Monday, June 3, 2013

Why the IRS scandal is radically different

Peggy Noonan makes the salient point about IRSgate:

In previous IRS scandals it was the powerful abusing the powerful—a White House moving against prominent financial or journalistic figures who, because of their own particular status or the machineries at their disposal, could pretty much take care of themselves. A scandal erupts, there are headlines, and then people go on their way. The dreadful thing about this scandal, what makes it ominous, is that this is the elites versus regular citizens. It’s the mighty versus normal people. It’s the all-powerful directors of the administrative state training their eyes and moving on uppity and relatively undefended Americans. 
That’s what makes this scandal different...

As the American people grasp this-- it will take a year or two-- this will be an earthquake. Noonan sees the difference here between Obama's corruption of the IRS and the usual political thuggery played by American political machines since the Conway Cabal.

Most political scandals, including Watergate, were elite-on-elite cage matches. Republican elites bugging the offices of Democrat elites. Reaganite elites selling arms to Iran to fund projects disliked by Democrat congressional elites. Elites betraying and bribing and end-running elites.

Obama's IRS scandal is very different. The elites are attacking us. The American people are the target.

The comparable systematic large-scale attack by the federal government on the American people was the Democrat-Wilsonian imposition of segregation in federal employment beginning in 1913, which was an organized federal attack, under color of law and in obvious violation of the Constitution, on ordinary Americans based on race.

Democrat political strategies having shifted, conservatives are the new n*ggers.


  1. "As the American people grasp this-- it will take a year or two-- this will be an earthquake."

    I'm not holding my breath. The media will never engage in a much deserved feeding frenzy on this president, the way they did to Richard Nixon. I talk to people all the time who haven't yet heard of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the AP scandal, Fast & Furious.

    Here in my neck of the woods, you'd think we're going through some kind of news drought judging from the newspaper headlines. Local stories of little import are making the front page, not the scandals.

    I understand that your use of the unmentionable racial slur is ironic in nature, but I still don't like it. That word is ugly.


    1. TRISH:

      I understand what you mean by the use of the racial slur. I thought a lot about whether I should use it. This influenced my decision:

      1) I use it to condemn it, and to condemn those who use it out of hate, and to condemn the reasons that it is used.

      2) It really does catch the flavor of what the Democrats are doing to us, just as it catches the flavor of what they did to black Americans in the 20th century.

    2. TRISH:

      I agree that the media will never attack 0 the way they went after Nixon. In addition, the American public is a lot stupider than they were in the early 1970's. They've elected and reelected 0, so you can't expect intelligent voter reactions.

      But the IRS scandal is really something very different, and it does have legs, and obviously its not limited to the IRS-- it certainly goes to other federal agencies (Justice Dept, EPA, OSHA,etc). The Tea Party is gaining strength in the Republican Party, and there will be vigorous public Congressional investigations of this for several years.

      I do think that this will substantially change the way many Americans view the government for many years. We'll see.

    3. It's *just* a word.

      AND it was exactly the right word for the context.

      Myself, I'd have bitten the bullet and spelled it out.

    4. In the first iteration, I did spell it out. But honestly I had some eye-shock reading the draft, and put the asterisk.

      It's hard for decent people to even write about what Progressive Democrats say and do.

    5. A lot of people are quite shocked by the IRS's abuses. But do you want to know who isn't? People who don't pay taxes. They can't imagine how intimidating the IRS can be or they don't care.

      Now I know that everyone pays taxes of some sort, because we're taxed to the gills here in America and no one escapes all of them. But when most people discuss taxes, they mean the federal income tax, which is the jurisdiction of the IRS. Of that tax the bottom fifty percent pay 2.25 percent. That's a lot of people with almost no stake in the system.

      So again, for a large portion of the American public, most of whom count themselves as members of Obama's base, this whole thing is ho hum. So what if a bunch of people who are rich enough to be on the paying side of the ledger, and have unpalatable politics, were targeted?


    6. JQ, and then when you consider the amount of entitlements the bottom 50% takes in, their contribution can be counted with a negative.

      In 2011, the average household in poverty collected $60,000 in benefits, which is nearly as much as my wife and I make together. That makes us "rich" so we pay taxes on it. If the members of that impoverished household earned even a few bucks from actual work, they in fact pulled down more than we did last year. Is it any wonder why they have money for absurd luxuries like gold, alcohol, stereo systems, and satellite TV's?

