Speaker Johnson picks a fight with President Biden (Page 6/10)
ray b NOV 02, 04:51 PM
we have the best laws paid for by the best people

I do not have that kind of money to buy laws

those that do have the laws they bought working for them
the system never did care about right or fair
just cash buys rules
the real golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rules
this speaker is worse as corrupt as they all are but god bothered also

so out spoken on record as against SS medicare/caid plus most other people programs
some how missing JC's the least ARE HIM point as only a Gop nut christian can/will/must do
blackrams NOV 02, 04:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

we have the best laws paid for by the best people

I do not have that kind of money to buy laws

those that do have the laws they bought working for them
the system never did care about right or fair
just cash buys rules
the real golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rules
this speaker is worse as corrupt as they all are but god bothered also

so out spoken on record as against SS medicare/caid plus most other people programs
some how missing JC's the least ARE HIM point as only a Gop nut christian can/will/must do



Blame whomever you wish, if you lay down and don't get involved in getting the people who agree with you elected, then look into the mirror. There's your problem.
So far, I like this Speaker.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-02-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 02, 05:40 PM
Speaker Johnson is supposedly going to make a decision on impeachment of Biden.

I think all of us here know Biden isn't running... I mean, for pride and team support I know the left here won't admit it... but all of us know that Biden is not going to be on the ballot in November, we ALL know this.

Republicans have been reluctant to impeach him for fear that it'll help him, or that it'll make him look like a victim... or worse yet, they actually decide to remove him, and then we're stuck with Kamala. But we know Biden isn't running and that Newsom is going to be the Democrat's pick... so let's just get it over with. There's absolutely enough to put him in jail... so let's get going.
blackrams NOV 02, 05:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Speaker Johnson is supposedly going to make a decision on impeachment of Biden.

I think all of us here know Biden isn't running... I mean, for pride and team support I know the left here won't admit it... but all of us know that Biden is not going to be on the ballot in November, we ALL know this.

Republicans have been reluctant to impeach him for fear that it'll help him, or that it'll make him look like a victim... or worse yet, they actually decide to remove him, and then we're stuck with Kamala. But we know Biden isn't running and that Newsom is going to be the Democrat's pick... so let's just get it over with. There's absolutely enough to put him in jail... so let's get going.



I think we all know an impeachment of President Biden won't get past the Senate. But, let's just say it would, then I have no doubt Gavin Newsome will throw his hat into the ring. But, there's a wildcard here, VP Harris still wants the job. I'm pretty sure she won't get support from the Dems but, who knows what could happen. If Biden were to be impeached and found guilty by the Senate a month or so prior to the election, then it's time to pop the corks on the champaign bottles. I sincerely believe any Republican candidate can beat Harris.

Do I think Biden and his crime syndicate family are guilty, you can bet you bippy I do but, I doubt he'll get impeached and found guilty by the Dem controlled Senate regardless of how much proof there is.

But, I like this Speaker (so far).

Rams
82-T/A [At Work] NOV 02, 05:56 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


I think we all know an impeachment of President Biden won't get past the Senate. But, let's just say it would, then I have no doubt Gavin Newsome will throw his hat into the ring. But, there's a wildcard here, VP Harris still wants the job. I'm pretty sure she won't get support from the Dems but, who knows what could happen. If Biden were to be impeached and found guilty by the Senate a month or so prior to the election, then it's time to pop the corks on the champaign bottles. I sincerely believe any Republican candidate can beat Harris.

Do I think Biden and his crime syndicate family are guilty, you can bet you bippy I do but, I doubt he'll get impeached and found guilty by the Dem controlled Senate regardless of how much proof there is.

But, I like this Speaker (so far).

Rams




What if Newsom keeps Kamala Harris... because he's expected to?
blackrams NOV 02, 06:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

What if Newsom keeps Kamala Harris... because he's expected to?



I honestly don't think he's that stupid. Even he sees her polling numbers. Who knows, even HRC might want to jump into the race.
But, I'm still liking this Speaker.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-08-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 02, 06:57 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

I honestly don't think he's that stupid. Even he sees her polling numbers. Who know, even HRC might want to jump into the race.
But, I'm still liking this Speaker.

