It's Just Not Fair: I Want My Waco

Man, Bush is really dropping the ball. Obviously the administration didn't learn anything from Janet Reno. It would have been nice to reach across the aisle and mirror her strategy at Waco. How does he expect liberals to like him with incompetent stunts like this?

CONCORD, N.H.  —  U.S. marshals posing as supporters arrested convicted tax-evaders Ed and Elaine Brown at their rural, fortress-like home, the head marshal said Friday.

"They invited us in, and we escorted them out," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said, releasing the first details of Thursday night's arrests.

The arrests ended a months-long standoff that began in January, when Brown, 65, and his dentist wife, 67, walked out of their federal trial in Concord. She returned to the trial but soon joined her husband at home, where they vowed to resist violently if authorities tried to arrest them.

"We either walk out of here free or we die," Ed Brown said at the time.

Comments

[nowingker]

Why would you think anyone learned anything from Waco or Ruby Ridge?

NOBODY was ever held accountable, the entire thing was hushed up, glossed over and given the usual 'tragedy but we followed the rules' rationalization.

[rwilymz]

There comes a point when we have to ask "is it worth it?"

Taxes are necessary, but too much of a good thing is, frankly, too much. Is it worth it? Is it worth having laws which penalize trivial bullshit -- up to and including many specific drugs -- if people really care so little about the consequences?

Government is supposed to be responsive, at least that's the line they keep feeding us.

Okay: respond. They'd rather die than pay taxes. They aren't alone. How many citizens you want to push into suicide-by-cop in order to collect a few bucks?

Lower the taxes, you'd have fewer of these problems.

Hundreds of divorced fathers have killed themselves, around a dozen on courthouse steps; hundreds more have killed "estranged" or ex-wives, and several have killed judges. Is it worth it to systematically strip fathers of parental rights, assign them disproportionate financial responsibility, all while calling it "equal" [hint, bozos: alternating weekds is 4 days every 28; 24 =/= 4. To assert it is shows that your bad at math, bad at law, or both]?

What are we buying ourselves from all this?

Is it worth it to criminalize store owners because they don't have the ability to police teen-age beer-buying?

What does it get us? Not fewer drunk teenagers, that's for sure.

[chris]

It would appear that rwilymz' ex-wife soaked him for all he was worth. Proof that the system is working!

[rwilymz]

Swing an' a miss!

Sociology grad school; academic interest.

I'm educated, which means the system is working for me. From the nature and content of your drive-by grousings, you aren't, and your utter failure to comprehend even the basics of what's going on around you has you bitter and confounded.

That's your problem. Don't make your problem mine; don't even try. I'm not polite.

[chris]

"Don't make your problem mine; don't even try. I'm not polite."

Wooo - scary sociology major! Go play with your sheep, patriot.

[rrm]

"Sociology" grad school "system working for me" = I'm too lazy to want to get a job yet and want to soak off others (maybe that's one reason why we can't afford enough police!). Age made apparent by juvenile comment. But if I was Chris I'd be soooo scared right now! I wonder what he'll do?

[Paul A' Barge]

The two of you children should each go to your room for a time-out. And, don't come out until you can argue like men.

[rrm]

"Sociology" grad school "system working for me" = I'm too lazy to want to get a job yet and want to soak off others (maybe that's one reason why we can't afford enough police!). Age made apparent by juvenile comment. But if I was Chris I'd be soooo scared right now! I wonder what he'll do?

[G. Hamid]

"We either walk out of here free or we die," Ed Brown said at the time.

Seems like they're taking their State motto way too seriously.

[ndh]

Ed and Elaine Brown are far from poster children for tax reform. They are a pair of certified nut jobs who still cling to the long lost argument that the federal government has no right to collect income tax. You can argue that oppressive taxes are a real problem, rwilymz, but these people take it a bit further than you do.

[IslamoLlama]

"Okay: respond. They'd rather die than pay taxes. They aren't alone. How many citizens you want to push into suicide-by-cop in order to collect a few bucks?

Lower the taxes, you'd have fewer of these problems."

Except these big cases aren't simply caused by fudging your Schedule A. When you go tax dodging to the point where US Marshals are forced to dig you out of your home, you're typically giving the US Government the bird while you don't pay a dime on millions. Doesn't matter what the tax brackets are, some people will always cheat.