      So, as a matter of fact, they do have a stake in the system. They like the system just as it is.


    7. In 2011, the average household in poverty collected $60,000 in benefits



    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 10:20 AM

      Source? That's an odd request coming from you, hoo.

      Ben, I suggest you cite a source published in Farsi. Hoo always likes an intellectual challenge.

      Hoo, I have a question. And it's a serious one, so don't just make some snide remark. Do butt sniffers have a vocabulary similar to wine tasters?

    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM

      Tsk, tsk. Mr Cranky.

    10. Slurping isn't required, admiral.


    11. Yes, I suppose that people who pay next to nothing taxes have a stake in keeping the system exactly as it is. They take and take and others pay and pay.


    12. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM

      Hoo, did I say something that upset you? You seem to be unusually irascible this morning.

      Or are you simply expressing your tolerant, open-minded, inner Progressive? You know, that little inner hoo that lusts after opportunities to anonymously pass political denunciations.

    13. In 2011, the average household in poverty collected $60,000 in benefits, which is nearly as much as my wife and I make together.


    14. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM

      Troi, I assumed you would be an expert on these matters. Now that you've presumably stopped laughing, could you please set Ben straight and tell us exactly how much these below-poverty line households do collect in direct and indirect transfer payments? Maybe hoo can help with the math (as long as it's not too complicated - like percents and stuff), although he seems in a snit this morning.

    15. I am not Troy, but I suspect that Ben's number came from this article in Weekly Standard: Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty.

      Here is how they came up with the number:

      "According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."

      In other words, take all of the welfare spending (not all of which goes to households under the poverty line) and divide it by the number of household under the poverty line. This is how conservatives do math.


    16. an intellectually dishonest fool: "This is how conservatives do math"

      That's how leftists do math, when it suits their purpose ... so, it's no wonder 'Hoo' was so quickly able to suss out the flaw in the statement.

    17. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 12:15 PM

      I'm assuming that you're thinking that the direct and indirect transfer payments will total less than the number above which is taken from an article you imagine Ben to have used.

      But however interesting your speculations may be about Ben's sources, my question still remains:

      How much do these households collect in direct (cash payments, income tax "refunds", EBT cards, etc.) and indirect (Medicaid, rent subsidies, free cellular service, transportation subsidies, Pell grants, etc.)?

      You question his number, and other people's math, but you offer neither number nor math. Is that what constitutes Progressive debate these days? It does seem to work on MSNBC. Well, except for the ratings.

    18. Ben came up with this number. I have shown that the number is wrong. The burden is on Ben to supply a correct number.


    19. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM

      You haven't shown anything about Ben's number. You found a source, ascribed it to Ben, and then criticized it on a political basis.

      But let me ask you a question, hoo...

      If I have three cars, and I spend a total of $60,000 per year on all three, how much direct and indirect economic benefit does each car receive?

      a) ask the mechanic if it was enough
      b) $20,000
      c) $2
      d) who can say

    20. lying, hypocritical fool: "Ben came up with this number. I have shown that the number is wrong. The burden is on Ben to supply a correct number."

      No, lying, hypocritical fool, what you have shown is that Ben misinterpreted the number.

      What you *also* showed, being too clever by half, as leftists tend to be, is that of that $60K per year per 'poor' household extracted under threat of violent death from people like Ben and me, a not insignificant proportion of it goes not the the 'poor' households, but to government bureaucrats. Who, of course, tend to vote Democrat and pro-welfare expansion.

    21. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM


      To the extent that the actual direct and indirect transers to poor families is less than $61,000, that is the cost of the bureaucracy.

      Progressives hate this question (which was directly addressed in the article):

      If it costs $61k/yr to deliver these wealth transfers, but poor people only see, say, $30k in benefit, then why not just write them a $4k check every month and save the remainder for an income tax reduction?

      Seems everybody would be better off except the people who sort the multi-copy forms into different colored piles.

    22. Ilion,

      The rest of the money does not go to the bureaucrats. It goes to families with incomes above the poverty line. From the same Weekly Standard article:

      To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).

