Antagonist in Chief

[AnalogPackrat]

You seem not to have focused at all on Judge Jackson's qualifications, so maybe you're right about that.

Neither did Matador in his post. And Biden stated up front that he would nominate a black woman. At best, qualifications were third place in his decision process. Is that really what we want going forward? I think not.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Your comparison is poor.

It’s not when the end result is the same. I’m sorry, you don’t get to the presidency without being one of them, no matter how anyone tries to spin it!

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It’s not when the end result is the same.

The end result wasn't the same. We've been over that.

 

[pucho812]

So let's talk about this. For years, and largely thanks to Republicans, the IRS has been underfunded and woefully understaffed when it comes to catching tax cheats. The upshot of that has been that wealthy people--those with the money to pay accountants and lawyers when they're fighting with the IRS--have been able to cheat on their taxes for years with little risk of consequential repercussions.

So when Republicans attack increased enforcement by the IRS, what I hear them saying is that they believe rich people should be allowed to break the law (tax law specifically) with impunity. Because rich people shouldn't have to follow the law like the rest of us. I mean, rich people are obviously better, because they're...well, they're rich, after all.


You seem not to have focused at all on Judge Jackson's qualifications, so maybe you're right about that.

Well let’s see, considering the first words out of the mouth of the potus was how he was going to nominate a black women I don’t think he was considering qualifications either. Did anyone in d.c. who is in government really focus on her qualifications? I doubt it. Her confirmation vote was 53 to 47. 47 opposed because she had great qualifications right?

 

[Recording Engineer]

The end result wasn't the same. We've been over that.

Haha! Great reply! Seriously!

 

[Matador]

47 opposed because she had great qualifications right?

47 were opposed because she was nominated by a Democratic president. Full stop. I agree with you, her qualifications weren't at issue.

(and no, I don't need to hear again about how it's actually Chuck Schumer's fault).

So if I were to list out her qualifications, and carefully contrast them against those of Barrett, then you would be convinced?

I'm just a dumb liberal, and even I can recognize a colossal waste of time.

 

[Matador]

Haha! Great reply! Seriously!

Put down the scissors bro...posting in the Brewery....

 

[pucho812]

47 were opposed because she was nominated by a Democratic president. Full stop. I agree with you, her qualifications weren't at issue.

(and no, I don't need to hear again about how it's actually Chuck Schumer's fault).

So if I were to list out her qualifications, and carefully contrast them against those of Barrett, then you would be convinced?

I'm just a dumb liberal, and even I can recognize a colossal waste of time.

I never said you were dumb.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So let's talk about this. For years, and largely thanks to Republicans, the IRS has been underfunded and woefully understaffed when it comes to catching tax cheats. The upshot of that has been that wealthy people--those with the money to pay accountants and lawyers when they're fighting with the IRS--have been able to cheat on their taxes for years with little risk of consequential repercussions.

Using tax law to pay minimal taxes is not cheating. Why not eliminate all the tax loopholes and simplify the code.

So when Republicans attack increased enforcement by the IRS, what I hear them saying is that they believe rich people should be allowed to break the law (tax law specifically) with impunity. Because rich people shouldn't have to follow the law like the rest of us. I mean, rich people are obviously better, because they're...well, they're rich, after all.

You are articulating the class warfare screed according to the party line. 85,000 new IRS agents (some armed with weapons) will not get any more revenue from wealthy tax payers without changing the tax code, they obviously will be marshaled against middle class and small businessmen, because that is where the money is.

Lois Lerner...under former president Obama, used the IRS to punish/weaken conservative organizations then refused to cooperate with congressional investigations. Using the IRS to target administration enemies (enemy list) was long a popular myth, but under the Obama administration it became public record. And why did the IRS buy 5M rounds of ammunition earlier this year? What are they planning to do with that much ammo?

You seem not to have focused at all on Judge Jackson's qualifications, so maybe you're right about that.

The best way to stop racism is to stop doing racist things. The MN teachers union just negotiated an agreement to lay off white teachers even with seniority to increase the percentage of non-white teachers. SCOTUS will be hearing arguments for the Harvard affirmative action case in oct. This could be interesting after 40 years of preferential treatment.

JR

 

[hodad]

Using tax law to pay minimal taxes is not cheating.

This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If folks are not cheating, they have nothing to worry about from increased enforcement. The US govt. leaves a lot of money on the table because they don't have the resources to go after rich tax cheats.

This is about the people who are cheating, John. Why is that so hard to grasp?

"they obviously will be marshaled against middle class and small businessmen, because that is where the money is."

Somehow you know this. The thing is, a typical middle or working class person doesn't have the resources to battle the IRS for years--or have all that much motivation to do so. So why would enforcement necessarily be marshaled against them? You are ASSuming again, John. When you say, "obviously," I think what you mean to say is "I choose to believe that." Let's try that:

I choose to believe that they will be marshaled against middle class and small businessmen, because that is where the money is.


Oh, and like pucho before you, you said not a single thing about Justice Jackson's actual qualifications for the job. As Matador correctly notes, she's far more qualified than Justice Barrett.

 

[pucho812]

This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If folks are not cheating, they have nothing to worry about from increased enforcement. The US govt. leaves a lot of money on the table because they don't have the resources to go after rich tax cheats.

This is about the people who are cheating, John. Why is that so hard to grasp?

"they obviously will be marshaled against middle class and small businessmen, because that is where the money is."

Somehow you know this. The thing is, a typical middle or working class person doesn't have the resources to battle the IRS for years--or have all that much motivation to do so. So why would enforcement necessarily be marshaled against them? You are ASSuming again, John. When you say, "obviously," I think what you mean to say is "I choose to believe that." Let's try that:

I choose to believe that they will be marshaled against middle class and small businessmen, because that is where the money is.


