Tuesday, June 5, 2012

How’s It Going Down There?

Today’s a big day in Wisconsin. The Republican governor is facing recall for having cut state taxes and expenses, increased business, lowered unemployment, turned a budget deficit into a surplus, and for reducing the power of the public sector unions. We’ll all be following that, I’m sure. But to take a break, let’s look south to Barack Obama’s home state.

In Illinois taxes have gone up along with expenses, business is fleeing, tax revenues are down, unemployment is rising and the biggest power in town is the gangs. Quite a contrast, wouldn't you say?

The greatest civil unrest in Wisconsin in the recent past was the brief takeover of the state capitol building by angry union members protesting the governor’s cuts. In Illinois, and particularly Chicago, the Democrats are in charge and there’s no need for the unions to storm the public buildings. Largely because they’re too busy ducking gunfire with the rest of the hapless populace.

Obama confidante Rahm Emanuel left the White House to become mayor of Chicago. Rahmbo made reducing violent crime in Chicago one of his major political planks during the election. Like his former boss Obama, Emanuel is great at promising, weak at delivering. Over the three-day Memorial Day weekend, Chicago celebrated by producing ten dead bodies and forty-three serious injuries resulting from increased gang violence.

Since becoming mayor, Emanuel has presided over a 50% increase in the murder rate in Chicago. In 2011, there were 134 homicides. So far in 2012, there have been about 200. Clearly, this is not the mayor’s fault. Just look at some of the draconian measures he has taken to stop the violence (see accompanying illustration of the harshly-worded signs he has put up all over the South Side). Emanuel knows his stuff. He learned from Obama. Blame previous administrations and deflect the real issue by stating the obvious as if that will help.

In a statement to the Chicago Tribune, Emanuel said: “On a percentage basis—and this is just data—about 70% to 80% of the increase in both shootings and homicides are gang-on-gang violence. We have to interject ourselves to stop the shootings, which is the only way you can stop the homicide rate.” Well, that’s a statement that reviews what everybody already knows, but how is it in any way an action plan?

Tio Hardiman, a community organizer, head of violence-prevention group CeaseFire, and an ally of Emanuel’s said: “Chicago is a different beast when it comes down to the issue of violence. You have outbreaks of violence in the same way you have outbreaks of disease in countries throughout the world. Some people are going to sleep in Chicago thinking about who they’re going to shoot the next day.” No kidding!

Good thing nothing like that ever happens in Los Angeles, Detroit and New York City. Somehow, I don’t think treating gang violence as some sort of natural epidemic like the flu is going to solve the problem. Both the mayor and CeaseFire propose that the locals intervene with the gangs. San Francisco tried that under former mayor Willie Brown. He put former gang members on the violence-ridden city buses South of Market to “mediate.” Several stabbings and a few shootings later, the plan was abandoned.

The mayor also blamed the number of liquor stores in gang territory for part of the violence. He called them “a cancer on the community.” Well—why not ban them? It worked so well in the 1920s that Al Capone became a national figure. I’m a little unclear on how having to walk or ride a few extra blocks to get to the booze is going to reduce violent crime. Better to ban the crack and heroin trade that the gangs compete over. Oh, wait, they already did that.

Emanuel simply can’t or won’t admit that the gang violence is largely attributable to historic Democratic policies. Welfare and general relief money (something for nothing) keep otherwise able-bodied young men and women on the public dole, on the streets, and off the real employment rolls. Illegitimacy and single-parent households (adult males nearly always among the missing) produce disaffected and alienated children looking for a close-knit family. Say, the Crips, the Bloods, or MS13. Public school social-welfare indoctrination rather than education produces high drop-out rates and uneducated masses with no genuine prospects for getting a legitimate job.

Tolerance of bad behavior resulting from “black rage” has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Excusing violence because of the “victimization” of minorities by the white power structure in order to gain votes for Democratic giveaways and unearned entitlements is simply reprehensible. Chicago Democrats also instituted some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, proving the adage that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Many of the South Side gang homes make the local National Guard Armory look like a Sunday school classroom. In fact, the gangs actually raided one armory and took most of the weapons with them a few years ago.

When those “angry union members” go into the voting booths today in Wisconsin, I hope they consider what happens to bankrupt states like Illinois and violence-ridden cities like Chicago when you toss out the good guys and replace them with Democratic hacks.

