Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 10 2019 01:29 Nouar wrote: From The Guardian (quoting Propublica). "Taxpayers first", lol. They intend (after intense lobbying) to legally forbid the IRS from implementing a way for taxpayers to file taxes for free. I don't even have words. You know, a government website to file your taxes ? Like most countries do ? Well, nope. You will have to go through a third party. I mean, it is already the case, but it's closing the door to even the most remote possibility. "it would threaten the industry’s profits", they say.
Congress is moving towards passing legislation that would make it illegal for the IRS from creating a system to allow Americans to file their taxes for free.
Pro Publica reports:
Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., passed the Taxpayer First Act, a wide-ranging bill making several administrative changes to the IRS that is sponsored by Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Mike Kelly, R-Pa.
In one of its provisions, the bill makes it illegal for the IRS to create its own online system of tax filing. Companies like Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block have lobbied for years to block the IRS from creating such a system. If the tax agency created its own program, which would be similar to programs other developed countries have, it would threaten the industry’s profits.
“This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.
I did not know this was the case, and honestly, having to provide my tax and revenue information to a third-party, and not having a choice doing so... gives me shivers.
What the fuck.
"We forbid our tax agency from developing a way for you to file your taxes online because that would hurt the profits of the companies that currently provide that way."
How can anyone argue that point without looking incredibly and absurdly corrupt? Seriously. What are the actual arguments used in favor of something like this? It can not be just "I hope no one notices this utterly corrupt thing i am trying to pull right here", there must at least be some sort of smokescreen, right?
(Also, once again this is a case where i go "You really don't have that already?")
On April 10 2019 01:42 JimmiC wrote: Good, I'm not sure on the federal level, but at the local municipal level letters hold a lot of weight. Even more so now that they are less common. Far more weight than tweets.
I am with you 100%. Letters, especially ones that you put care into crafting, hold much more weight in this era of digital media and email. They make it clear that you are wiling to put time into being heard and silently say "I vote and am willing to make my opinion known." At the local level, most politicians don't have the resources for polling, so they have to take letters seriously.
The best part is the shock when people meet me after a couple letters. I have the worst baby face, so people think I'm in my early 20s despite being in my late 30s. A hand signed(but typed) letter is the realm of grumpy old men who are retired. So its always a treat to see their confused looks. Sadly, I'm a known quantity in my town now.
On April 10 2019 02:01 IgnE wrote: The arguments for must be the usual ones advanced in favor of neoliberal privatization of government
I doubt they even have arguments beyond pleasing lobbyists, TBH. This reeks of them trying to slip it through on the DL during the all this other drama in DC. On top of that, Warren was a big proponent of the IRS creating a free, online system. So my bet is there has been a huge push because they know she is going to bring that up again in her primary run.
On April 08 2019 23:40 byte-Curious wrote: [quote]
Hah, that's precisely what I said when Sen. Warren started to get dragged into the mud with him on that stupid Pocahontas issue, which was a colossal fail for her. If she stuck to policies, she would rape him over the coals in the general election.
Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency.
As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying?
Dude.... really?
If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you.
If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you
Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill.
It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath
He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision.
I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not.
As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs.
Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck
On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency.
As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying?
Dude.... really?
If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you.
If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you
Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill.
It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath
He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision.
I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not.
As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs.
Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck
The Ben Carson sweet spot. Really good at one thing, and yet also manifestly an idiot.
On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency.
As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying?
Dude.... really?
If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you.
If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you
Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill.
It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath
He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision.
I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not.
As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs.
Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck
To be a politician you need charisma, that much is certain. But charisma, unlike in D&D, is not really "a skill", as someone can be charismatic to some and revolting to others. Obama had a sort of intelligent aura about him, which made him charismatic to a lot of people who valued that, while Trump is charismatic to his base because of the exact opposite, which a surprising number of people seemed to value back in 2016, while making him look like a bumbling buffoon to everyone else. Combined with the fact that his only opposition was an..ambivalent person.
I guess sounding stupid could be considered a skill of sorts. But I wouldn't attribute it to instinct or anything like that, unless his instinct is to be stupid...which just makes him stupid.
As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying?
Dude.... really?
If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you.
