We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, May 16. 2013
IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo
He does a good job explaining it
Your Next IRS Political Audit - The tax agency is getting vast new power in health care.
Breaking: Holder Justice Department Also Tapped House of Representatives Cloak Room
A degree of malevolence in the Administration
The (501(c)3) Media Matters Distributes Talking Points to Defend DOJ Spying on AP Reporters
I do not understand why any political 501(c)(3)s are legal.
Jon Stewart is angry at Obama for proving us right
Things Obama didn't know about
Race card = desperation. Matthews doesn't believe it for a minute. The reason for (at least 2 parties) is to hold eachother to account.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Ew: Things Obama didn't know about
Little Barry's Wonderful World"
Don't know much about Ben Gazhai
Don't know much climatology
Don't know much 'bout wiretapping the press
Don't know much about the IRS
But I do know that I love you
And I know that you must love me, too
What a wonderful world this would be
Don't know much about running guns
Don't know much deficits
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a budget is for
But I do know one and one is three
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful world this would be
"I do not understand why any political 501(c)(3)s are legal".
I don't understand why any 501(c)(3)'s are legal. This is all about special rights in a country where we are all supposed to be equal. If anyone or any group wants to do something let them do it within the existing constitutional framework that applies to everyone. No special tax treatement either for the donor or donee. Let everyone from the poor to middle class to Bill Gates pay their taxes on all their income and then give to whatever cause charitable or political they choose to with money they paid taxes on.
There are legitimate reasons for filing for tax exempt status. As an example, the local Amateur Radio Operators are organizing to establish a ARES/RACES group (Amateur Radio Emergency Service/Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service) to build a VHF/UHF repeater system for Lexington County which will link up to the [url=http://scheart.us/irlp_web/main/SCHEART[/url] repeater system providing wider area coverage in the Midlands to the Western Highlands. We can't do that if we aren't tax exempt because this is going to cost us pretty close to $15,000 by the time its all said and done - not to mention ongoing operational costs a small part of which will be picked up by the State, the rest out of our own pockets. We have to be a formal group, raise funds through contributions and at least get some relief in terms of our own personal contributions to keep it running and operational costs.
We're not going to get the contributions we need to accomplish this if we aren't tax exempt, but we're not a business, we're a volunteer organization providing a public service in times of emergency.
I truely do not believe that any and all of the tax exempt entities could not do what they do if they had the same tax status as everyone else; same as a corporation perhaps. But more to the point; Why should they have a tax exempt status? Why shouldn't I have a tax exempt status? Either we are all equal or we are not. And these organization are not being good nieghbors and good citizens. They exempt themselves from the costs to support and protect them and force these costs on the unsuspecting tax payers who are being good citizens. Do good things or do bad things but live and work under the same rules as the taxpayers do.
Along the lines of what GoneWithTheWind wrote, I appreciate there may be quite a bit of expense involved in your project---and it does seem like it may be a worthwhile one---but if your group is seriously committed to doing it, its members could pay for it out of pocket instead of doing fund raisers, in which case there'd be no tax issue and thus no need for your group to get a tax-exemption. Alternatively, if the public service is as valuable as you say, perhaps its something your local government can/should be convinced to do. In that case, donations to the local government to fund the construction and operation of the service might even be tax deductible.
PS: Sorry, but I pulled the trigger on my previous comment too fast. I meant to conclude with the statement that I think such special tax carve-outs as these 501(c)(3)s are open to far too much abuse, no matter how well intentioned some of them are, and to that extent I agree with GoneWithTheWind.
O.K. I'll go along with no 501(c)(3)'s - and thus, essentially, no tax deductions for charitable contributions - if the Federal government in turn will stop funding various social action groups. If the govenment can take my tax money for "community organizations" and Planned Parenthood and other such organizations, I need to be able to get at least some tax relief when I contribute to organizations that attempt to promote social changes I approve of.
This is what happens when the "senior white house advisors" are a bunch of second rate political hacks from Chicago.
Maybe Jon Stewart isn't mad at Obama for proving "us" right, he's mad at himself for being a sucker.
If that feeling sinks in amongst the Snarking Class, Obama really will be toast.
Last night, with Olympia Snowe, Stewart just shut her down on bipartisanship. "Nothings going to happen. With the way things are going, You have a better chance of impeachment than background checks right now"
Liberals are taking this in stride, at least the ones I know. It's a low level IRS problem. The Republicans are blowing it up way out of proportion. Nobody understands Benghazi anyway.
I expect the mainstream media, no matter what was done to the AP, to fall into line.
Liberals simply cannot let those mouth-breathing red-neck low-class Republicans be proved right.
I honestly believe that it's all about status for liberals (very much including the media). They have to see themselves as smarter, better and kinder than the Republicans. And they prove it by backing a lovely black man like Obama.
The real question is: will the average American buy the liberal line again? They don't get the same status charge from it that the liberal gentry do.
I honestly believe that it's all about status for liberals (very much including the media).
It's a pratfall of the creed; Liberalism as the faction of activist, competent and enlightened government. They all want to be in the Philosopher-King Party and imagine themselves competent for the position.
Well put! The desire to be a philosopher king is exactly the vanity at the base of liberalism.
It is also a class issue. They truly believe that Republicans are dumb mouth-breathers.
Sometimes I think that the Civil War never ended. Liberals are northerners who think that conservatives are dumb southerners. I happend to be a northern conservative, surrounded by liberals, and I'm intelligent, but when they figure out I'm a conservative, liberals invent some way to explain it. It could never be that conservatism is the logical choice for an intelligent northerner.
Like all matters of faith, liberalism is not susceptible to logic.
A bit of an aside. Today, I googled "federal employee oath"
To return was
Oath - Office of Personnel Management
A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more.
Click through, they forward you to a page that does have the oath but is archived with this disclaimer at the top
You have reached a collection of archived material.
The content available is no longer being updated and may no longer be applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration. If you wish to see the latest content, please visit the current version of the site.
I searched for "employee oath" on the OPM site but all the links were into parts of manuals and such, nothing so cleanly or easily located as the "content not longer being updated"
BTW, I'd have to check the US Code but the oath was:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
5 U.S.C. §3331
If the actions by the IRS employees had been sexual in nature, the whole IRS if not Treasury would be hip deep in sexual harassment seminars by now. Why no seminars on the Constitution, rule of law, "support and defend", etc.?
They could hire some of those groups they hassled whose purpose was to educate on the Constitution and Bill of Rights to do the training as a sort of compensation.
Cut Chris Matthews some slack. He's White. He should know about White Supremacy. At least in MSNBC!
I certainly don't.
Santay @ #4: Second-rate? My, you are overly generous!
If there is any difference in the worldview and thinking of Chris Matthews and that of the KKK, I'm hard pressed to see it.