      Not only conservatives can't do math, they also can't read.


    23. I saw that figure at another site, though perhaps the Weekly Standard was their source. I see that the math is a little fuzzy. It divides total welfare expenditures by the number of households living below the poverty line. Those are the people welfare is supposed to help, though everyone knows that there are people above that line who receive various forms of financial assistance. You don't even have to be particularly poor to qualify for food stamps, and anyone on food stamps qualifies automatically for the Obama phone.

      So the number $60,000 isn't right. I don't know what the correct number is, I only know that everyone welfare recipient in this area has an iPhone.

      In any case, whatever meager amount of taxes they pay is more than offset by the their entitlements. Their total contribution should have a negative sign next to it. Those are people who have a stake in keeping the system just the way it is, and they really couldn't care less if the IRS is auditing someone they don't like anyway. The IRS will never audit them, that's all they know.


    24. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 3:17 PM

      hoo: "The rest of the money does not go to the bureaucrats. It goes to families with incomes above the poverty line."

      Hoo thinks the government is free. The average federal employee in DC makes about $95k (not including benefits). The number nationwide is $79k (nib). That's where the money goes.

      Hoo has obviously never signed the front of a paycheck. Of course, that's generally true of Progressives. They attach themselves to the productive parts of the economy.

    25. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 3:41 PM

      Clarifying stupid comments...

      Math: Every government benefit has a cost. The individual cost of delivering a product or a service is the total cost divided by the number of products delivered or people served. In some worlds, bizarre as it may seem, this simple fact is called Republican math.

      That error is related to the one below...

      Reading: many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs does not have the same meaning as the rest of the money goes to families with incomes above the poverty line

      End of lesson.

    26. Admiral, you are a hoot. I salute your pig-headedness, Sir!

      Let's take some part of the Social Security system and examine how much money it wastes on bureaucracy.

      The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund 2012 receipts were $731B. The fund spent $645.4B. Of those, $637.9B were benefit payments. The administrative expenses (including bureaucrat salaries) were $3.4B, which amounted to one half of one percent of the benefits and 0.47 percent of the receipts. 99.5 percent of the money goes toward payment of benefits. That's pretty damn efficient.

      So your stupid correction makes no sense.


    27. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 4:30 PM

      We weren't talking about the Social Security system. As I understand it, that system has been made more efficient through automation. It's also not means-tested, and means testing requires intervention. By the way, we'll need to raise your taxes after I start collecting SS. I plan to live a long time.

      So SS is a convenient - but irrelevant - system for you to use to make your point. It only the most superficial similarity to poverty-related programs which cross cabinet-level departments, have major systemic redundancies, and require means-testing.

      The bottom line is, you don't know what you're talking about so you're grasping at straws.

      Moreover, with regard to the correction, your "interpretation" of the plain language of the article - whether you agree with what it said or not - was simply ridiculous. You're either dissembling or stupid.

    28. "Hahaha." - Troy.

      Bach, Hoo, et al,
      I salute you! You have finally provided us creationists with a LIVING specimen approximate to the 'missing link'. No oppose-able thumb, probably not the exact match genetically, and a much smaller cranial capacity than your standard ape or modern man - but, he sure does mimic human behaviour in a way that suggests this could be it. What will you call this species? Homo en Dumpus maybe?

    29. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 5:28 PM

      We weren't talking about the SSA, simpleton. Any reasonably intelligent person knows cherry-picking when they see it.

      And, I repeat, your "interpretation" of the plain language of the article - whether you agree with what it said or not - was simply ridiculous.


    30. Get the numbers, admiral. You have no data to defend your point.


    31. Crusader Rex,

      At the risk of irritating Pépé, I'm a 'missing link' with $4,000,000. I'll never get social security from the Australian taxpayer. I'm an unusual 'leftist' for someone with so much in the way of shares in publicly listed companies.

      Thanks for the abuse. Creationists are just so 'reality' based.

    32. Bach,
      Abuse? Don't even tempt me. It was a joke - and as much on on myself as you two. The barb was aimed at Troy-boy (the quotes!) who was howling like a chimp at the economic strife of other people in his typically arrogant, snide, and ignorant way.

      Never mind. Maybe Hoo 'got it'.