Of course, if you want to lower taxes, I can tell you right away where you can save a big bundle of money. We're dropping $189 billion into Iraq, if the Prez has his way in a couple of months. That's $1000 from each of the 189 million tax paying citizens in our country. Actually, it's probably closer to $1200, because we're taking out huge loans to pay. And given the stratified tax structure, you can guarantee that the richest 1% will be footing the vast majority of that bill.

If you want to lower your taxes and go back to the blissful happier late years under Clinton, when we were arguing about what to do with a $40 billion surplus, you need to tell your government to stop pissing money away in the desert.

The idea that a Republican Party can run up the biggest deficit in US History by waging one of the most expensive wars, and then cry about taxes is just laughable. Well over half the Congressional Discretionary Budget pays for the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to run the most powerful military in the world. That's your pork, kids. Not SCHIP, FEMA, and highway maintenance. If you want to save money, stop blowing things up.

[Smarter than you]

Nice try, IslamoLlama, but the federal budget is over 2 trillion dollars. The war -- a legitimate, Constitutional exercise of governmental power -- is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the crap we're being forced to pay for that has absolutely no Constitutional basis at all.

[bsheffcpa]

Are all you guys insane? You are completely missing the point of Dan's post.

Clinton Dept of Justice: Method to arrest fugitive/suspect = get 100's of heavily armed agents, armored vehicles, and helicopters. Beseige location for weeks. Kill other people at location with botched entry/assault plans and burn building/complex down.

Bush Dept of Justice: Method to arrest fugitive/suspect = two agents use their brains, pose as supporters, get invited in, and arrest fugitive. No death or property damage.

In my opinion:

Clinton = incompetence in everything except getting elected

Bush = very competent except in communicating his ideas.

[m]

"Republican Party can run up the biggest deficit in US History by waging one of the most expensive wars, and then cry about taxes is just laughable"

Not to mention Bush refunding the NEA and the whole welfare state AND passing the biggest new entitlement program in 2 generations AND...........but I think you get the point.

"under Clinton, when we were arguing about what to do with a $40 billion surplus"

That was a bookkeeping gimmick,it included SS surpluses....which were also counted as.......SS surpluses!

Wish my bank would let do stuff like that.

[Dan Riehl]

"Are all you guys insane? You are completely missing the point of Dan's post."

The commenters get it. But the regs live in a place beyond that and just cut right to the "you and your ilk suck" chase.

[Jay Manifold]

IslamoLlama: Nice try. These things are often absurdly disproportionate - Gordon Kahl (to be sure, no poster child himself; and "ndh" is understating the Browns' wackiness - they regularly ranted about Freemasons controlling the gov't) was hunted all over the country and shot for a tax debt that barely reached into four figures. Iraq is 0.8% of GDP, and the DoD budget is lower as a share of national wealth than it was 20 years ago, which in turn was lower than 20 years before that, and incomparably lower than 20 years before that. If only it were that easy.

[IslamoLlama]

"That was a bookkeeping gimmick,it included SS surpluses....which were also counted as.......SS surpluses!"

Wait, surpluses? I thought Social Security was broken and we needed to make privatized accounts before it went bankrupt? Oops.

And the discretionary spending - what Congress is allowed to delegate - is vastly different from what Congress simply takes in from taxes. Medicare and Social Security, for instance, can technically only be spent on Medicare and Social Security (although Congress has been known to "borrow" from the accounts, something Gore wanted to prevent by creating his "lockbox"). Congress is also required to pay down the interest on the national debt - and interest being the fifth(?) largest expense of the US Government - that eats up a quarter trillion dollars, or 10% of our budget, all by itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2007

Here, a brief lesson in how Congress spends your tax dollars.

"FY 2006 Supplemental Funding : The Defense Department base budget also does not include “one time only” costs attributable to the War on Terror, which are submitted as Supplemental Funding. In FY 2006, an additional $153 billion in Supplemental Funding was added to the base budget - the War on Terror received $120 billion, while $33 billion went primarily for Hurricane Katrina. As a result, 60% of last year's discretionary spending went to DoD/WoT.

FY 2007 Supplemental Funding : For FY 2007, $70 billion has already been approved, while the President’s FY 2008 Budget requests an additional $102 billion. If approved by Congress, total FY 2007 spending for DoD/WoT would be $673 billion, or 64% of the net discretionary budget. FY 2008 Budget Proposal : For FY 2008, the President has requested the following: The Defense Department Base Budget - $481 billion. WoT(non-DoD) Base Budget - $73 billion. Supplemental Funding for WoT - $145 billion. Total requested Dod/WoT spending is $699 billion, or 65% of total net Discretionary spending"

60-65% of Discretionary spending to defense.
You want a tax break? There it is.