NOTE: If you get any early voting info or interesting news about Wisconsin, feel free to let us know here.


Anthony said...

LawHawk said:

Emanuel simply can’t or won’t admit that the gang violence is largely attributable to historic Democratic policies.

Tolerance of bad behavior resulting from “black rage” has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I know that a popular mantra among many conservatives is that the problem of the black community is the fault of the Democrats, but to me that is the conservative version of the Nation of Islam's argument that all of the black community's problems are the fault of the white man.

Individuals are responsible for their own choices and parents are responsible for their kids. Saying otherwise may serve the interests of a political party, but it doesn't serve the interests of the people you paint as victims (the same thing you accuse the Democrats of doing).

On a related note, I came up through public schools and worked part time as a mentor for troubled kids when I was an undergrad.

That experience and countless studies indicating that difference outcomes persist even among kids sitting in the same classroom have convinced me that the fault lies with members of the black community not necessarily the system. I'm not saying the system is perfect (school choice would be great), but its certainly not the source of the black community's problems.

As for tolerance of 'black rage' I agree that many idiots at an academic level make excuses for it, but I've never seen a study which indicated that black criminals serve less time than any other color of criminal.

StanH said...

There you go with that fact thingy again Lawhawk. Your comparative analysis would require critical thinking, which is an anathema to all things liberal. Everything is emotion with our leftist, “if it feels good do it,” even if that means diving with an anvil. Sadly this is analogous, with much of the world at present. The powers that be have recreated the Weimar Republic, on steroids - - (your wheelbarrow empire may be in the cards yet) …we know how that ended, WWII. “If” the money pump runs dry, the wilding in these blue hives will be ugly indeed. Wisconsin is moving in the right direction, we’ll see…fingers crossed.

tryanmax said...

Anthony said:

"Individuals are responsible for their own choices and parents are responsible for their kids."

No one here would disagree with that, but it is largely oblique to the point Hawk was making. Yes, we can hold individuals responsible for their actions and stuff the jails with criminals, but there is still an underlying culture that produces the criminals in the first place. That culture is founded on a welfare system, a government system, a system devised by Democrats.

You have to remember, few are the noble. When it pays better to be an unemployed single parent or a hustler, then why would you work harder for less? Factor in the perverted sense of self-esteem that children are taught in public schools instead of an actual education and tell me who will instill in them a proper sense of pride?

The government (i.e. Democrats) has done its level best to establish itself as a surrogate parent to the children of welfare class. So, in effect, we do demand the parent be held responsible.

AndrewPrice said...

Well, I'm glad to know Chicago is improving.

//rolls eyes

Anthony said...

tryanmax said:

Yes, we can hold individuals responsible for their actions and stuff the jails with criminals, but there is still an underlying culture that produces the criminals in the first place.
You had me when I read the above words, and then you lost me with, well, all the words that followed.

The welfare system is the same for everyone, so the existence of the system does not explain the the fact that too often blacks lead in negative areas (abortions, out of wedlock births, high school graduation rates) and lag in positive ones (even setting aside poverty).

Also, given that only a (large) minority of blacks fall below the poverty line (27%) it would be very strange if the welfare system is somehow influencing the behaviour of people who don't benefit from it.

As for the lucrativeness of crime, there's not much to do be done about that. Also, I doubt most people live their lives based solely on what is most lucrative.

Not only are there moral considerations (the types of crimes that pay aren't the 'victimless' ones) but practical ones. Knocking over banks would earn most of us more money than we would otherwise earn, but eventually you'd get jailed or killed.

Last but not least, I stand by my belief that schools aren't the biggest problem, the biggest problem is parents who send kids to school with no expectations (they regard it as a 'free' babysitting service) and who don't push their kids to excel. Its no accident that Asian students (whose parents put the most preassure on them to do well) tend to do the best in schools.

Unknown said...

Anthony: What you are saying is largely true. But I don't think it really disproves the point I was trying to make. The Democratic welfare state really kicked into high gear (from its early underpinnings during the FDR administration) during the Lyndon Johnson "Great Society." The agenda not only included massive handouts for the poor, but concentrated on minorities. It rewarded the indolent by increasing benefits per child as welfare mothers had more children. The program decreased benefits if there was a father in the house to help support the growing brood. In other words, the programs encouraged illegitimacy while at the same time discouraging males from owning up to their responsibility to support and raise their own children. Within two generations, the concept of the nuclear family and self-reliance had been replaced by broken families, non-families, and a sense that the government owed the offspring of irresponsibility a living.