      Get over yourself, man. Nobody cares about the money but you. Go bathe in it, if it makes you feel better.

      "Creationists are just so 'reality' based."
      Most intelligent comment you have ever made on this blog.

  2. Michael,

    When you mentioned the Reaganite elites selling arms to Iran to fund projects disliked by the Democrat elites, you forgot to mention that it was partly to fund the Nicaraguan Contras who were waging a guerilla war against the Sandinista elites, who'd actually won a fair election the previous year... Congress had banned funding of the Contras because it was a terrorist non-democratic movement.

    The Contras also funded their campaign by engaging in the drug trade - which must also have resulted in American casualties due to increased access to drugs of addiction.

    I don't think that this will have much effect on future elections. Tea party supporters will never support the Democrats. I'd put your prediction that it will have an effect in 1 or 2 years in the same category as your prediction you made the first Monday in November, 2012 that Mitt Romney would win 53:47...

    1. Typical of you bach to support a communist regime.

      My (and many conservatives') incorrect prediction on the 2012 election takes on a different look when you look at the massive effective voter suppression that the government via the IRS undertook for the past couple of years.

      I thought that the Tea Party would swamp the Democrats, as they had in 2010. I didn't take into account the massive systematic repression of conservative organizations.

      We conservatives thought Romney would win because we thought that it would be a fair election.

    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 8:13 AM

      backfield, I hope you never experience a government like the ones you support. Here's just a sample:

      [B]etween January 14 and 15, 1992, seven common graves were discovered in El Bijagua district, Camoapa jurisdiction, department of Boaco. They contained the bodies of 75 people. The investigations conducted by human rights organizations found that they were the bodies of peasant farmers from the area who were murdered in November 1984, after being "recruited" by elements of State Security who pretended to be members of the Nicaraguan Resistance.
      --- InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights - 1992

      It's always the same, everywhere.

      The Leftist mantra: To save the people, we must kill the people

    3. Bachfiend, the Nicaraguan elections of 1984 were less than fair. There were no secret ballots, for example, which allowed government officials to intimidate those who didn't vote the right way. Some international officials said that the elections passed the smell test, which tells us more about international officials than the elections. How can any election without secret ballots be fair?

      After the dubious 1984 elections, the Sandanistas fought tooth and nail not to have any more elections. Only because of Contra pressure did they relent and allow more elections in 1990, which the Sandanistas lost. That might have something to do with why they didn't want to have any elections.

      So the supposedly undemocratic Contras fought to have free elections, and the supposedly democratic Sandanistas fought against them because they'd already had sham elections six years prior. You have it exactly wrong.


    4. Michael,

      Typical of you to label any government you dislike as being Communist. The 1984 Nicaraguan election was fair. It was labeled as such by international observers from Canada and the European Union.

      The Sandinistas were at least replacing a longstanding corrupt dictatorship. Supported by America. And the Sandinistas didn't establish a Communist dictatorship. They were voted out of power in the elections of 1990.

      The Sandinistas returned Nicarague to democracy. Which many American governments of both parties were unwilling to allow.

      Ugly Americans is a good description of America.

    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM

      Oh, dear. Now you've really hurt my feelings.

    6. Bach, you take every opportunity to make excuses for communist thugs. "Stalin made the pact with Hitler because he was scared..."

      The Sandinistas were communist totalitarian scum.

      I have no respect for their apologists. They have the same moral standing as Nazi apologists.

    7. Michael,

      No, I don't take every opportunity to excuse Communists. But the Sandinistas were better than the longstanding corrupt dictatorship they replaced. Which America supported. Along with a large number of other nasty right wing dictatorships.

      And they did return democracy to Nicaragua. They lost the 1990 election. And subsequently regained power in a fair election.

      I didn't excuse the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I just noted that Stalin agreed to it because he was afraid (rightly) of Hitler. France and Britain could have had a treaty with the Soviet Union (it was the only possibility of protecting Poland from German aggression), but they didn't take it seriously.

      And we know how well that failure worked out for Poland. It's arguable what would have happened if the Soviet Union had remained neutral - whether Hitler still would have attacked. Britain and France didn't do much in the first few weeks of September, 1939 anyway.

