livendive

Hands up - Who's surprised that brenthutch *didn't* mention that, globally, this past March was the 9th warmest on record? Or that the first quarter of this year (January through March) was the 8th warmest on record?

Shocker, I know.

Blues,
Dave

I think the IRS thing is being blown out of proportion. This was not the Gestapo watching their every move. This was "oh, this looks like political activity...put it in the Need More Information Before Approval" pile. And the organization's were free to carry out their intended activities at all times, they would have just been at risk of finding out they were not tax exempt. Thus, their choices would be to act in a manner that is most likely to prove they deserve such a status, or not act in such a manner, but understand they face a higher risk of having to pay taxes. In all honesty, this is how they should act regardless of whether they got slow-tracked...
On the up & up? No problems
Trying to get away with something sneaky? Risk the consequences

Of course I'm apparently an exception, as I'm not personally afraid of the IRS. I try to file my taxes in accordance with the law, and I firmly believe that any mistakes I might make would be well within the confines of "Ooops, sorry...here's a check to cover the difference." Almost every instance I've heard of in which someone's life was "ruined" by the IRS really did it to themselves by trying to evade the law.

Blues,
Dave

I believe the political activity has to represent an "insubstantial portion" of the organization's activities in order for it to qualify for tax exempt status. For example, if a charity dedicated to promoting gay rights allowed their facilities to be used for a one night campaign meeting, but the rest of the time was engaged in non-partisan promotion of social welfare, they'd probably qualify. By contrast, if they formed during campaign season and spent a large fraction of their time encouraging people to vote (D), they should not be afforded exempt status under 503(c)(4).

Edit to add clicky.

Blues,
Dave

Gravitymaster

Maybe you could also find some outrage for the tens of millions of babies put to death. You support that, don't you?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Blues,
Dave

sandi

Sure student loans can be abused. Borrowing 200K for a bachelor's degree is just irresponsible. However, that is not a typical student loan debt. I would have to double check but I think the average is around 25K.

That's about the cost of a new, reasonably equipped Honda Civic. I'd say the bachelor's degree will give a much better return on investment.

Blues,
Dave

RonD1120

Sharia Law is frightening. If the Liberals succeed in giving it equal value in the U.S. it will be a nightmare.

All religious law is frightening.

Ok, I'm cool with the last line of the Wiccan rede, but all of the abrahimic religions are too nuts to trust.

Blues,
Dave

Gravitymaster

Well, at least you have evolved from finding humor in abuses by the IRS to being entertained by some obscure call for impeachment. Are you always this easily entertained?

I don't find the Benghazi situation, or the IRS thing, or the DOJ thing humorous.

I am, however, amused at the people who are frothing at the mouth over these astronomical scandals.

- a few dozen political activists got their tax-exempt status decisions back-burnered more than others
- some journalists suspected of leaking classified information were subject to Patriot Act level surveillance
- an ambassador, computer geek, and a couple rent-a-cops were killed in a war-torn middle eastern country that had recently overthrown its government
- a President lied about oral sex with someone who was not his wife.

Yet these same people gave a free pass to the lies that killed thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's. No big deal.

Blues,
Dave

I trust that they generally pursue their own best interests.

Blues,
Dave

oldwomanc6

***>None of you ever got an ass whooping that you deserved and in retrospect think
>did you some good?

Got one when I threw my sister in the fireplace. I don't remember it so I don't know if it did me any good. I probably deserved it.

Well, if you never did it again, I would say it was effective.

Of course that's not to say it was the only potential remedy. He might have also never done it again if his parents never found out about it, or had responded non-violently.

Blues,
Dave

Quote

I'm glad you think denying people their rights to have a voice in how their country is run, is so entertaining.

I wasn't aware that anyone was silenced. I thought they were just told "You'll have to wait a bit for a decision on whether your activities are tax-exempt." Worst case scenario, they were so afraid of an adverse ruling that they ran 30% fewer ads.

Blues,
Dave

rushmc

***And I say go after mega-churches first.

I suppose you would get lots of support for this
There is a lot of bigotism when it comes to Christianity

Megachurches are really businesses, making a ton of money. I'd vote to tax them like any other business, no more, no less. We have one locally that requires police assistance directing traffic for each of their services every Sunday. I can see doing that for sporting events, where cities are making money from the event, but I think a private entitity of any sort who routinely requires such assistance should pay for it themself.