Oh, and like pucho before you, you said not a single thing about Justice Jackson's actual qualifications for the job. As Matador correctly notes, she's far more qualified than Justice Barrett.

That’s because the firsts words about any nominee from our current potus was he was going to nominate a black female. As myself and others pointed out, the president didn’t seem concerned about qualifications. Also matador never said she is far more qualified. He asked if we wanted a list of her qualifications. He also agreed her qualifications were not an issue although his reasoning is far different then mine.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If folks are not cheating, they have nothing to worry about from increased enforcement. The US govt. leaves a lot of money on the table because they don't have the resources to go after rich tax cheats.

again with the class warfare... wealthy people can afford professional representation so have no reason to cheat.

This is about the people who are cheating, John. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Indeed some (many?) people cheat, but not the wealthy, more likely desperate (or shady) small businesses. Casting a wide net to audit so many small businesses will hurt the small business community and ultimately the economy.

A significantly simplified tax code would help, allowing the government access to all transactions would make their job easier but could be abused. I do not defend tax cheats but I certainly do not endorse government over reach.

"they obviously will be marshaled against middle class and small businessmen, because that is where the money is."

Somehow you know this. The thing is, a typical middle or working class person doesn't have the resources to battle the IRS for years--or have all that much motivation to do so. So why would enforcement necessarily be marshaled against them? You are ASSuming again, John. When you say, "obviously," I think what you mean to say is "I choose to believe that." Let's try that:

I choose to believe that they will be marshaled against middle class and small businessmen, because that is where the money is.

Thanks for the support. I personally tangled with the IRS back in the 70s over a tax shelter issue. They strung me along for a couple years asking me to sign voluntary liability extensions before I finally told them to F-off. I had negotiated the liability extension to only cover the tax shelter, then the next year blew them off. I was too small potatoes for them to pursue. It helps that I was honest and legal.

Oh, and like pucho before you, you said not a single thing about Justice Jackson's actual qualifications for the job. As Matador correctly notes, she's far more qualified than Justice Barrett.

I did respond relatively on topic about the racist overtones of basing such decisions on race rather than merit. Just like the MN teachers union. Children need the best teachers, not ones that look like some preferred racial profile.

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

I didn't choose this signature line lightly, it is a worthwhile aspiration.

Divisive rhetoric trying to tear us apart is not welcome.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

again with the class warfare... wealthy people can afford professional representation so have no reason to cheat.

Indeed some (many?) people cheat, but not the wealthy, more likely desperate (or shady) small businesses. Casting a wide net to audit so many small businesses will hurt the small business community and ultimately the economy.

Bullfuckingshit.


In the indictment, the Trump Organization and Weisselberg are accused of having defrauded tax authorities over 15 years by awarding "off-the-books" benefits to company executives.

Weisselberg was charged with evading $1.7 million of income, including rent for a Manhattan apartment, lease payments for two Mercedes-Benz vehicles and tuition for family members, with Trump signing checks for the tuition himself.

Other charges in the indictment include scheming to defraud, tax fraud and falsifying business records.

 

[JohnRoberts]

and how do you feel about that?

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

Using tax law to pay minimal taxes is not cheating. Why not eliminate all the tax loopholes and simplify the code.

I’ve been hearing this argument my entire life and I believe it’s time to put it to rest. All our systems of government was designed by wealthy lawyers and will always be maintained by wealthy lawyers. Simplify? Tax law language or other laws? NEVER going to happen! Too logical of a problem solver!

 

[crazydoc]

It's obvious the wealthy can afford to hire "knowledgeable" people to "trump up" their tax filings. Apparently, though, some are so stupid as to hire people who are as ignorant as they are about what they can get away with..

 

[JohnRoberts]

I’ve been hearing this argument my entire life and I believe it’s time to put it to rest.

so put it to rest, I'm listening

All our systems of government was designed by wealthy lawyers and will always be maintained by wealthy lawyers.

Our founders were not lawyers but relatively wealthy.

edit- before you guys fact check me, John Adams was a lawyer and there were multiple lawyers who signed the declaration because that's what lawyers did to stir up business back then. Many of our founders were farmers, doctors, and/or entrepreneurs, before that was a thing. /edit]

== That said lobbyists and lawyers write most modern legislation (crony capitalism).

Simplify? Tax law language or other laws? NEVER going to happen! Too logical of a problem solver!

Ex-President Trump the object of much derision here, signed an XO back in 2017 that agencies had to revoke two old regulations for every new one they wrote. He is still a blowhard but I miss his small government philosophy.

It's obvious the wealthy can afford to hire "knowledgeable" people to "trump up" their tax filings. Apparently, though, some are so stupid as to hire people who are as ignorant as they are about what they can get away with..

Yes, I have known my share of wealthy people who were not as smart as they think they are (they equate wealth with being smart). That goes for many not so wealthy people (even me).
===
Yesterday at my annual physical my doctor asked me if I ever get depressed... I said well there is modern politics...

JR

 

[Matador]

Shoes are dropping:

https://apnews.com/article/allen-weisselberg-trump-cfo-plea-deal-e36dbd47ee3b0323e1fa102117718011
Only the best people!

 

[JohnRoberts]

congrats, good luck...

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have a new plan for reducing our federal deficit.

Move the 85,000 new armed IRS agents down to our southern border and have them collect taxes on the $150B human trafficking business, or the drug trafficking estimated at billions of dollars daily.

Tongue only partially in cheek. I thought the democrats didn't like guns.

JR