If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you
Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill.
It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath
He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision.
I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not.
As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs.
Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck
To be a politician you need charisma, that much is certain. But charisma, unlike in D&D, is not really "a skill", as someone can be charismatic to some and revolting to others. Obama had a sort of intelligent aura about him, which made him charismatic to a lot of people who valued that, while Trump is charismatic to his base because of the exact opposite, which a surprising number of people seemed to value, while making him look like a bumbling buffoon to everyone else. It just happened that there's a large portion of people who valued that in 2016, combined with the fact that his only opposition was a..ambivalent person.
I guess sounding stupid could be considered a skill of sorts.
I think it’s the shamelessness. Trump lies with such brazen obliviousness that he’s found some kind of loophole in the human social contract. People don’t really behave the way he does so it’s hard to know how to respond to it. We know that there is a social cost to lying and therefore when we lie we build in tells, we scale down the lies or try to build in ambiguity or other mitigating circumstances. And by doing so we signal to others that we’re lying, that we know we’re lying, and that we’re hoping they’re too polite to call us out on it.
Trump spews lies in a way that we don’t really know how to respond to, other than just by beating the shit out of him. It’s a weird kind of assholery, like someone loudly farting in a crowded elevator, where the social contract is simply not acknowledged. People like that go around doing the things that everyone knows not to do and they kind of break the system by doing it. Not paying contractors, lying to banks for loans, selling courses that don’t exist, grabbing pussies, talking shit about war heroes, these are things we don’t do because we know the social cost, even if we think we can get away with them. But as a society we’ve become a little too far removed from taking the offender aside and hitting him with sticks until he stops.
When Trump act like Trump we just file it under “this isn’t supposed to happen and therefore it isn’t happening”, like pretending not to smell the fart in the elevator. And he’s exploiting that because we’re not allowed to hit him with sticks.
The lack of shame with respect to taking hardline uninformed “feels right” stances is definitely a front and center reason why Trump has the support he does.
On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote: [quote] If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you.
If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you
Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill.
It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath
He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision.
I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not.
As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs.
Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck
To be a politician you need charisma, that much is certain. But charisma, unlike in D&D, is not really "a skill", as someone can be charismatic to some and revolting to others. Obama had a sort of intelligent aura about him, which made him charismatic to a lot of people who valued that, while Trump is charismatic to his base because of the exact opposite, which a surprising number of people seemed to value, while making him look like a bumbling buffoon to everyone else. It just happened that there's a large portion of people who valued that in 2016, combined with the fact that his only opposition was a..ambivalent person.
I guess sounding stupid could be considered a skill of sorts.
I think it’s the shamelessness. Trump lies with such brazen obliviousness that he’s found some kind of loophole in the human social contract. People don’t really behave the way he does so it’s hard to know how to respond to it. We know that there is a social cost to lying and therefore when we lie we build in tells, we scale down the lies or try to build in ambiguity or other mitigating circumstances. And by doing so we signal to others that we’re lying, that we know we’re lying, and that we’re hoping they’re too polite to call us out on it.
Trump spews lies in a way that we don’t really know how to respond to, other than just by beating the shit out of him. It’s a weird kind of assholery, like someone loudly farting in a crowded elevator, where the social contract is simply not acknowledged. People like that go around doing the things that everyone knows not to do and they kind of break the system by doing it. Not paying contractors, lying to banks for loans, selling courses that don’t exist, grabbing pussies, talking shit about war heroes, these are things we don’t do because we know the social cost, even if we think we can get away with them. But as a society we’ve become a little too far removed from taking the offender aside and hitting him with sticks until he stops.
When Trump act like Trump we just file it under “this isn’t supposed to happen and therefore it isn’t happening”, like pretending not to smell the fart in the elevator. And he’s exploiting that because we’re not allowed to hit him with sticks.
I think that's it for some, those that would rather pretend it didn't happen than confront it. There's another segment that embraces it though. Carlin does an excellent job succinctly laying it out here.