Blues,
Dave

CygnusX-1

Quote

Anyone here like were this is going?

Absolutely! I hope they go after those right wing fringe groups and wipe them off the face of the, um, tax free status. After that is done, they can then go after the left wing fringe groups and wipe them out too. Then they can to after religious groups, government contractors, charities, and everyone else. Eliminate all tax free status for everybody. Nobody gets a free ride.

I agree with most of this. I'd dramatically limit the exempt status of most "charitable activities", but I'd leave in place exemptions for some very targeted relief measures (disaster relief, food kitchens, basically things involving assistance you can see and touch, not just hear).

Blues,
Dave

Weird.

Blues,
Dave

sfzombie13

the thing i hate the most is the "adjusted for inflation" bullshit. i can't compare costs from 1980 to now with that "adjustment". it's just another bunch of crap to make it look worse than it really is. first of all, the average of $22000 a year is just flat out wrong, i am going back to wv state university, the cost is $660 per class, and at 3 classes per quarter, and 4 quarters per year, this works out to $7980 per year. add books onto that and you'll come up a lot less than that. now, i am sure that there are more expensive schools out there, how else would you get averages. simple solution: go to a cheaper school.

That's incredibly cheap. My wife recently started pursuing a new career and is knocking out the generic pre-req's at a local community college to the tune of $600/class plus books, and that's in-state at a school that doesn't offer bachelor degrees.

I'm currently a grad student at the University of Washington, a state school, at which I pay in-state rates. My cost per quarter, taking two classes at a time, is about $4,800 not including books or living expenses or anything like that. The fact that I can continue my full-time employment (despite a LOT less sleep) makes this worthwhile. I have about 20 years of career left before retirement...if a graduate degree gets me even 2% more money, or avoids a couple months of unemployment, it'll pay for itself. I like to think it'll do more than that.

My daughter is about to start grad school at the University of Wyoming. They originally waived her out-of-state pricing, and it would have been more like your $700/class, except she was informed last week that she's been given an assistantship. So her tuition is waived and they'll pay her $900/month to study there. With 5 classes some quarters and assistantship duties on top of that, she'll be far too busy to have another job, so the gap in her living expenses will have to be made up by some combination of me and loans.

In short - tuition varies widely by state, school, and program. The key is finding the one that works best for your goals.

Blues,
Dave

Gravitymaster

******delaying tax exempt status for Conservative Group until after the election. I'm sure none of this was done to affect the outcome of the election.

If the groups' activities would have effected the outcome of the the election, then they were not deserving of tax exempt status. Pick one or the other.

Blues,
Dave

What do you think PAC's do?

527 /= 503(c)(4)

Blues,
Dave

Gravitymaster

delaying tax exempt status for Conservative Group until after the election. I'm sure none of this was done to affect the outcome of the election.

If the groups' activities would have effected the outcome of the the election, then they were not deserving of tax exempt status. Pick one or the other.

Blues,
Dave

Which of life's lessons do you think are best taught through violence, as opposed to other means? It seems to me that non-violent means should be exercised whenever possible, so I'm curious as to the situations in which you consider that to be the case.

Blues,
Dave

I believe the former is a guy who's never been in trouble with the law, and we don't know he did those things, he's just charged with them. In any case, he's unemployed, so the $8,000,000 bail is like a carrot dangling on the very distant horizon, barely even visible.

On the other hand, we have someone with a long criminal record beating an 11 year old child. Assuming he wasn't on parole or probation (a pretty big assumption), what good could come from granting him bail?

Blues,
Dave

popsjumper

So, presumption of innocence doesn't apply in some cases. I didn't know that.

A rapist can be found not guilty for any host of reasons, none of which have any bearing his victim's injuries. If a rapist walks due to poor QA/QC on a DNA samples, does that mean his victim wasn't raped? No, it just means he wasn't convicted. There's a reason that juries find defendents "not guilty" as opposed to "innocent."

Blues,
Dave

How are you equating Obamacare with your current insurance problems? The former is not the cause of the latter, but rather a proposed solution to it.

Blues,
Dave

rickjump1

No one should go through what you did. My dad was a little quick to use the belt, but we deserved it.