It's a little difficult for mom and dad to teach their children responsibility and self-reliance when mom who is on public assistance has five kids by four different fathers, and all four fathers are among the missing. So, yes, the family is vital to raising kids right, and Democratic social welfare programs have been a major factor in destroying the nuclear family, particularly among minorities.

It is true that some kids coming from this terrible background rise above it and become worthwhile citizens. It is also true that some kids coming from traditional nuclear mom-and-dad households go bad. But civic life isn't about the exceptions. It's about how the majority behaves, and the South Side of Chicago is one place that proves that rule. Democratic policies discourage traditional families and support public schools which don't fill the in loco parentis role they used to serve while the kids were away from home during the day. The families have broken down, and South Side schools are more like free-fire zones than educational institutions. What little they do teach includes telling the kids that America is a racist society which has stacked all the cards against minorities, and therefore the rule of law and individual responsibility are tricks to keep minorities in their place.

I do agree with you however on one thing. The fault lies with the members of the black community on the South Side. That community, however, has been encouraged in that behavior for generations by liberal Democratic policies.

Unknown said...

Stan: It reminds me of that book title that discussed the "feel" versus the "think" society: One Nation, Under Therapy.

rlaWTX said...

It sounds like Hawk & Anthony are looking at the same photographs, just at different resolutions. Hawk's snapshot is of the big picture with the persistent Democratic support of family-, responsibility-, and community-destroying measures ostensibly designed to "help" minorities. Anthony is focusing on the smaller piece where the individuals and communities are allowing and indulging in those measures.
I think it is a parasitic relationship. Each gets something they think they want, but it is to the detriment of one (individual/ family/ community) and benefit to the other (Democrats).

tryanmax said...

Anthony, perhaps you are missing the fact that one not need be the recipient of welfare to participate in the culture that arises from dependency and victimhood. If it is only the parents to blame, how does such a self-destructive culture perpetuate? What keeps it going?

It's difficult to respond to you, Anthony, because you change the debate is subtle ways. For one, I never said people live their lives based on what is most lucrative. If that were the case, we wouldn't have that problem. But people do try to get as much as they can for as little effort as possible. If you can have more walking around money by not working than by holding a job, what makes the most sense to you?

You can talk about values and the right way to raise a kid all you want, but when the facts of life have been artificially structured to counter those values, you're not going to get much traction. The value of a day's work only has meaning when a day's sloth gains nothing. A value system without value is just dogma.

Unknown said...

tryanmax: I didn't mention the "self-esteem" movement largely because I get ticked off every time I think about it. Clearly, the braggart thugs exemplified by gangsta rap have way, way too much self-esteem rather than too little. And it's a movement that certainly isn't limited to minorities.

Unknown said...

Andrew: Yes indeed. They're getting better at murder.

T-Rav said...

My sister gave me an interesting anecdote while we were on the road last night. She was in St. Louis not long ago and took a wrong turn that brought her across the river into East St. Louis, Illinois (not a place you ever want to be). She passed the "Welcome to Illinois" sign in the process, and noticed that it was full of bullet holes. Which I don't find all that surprising.

Unknown said...

rlaWTX: Good point. Symbiosis. The generationally poor depend on the Democrats and the Democrats depend on them.

Tam said...

I love what was said about the welfare system being the same for everybody, and just because a system exists doesn't mean you have to participate. Take the free breakfast/lunch system in Utah schools...because there is a large Mormon population, there is a high ratio of kids to parents. Based on that alone, lots and lots of kids qualify for the program, but NOT lots and lots participated. The school boards and program administrators and the media tried to push the idea that we need to get these kids who qualify to participate in the program. They didn't seem to grasp the idea that yes, these families have lots of kids, but no, they didn't need or want the government to feed them.

That is the problem with the welfare system and the democratic policies...when people make the choice to be personally responsible, the democrats actively push them to become dependent. It's usually easier to be dependent than self-sufficient.

rlaWTX said...

