Comment Re: How about (Score 1) 385
You do realize we tried the stronger corporations/weaker government model during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, and the result was not an absolute utopia of freedom.
Yes. It wasn't that bad. It amazes me how much power people are willing to hand governments to avoid the possibility of "sweat shops", "child labor", and other obsolete 19th century dangers.
I'm a US Citizen, not a German or Russian citizen.
Historically the only threat to my freedom has been my fellow Americans, therefore to CXheck and Balance the power of my neighbors I strongly prefer stronger Federal powers.
Note that this is not a blind endorsement of government power. The number one tool my neighbors could use to oppress me (or I could use to oppress them), is the state government. They have most of the jail-space, virtually unlimited authority (they can do almost anything save violate the Bill of Rights, and they're very good at weaseling their way around the Bill of Rights), etc.
Corporations are a potential threat, because they'll do anything to screw their business partners, and as a relatively poor person I can;t fight back very effectively when they screw me. Moreover their nearly unlimited resources mean they can generally buy state governments if they want.
Government contracts for the Pinkertons dries up after the Civil War, but private contracts made up for it. They had more agents then the Army had troops in the 1890s. You're just making shit up on their relationship with law enforcement.
Read some history on how Pinkerton operated. They didn't go after outlaws or bush unions without law enforcement support. It might just be a token deputy riding with a bunch of Pinkertons, but they had their backside covered.
So you're arguing that, under a pro-corporate Constitutional reform, private for-profit corporations would be able to get police into using their powers to advance the interests of said private, for-profit corporations, and that this would be a good thing, because at least it wouldn;t be the FEDERAL government harassing people?
You must be really fucking rich mas'r Khallow, if you're sure that everyone you love is rich enough to out-bid Bill Gates when he decides to send them to jail.
As I said she is fighting the Social Security Administration (not the IRS) through her Congressperson. That does not require money up-front, which means she can actually do it; whereas in any dispute with a private corporation she only has a theoretical right to fight.
But at least in the latter case, she can get her money back. She could also beg that congressperson for any private disputes as well. That option doesn't vanish merely because the problem is private.
And how often have you heard of a Congressperson actually winning a dispute like that?
At best you get a letter saying
OTOH the entire dispute with Lois lerner and the IRS started with a Congressman asking questions.
And as to my "reading comprehension", I guess you should have written something other than:
Back in the real world, the IRS ruling hurts my poor coworker, but she wasn't depending on that money to pay her bills because you can't depend on tax refund money to do that. The Feds refuse to finalize the tax Code until the very last minute, so you never know what your refund is going to be until you do your return.
and
and the IRS took her whole refund because Social Security had changed it's mind
Your story completely undermines your claim that it was just a dispute with Social Security.
Your ignorance of how tax refunds work is showing.
The IRS won't send you your refund if any agency from a fairly long list (child support, Social Security, student loans, some state tax agencies, etc.) claims you owe them money. Disputing the matter with the IRS doesn't help because the IRS can't order these other agencies around.
So her dispute is with Social Security, but it is the IRS who is refusing to send her her refund.