Cause you do know folks, living in this country, you’re bound to know that every time you’re exposed to advertising, you realize once again, that America’s leading industry, America’s most profitable business is still the manufacture, packaging, distribution, and marketing of bullshit… high quality, grade-A, prime cut, pure American bullshit, and the sad part is is that most people seem to been indoctrinated to believe that bullshit only comes from certain places, certain sources; advertising, politics, salesmen… not true, bullshit is everywhere, bullshit is rampant, parents are full of shit, teachers are full of shit, clergymen are full of shit, and law enforcement people are full of shit. This entire country, this entire country is completely full of shit and always has been from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution of the Star Spangled Banner, it’s still nothing more than one big, steaming pile of red, white and blue, all-American bullshit because think of how we started… think of that. This country was founded by a group of slave owners who told us “all men are created equal”. Oh yeah… all men, except for Indians and Ni**ers and women right? Always like to use that authentic American language. This was a small group of unelected white male, land-holding, slave owners who also suggested their class be the only one allowed to vote. Now that is what’s known as being stunningly and embarrassingly full of shit. And I think Americans really show their ignorance when they say they want their politicians to be honest. What are these fucking cretins talking about? If honesty were suddenly introduced into American life, the whole system would collapse! No one would know what to do! Honesty would fuck this country up! And I think deep down, Americans know that. That’s why the elected and re-elected Bill Clinton! Because the American people like their bullshit right out front where they can get a good strong whiff of it! Clinton might be full of shit but at least he lets you know it. Dolle tried to hide it didn’t he? Dolle kept saying “I’m a plain and honest man!” Bullshit! People don’t believe that! What did Clinton say? He said “Hi folks! I’m completely full of shit and how do you like that?” and the people said “You know something? At least he’s honest.” At least he’s honest about being completely full of shit.
We live in an amazing time when tech companies are so clue less about what is happening on their platform that white nationalists raise money streaming that company appearing before congress. Truly a system they have control over.
We are in some dark times right now. Tech companies ignored these problems for so long that dealing with them now will have a big impact on their bottom line. And they know it.
On April 10 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote: We live in an amazing time when tech companies are so clue less about what is happening on their platform that white nationalists raise money streaming that company appearing before congress. Truly a system they have control over.
We are in some dark times right now. Tech companies ignored these problems for so long that dealing with them now will have a big impact on their bottom line. And they know it.
They aren't clueless about it, they just don't give a shit. $ is $, who cares where it comes from.
They haven't ignored it, they never wanted to deal with it in the first place because it would effect their bottom line.
Expecting an industry to regulate itself is retarded when the mighty $ is all that matters. But of course politicians know that, that's why these companies pay politicians NOT to regulate the industry.
On April 10 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote: We live in an amazing time when tech companies are so clue less about what is happening on their platform that white nationalists raise money streaming that company appearing before congress. Truly a system they have control over.
We are in some dark times right now. Tech companies ignored these problems for so long that dealing with them now will have a big impact on their bottom line. And they know it.
They aren't clueless about it, they just don't give a shit. $ is $, who cares where it comes from.
They haven't ignored it, they never wanted to deal with it in the first place because it would effect their bottom line.
Expecting an industry to regulate itself is retarded when the mighty $ is all that matters. But of course politicians know that, that's why these companies pay politicians NOT to regulate the industry.
I’m sure it is both. Though one would think they would clamp down for the like 8 hours they are in front of congress, if only for their own benefit and self interest. But apparently that was to much for them or they don’t think congress will do anything.
On April 10 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote: We live in an amazing time when tech companies are so clue less about what is happening on their platform that white nationalists raise money streaming that company appearing before congress. Truly a system they have control over.
We are in some dark times right now. Tech companies ignored these problems for so long that dealing with them now will have a big impact on their bottom line. And they know it.
They aren't clueless about it, they just don't give a shit. $ is $, who cares where it comes from.
They haven't ignored it, they never wanted to deal with it in the first place because it would effect their bottom line.
Expecting an industry to regulate itself is retarded when the mighty $ is all that matters. But of course politicians know that, that's why these companies pay politicians NOT to regulate the industry.
I’m sure it is both. Though one would think they would clamp down for the like 8 hours they are in front of congress, if only for their own benefit and self interest. But apparently that was to much for them or they don’t think congress will do anything.
They don't buy them for no reason. You think congress is actually going to go after one of the biggest Democratic financial supporters going into 2020?