I think more atrocious than the "self-esteem" movement is the "celebrity" phenomenon. The black community especially seems to have internalized the idea that any publicity is good publicity - being famous for anything is better than anonymity. Everyone is going to be a sports star, a rapper, a designer, etc. Education is irrelevant, only that particular skill is important (and that's only sort of important for non-sports celebrity). And for sports stars and rappers even notoriety is an acceptable form of publicity - so if you get into trouble no big deal. Not only is it the white man's fault that you are in trouble, it gives you street cred for your future career that is going to fall into your lap.

The perniciousness of learned helplessness isn't confined to those "of color". Other "minority" communities have adopted the position - as Andrew has discussed many times about West by God VA.

Tam said...

Also, I saw the other day that the liberal media is begging for governors of states with positive economic change to give "just a little credit" to Dear Leader. Sure, okay, if the governors and mayors of places like Illinois and Chicago will give just a little RESPONSIBILITY (blame...) to the president too.

Unknown said...

T-Rav: We have the same thing here in the Tehachapi Mountains--only the bullet holes are in the "No Hunting" signs which we use for target practice. LOL

Unknown said...

Tam: I suppose we could carry that even a little farther in what the definition of a "community" is. Mormons are a community of sorts. Most practicing Mormons are unlikely ever to go on the welfare rolls because the "community" is built on a concept of both self-reliance/family and never allowing a fellow member of the Mormon "community" to go hungry, unclothed or unhoused. When the crisis is over for the family that received the help, it will once again become self-reliant and itself ready to help someone else who has fallen on hard times. No permanent reliance on the assistance of the community is even considered. Now compare that to the "communities" that Democrats like Obama organized on the South Side of Chicago.

Unknown said...

rlaWTX: Sad, isn't it? Dog-torturer Michael Vick is called a sports hero, accused rapist Snoop Dog is an "entertainment" icon, Je$$e Jack$on and Al Shartpon are called civil rights leaders, but Thomas Sowell is called an Uncle Tom and Michael Steele is called an Oreo. Interesting set of values.

Unknown said...

Tam: It is considered bad form to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

Unknown said...

tryanmax: I've mentioned this before, but my mother had a saying that "to be poor but proud is a virtue, but being poor and proud of it is a vice." I guess I'm at that point where I would add: "And to be proud of being poor while blaming it on everybody and everything except your own indolence is a damned sin."

Unknown said...

The gang member shares a common excuse with the alcoholic. "If you had my problems, you'd kill/drink too." The minority communities in the ghettoes and barrios need to quit supporting the political party that keeps them and all their descendants in perpetual indentured servitude to the government.

Anthony said...

rlawtx said:

I think more atrocious than the "self-esteem" movement is the "celebrity" phenomenon. The black community especially seems to have internalized the idea that any publicity is good publicity - being famous for anything is better than anonymity. Everyone is going to be a sports star, a rapper, a designer, etc. Education is irrelevant, only that particular skill is important (and that's only sort of important for non-sports celebrity). And for sports stars and rappers even notoriety is an acceptable form of publicity - so if you get into trouble no big deal. Not only is it the white man's fault that you are in trouble, it gives you street cred for your future career that is going to fall into your lap.
Yeah, I can't tell you how many kids I've known who laboured under the delusion they were going to become rappers or professional athletes, so they didn't need to worry about studying.

T-Rav said...

Regarding Wisconsin, there's been some controversy over a progressive organization's effort to jack up voting by sending mail to people's houses, telling them to make sure their neighbors have voted (and, of course, voted "right"). A lot of people have gotten up in arms over this, protesting that that's none of their business and that they're afraid it could lead to voter fraud. One more tactic blows up in the Dems' faces.

Unknown said...

Anthony: Considering what you've told us, I'm rather sure you've also heard the wisdom that studying hard and getting a good education is "acting white."

Unknown said...

T-Rav: I just saw that on FNC. What the hell were these people thinking? I've really got to admit that in fifty years of following politics, I've never seen such desperation, particularly this early in the campaign when the out-of-power party's candidate isn't even official yet. This tactic in Wisconsin tends to indicate that the desperation has infected the state and local elections as well.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk and Anthony: On that note, a rather disturbing saying I've heard making the rounds in grad school lately is "white people problems," which refers to whenever, say, your car won't start or you're late for a meeting, or something like that. The implication being, of course, that the middle class is exclusively white and the lower class is exclusively minority, and it's impossible for one to understand the other. Not only is this divisive, it's also kinda condescending to those blacks or Hispanics (I'm sure in liberal land, Asian counts as being white) who are successful and well-off.