[chris' bane]

Islamoboob, get a grip, and try to at least understand the logic behind your climate change..global warming emergency, and try...please try...to use your brain, if in fact you have one.

According to the Goracle, and others in his camp, you must...must...I repeat...MUST..act before the worst effects of global warming take place, i.e., the loss of the Arctic ice, the demise of the Greenland and Anarctic icecaps.

The same logic applies to social security. You can't wait until it is actually in the red before you try to save it. There is something like a 7-9 trillion(do you understand that number?) dollar unfunded liability built into the social security system. If you wait much longer, it will be impossible to save it. Get it?

[no one you care about]

Islamollama:

Care to enlighten us on the ratio of discretionary spending to entitlement spending while you're at it? Entitlements - there's your real tax break. Good luck reducing those pandering funds.

[rwilymz]

"scary sociology major!"

That's right. Scary several other things as well. Mind your manners.

"I'm too lazy to want to get a job yet and want to soak off others"

I don't doubt it. But perhaps you can get SSI. My taxes pay for 3 or 4 of you to sponge.

"I wonder what he'll do?"

If the past is any indication, he'll wet his panties in public.

"Doesn't matter what the tax brackets are, some people will always cheat."

Not the point. The lower the taxes the fewer will be tempted to make these statements.

"given the stratified tax structure, you can guarantee that the richest 1% will be footing the vast majority of that bill."

Yep. And the bottom wutisit 26%? pay not a thing? Including christine and the duplicated "rrm".

"tell your government to stop pissing money away in the desert."

We were already pissing money away in the desert. He'd been there for 12 years.

Remember?

Perhaps you don't, since you like to believe that our involvement in Iraq began with some Grand Equivocation. We spent $250B between '91 and '02 just for the privilege of sticking our thumbs up our ass. At least for $189B we're doing something. Something you don't like? wah; the purpose of the government and US foreign policy is not to please individual bed-wetters.

"Wish my bank would let do stuff like that."

Know what would happen if any company attempted to run a pension plan like SocSec? You'd be under arrest in about two minutes for running a Ponzi.

"I thought Social Security was broken and we needed to make privatized accounts before it went bankrupt?"

Your mistake is evident in your first two words; you do *not* "think". You knee-jerk.

SocSec is fundamentally flawed, for it is a time-released Ponzi scheme. It is only a matter of time before it fails. Ponzis rely on a geometrically increasing pay-in base to pay for the defined pay-outs -- which is physically impossible. It requires commensurately expanding job market -- which isn't likely even under the most robust government hiring programs. And it depends on upwardly mobile wage base which, given the first two, is seriously unlikely.

There are, of course, ways to make SocSec m/l fiscally sound. Like what the quintessential liberal Daniel Moynihan suggested, ... and his liberal Congress did nothing about. And what the Populist Clinton re-suggested, and his liberal Congress and conservative Congress [both] did nothing about. And what the conservative Bush re-re-suggested, and which the liberals in the country has screaming, bleeding hissy fits rather than allow anyone to do anything about.

...or we could do nothing and wait for SocSec to fail. As it will. Since it is based on a demonstrated financial fraud.

[chris' bane]

"..or we could do nothing and wait for SocSec to fail. As it will. Since it it..."

True enough, but add Medicare to the mix, and the figures get much worse, a number too big to comprehend. I'm sure our liberal friends are convinced the printing press will solve the problem, therefore we may see hyperinflation. Look at Rhodesia...uh, Zimbabwe..at this exact moment in time, as price inflation has stopped the economy over there. Oh, well, be sure you have some gold in your portfolio, and you will come out much the better. There is your economic lesson for tonight, Islamo, probably more than you will ever get in multicultural studies.

[BC]

"Wait, surpluses? I thought Social Security was broken and we needed to make privatized accounts before it went bankrupt? Oops."

Do you work at being this stupid, or does it just come naturally?

Notwithstanding surpluses in the nineties, the liabilities of SS exceed its assets. The fact that today you're collecting more money than you're spending says absolutely nothing about your long-term solvency.

[K]

"Hundreds of divorced fathers have killed themselves, around a dozen on courthouse steps; hundreds more have killed "estranged" or ex-wives, and several have killed judges."

and several have killed judges and several have killed judges and several have killed judges and several have killed judges

No point. I just liked the escalation in the sentence. To kill yourself may be very sensible. You know your circumstances and they may be quite hopeless indeed. To kill an ex-wife could be sensible. You know her pretty well, perhaps you are doing all humanity a favor.

