U.S. Politics: lt's not hard

[TrackerNeil]

The purpose of the tax code should be revenue raising not advancing social policy. That doesn't mean that social policy shouldn't influence things like the progessivity of brackets, etc., but using the tax code as a direct means to alleviate poverty is bad tax policy overall.

I don't see why. Sure, it's led to complexity, but I have a hard time believing we wouldn't have gotten there anyway. Everyone wants tax breaks and shelters and what-not, and in a nation this large that adds up to a bunch even if you leave the poverty alleviation motivation out of the mix.

[TerraPrime]

That doesn't mean that social policy shouldn't influence things like the progessivity of brackets, etc., but using the tax code as a direct means to alleviate poverty is bad tax policy overall.

In principle, I agree. But in practice, when programs that actually alleviate poverty require such legislative cooperations that they are untenable in this country, and when the fundamental changes need some serious adjustment to how we regulate capitalism in this country, I'd take IRS actions for now. At least it's something. A beggar can't choose, and all that.

[lokisnow]

can't resist posting this Dukakis quote in full, which will also clarify how i misused it above:

That meant Michael had answers.

To wit: the deficit’s killing us—would Michael raise taxes?

“No one who’s running for President will tell you—I hope—that they will never raise taxes. But the first thing is tax compliance, which is now running at eighty-one percent.

“Eighty-one percent!” Michael repeated this (arguable) fact with one palm turned up, in front of one narrow, half-shrugged shoulder, his head shaking, no, all the while, no, like he, himself, could hardly believe how management of simple tax collection had come to such a sorry pass. Then he started quizzing them, like children:

“What does the IRS stand for? ... Can anybody tell me?

“Internal ... Revenue ... Service. I’d like very much to put the service back in the tax system. In my state, you get your refund back in nine days.”

Michael was now nodding, both fists on his hips.

“Nine days.”

Cramer, Richard Ben (2011-08-02). What It Takes: The Way to the White House (pp. 503-504). Open Road Integrated Media LLC. Kindle Edition.

[DanteGabriel]

Snark aside, I largely agree. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever get reform of the tax code again, Republicans have become too extreme and so far polarized from democratic overtures that you can't find a coalition of 217 that would agree to reform.

In the unlikely event that the chamber could agree to reform the tax code, they'll just go right back and build in loopholes for their top donors. Plenty of people have expressed a desire for a simplified tax code that becomes revenue neutral by eliminating loopholes, but when you get to the actual business of deciding which loopholes to cut, people all of a sudden remember that this particular loophole really should stick around.

[TrackerNeil]

In principle, I agree. But in practice, when programs that actually alleviate poverty require such legislative cooperations that they are untenable in this country, and when the fundamental changes need some serious adjustment to how we regulate capitalism in this country, I'd take IRS actions for now.

This ongoing congressional gridlock really has resulted in ever-increasing power for the executive branch. Obama's using executive orders to address global warming, which is nice except that the next Republican president can, and probably will, undo all that in a stroke. It's just not healthy for democracy.

[Lightsnake]

http://www.weeklysta...ram_745680.html

Obama says "we don't have a domestic spying program"

He went on to add that War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.

And then Tormund went on to show he doesn't know what 'spying' is.

[Stag Country]

When you say that your point is self-evident, I"m not sure to what you're responding. What I see is you stating emphatically and more than once that Obama and W are -- well, what you said was exactly and in every way identical, but presumably what you meant was -- basically the same, and then when people mock your absolutism, you decry them for not being willing to accept any similarities. It seems like you have an utterly reasonable point: there are strong points of similarity that anyone, right or left, should find outrageous. So why don't you wipe the slate clean and say that instead?

I also don't know what argument you think I'm making. I've made an observation, and I suppose you disagree with it, but I don't really see where there's even room for a straw man.

Well it evidently wasn't a thorough observation. My first comment regarding that matter was in #173, it then some 20 odd posts till DG needed to bring it up again. At which point I clarified it with:

Both are trying or tried to overhaul immigration. Both are pursing or pursued an almost identical foreign policy, particularly in regards to the war on terror. Both have committed the US to warrant-less wiretapping. Obama has extended Bush's tax cuts and expanded the overreaching spending of the previous administration. He hasn't rescinded or even worked to rescind Medicare Part D. He has continued 'No Child Left Behind'. He's still committed to the same ethanol policy. He hasn't closed Guantanamo. We're still in Afghanistan. etc. etc. etc.

About the only significant alteration is the ACA and his lifting of the stem cell ban (which was stupid anyway). These presidents are not that different from one another. The fact that you seem to think it's a "right wing canard" suggests you aren't really paying attention. It's a pretty bi-partisan consensus that he's continued and/or maintained many of the Bush era policies that many on the left found unfavorable.

The fact that you and several others keep pretending that I'm not allowing for any differences there is mind boggling.

[Gertrude]

Stag, how about letting this go and engaging on other subjects?

[Inigima]

And then Tormund went on to show he doesn't know what 'spying' is.

Yeah I'm gonna need you to explain this bit of semantic gymnastics.

[Shryke]

Yeah I'm gonna need you to explain this bit of semantic gymnastics.

It's not semantic gymnastics. Firstly, what do you define as a "domestic spying program".

Cause as far as we've seen, the US doesn't have a program for domestic spying. It has a program for foreign spying (it has, like, two agencies devoted to this task).

[TerraPrime]

By the way, NCLB is a thing of the past. We are now in the implementation year for Common Core Standards. The general consensus is a guarded optimism, with a pretty universal sigh of relief that at least this seems less bad than NCLB.