Rams





Yeah, I just wonder. The Democrat party is not like the Republican party in the way they elect their candidates... the DNC has a lot more leverage to pick and choose their candidates, where as the Republicans (rightfully so) are literally at the mercy of the voters... whether the GOP likes it or not, and they did NOT like Trump. But the DNC... the use of super delegates and the ability to transfer votes... it just seems to me that Newsom is being "primed."

I consider the fact that he's been to the White House some 40+ times already as of last time I checked, and most of those times, Biden wasn't even at the White House. So you question, why would Newsom go to the White House if the President isn't even there? I just think that unless he picks another black woman as his running mate, the DNC may fear backlash for booting Kamala.
blackrams NOV 02, 07:02 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I just think that unless he picks another black woman as his running mate, the DNC may fear backlash for booting Kamala.



We can always hope.....................

BTW, did I mention that so far, I like this Speaker?

Rams

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 03, 05:27 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:We can always hope.....................

BTW, did I mention that so far, I like this Speaker?

Rams




Yes, you did... haha, I do too... he's awesome.


I read an article somewhere... some liberal **** rag, and they were saying that the media didn't have time to vet Mike Johnson, and now they're stuck with MAGA. Haha... I kept thinking to myself... the arrogance here. The media doesn't decide who gets elected speaker.
rinselberg NOV 03, 08:29 AM
EXCERPT

quote
First, the idea that cutting the I.R.S. budget would somehow help pay for aid to Israel is utterly wrong. America has a huge “tax gap”—taxes legally owed but not paid. The bulk of that tax gap probably comes from wealthy Americans underreporting their incomes, which they can get away with because the I.R.S. lacks the resources to fully enforce the law.

As a result, cutting I.R.S. funding would actually increase the deficit by enabling more tax evasion, a conclusion confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday in its score of the House proposal.

Republicans, however, often claim that tax cuts do great things for the economy, and maybe even pay for themselves. There’s not a shred of evidence for that belief. Still, starving the I.R.S. of funds is in a way a kind of tax cut. So can’t they make a similar argument here?

No, for several reasons.

For one thing, even if you believe (wrongly) that low taxes on the rich strongly encourage entrepreneurship or something, making it easier for a businessman to cheat on his taxes probably doesn’t have the same incentive effects as reducing his legal tax rate.

Furthermore, enabling tax evasion doesn’t help all businesses equally; it biases the economy toward activities, often unproductive, where tax fraud is relatively easy, such as real estate speculation. Did I mention that the Trump Organization has been convicted of tax fraud?

And making it easier to cheat on taxes by defunding the tax police probably has spillover effects that go beyond the direct adverse effect on enforcement. The more we become a society that rewards people who evade their fiscal obligations, the more likely it is that people who don’t cheat on their taxes will feel like chumps and losers. If Americans start to believe, as Leona Helmsley put it, that “only the little people pay taxes,” the damage to our society will surely be moral as well as fiscal.

Yet starving the I.R.S. has long been a Republican priority; what’s new is the party’s willingness to serve that priority by endangering national security.

Where does this priority come from? I don’t pretend to have a full answer. I will note, however, that, as the historian Rick Perlstein has pointed out, there has long been a close association between right-wing conspiracy theorizing and financial grifting. Alex Jones, the proprietor of the conspiracy site Infowars, best known for claiming that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook was a left-wing hoax, made his money by selling bogus dietary supplements—what my colleague Farhad Manjoo calls the “wellness-conspiracy industrial complex.”

And now that conspiracy theorists have effectively taken over the G.O.P., it kind of makes sense that one of their overriding policy priorities is to deprive the government of the resources it needs to crack down on grifters and financial fraud.

In any case, don’t be skeptical about news reports that Republicans are willing to sacrifice crucial national interests unless we make life easier for tax cheats. That is, in fact, exactly what is happening.


"Israel, the I.R.S. and the Big Grift"
Paul Krugman for the New York Times; November. 2, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/202...curity-hostages.html

Paul Krugman is explaining what he believes is the fallacy of linking additional funding for aid to Israel to a cancellation of increased funding for the Internal Revenue Service, that was passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The new House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has been trying to predicate additional funding for aid to Israel with a cancellation of increased funding for the Internal Revenue Service, that was passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-05-2023).]