To kill a judge? That indicates real delusion - some madness that whispers 'the system has made a mistake and might change if only attention is drawn to the problem.'

Sorry bud, the system hasn't made a mistake. That court is there to crush people and produce fear. Government rules by using the carrot and the stick. Mostly the stick. Courts are a bureau of government.

[Brett Bellmore]

"NOBODY was ever held accountable, "

On the contrary, it was as evil as could be, and may Nichols and company fry in hell for it, but people, (The wrong people!) were held responsible in Oklahoma City. And THAT, sadly enough, is the only reason the feds gave up on the tactics that brought us Ruby Ridge and Waco. Because it started to look as though if they kept it up, there might eventually be consequences for the people making the policy.

They didn't clean up their act because it was the right thing to do, they cleaned up their act because they didn't want to have to deal with domestic terrorism directed at government agencies. And the OK bombing convinced them that was the price they'd pay for more Wacos.

[Brian G.]

Bush caused Waco because as Governor he did nothing about David Koresh and his band of wackos. In fact, Bush used to be a part of the Branch Davidians until he had to resign. Dan Rather has a copy of his resignation letter.

Seriously, when I was in law school a few years ago, I listened as a classmate told the entire class some theory of how Governor Bush caused the whole thing. Sadly, I was the only one who knew that Bush wasn't even Governor when it happened.

[Alan K. Henderson]

Maybe we could pacify Iraq faster if Janet Reno were part of the troop surge. Give her some tanks and CS gas!

[joeb]

I thought it was nice to see it end peacefully. So different from Ruby Ridge and Waco.Thanks bscheffcpa for your post. I think you nailed it.

"Are all you guys insane? You are completely missing the point of Dan's post.

Clinton Dept of Justice: Method to arrest fugitive/suspect = get 100's of heavily armed agents, armored vehicles, and helicopters. Beseige location for weeks. Kill other people at location with botched entry/assault plans and burn building/complex down.

Bush Dept of Justice: Method to arrest fugitive/suspect = two agents use their brains, pose as supporters, get invited in, and arrest fugitive. No death or property damage.

In my opinion:

Clinton = incompetence in everything except getting elected

Bush = very competent except in communicating his ideas.

Posted by: bsheffcpa

[Fred Belot]

Islamo-moe at the top of his game:

"Of course, if you want to lower taxes, I can tell you right away where you can save a big bundle of money. We're dropping $189 billion into Iraq, if the Prez has his way in a couple of months. That's $1000 from each of the 189 million tax paying citizens in our country. Actually, it's probably closer to $1200, because we're taking out huge loans to pay. And given the stratified tax structure, you can guarantee that the richest 1% will be footing the vast majority of that bill.

If you want to lower your taxes and go back to the blissful happier late years under Clinton, when we were arguing about what to do with a $40 billion surplus, you need to tell your government to stop pissing money away in the desert."

From AP today:

Federal government registered a budget deficit of $161 billion for the just-completed fiscal year, the Congressional Budget office estimated Friday. The 2007 deficit figure represents considerable improvement over the $248 billion deficit posted last year. At 1.2 percent of GDP, the fiscal picture is the best it's been since 2001...

Congratulations, Moe, on your grasp of current economic realities.

[LOL]

kinda pathetic statement you have there Fred. It really just illustrates how 7 years of Bush has managed to lower the bar for our standards of governance. When a $161B deficit is seen as a huge improvement... sad

[Fred Belot]

LOL, you are crying over peanuts? Are you an elephant or something? This number simply shows we don't need a tax increase. In fact higher taxes most often, if not in fact always, mean lower revenues to the government. Very sad you see bad when there is good news. But, I guess it is the Democratis' way.

[LOL]

i wish you had some evidence to back up your assertions, but like most wingers, you just assert and assert and assert and then rail against reality for having a liberal bias

[Dentists]

Rhode Island Dentists

[Deoxy]

I appreciate the original poster's point and agree with it.

Interesting point in passing: the Browns are probably RIGHT (not that I'm going to stop paying my taxes any time soon!).

If you look hard at the history of the amendment to the Constitution that allows the income tax, to call it "illegitimate" would be the polite response. In addition, if you ask for a law that says you actually are required to pay your taxes, it cannot be produced (seriously - it's strange).

Of course, it's all been this way for generations, and it's not going to change any time soon, but I'd like at least that second point taken care of (as it just requires legislation, but Constitutional amendment).