QuakerOats;1604277 wrote:Laughable ........... the beat goes on............ BIG government radicals taking control.


More billable hours for the trial attorneys.


Individual liberty getting crushed.


Change we can believe in ...

BoatShoes;1604313 wrote:You don't have the liberty to free load on We the People's Land and not pay for it for 20 years. Hope this helps. You see when the Federal Government isn't actually full of tyrannical despots you have to manufacture that scenario by prodding the government for 20 years until you get live out your deranged fantasy of using your second amendment right to fire at tyrants in the Bureau of Land Management lol.

IggyPride00;1604438 wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-treasury-target-hundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-for-parents-old-debts/2014/04/10/74ac8eae-bf4d-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

This story should send chills down the spine of every citizen.

One of our politicians 3 years ago allegedly slipped into the farm bill 1 sentence that eliminated the previous statute of limitations on the governments ability to collect old debts or overpayments.

This story is about them coming after someone whose parents were allegedly overpayed on SS 37 years ago.

It is not even their debt, but their parents. The IRS is now seizing tax returns, and doesn't even have to provide documentation to prove the overpayment happened.

They can just take your money.

As of now no one has fessed up as having been responsible for the change in law, but as this story grows they will be snuffed out. This is completely outrageous, and has given an already over zealous IRS a new weapon with which to torment citizens.

IggyPride00;1604438 wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-treasury-target-hundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-for-parents-old-debts/2014/04/10/74ac8eae-bf4d-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

This story should send chills down the spine of every citizen.

One of our politicians 3 years ago allegedly slipped into the farm bill 1 sentence that eliminated the previous statute of limitations on the governments ability to collect old debts or overpayments.

This story is about them coming after someone whose parents were allegedly overpayed on SS 37 years ago.

It is not even their debt, but their parents. The IRS is now seizing tax returns, and doesn't even have to provide documentation to prove the overpayment happened.

They can just take your money.

As of now no one has fessed up as having been responsible for the change in law, but as this story grows they will be snuffed out. This is completely outrageous, and has given an already over zealous IRS a new weapon with which to torment citizens.

believer;1604725 wrote:Yes this is beyond despicable.

QuakerOats;1604829 wrote:Frankly, I think it would be completely illegal ........hopefully it will go to a real court (not tax court) and get proper dispensation.

jmog;1604815 wrote:Another good reason to adjust deductions and eliminate getting a tax return at all. I am paying the Feds $700 this year and couldn't be happier about it (well, would be happier if the taxes throughout the year were lower of course).

Absolutely despicable to seize taxes from people who don't actually owe it, their deceased parents/grandparents did.

• AP
• DAYS BEFORE Lois Lerner, left, the key figure in the IRS scandal, publicly acknowledged the agency was targeting the Tea Party and other organizations, she spoke with the Justice Department about going after groups seeking tax-exempt status, newly revealed emails show.
  
  
  
  Will we ever to get to the bottom of this historic criminal activity perpetrated against We The People? Looking forward to the day they are all locked up ........... all the way up the ladder.

gut;1606309 wrote:LMFAO....potholes = infrastructure bill. I think Obama actually TRIES to flush money down the toilet.

ptown_trojans_1;1607083 wrote:If done right, we need a massive influx of infrastructure spending.
I've attended a few conferences where the Commander of the Civilian side of the Army Corps has stated we have a D grade on American infrastructure and that there is a current $60 Billion backlog of projects.

That includes, roads, bridges, dams, levees, locks, harbor deepening, restoration, etc.
The Corps only has about a $1 Billion dollar annual budget, while the Military Construction side has about a $10 Billion dollar budget.

So, yeah, we need more money for infrastructure.
Otherwise, as the Commander stated, they will have to let things fail, and mitigate the consequences. Those consequences could include more flooding, loss of migration on certain rivers, the failure of some locks and dams.

I'd rather spend more money on infrastructure than most of what DC spends their money on.
But, that's me and my discussions and dealing with the Army Corps.

http://www.same.org/images/Documents/MG%20Peabody%20SAME%20DoD.pdf

BGFalcons82;1607090 wrote:OK, lets say we need to spend $60,000,000,000 more of funds that simply do not exist. Lets say these projects are the quintessential definition of "shovel-ready jobs"... cuz they need huge shovels to fix the roads & bridges. Lets say Pharaoh Obama gets nearly a trillion dollars of funds that simply do not exist and Pharaoh proclaims the funds will be used for such "shovel-ready jobs".

What happened to the trillion dollars, of which only $60,000,000,000 was needed?

BGFalcons82;1607090 wrote:What happened to the trillion dollars, of which only $60,000,000,000 was needed?

ptown_trojans_1;1607099 wrote:The 60 B is only the Corps. That does not include other agencies, federal, state, and local.

BGFalcons82;1607107 wrote:Oh, I see. A trillion is a pittance. It's always the need for more more more more more.

How many funds that simply do not exist is enough to satiate our leaders? Will 2 trillion get it done? No? How bout 5 trillion? Is there a limit of how many funds that simply do not exist that cures the bad roads and bridges?

ptown_trojans_1;1607193 wrote:I don't know. All I know is there is a huge back load of projects.
Pretty much we have been living off of infrastructure made from the 1930s-1970s.
I mean, if you want to live with more potholes, bridges that can fail, locks that fail, more floods, water pipes that burst, then fine.

What do you propose? Stay the course? Fixing what we need as needed? Then what if a major failure occurs?

BGFalcons82;1607232 wrote:Oh, I don't know... how about not throwing billions into a shithole like Solyndra? How about not funneling billions into the unions? How about not funding bridges used by less than a hundred people per day? Finally, how about spending gas tax dollars on infrastructure?

The answers are so simple, and yet the hands of constituents always want more more more and more.