    8. Bachfiend,

      The Somoza regime was undemocratic and was supported by the US until the Carter years, when his special focus on human rights as a touchstone of foreign policy changed the situation. It was during the Carter years that it was overthrown. The Saninistas were therefor not overthrowing a US-ally, but an ex-US ally.

      The election of 1984 was not fair. How can an election be fair without secret ballots?

      The Sandinistas never wanted to have the elections of 1990. They had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. Without the Contras, there would have been no elections. The Sandinistas wanted to remain in power indefinitely, just like their allies in Cuba, who came to power in 1959 promising free elections and still haven't had one. The Nicaraguans even invited the East German Stasi into the country to show them how to throw up impenetrable barriers around the country so that no one could leave, in the style of the Berlin Wall.

      The Sandanistas were also communists. I don't know who told you otherwise, but you're wrong. Nicaragua was a classic Cold War dichotomy, with the Soviet Union, Cuba, and East Germany supporting the communist dog in the fight.

      You're making Australians look pretty ugly too.

      And another thing, the European Union did not exist in 1984. I think you mean European Economic Community.


  3. "... he salient point about IRSgate"

    Please! This is a Democratic Party (Progressive/Leftist) scandal. It's a -quiddick, not a -gate.

    1. ... and, like most such leftist assaults, it's aimed at all of us, not just at the Other Party.

      A -quiddick tends to be much more serious that a -gate ... and tends to include bodies (cf. Benghaziquiddick)

    2. "A -quiddick tends to be much more serious that a -gate ... and tends to include bodies (cf. Benghaziquiddick)"

      Watch out Ilion. Many of the people you refer to will think you are accusing them of playing a game on broomsticks from the Harry Pothead stories. They will thus react as if you have accused them of being the legendary persecutors of their (imagined) youth: The 'jocks'.

  4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 8:54 AM

    Totally off-topic, but...

    I simply couldn't help myself. Finally, here's a guy who might convince me that Progressives really are the Reality-Based Party. He does a science experiment. Go watch...

    Progressive Science

    Like... do the math and stuff, dude.

    1. Georgie,

      Yet another YouTube video, eh?

      Actually, I agree. The video is silly. The pipeline isn't going to be transporting tar sands. It's going to be treated by heating using natural gas on site, and the resulting oil will be transported.

      Whether it's a good idea is another matter. In America, it takes one barrel of oil to produce 5 barrels of oil (in energy terms), which is borderline economically (the tar sands have similar economies).

      And the tar sands project has environmental damage consequences such as residual pools of toxic tars and pollution of previously pristine rivers such as the Athabasca.

    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 9:46 AM

      blinkfast, did you see the gorilla?

    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM

      No! I swear! You just weren't paying attention. Watch more carefully, try to ignore the stupid politician, and think happy thoughts.

  5. Very very funny. I have a post in the queue about it.

  6. M.Egnor "Typical of you bach to support a communist regime."

    Well, you know, 'bachfiend' *is* a libertarian (which is bad enough, and jejune enough to lead serious persons to look askance). We know this because, even though everything he says is straight out of the leftist script, he has told us so.

    1. Hey now! Not all of us libertarians are (completely) crazy, despite our penchant for military service.
      For example, we can tell a neocon from an actual conservative and a progressive from an actual liberal.
      Shall I let you in on our secret?
      They all wear different coloured neck ties!

    2. Ilion,

      No. I'm a liberal with some libertarian tendencies. Basically, I make up my mind about issues. I don't follow authorities.

      Crusader Rex,

      Since I've retired, I don't wear ties (it's difficult to wear one with a t-shirt). When I was still working, I wore the loudest bad taste ties I could find. Ones with large giant pandas. Or dragons. Or frogs. Or whatever.

    3. Bach,
      "I wore the loudest bad taste ties I could find"
      That's your inner libertarian peeking out.
      See? We do have something in common: We are both against the tie cults of international politics.
      Just assure me there was no bow ties involved, and I will rest well tonight.

  7. @KW:

    I went back 100 years to show that the Progressive movement originated as race-baiting/eugenic social engineers.

    I am still waiting for evidence that the Republican Party is racist, in any way other than the occassional sporadic eruption of a racist comment from an individual who you manage to tenuously link with the party, which of course also applies to Democrats.