Unknown said...

T-Rav: Democrats and other liberals play both games--racial division and class division. You can't change your race, so it's vital that the left pretend that there are no middle-class minorities. Otherwise, the game doesn't work as well. The sad part is that at the end of the segregation era, the black middle class had begun to grow by leaps and bounds. Then came The Great Society and the War on Poverty, which totally reversed the trend.

Another historical fact is that the segregationists in the South were a bit confused. They knew Asians (a rarity in those days, particularly in the Deep South) weren't white, but they knew they weren't black either. Since most Asians were lighter than blacks and Hispanics, they simply decided that Asians could be "white" rather than "colored." That was silly and obnoxious reasoning then, but the liberal left has picked up that same way of segregationist thinking and do indeed toss Asians into the oppressive white race/class whenever its convenient for explaining "minority" poverty and crime.

Individualist said...

"The welfare system is the same for everyone, so the existence of the system does not explain the the fact that too often blacks lead in negative areas (abortions, out of wedlock births, high school graduation rates) and lag in positive ones (even setting aside poverty)."

The fact of the matter is that the Welfare roles break down to 40% black, 40% white and 20% other as of the 1990's when I heard these statitics. So the short answer is as many whites as blacks are similarly affected by the welfare system. So then why does it seem that blacks are over represented in the issue.

This is because of the disproportionate number of blacks that started in poverty. When the liberals discuss the wages of slavery they are correct in the assumption this led to blacks being poorer going into the 40's. As a matter of fact it held that the eventual build up of capital among black owned businesses in the 1950's that allowed black churches to fund the cival rights marches of the 60's.

IF 10% are on welfare and 40% of those on welfare are black then if blacks are 10% of the total population that means 40% of blacks are in poverty and thus make up the 40% on welfare compared to the say 6% of whites.

Even the insular sticking to one's own race to defend themselves that fall under the black power movement could be argued to exist among poor whites. According to a documentery I saw on the rise of the Aryan Nation movement among urban whites they were banding together to protect themselves from black gangs.

The turth of these staements I am not 100% certain however I think that when we attribute the failings of the welfare society created by President Johnson to the black culture I think it is only because of the initial number of blacks starting in poverty. Since the same issues affect Whites, Hispanics and even Asians (Veitnemese) that fell into this system it is not race based. It just appears that way for blacks because so many started out poor.

Just my thouhgts

Individualist said...

I audited a Hud housing project and since it was section 8 part of the audit requirements were complaince with government laws. This included performing tests to insure the client was looking for fraud.

I asked the porperty owner to expalin what the greatest occurence of fraud would be and was given two examples.

One were drug dealers that abused the system in order to market their drugs which while bad is not the point I wish to speak to.

The other was this. A man who had a job would review his situation and udnerstand that he could not make enough to provide the 90% rent and utilities, the welfare checks, the government food stamps, daycare and what have you provided to single mothers unable to work. The owner said that wjhat would happen is the men would leave their girlfreinds and divorce their wives and move out and secretly had them money under the table. This was the #1 fraud that could occur the most. He said that one had to have sympathy because the men were doing that which would provide the children with the most money to take care of them.

This is the welfare system encouraging men to leave the mothers of their children, even responsible men.

The other thing that I had to do that concerned me ethically is test that the property owner did background checks. The recepient had to sign a from giving the project owner the authority to contact the banks and monitor their bank accounts. Thus many of these people would not have bank accounts.

What concerned me ethically is I was helping the government criminalize saving money. How could any of these people ever get out of poverty if the fact that they were in the system getting handouts made it illegal for them to save money. If they did the government would stop the hand outs and charge them penalties taking all they had.

This is how the democrats welfare system has destroyed so many lives and according to the census destgroyed one white person for every balck on welfare.

Anonymous said...

Scott Walker is shown to have won on at least three outlets, including CBS NEWS:


However, my figuring says that the Democrats will throw all attention from these results as soon as they're out there, and deny they ever suggested the recall ever meant anything.

Unknown said...