On April 10 2019 01:29 Nouar wrote: From The Guardian (quoting Propublica). "Taxpayers first", lol. They intend (after intense lobbying) to legally forbid the IRS from implementing a way for taxpayers to file taxes for free. I don't even have words. You know, a government website to file your taxes ? Like most countries do ? Well, nope. You will have to go through a third party. I mean, it is already the case, but it's closing the door to even the most remote possibility. "it would threaten the industry’s profits", they say.
Congress is moving towards passing legislation that would make it illegal for the IRS from creating a system to allow Americans to file their taxes for free.
Pro Publica reports:
Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., passed the Taxpayer First Act, a wide-ranging bill making several administrative changes to the IRS that is sponsored by Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Mike Kelly, R-Pa.
In one of its provisions, the bill makes it illegal for the IRS to create its own online system of tax filing. Companies like Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block have lobbied for years to block the IRS from creating such a system. If the tax agency created its own program, which would be similar to programs other developed countries have, it would threaten the industry’s profits.
“This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.
I did not know this was the case, and honestly, having to provide my tax and revenue information to a third-party, and not having a choice doing so... gives me shivers.
What the fuck.
"We forbid our tax agency from developing a way for you to file your taxes online because that would hurt the profits of the companies that currently provide that way."
How can anyone argue that point without looking incredibly and absurdly corrupt? Seriously. What are the actual arguments used in favor of something like this? It can not be just "I hope no one notices this utterly corrupt thing i am trying to pull right here", there must at least be some sort of smokescreen, right?
(Also, once again this is a case where i go "You really don't have that already?")
If you look at actual numbers for this, something like 95%+ of people who qualify to file for free do not take advantage of free filing. Paying someone to do your taxes is deeply ingrained in our society that it is some voodoo that is hard to understand.
On April 10 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote: We live in an amazing time when tech companies are so clue less about what is happening on their platform that white nationalists raise money streaming that company appearing before congress. Truly a system they have control over.
We are in some dark times right now. Tech companies ignored these problems for so long that dealing with them now will have a big impact on their bottom line. And they know it.
They aren't clueless about it, they just don't give a shit. $ is $, who cares where it comes from.
They haven't ignored it, they never wanted to deal with it in the first place because it would effect their bottom line.
Expecting an industry to regulate itself is retarded when the mighty $ is all that matters. But of course politicians know that, that's why these companies pay politicians NOT to regulate the industry.
I’m sure it is both. Though one would think they would clamp down for the like 8 hours they are in front of congress, if only for their own benefit and self interest. But apparently that was to much for them or they don’t think congress will do anything.
They don't buy them for no reason. You think congress is actually going to go after one of the biggest Democratic financial supporters going into 2020?
Before 2020 in congress itself? Likely not. Maybe a couple proposals that get votes on the House floor. But its all dead in the Senate. Do I expect it to be a major issue in that election? Absolutely. And I expect the money from social media companies to become as toxic as money from the pharma industry in the near future as well.
On April 10 2019 01:29 Nouar wrote: From The Guardian (quoting Propublica). "Taxpayers first", lol. They intend (after intense lobbying) to legally forbid the IRS from implementing a way for taxpayers to file taxes for free. I don't even have words. You know, a government website to file your taxes ? Like most countries do ? Well, nope. You will have to go through a third party. I mean, it is already the case, but it's closing the door to even the most remote possibility. "it would threaten the industry’s profits", they say.
Congress is moving towards passing legislation that would make it illegal for the IRS from creating a system to allow Americans to file their taxes for free.
Pro Publica reports:
Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., passed the Taxpayer First Act, a wide-ranging bill making several administrative changes to the IRS that is sponsored by Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Mike Kelly, R-Pa.
In one of its provisions, the bill makes it illegal for the IRS to create its own online system of tax filing. Companies like Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block have lobbied for years to block the IRS from creating such a system. If the tax agency created its own program, which would be similar to programs other developed countries have, it would threaten the industry’s profits.
“This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.
I did not know this was the case, and honestly, having to provide my tax and revenue information to a third-party, and not having a choice doing so... gives me shivers.
What the fuck.
