Posted on 04/18/2012 8:30:35 AM PDT by bramps
“We’ve been instructed to show no mercy this year, to disallow everything,” says one IRS compliance officer. “It’s frightening.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I'm not a prophet or a future teller. But I have been giving this thought and doing a lot of research in the past few months. Here's why I believe the next rebellion won't involve a "war" in the traditional terms. My opinion may change as I'm being very objective and trying to test logical theories and scenarios through the prism of history with monumental government action.
There are several states that would support if not join a state or a couple states in a political power grab from the Fed. Their are more states (NY, CA, etc.) that would jump to the side of the fed as they depend on states like TX, AZ and OK for the distribution of their federal welfare. Liberals are anti-war and the screaming liberal base, in their arrogance, would cry, "Good Riddance." In an armed conflict, conservatives would volunteer, liberals would have to be drafted and most military would not fire on fellow Americans asserting their freedom. We are no longer a fledgling republic of united states. Communication and cause is instant via the Internet. The liberals would have to "crack down" on the message and this would inevitably lead to more cries of 1st amendment violations. Marshal law?
In the end, I expect an armed conflict might find itself facing a military that refuses to attack on one side and a huge majority of citizens that would take up their own arms and support a military that will only defend (the seceding states from attack).
To put it clear, try to picture a president ordering the DOD to draw up attack plans for Austin so they could go in and arrest the governor. Battle plans always involve casualty predictions, collateral damage and objective success predictions. Where would a general start and what would be the analysis of what a successful campaign would look like? For me, it doesn't pass the logic test. Their would be a flurry of resignations and leaks before a group was found to start such a plan. By then, the question of whether our fed had indeed become too powerful would be answered for all the so called independents. Only the fringe left would remain in support of going to TX (for example) and killing to save the union.
I would expect it would be a 10 to 12 year process before tensions would mount to organized military action. By then, the problem would have resolved itself one way or another in courts, elections and legislation IMO.
Re: Independence from federal taxes:
Maybe this is the reason that the federal government has no interest in sealing the borders, or dealing with the flood of illegal aliens.
These would be people with no allegiance to Texas or Arizona, but to the federal government, especially if promised all sorts of goodies by the feds.
Mark
I don't disagree with your conclusions based upon your research (particularly the unlikely mobilization of troops to retake rebel cities or states). My opinion is that, as in many wars, a future U.S. civil war will start in small regional skirmishes between citizens and the Fed Gov taking sides. I suspect it would start because of inner city riots along racial lines.
I experienced something like this, where an employer had mistakenly filed a 1099 for expense reimbursals for me. I had moved, and didn't hear about this from the IRS for quite some time, and I was informed that it would have to go to tax court to be fought. I was told by a tax lawyer that it would be cheaper to just pay the taxes, interest, and penalties than to pay a lawyer to fight it.
It was only about $1100, but if they do that to many thousands of people, it starts to add up.
Mark
Too bad you are “Freghtened”. If you actually knew anything about representing folks at an audit, you would understand that the so-called “compliance officer’s” quote is a figment of your imagination. There is no conspiracy, there is no grassy knoll, there is no change in tactics. You are a fear-monger who is stirring trouble. Your guy probably had a $ 12K AGI because he wrote off a lot of start-up stuff in the first year (perhaps too much???) and in the prior years had $ 250K AGI. Go back to H & R Block and fix your RALs & RACs.
We've probably got 40 million guns down here (I'm low-balling that figure, as I don't know anyone with less then 4 or 5, and quite a number with more), and a history of telling others to stick their "authoritah" where the sun don't shine. So, to put none too fine a point on it, there isn't going to be any armed takeover of Texas by anyone other than its own citizens, should the need ever arise. It is quite simply impossible to do without destroying the infrastructure of the state, something that any would-be occupier would want to avoid...and even then, they'll be bled dry in the process.
>>Liberals are anti-war and the screaming liberal base, in their arrogance, would cry, “Good Riddance.” In an armed conflict, conservatives would volunteer, liberals would have to be drafted...
This premiss is seriously flawed. Liberals are NOT anti-war, they are anti-American. Historically, they have seldom shied away from violence when it comes to asserting political power (e.g Dachau, Auschwitz, Sobibor, the Gulags, the Laogais, the Killing Fields, Mugabe’s disarmament of white farmers so they could be more easily raped and slaughtered).
Just curious... the compliance officer is clearly quoted in the story, not off the top of the OP’s head. Also, curious as to what an RAC is, refund anticipitory... what?
I anticipate IRS trouble this year, and would like nothing better than to believe it will all be OK, but the Times’ story has me also frightened, as does the expweience of the OP as a seasoned preparer.
Encourage, heck even comfort me, please...
I've bumped into some people over the years who live very independent of the usual connections. I've also envied them some of that freedom, especially in uncertain times like these.
I assume the premise which you assert is "seriously flawed" is that of Liberals being "anti-war". I'll agree on the anti-American as well.
There was not a single "war" mentioned in the examples you gave. What you pointed out is the hypocrisy of their stance on war. An overt and open declaration of war is not a thing the left tolerates (Since WWII). That said, all means justify their ends as long as they can spin their position adequately for the ignorant mindless base.
Liberals would sooner make excuses for their side committing acts of terrorism in the name of justice than to make a formal declaration of war. The issue is accountability and credibility with their ignorant minion base. "We didn't do it. We don't condone those kinds of acts. But we're glad it happened. They did have it coming." --- It's the liberal way.
I had the honor and priveledge of living in Austin for about 3 years. While Austin must be the MOST liberal city in TX, what constitutes liberal in the state of TX is near bear to an alcoholic. I grew up in IN and have lived in San Fran, Maryland, Virginia and TX.
I have an interesting take on the general TX culture and pride. I do love it and my daughter is our anchor baby if we ever need to immigrate back.
Except for other folks telling Texans that they have a unique character and pride for their state history, most of tehm don’t know any better or worse. Nothing was so refreshing to me than living around and dealing with people that would give you the stink eye if you started in on some PC BS or did an articulation two step to avoid offending someone. Just say what you’re thinking.
Texans are generally pretty direct. They expect the same. They don’t seek confrontation but won’t shy away from it either. Concerning Political Correctness, if a person is offended in some way, it’s their problem not yours or society’s. A man’s word is more important than a contract. Either you can be trusted or you can’t. Mind your own business and let me know if you need help. And finally, “Don’t mess with Texas.” We were our own country once and have no qualms with going that way again.
There is an alternative. That is a purge order.
Rather than leaving, the states should issue a purge order and declare Massachusetts and designated others to be purged from the Union
He doesn’t sound like he’s living a freestyle life to me.
If I have to look over my shoulder every other move I make doesn’t quite fit a freestyle life that I would envision.
Is your last name Axelrod? Your post is so idiotic it doesn’t deserve any further response than what I just gave you.
Have you heard about the Civil War that occured in this country??? The North was hardly conservative.
We fought a Civil War here in America? Well, I'll be....
Remind me again, what party was Abraham Lincoln? Which Party really championed Civil Rights?
The Civil War was born of governance differences largely born of the representation of the south and the economic drivers of the North and South (Industry Vs Agriculture). The South had legitimate grievances with the Federal Government. There were no "welfare" states back then.
The South was trading internationally and was self sufficient. They didn't like laws coming out of the north that had to do with agriculture, trading and taxes. But they didn't have the representation to affect legislation either due to population distribution. The North needed the south more than the south needed the North. A war ensued. Slavery was just the last straw and that was a "conservative" issue.
Their were not many "liberals" back then in the form of a liberal today.
That’s a keeper.
Another keeper!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.