Indi: I can't dispute much of what you say. Still, it's hard for me to accept the concept that because blacks were poorer to start with, they are overrepresented in poverty figures today. That doesn't explain why a much larger percentage of blacks are classified as poor today than they were in 1964. Comparing blacks to whites and other minorities is interesting and somewhat valid, but comparing blacks-only poverty rates then to blacks-only poverty rates now, the numbers still look bad.

Asian immigrants over the past twenty years have entered the statistics as poorer than native blacks, but within a generation have far exceeded the success rate of blacks. There has to be a dynamic working here other than "they started out poorer." Blacks also have a leg up on immigrants simply by virtue of the fact that they are native-born and speak the dominant language from the time they are infants.

Unknown said...

Indi: Welfare is destructive to the family, white or black. But let's be realistic--it has done far more damage to black communities than to white communities, and it's starting to have the same effect on newly-arrived Hispanic families. The number of whites on welfare actually exceeds that of blacks, but that is a simple function of the total number of black Americans versus white Americans. As a percentage of the overall welfare population, blacks are terribly overrepresented.

Why am I not surprised to find out that HUD requirements discourage savings? My younger daughter works in Child Protective Services, and she is appalled at how the system favors unwed or single mothers, "rehab" over work, and both encourages and assists in helping their "clients" collect all kinds of benefits above and beyond basic welfare and general relief. But if they actually clean up their act and start behaving like solid citizens with a decent income, they are quickly told that if they keep that up, their government benefits will be cut off. Some say "I thought that was the idea," most say "OK, I'll quit the job, my freebies amount to more than I make at the job anyway."

Unknown said...

obiwan: It looks like a solid win for Walker and his Lieutenant Governor. My worry was that it would be within the margin of recount, which would bring out the professional Democratic vote-changers. It's a shame that Republicans have to win by big margins just to be sure their victory is secure from Democratic tampering.

Individualist said...


I think the main difference is that the "welfare" system develops its own culture. Live off the government, don't trust the people that can give you a job, don't snitch to the cops. Can you imaging the good samaritan who started reporting to the welfare workers everyone in their neighborhood that made money under the table.

Since blacks started off at 40% in poverty and the effects of racism made them naturally insular and distrusting of people outside their ethnic group the welfare culture had a much stonger effect on them then the rest. The gangsta culture of the hood was seen as Black because they represented a good percentage of the wlefare class (40%) and the welfare class was such a high percentage of their memebers (40%). Thus is was seen as black when it was really government enginered.

Asians are doing better but I think many of them are the Chinese and Japanese immigrants. In certain cities there are a great number of vietnamese that were brought to this county after the Vietnam war into the heart of Johnson's great society. These people were more disproportionate in their own ethnic ghettos with their own street gangs.

The statistics that I mention to you were the stats in 1990 when I looked them up. They have changed since then. Most notably I bet hispanics have grown with the increase in hispanics over all. I do not know what they are now.

I could be wrong in some areas but that is my impression of my experiences auditing those institutions.

Individualist said...

It should be noted that by forcing the welfare recepient into the underground cash based economy that this made it easier for them to be acclimated to the criminal economy. After all drug dealing, prostituion and fencing illegal goods is by its nature under the radar of the IRS.

Unknown said...

Indi: There have been changes since 1990, but your basic statistics are pretty good. The young immigrants from Vietnam and Cambodia did exhibit less assimilative traits back then, but we are now into the early third generation which has moved up and out of poverty at a higher rate than their predecessors. Vietnamese gangs in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco had become rather commonplace in the 90s, but both their numbers and percentage of the population have decreased since. As for Hispanics, the number and percentage who have joined gangs has remained fairly stable for decades for Mexicans since there was and is a large anchor Hispanic/Mexican community. The problem is the more recent immigration from other Central American countries and the Dominican Republic (which has also caused an uptick in Mexican immigrant crime). So there's the Democratic problem I hadn't even mentioned. Unrestricted immigration, multiculturalism, hostility to assimilation, bilingualism and promotion of Hispanic minorities as "victims" of white oppression. Free medical care and access to public benefits even though they are here illegally give them the same sense of entitlement felt by other institutionally-poor minorities.

Unknown said...

Indi: And then they can use the alternate to "the devil made me do it" and say "the government made me do it." I see the connection, but on the other hand dealing with the IRS makes me want to conduct business without reporting to the IRS.

Post a Comment