[Lord Mord]

Stag,

Well it evidently wasn't a thorough observation. My first comment regarding that matter was in #173, it then some 20 odd posts till DG needed to bring it up again. At which point I clarified it with:

The fact that you and several others keep pretending that I'm not allowing for any differences there is mind boggling.

All right, fair enough. I admit, I was looking for something particular, without specifying. Generally, I have a tendency to expect a more definitive and explicit admission of wrongness. "I really misspoke. I conflated some actual, serious political and procedural similarities with values across the board and that was wrong. Sorry". More generously -- and fairly -- I could have inferred such an admission from what you had written. I apologize.

[davos]

*mod hat* Ok, this debate about rather or not Stag Country was wrong had already been going on when I got home from work yesterday and was going when I went to bed last night. I had hoped it would be not make it into another day, yet here I am, back from work today and its still on going. So, while I would rather have let it die on its own, this is the official notice to drop that topic. Now. It was not constructive in any way shape or form. */mod hat*

[Frog Eater]

And then Tormund went on to show he doesn't know what 'spying' is.

OK, we don't have a domestic spying program, but we do have a domestic surveillance program, or domestic monitoring, or domestic "we are accumulating untold tons of electronic communications data on each and every American who utilizes e-mail, the internet or a cellular phone, and then mining that information for select cross references so we can then use that information against them in ways we don't feel we need to discuss with the American public" program. But most people would call that spying.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It's kinda like how US Airways isn't a domestic airline. They're an international airline, seeing as they fly to London and shit.

[Inigima]

It's not semantic gymnastics. Firstly, what do you define as a "domestic spying program".

Cause as far as we've seen, the US doesn't have a program for domestic spying. It has a program for foreign spying (it has, like, two agencies devoted to this task).

Do we or do we not indiscriminately hoover up the communications of American citizens on American soil? Because to me that's fucking spying.

[Stag Country]

And then Tormund went on to show he doesn't know what 'spying' is.

So collecting phone and ISP transfer information from individual citizens without a warrant or even probably cause of a crime isn't spying in your book? Really?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I don't see why. Sure, it's led to complexity, but I have a hard time believing we wouldn't have gotten there anyway. Everyone wants tax breaks and shelters and what-not, and in a nation this large that adds up to a bunch even if you leave the poverty alleviation motivation out of the mix.

Let's be clear, I'd get rid of all the special gimmes. The IRS is not meant to administer social programs. Having them do so (and also to administer all of these other programs, E.G., the foreign account reporting requirements) diverts needed resources away from what should be its primary business, revenue, to other, less productive, uses. The quality of the person who runs the IRS has diminished, in part because the skillset needed to run the agency as it is constituted today is a pretty much impossible skillset. The agency is consistently underfunded, and its ability even to combat fraud on the most basic level (identity theft) is hindered, rather than helped, by all of these programs.

Well, raising Revenue is clearly important, but the agency has Service in its name. so you could say that Clinton put the Service back in the IRS. (cribbed this quip from Dukakis).

Snark aside, I largely agree. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever get reform of the tax code again, Republicans have become too extreme and so far polarized from democratic overtures that you can't find a coalition of 217 that would agree to reform.

Something will happen eventually. It's cyclical. 1986 was the last reform, and before that it was 1954. Another overhaul is needed, but I do agree it may well not happen in the next couple of election cycles. In the long run though, there's only so much patching that can be done, and someone will need to look at the thing as a whole and rewrite sensibly.

In principle, I agree. But in practice, when programs that actually alleviate poverty require such legislative cooperations that they are untenable in this country, and when the fundamental changes need some serious adjustment to how we regulate capitalism in this country, I'd take IRS actions for now. At least it's something. A beggar can't choose, and all that.

If a social safety net is a proper function of government (and the 20th century seems to have enshrined that as truth), why is the appropriate agency for administering that the agency responisble for collecting revenue from its citizenry. Recognizing that there are plenty of people here that seem to want to roll back the function of government as a provider of social welfare, I would rather that be tackled head on rather than burying the programs in impenatrable code sections. The worst part of, for instance, the earned income credit, is that you have to file a tax return to get it. Filing a tax return is not a simple process, as you may well know. While there are clinics where people like me volunteer their time to help people fill out a 1040 claiming the credit, there are plenty of people who either (i) don't know to file, (ii) do not have the means to file, (iii) fear to file or (iv) otherwise cannot or do not file (e.g., do not know their taxpayer id number). Further more, there are plenty of unscrupulous people who use the process either to steal identities or otherwise take advantage of those who least can afford it. Why should the IRS be in charge of the process of getting money to people in need? It's completely backwards.

[Shryke]

Do we or do we not indiscriminately hoover up the communications of American citizens on American soil? Because to me that's fucking spying.

No, you collect data on what appears to be basically all foreign communication. Metadata on basically everyone too I guess, although the law doesn't consider that spying by any measure.

You seem to be trying to be extremely unspecific in what you are talking about here.

OK, we don't have a domestic spying program, but we do have a domestic surveillance program, or domestic monitoring, or domestic "we are accumulating untold tons of electronic communications data on each and every American who utilizes e-mail, the internet or a cellular phone, and then mining that information for select cross references so we can then use that information against them in ways we don't feel we need to discuss with the American public" program. But most people would call that spying.

That doesn't actually appear to be what's happening.

[Frog Eater]

That doesn't actually appear to be what's happening.

I think you just argue to argue sometimes. It's exactly what it appears is happening