"We forbid our tax agency from developing a way for you to file your taxes online because that would hurt the profits of the companies that currently provide that way."
How can anyone argue that point without looking incredibly and absurdly corrupt? Seriously. What are the actual arguments used in favor of something like this? It can not be just "I hope no one notices this utterly corrupt thing i am trying to pull right here", there must at least be some sort of smokescreen, right?
(Also, once again this is a case where i go "You really don't have that already?")
If you look at actual numbers for this, something like 95%+ of people who qualify to file for free do not take advantage of free filing. Paying someone to do your taxes is deeply ingrained in our society that it is some voodoo that is hard to understand.
No, it’s because TurboTax has a Freedom Edition on the front of their website which states “FREE FILE YOUR FEDERAL TAXES” and then gouges you on complex returns and state returns while TurboTax Freefile, which they offer as part of the Free File Alliance, takes a separate link to get to.
They’re required to offer free file as part of the FFA, but they hide it on their website and try to trick you into using the other one.
On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency.
As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying?
Dude.... really?
If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you.
If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you
Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill.
It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath
He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision.
I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not.
As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs.
Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck
Except a lot of them aren’t actually stupid at all, just undereducated in many instances, plus at least in the UK there’s a bunch of class prejudice in that sense.
But yeah he does have some weird inexplicable voodoo powers I don’t fully understand, so it’s not entirely luck no agreed there
On April 10 2019 01:29 Nouar wrote: From The Guardian (quoting Propublica). "Taxpayers first", lol. They intend (after intense lobbying) to legally forbid the IRS from implementing a way for taxpayers to file taxes for free. I don't even have words. You know, a government website to file your taxes ? Like most countries do ? Well, nope. You will have to go through a third party. I mean, it is already the case, but it's closing the door to even the most remote possibility. "it would threaten the industry’s profits", they say.
Congress is moving towards passing legislation that would make it illegal for the IRS from creating a system to allow Americans to file their taxes for free.
Pro Publica reports:
Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., passed the Taxpayer First Act, a wide-ranging bill making several administrative changes to the IRS that is sponsored by Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Mike Kelly, R-Pa.
In one of its provisions, the bill makes it illegal for the IRS to create its own online system of tax filing. Companies like Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block have lobbied for years to block the IRS from creating such a system. If the tax agency created its own program, which would be similar to programs other developed countries have, it would threaten the industry’s profits.
“This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.
I did not know this was the case, and honestly, having to provide my tax and revenue information to a third-party, and not having a choice doing so... gives me shivers.
What the fuck.
"We forbid our tax agency from developing a way for you to file your taxes online because that would hurt the profits of the companies that currently provide that way."
How can anyone argue that point without looking incredibly and absurdly corrupt? Seriously. What are the actual arguments used in favor of something like this? It can not be just "I hope no one notices this utterly corrupt thing i am trying to pull right here", there must at least be some sort of smokescreen, right?
(Also, once again this is a case where i go "You really don't have that already?")
If you look at actual numbers for this, something like 95%+ of people who qualify to file for free do not take advantage of free filing. Paying someone to do your taxes is deeply ingrained in our society that it is some voodoo that is hard to understand.
No, it’s because TurboTax has a Freedom Edition on the front of their website which states “FREE FILE YOUR FEDERAL TAXES” and then gouges you on complex returns and state returns while TurboTax Freefile, which they offer as part of the Free File Alliance, takes a separate link to get to.
They’re required to offer free file as part of the FFA, but they hide it on their website and try to trick you into using the other one.
Sure, but shouldn't people be outraged that the practice of complicated returns that we have to file even exists? Keep in mind, the FFA only exists as a compromise to keep tax returns complicated in the first place so TurboTax can continue to exist.
It isn't like the goverment doesn't' know how much money we make in a year. Its all reported. Our system exists to allow companies like turbo tax and H&R Block to continue to exist.
On April 10 2019 05:31 Plansix wrote: It isn't like the goverment doesn't' know how much money we make in a year. Its all reported. Our system exists to allow companies like turbo tax and H&R Block to continue to exist.
Mostly yes, with a little no. Some private transactions aren’t reported to the IRS, but for most people most of the time the IRS could issue a refund or tax bill without receiving a return at all.
EPT
