Windows XP Deadline Missed by IRS

[dibl]

I'll just add some fuel to the fire, and walk away whistling innocently:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14

I tend to not finish reading any report which, in its first sentence, redefines a commonly-understood term like "oligarchy" in order to spin up the storyline.

@vinnywright -- is it possible that your contractor employer from 2008 failed to actually deposit the witholdings that he took out of your paycheck? If so, and if you have any record of your employment, HE is the one legally responsible to pay the IRS, and they cannot make that YOUR problem. But you do need some evidence of what happened. If you have a pay stub that shows his federal employer ID number, that would be perfect.

[kubicle]

I tend to not finish reading any report which, in its first sentence, redefines a commonly-understood term like "oligarchy" in order to spin up the storyline.

Totally understandable view point (somewhat unavoidable in the modern day internet news media circus, though, where you spin a head line that draws attention...and then try to write something that might or might not relate to the head line)

But the main point of mine was of course the study, not the article, which I knew was controversial (hence the "fuel and flame" part). Just wanted to post a summary instead of the full study which is clearly "TL,DR".

I think we've had a discussion about the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" previously on these forums.

[whatthefunk]

I tend to not finish reading any report which, in its first sentence, redefines a commonly-understood term like "oligarchy" in order to spin up the storyline.

@vinnywright -- is it possible that your contractor employer from 2008 failed to actually deposit the witholdings that he took out of your paycheck? If so, and if you have any record of your employment, HE is the one legally responsible to pay the IRS, and they cannot make that YOUR problem. But you do need some evidence of what happened. If you have a pay stub that shows his federal employer ID number, that would be perfect.

I dont see how they redefined oligarchy. From the dictionary: "a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few." In the article they said "extremely corrupt" and if our democracy has fallen into a state of oligarchy, Id venture to say that our leaders are pretty corrupt.

[dibl]

Not be argumentative or anything ....

Oligarchy refers to the distribution of governing power over the governed. Corruption is a different dimension of the human condition. Of course they often are found together -- I didn't intend to imply otherwise. Hypothetically an oligarchy could rule without any more corruption than an uncorrupt democracy. But kubicle's note about the state of modern "news" reporting is quite correct, unfortunately. The lead sentence is often "corrupted", twisting or inventing definitions of terms in order to set up some shaky argument or unsubstantiated assertion. I just find it very offputting to see an alleged piece of news start off that way.

[whatthefunk]

Not be argumentative or anything ....

Oligarchy refers to the distribution of governing power over the governed. Corruption is a different dimension of the human condition. Of course they often are found together -- I didn't intend to imply otherwise. Hypothetically an oligarchy could rule without any more corruption than an uncorrupt democracy. But kubicle's note about the state of modern "news" reporting is quite correct, unfortunately. The lead sentence is often "corrupted", twisting or inventing definitions of terms in order to set up some shaky argument or unsubstantiated assertion. I just find it very offputting to see an alleged piece of news start off that way.

But if your democracy is actually an oligarchy and is actively fighting to keep the status quo, is there not corruption?

[dibl]

Last I checked, USA election system is still 1 citizen = 1 vote. NOT $1M = 1 vote. So I view all these allegations of a "purchased" government with a jaundiced eye. IHMO, it is a UBA*.

A review of a few facts might be useful to understand the reality, versus the noise.

Do candidates for our Congress need funds to advertise their qualifications? YES, they do.

Do elected representatives and Senators owe a debt of gratitude to those who contributed to their campaigns? Of course they do.

Are the citizens so stupid that they are willing to vote for whichever candidate whose advertisement was most compelling? I'm not convinced on that one -- many candidates have crashed and burned under that theory.

*Unsubstantiated Bold Assertion

[whatthefunk]

Last I checked, USA election system is still 1 citizen = 1 vote. NOT $1M = 1 vote. So I view all these allegations of a "purchased" government with a jaundiced eye. IHMO, it is a UBA*.

A review of a few facts might be useful to understand the reality, versus the noise.

Do candidates for our Congress need funds to advertise their qualifications? YES, they do.

Do elected representatives and Senators owe a debt of gratitude to those who contributed to their campaigns? Of course they do.

Are the citizens so stupid that they are willing to vote for whichever candidate whose advertisement was most compelling? I'm not convinced on that one -- many candidates have crashed and burned under that theory.

*Unsubstantiated Bold Assertion

The problem is that if you look at amount of money donated to various political parties, a huge chunk of it comes from a small percent of the American population. This same group also has lobbyists to further their political ambitions. I think this has a lot less to do with advertising and a lot more to do with what happens after they get elected.

[Teunis]

The effort in fund raising tells all, if you don't haver the funds to damage the opposition, you will not win the election.
The number of potential voters does not change due to the fund raising, the number of votes you attract is for a non insignificant part depending on the money you spend on the campaign.
As whatthefunk writes, the money is especially from specific interest groups swaying voters instead of getting it through the democratic one man one vote system.

Let's say the federal electorate in the US is ~210,000,000 of whom 57% actually bother to vote, that would via my US$10.- suggestion potentially raise up to 1200 million dollars for the various campaigns.
Even a fraction of it would be plenty for all candidates to advertise their skillz.