Your tax dollars at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandman72

I don't know that I agree with the note or not. Here is a thought though. Hasn't the IRS been biased and making somewhat of a political statement in support of the current administration for quite some time? For all the U.S tax payers here, remember the line that asks if you want to contribute part of your refund to the Presidents re-election fund? May be its just the state taxes I am thinking of now...not sure. Either way, isn't that somewhat biased against the party not in office. In fairness, wouldn't they give that option to other major party as well. Then you get in to minor parties...so why not have that line removed. Isn't that technically using a government agency to help a political candidate or his party rather?

---

The checkoff for the Presidential election goes to all parties who qualify, I think you had to have 5 percent of the vote in the previous election to qualify. It is non partisan. At the time it was enacted it was thought that this would somewhat eliminate the power of the corporations, the rich and labor unions from controlling politicians thru their need for donations.

As to corporations not having the same goals per se as the American people just ask yourself this:
If xyz corp saw a way to produce its product with 1 employee at a cost of 1.00 versus using 10,000 employees and producing the goods at 1.01 then they would fire 9,999 people.
If a corporation faces 1 million in fines for not stopping their pollution but a cost of 1 million and one dollar to fix the pollution than they will pay the fine. The pollution will then kill 10,000 people.
Now while there is public relations, political concerns you can see how the corporations goals are not necessarily in the public interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gollo

Shouldn't the government agency support the head of said government?

---

As is so in the military, you don't have to support the man, but, you do have to support the office. When biased political partisanship becomes involved it demeans the office of the president to the American people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Techs you country allows TV advertising that goes something like this

Company B is rubbish, they don't do a good job, their product is unreliable.

We at Company A are much better at it, so you can dump your company B stuff and buy from us instead.

Are you really surprised that when that kind of advertising is allowed - and I use it in the broadest sense here, not just commercial companies marketing campaigns - that your political system of campaigning reflects that?

---

The government may be run by any one political party, however, the government as a whole is apolitical and beholding to the the office not to the political party. To push the "political" mantra of any one party is not ethical. Even by Washingtons' standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jitBob

The government may be run by any one political party, however, the government as a whole is apolitical and beholding to the the office not to the political party. To push the "political" mantra of any one party is not ethical. Even by Washingtons' standards.

---

This is an interesting conundrum..the separation of powers is held to be of primary importance in the constitution in order to avoid the tyranny of one person or political entity gaining control over the entire government..but..and this is what makes it interesting to me..the IRS is part of the executive branch, as is the President. I wonder if there are current regulations or constitutional decisions which make it improper for any of the executive branch members to function in a political manner? Ethically, i would say that it is very obvious..but then I would have said that it was obvious that the primary supplier of electronic voting machines shouldn't be a company whose head has said his aim is to re-elect GWB in a'any way possible' either..and yet that happened as well.

Hell, the Constitution hasn't mattered to anyone in career politics in a LOOONG time. Look how the Fed undermines the intent of the 10 Amendment, and delegates power to itself thru legislation....and the recent decision by the 5th (I think) Circuit regarding the basic anullment of rights under the 4th.

And don't get me started on the 16th, it still looks to me that it wasn't ratified properly, but yet lo and behold, we have an "income tax" supported by the US Tax Code and IRS in which neither can firmly state that, BY LAW, an individual citizen has to pay Federal Income Tax.

All you get from the IRS is the usual "pay your fair share" BS, but they absolutely refuse to say which part of the tax code applies, saying it's a frivolus arguement. Why can't they just answer the question?