What you and every child deserves from their parents is a good education. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether mild corporal punishment can play a part in that. Waiting until your dad gets home is good insomuch as it indicates a deliberate course of action, hopefully with a desired goal, rather than an outburst of anger. Personally, I prefer Wendy's way with her own child, but either way it gives the kid some time to think about what they did wrong and potentially absorb the lesson. Although I always kept spankings as a theoretical option that my daughter was aware of, she was much more afraid of disappointing me than of the possibility I might paddle her butt. That made it much easier to keep pushing her in the right direction when she was too old for spanking to be an option anyhow (i.e. when the truly difficult lessons start).

Blues,
Dave

rickjump1

***I think corporal punishment is a poor way to educate a child and its used far more often than it should be. However, it's an excellent choice for dealing with adults who choose to abuse children. Public, full-body 5 minute flogging with a coat-hanger would probably discourage them from ever doing such a thing again.

And no, Remi, there's no sign-up sheet.

Blues,
Dave

When my mother became a widow with three boys, "we" pushed her to her limits, and we deserved what we got. She never physically abused us when using the belt or requiring us to hold both hands while she gave us a harmless slap in the face. We knew we deserved it, and we laugh about it today. We literally put mom through a bit of hell at times.

Funny how different anecdotal cases can be. I was a single child, and my birth mother did abuse me. I eventually fought back at 11 years old, when I was big enough and she was hitting me with the buckle end from shoulder blades to backs of the knees, after which she got a large security guard from her church to come over and provide beatings whenever she thought I needed it. That lasted a bit over a year, and at 13 I ran away, never to return, and still don't talk to her 30 years later.

The primary purpose of child-rearing is education. Learning occurs best in a clear mind. Pain and stress run contrary to clear thinking, and thus to learning. Sure, learning that touching a hot stove will burn your hand is simple enough, but most of the lessons parents are trying to teach are a bit more complex. Personally, I struck my daughter once...I slapped her 3 year old hand as it was reaching for the hot stove. Now approaching 25, she's far outpacing me on nearly every front...she's better than I was at her age with money, education, relationships, and the law, despite having a mother who struggled heavily with a drug addiction and a party-lifestyle. Sure, it's just another anecdote, but we all want to see our children do better than we did, and while my daughter has made some of the mistakes I did, they've been fewer and not nearly as severe.

Also - most of the time I see parents using corporal punishment, they're not trying to teach a meaningful lesson, they're just choosing a poor way to convey their anger over the child's behavior. And when they talk about it, it's usually "I would beat his/her ass if they did x", not "I would teach them very clearly why they should do y instead of x". Of course my perception may be somewhat biased.

At 17 or 18 years old, I was walking through my neighborhood and encountered a man yelling at his toddler child. I told him that was a stupid way to communicate and a calm voice would be more effective. The next time I saw them in front of their house, the dad was again annoyed at something. He looked up, saw me, and slapped the kid'd head hard enough to knock him off his big wheel toy. I ran over and knocked the dad down and asked him how he liked it. The kid had been crying from the hit his dad laid on him, but escalated it to screaming when he saw me do the same thing to his dad. That leaves me still wondering today whether I did the right thing (illegal or not). I dunno. I think rewarding good and shunning bad is far better than expecting good and punishing bad, at least when trying to train children and other animals.

Blues,
Dave

I think corporal punishment is a poor way to educate a child and its used far more often than it should be. However, it's an excellent choice for dealing with adults who choose to abuse children. Public, full-body 5 minute flogging with a coat-hanger would probably discourage them from ever doing such a thing again.

And no, Remi, there's no sign-up sheet.

Blues,
Dave

ibx

Quote

This is why we need guns.

Please explain how a gun would have in any imaginable way led to better outcome in these incidents.

Fewer cops with murderous tendencies?

Blues,
Dave

tkhayes

good things you folks use logic all the time, no wonder you're winning the debate

While there's a complete dearth of logic on both sides of this debate (including your assertion that this incident proves guns can't protect people), I'd say the folks in favor of retaining their rights generally win these debates with those who would prefer a nanny state. Well, except in idiotic cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and DC, where the government somehow convinced people they should go defenseless despite top end violent crime rates.

Blues,
Dave