    The hallmark of Democrat politics over the past 200 years has been race-baiting, rather than racism per se. Obviously massive numbers of Democrats have been racists (the 1924 Democratic National Convention was called the Klan-bake, because it was basically run by the Klan.

    But modern Democrats have grown embarrassed by the history of their party, and have invited black racists (Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) to try to draw attention away from their 200 year history of white racism.

    The salient characteristic of the Democrat Party on the issue of race has always been race-baiting, rather than simple racism per se. Democrats use racial fear and hate for political advantage, now as much as ever.

    Republicans have never race-baited.

  8. @K:

    On the issue of the cheerios commercial, what makes you think that the racist commentors are Republicans?

  9. On the issue of the cheerios commercial, what makes you think that the racist commentors are Republicans?

    My thoughts exactly. He knows their party affiliation by means of ESP, I suppose, just the same way he knows that the epedemic of male-on-male rape in the military is perpetrated by Christians. He doesn't need any confirmation, he just knows.


  10. The Dems traded white racism for black racism, then grandfathered in a few of the old white racists. Now they think that because their "Whitey owes you" message sells well in the black community that they can't possibly be racist.

    Here's the difference between conservatives and liberals on race. Conservatives favor a colorblind society, one that affords no special treatment to anyone based on skin color. You have to hack it on your own merits. Liberals coddle minorities, extend to them all variety of special favors, lower standards for them, and excuse their bad behavior. It's a choice between equal treatment for minorities and preferential treatment for minorities. Unfortunately, a lot of minorities have made their choice, and their choice is preferential treatment. That doesn't make us racist, it makes you racist.


  11. You don’t need to have ESP to know it’s conservatives who are railing against the “PC” depiction of a mixed race marriage, especially with their whining about the mainstream media’s reverse discrimination and constant demonization of white men. I appreciate your attempt downplay conservative racism, but nobody is buying it. If aliens (from another planet) visited the U.S., it would take them about 30 seconds to see right through your bullshit. The overt racists are scum, but at least they aren’t liars or delusional like their political brethren who cover for them.


    1. Oh dear....
      KW has been communing with the Venusians again.
      KW, when your boss suggested taking a long trip, he did not mean on LSD.

    2. Crusader, you have nothing.


    3. "Crusader, you have nothing."

      Au contraire! I have all sorts of stuff. I have a nice big house, dogs, a lovely family, a really cool little 4x4, a canoe, some collectors rifles, and a really good recipe for beef beef bourguignon. I even have some nice wine and beer in my cellar to go with it! All sorts of stuff. I have never come across 'nothing' and I am not sure I would want to have it if I did.
      What I don't have is contact with Venusians. That's all you, you guru of psychedelic wonders.

    4. KW. I am a Republican. I am descended from Welsh and English immigrants and I am as white as a mushroom. My wife is a lovely lady from Bolivia. Latina, you know? Our daughter, now. Should she check caucasian or latina on the government form? I ask you, because only a racist could answer this question.


  12. "Hoo has obviously never signed the front of a paycheck. Of course, that's generally true of Progressives. They attach themselves to the productive parts of the economy."

    Oh! You old meanie! You're comparing Progressives/Leftists to lampreys or leaches.

  13. silly, lying leftist fool: "I'm an unusual 'leftist' for someone with so much in the way of shares in publicly listed companies."

    Limosine "liberals" are a dime a dozen.

    silly, lying leftist fool: "Thanks for the abuse. Creationists are just so 'reality' based."

    Translation: Waaaa! You're not supposed to say the truth about me and you're not supposed to treat me as my behavior deserves.

  14. The Noonan comment is salient, but your post about is nothing but rhetorical, hyped nonsense and based on the first few responses to it, this site seems to be a fish-bowl for non-thinking anti-government alarmists. It is the function of the IRS to determine who pays taxes and who doesn't. This function is accomplished successfully or less so depending on the quality of those working in that arm of the administration and the fact of the matter is that most of the staff in those agencies were hired by previous administrations. The lack of quality that has recently come to light is only the tip of the iceberg of an issue that is bigger than any one administration and is a problem for all Americans. The American government belongs to us and we get what we deserve if we spend all of our efforts undermining it because a bunch of corporatist lobbyists (that happen to be lying through their teeth) say the president and the current administration is incompetent.