move to elections may have been necessary. But I think we see now the result of having the whole congress popularly elected. In my opinion, a very good move would be to move back the clock on how senators are seated. Would corruption still exist yes, but it would counterbalance the megacorporations and activist corruption that happens at the Federal level.

I think the Constitution, in it's original form was an amazing document. It missed the boat on one or two obvious issues, but the framework of the government was an immensely well balanced system - balancing between the need for accomplished statesmen who were politically savvy and the need for feet on the ground in for a couple years then back to the real world political savants.

[tryfuhl]

You'd never get anyone to run for office if that were the case, but I think that it should definitely be sanctioned more. I mean what's the point in signing off on a bill and then not voting for it, just to spite an administration, because your farms in your state didn't get their extra truckload of pig shit, or whatever?

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

You'd never get anyone to run for office if that were the case, but I think that it should definitely be sanctioned more. I mean what's the point in signing off on a bill and then not voting for it, just to spite an administration, because your farms in your state didn't get their extra truckload of pig shit, or whatever?

I think there'd still be people running but it wouldn't be smart, rich people who have something to lose. It'd be modest class of people who trust their honesty and nothing to lose.

Perhaps too ideological I suppose : )

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

I think there'd still be people running but it wouldn't be smart, rich people who have something to lose. It'd be modest class of people who trust their honesty and nothing to lose.

Perhaps too ideological I suppose : )

Indeed, and yes, people would still run and perhaps better candidates. Most politicians have business outside of just their "service" and will be swayed though. Could be opening the floodgates to more Palin's

[MTK]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Indeed, and yes, people would still run and perhaps better candidates. Most politicians have business outside of just their "service" and will be swayed though. Could be opening the floodgates to more Palin's

Ugh that's all we need, more idiots.

Personally I don't want Joe Schmoe running things, nor do I want someone running things who I would want to have a beer with.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Ugh that's all we need, more idiots.

Personally I don't want Joe Schmoe running things, nor do I want someone running things who I would want to have a beer with.

Agreed, but by the same token I don't want industry execs to be the sole voice heard either. It's hard to legislate discipline, restraint and integrity into national offices... That's why I laugh at all of these firebrand types that scream "revolution." You want to revolt, cool, no problem, but you better have a better idea, and in 230+ years, one hasn't come along.

[tryfuhl]

Interesting comment left on Austin Crash Pilot Called "Easy Going" - CBS News

20 years ago I worked as an accounts payable clerk for a now-defunct software company.

I saw enormous amounts of abuse of the independent contractor status of programmers (yes, they like to call themselves software engineers but they are programmers) by managers in that company. Quite often during layoffs they would lay off programmers then managers would hire their buddies back as contractors. Quite often I would issue checks for many thousands of dollars of software programs and hardware that would be given to the contractors then disappear off company premises, never to be seen again. Contractors were given office space, telephones, network connectivity and many other perks. The so-called "independent" contractors ruled the roost, and I also saw the damage it did to regular company morale. The managers got away with it because since none of the business owners, CEO or President could write software themselves, or came from a programmers background, they were afraid to go up against the managers. This was a symptom of weak leadership and in fact the software company failed and got acquired by another software company in 1994 - but it was several years before that company reined in the abuses - and I heard rumors that they still were involved in this sort of thing a decade ago in Santa Monica. (by then I had been gone for years from the company for greener pastures)

This is why the IRS is so tough on the status of contractors in the software industry. Because it is so easy to hide dollar amounts of the tools (computers and software) that these people use to do their work in the general corporate expenses, independent contractors seek out weak managers who are easy to buffalo into giving them things, and software companies are so often funded by venture capitalists who go ballaistic when they see headcount counts rise that it is easier for the manager to use a contractor than try to justify to a VC why you need to hire another warm body. The IRS is right to break up these sweetheart arraingements, as they are tax dodges of the worst order.

I have read this guys writings and they are nothing more than a series of attempting to dodge taxes by playing
the "independent software engineer" game throughout his life. He really had no understanding of how much public funding has supported his industry and the companies that he worked for, and how critical it is for those industries. Even today, 3/4 of the Internet is partly supported by public funding in the form of government tax carveouts for large ISPs and networks, and if the Internet didn't exist, most of this guys software firms that he's worked for wouldn't have existed either.

This is exactly how your typical conservative thinks - they are more than happy to plunge both trotters into the trough and suck up all that government support of their stuff, but when it comes to paying taxes for it they are the first to cut and run.

[Longtimefan]

Guy had serious problems with government issues. Chose a cowardly way to resolve them.

[tryfuhl]

I think that we need to get younger in the govt, especially Congress. These guys are voting on stuff that they've never seen, used, and may not live to see the outcome of.

[tryfuhl]

haha buster

I think firstdown was saying that he has worse spelling/grammar than the guy who wrote it, but not sure

if so, that's bad, because that letter was atrocious

[tryfuhl]

I think that our entire govt comprises the idea of "We're smarter than you, so we know what's best for you" mentality, that's certainly not limited to the left. If you do then you have to come up with "We don't care, we're telling you what's best for you and you'll deal with it" from the right.