General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRemember that lady the IRS decided to destroy because she structured her deposits?
I-Team review finds $30,000 in one agencys Starbucks purchases kept confidential from public
The federal government has spent at least $20 billion in taxpayer money this year on items and services that it is permitted to keep secret from the public, according to an investigation by the News4 I-Team.
The purchases, known among federal employees as micropurchases, are made by some of the thousands of agency employees who are issued taxpayer-funded purchase cards. The purchases, in most cases, remain confidential and are not publicly disclosed by the agencies. A sampling of those purchases, obtained by the I-Team via the Freedom of Information Act, reveals at least one agency used those cards to buy $30,000 in Starbucks Coffee drinks and products in one year without having to disclose or detail the purchases to the public.
...
A micropurchase is a purchase costing less than $3,000 in which a government-issued purchase card is swiped. The U.S. Departments of State, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Defense, each made tens of millions of dollars of micropurchases in the past year, according to an I-Team review. But each agency said it does not make public an itemized list of its transactions, limiting the information to internal government reviewers and users of the federal Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/Federal-Government-Made-20-Billion-in-Secret-Purchases-in-Recent-Months-280997562.html
We -- the peasant serfs -- are not allowed to structure deposits, even if the revenue was perfectly legal and ethical, to avoid the master's scrutiny but the master's minions are permitted to structure their expenditures, paid for by our money, to escape our scrutiny.
marym625
(17,997 posts)walls around the government. Don't they work for us? Or can't they at least pretend to?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Voters are just slow to catch on - what with trying to find a job and work, etc.
If they didn't have to work and had 24x7 to search for money and screw people over, like many politicians and banksters, maybe they could pay more attention.
marym625
(17,997 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Let's drown it in the bathtub.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The government is allowed to know absolutely everything about the citizens but the citizens can know very little about the government. This cannot end well.
$30,000 in Starbucks Coffee drinks in one year? But we better cut food stamps.
I am fed the fuck up! How about you?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)There are all sorts of things that "a democratically elected government" (i.e. "the master's minions" can and *should* be allowed to do, but "private citizens" (i.e. "the peasant serfs" *should* not be.
I'm afraid I think this article makes no more sense that complaining that "the master's minions" are allowed to arrest and imprison people they deem guilty of wrongdoing, but the last time you tried to kidnap someone and lock them in your basement because you didn't like what they were doing you got into trouble.
Note that I'm *not* saying that confiscating money deposited in forms suitable for concealment is justifiable. I *am* saying, though, that your analogy does not make the case that it isn't.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Authoritarianism sucks.
Authoritarianism in service to corrupt power mongers sucks even more.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)"structure deposits"
Just saying.
But don't let that get in the way of some good ole-fashioned anti-IRS propaganda.
Who needs all that silly revenue for the big bad gubmint anyway?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Ilsa
(61,691 posts)Doesn't she have expenses to pay out of that? COGS? Utilities? Probably not much to structure deposits with after that. It wouldn't surprise me if she is a "peasant serf" after her bills are paid.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)She was not accused of tax evasion, either.
Other than that, your post makes perfect sense.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She was a restaurant that took cash only, and she would save up her deposits to help the bank do less paperwork. Do you know what the profit margin is at a mom and pop restaurant?
No, probably not. To you, she is a big time millionaire, regardless of the actual facts.
De Leonist
(225 posts)We just hate a system where economic inequality is necessary for it to work since it enables those who already have quite a bit to justify taking even more in the name of economic growth.
Not mention being a model of economics that is devastating the environment.
Also what you might be misinterpreting as hatred is actually extreme frustration with the business sector since it is the business sector that bawls like a spoiled brat who's parents no longer allow it to hog all the toys every time people want regulations that no longer allow it to pay employees shit wages, dump toxic waste into rivers, or some other "Sociocidal" offense.
Is it true that not all business owners are millionaires, certainly, hell there is large percentage that don't even bring home six figures.
But given the history of the American Business Sector and it's tendency towards what are often Authoritarian and Elitist attitudes and politics I think there are plenty of reasons to be critical of Private Businesses and those who own them.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And she probably employs people too. As a business owner myself I am getting damn tired of this knee jerk nastiness to any and all business owners. It's damn insulting.
De Leonist
(225 posts)The knee jerk nastiness that you've remarked upon while certainly not helpful to the over all discourse didn't just come out of no where. The fact is a large number of business owners have demonstrated an attitude of contempt towards the people who work for them for a rather lengthy period of time now. Hence the nastiness. A good example, this idea that anyone should "feel lucky to even have a job". Cause, ya'know if your getting paid shit you should be thankful that your employer even deigns to pay you that much at all.
Now having said that is anybody "entitled" to job ? Of course not. But employers aren't entitled to have all the cards stacked in their favor either.
Say if the people the people who work for her wish to form Union. Who the fuck is she to say that they can't ?
Now to be fair I know dick all about this woman and for all I know she could be as progressive as possible.
Look despite my tone I have small business owners in my family and I get for them things are pretty rough right now. So I'm not entirely oblivious to the sense of frustration that you, as a business owner, probably feel right now.
But at the same time in the employer-employee relationship it's the employer who more often than not has the advantageous position and as people are often wont to do, they use that advantage to get what they want at the expense of the less powerful person. Hence why people are so critical about business owners in general.(or anyone in any position of authority)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If people can't tell the difference between a hedge fund manager or the CEO of Goldman Sachs and an old lady that runs a mom and pop cash only restaurant.... Well I can't post what I think about their intellect or ability to reason things out because it would probably get hidden.
Put it this way - if some 50 year tea party white guy explained to you that it's natural for whites to hate on blacks because they've heard about those gang fights between the bloods and the crypts, would you say that makes their prejudices okay? I hope not.
Would you care to point out what part of my previous post is a ridiculous rationalization or where I am comparing the woman to a hedge fund manager ?
Because from where I'm standing all I did was explain why so many people tend to be critical of business owners in general. Not try to rationalize knee-jerk stereotyping.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You don't have to be particularly good at anything; you just have to kiss enough ass to join the ruling caste.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Except I'm pretty bad kissing ass and I have difficulty keeping my mouth shut around people who of the ruling caste.......
Aghrrrr, maybe next life.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Start out by slapping small animals three times a day and work your up.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But I still loved him madly when he was a Republican.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)yellowcanine
(35,698 posts)would.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Target Americans every day with jail terms and steal their money then people would accept these transgressions. But you can't have it both ways. You can't label people criminals and then act like one yourself. We need to reform the justice system because no one in this country wants the fight this is building up to. We can't let our kids down and hand them that.
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)I do doubt the accuracy of the report. these things are invariably sensationalized and rarely are they fully accurate.
However, if we take it at face value, the IRS spent $30,000 at Starbucks.
The IRS has 89,500 employees. So that's about 33 cents per year per employee. Not exactly a widespread issue.
Then we take into account the probability of meetings. if even 1/10th of the employees of the IRS each went to a single meeting during the course of the year, where they each had one snack or coffee brought in from Starbucks, that would be your 30k right there. Mind you that's one coffee or one snack, not "and" nor refills, and it covers the full amount.
And then we have travel. Again, if even 1/20th of the employees of the IRS were sent on duties that involved traveling and provided a card to cover a meal stipend while away from their homes, and had coffee at the airports out of that stipend, again, that by itself would completely cover the amount mentioned.
So, all in all, I will still choose to be a bit more upset by us literally burning up a million dollars each time we throw a cruise missile at the middle east rather than a few cups of coffee.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If they want Starbucks they have salaries. If you or I took $0.33 from our employers without permission we would be absolutely guilty of theft.
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)I believe I addressed.. Meetings. and Travel. I dont know about yours, but my employer provides a meal stipend when I travel for business. That would definitely cover a couple cups of coffee over a few day trip. with 90k employees it really doesnt take too many of them to hit that 30k mark while remaining well within the bounds of reasonable spending.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)By the way -- there are 43,000,000 Americans on food assistance. The $20 billion spent would have given each man, woman and child another $465 AFTER the GOP cut ~ $10 billion from the program.
But let us pity the bureaucrat slaving away at a grueling meeting without top-of-line gourmet coffee.
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)Figuring a cup of drip coffee is 2 bucks, the number of employees, and the amount spent per the op, you get one cup of plain ol drip coffee to share between 6 employees once per year.
Such government overreach!
When the government is firing off million dollar missiles to literally blow up sand, I think we have much larger concerns than some coffee, and I find myself very suspicious of anyone who would chose that as their focus. In particular, the effort to turn this into a contest of the needs of Americans on food assistance vs government employees reeks.
I also think that calling a cup of starbucks "top of the line" and "gourmet" coffee pretty much ruin any chance of this particular post having credibility. I don't even drink coffee, and I know better than that. Its roughly on par with asserting that a McDonalds patron is indulging themselves in top of the line gourmet beef products
yellowcanine
(35,698 posts)And probably many other states and the federal government.
They deliver boxes of coffee to events where people are doing official work. They are not mixing up latte's etc. These are approved purchases. Receipts are required. Attendance lists are required.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)such as coffee and donuts for meetings don't have to go through 14 levels of approval first.
Do people think these people were buying Starbucks coffee on the government dime and re-selling it on some sort of black market?
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)In my opinion, anyway.
The government does plenty of things wrong that we should be critiquing. This hardly looks like one of them to me.
FSogol
(45,468 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)The headline claims they were, but the paper obtained them by a foil request. That kind of contradicts the BS about being secret.
Did the paper make the numbers they got "public"? Of course not, they cherry picked the stuff that looked sensational--oh look, someone bought coffee at Starbucks with your tax money.
yellowcanine
(35,698 posts)Seriously this is kind of stupid. All of these expenditures are strictly monitored by the agencies involved. I have a purchasing card. If I buy coffee etc from Starbucks for a meeting I have to submit a list of the persons who attended the meeting with the receipts for the purchase and have my card reviewer sign off electronically and on paper. Then it gets electronically reviewed by someone in purchasing at the state office. If any flags get raised an auditor from the state audits the paper trail of the individual transaction. Does the public have to know that I spent $30 on coffee and pastries for a breakfast meeting? No. If it is a large agency $30,000 doesn't seem like so much to spend on coffee etc. in a year. You can make just about anything sound suspicious if you aggregate expenditures of a large agency over a year. Besides, if they were able to get the information using FOIA, what is SECRET about it?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Putting small purchases on GSA purchase cards actually save the taxpayer money - otherwise everything would need to go through the fed govt's bid process.