Speaker Johnson picks a fight with President Biden (Page 7/10)
blackrams NOV 03, 08:34 AM

quote
"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."



Probably? Well, we need to get right on that. I'm sure the average taxpayer isn't trying to pay less in taxes. I'm not sure I can believe the agency under the thumb of this Administration and many Americans feel the same way. Other agencies have been politized, this one is just as suspect.

Rams
ray b NOV 03, 08:54 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

[QUOTE] "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."



Probably? Well, we need to get right on that. I'm sure the average taxpayer isn't trying to pay less in taxes. I'm not sure I can believe the agency under the thumb of this Administration and many Americans feel the same way. Other agencies have been politized, this one is just as suspect.

Rams[/QUOTE]

''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. ''

again {defunding the tax police } but not the regular police
JUST the COPS WHO TAX THE RICH
AS THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LIFE OF POOR PEOPLE

JUST THEIR MONEY

Gop dogma
blackrams NOV 03, 09:00 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

again {defunding the tax police } but not the regular police
JUST the COPS WHO TAX THE RICH
AS THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LIFE OF POOR PEOPLE

JUST THEIR MONEY

Gop dogma



So, appears you support de-funding the Police? Hmm, may I ask you if you have any idea as to where (what neighborhoods) the majority of crimes are committed?

It's not in the richer areas, that I can assure you so, where do you think needs greater LEO protection?

Never mind, closed minds are too busy spinning their wheels to really understand.

BTW, have I told you I really like Speaker Johnson (so far).

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-03-2023).]

rinselberg NOV 05, 02:42 AM
This blog entry on the website of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation echoes what I already posted in this thread from Paul Krugman. Which begs the question, what did I already post in this thread from Paul Krugman?
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...ML/000947-2.html#p59

But it raises a new question: what blog entry on the website of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation?

"Would increased funding for the IRS narrow the tax gap?"
Peter G. Peterson Foundation; March 15, 2023.
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2...s-narrow-the-tax-gap

The last paragraph of the March 15, 2023 blog entry on the Peter G. Peterson Foundation website:

quote
The IRS has faced funding and staffing shortages for many years, resulting in less robust annual tax collections and a widening tax gap, which have raised questions about fairness and our fiscal outlook among many policymakers and citizens. Analysis from CBO concludes that providing additional funding and resources to the IRS to bolster its enforcement capabilities would have a positive effect on the accuracy of the collection of taxes owed as defined under existing law and subsequently on federal revenues, the tax gap, and the deficit.


That reminds me of the more recent article from Paul Krugman in the New York Times:

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. . . .


To review what Paul Krugman said at more length, scroll back to my earlier post in this thread:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...ML/000947-2.html#p59

Paul Krugman was 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).]

blackrams NOV 05, 04:22 AM
Well, if Paul Krugman says it, it must be true.

Regardless of where this money comes from, it needs to come from the explosive budget set last year. Don't want it to come from the IRS budget, OK, find it somewhere else in the socialist bills passed by the Dems during the last round of budgets. Personally speaking, I still support draining the IRS funding but, that's just me.

Rams
rinselberg NOV 05, 06:22 AM
No just Paul Krugman.

I think it helps focus a conversation to select someone as the face (or the name, in this case) of the "choir."
rinselberg NOV 16, 07:07 PM
My habit of following MSNBC just clued me to this. So where could I post it? Why not this thread? It started with the House Speaker... so, a no-brainer.

House Speaker Mike Johnson once blamed fall of Roman Empire on ‘homosexual behavior’: audio

quote
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson once appeared to blame the fall of the Roman Empire on same-sex relations, a recently resurfaced audio clip shows.

“Many historians, those who are objective, would look back and recognize and give some credit to the fall of Rome to, not only the deprivation of the society and the loss of morals, but also to the rampant homosexual behavior that was condoned by the society,” Johnson told a radio host in 2008.

The clip was part of an investigative report by CNN’s KFile that looked into the Louisiana Republican’s past links with prominent anti-LGBTQ groups.


Muri Assuncao for the New York Daily News; November 2, 2023.
https://www.nydailynews.com...s-fall-roman-empire/

It's been said that the celebrated historian Edward Gibbon, best known (I guess) for "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," thought that it was Christianity that directly (or perhaps indirectly) led to the "cancellation" of the Roman Empire.

But I thought I should look into it. And where better to look than PhyloBotanist?

quote
The blog of a systematic botanist of German origin, now working in Australia. It covers botany, phylogenetics, cladistics, science in general, freethought, and occasionally sillier issues.


As recently as June of 2020, this botanist (whoever he is) took a stab at it. His blog entry isn't all that long. Looks like about two book pages of text. Here's how it ends:

quote
So there we have it: the two key problems were the decreasing loyalty and increasing corruption of the armed forces and the institutional weakness of the republic. And both of them were probably entirely unavoidable. You cannot conquer and control an empire with an army made up of free farmers who have to travel back to northern Italy to bring in the harvest just when the enemy attacks in Mesopotamia, so you need a professional army. And even if you have very nice institutional arrangements they won't be of any use against a large army that has no loyalty to those institutions. The only alternative would have been not to have an empire in the first place.

I am not a historian. I do not know if this is accurate in all details. I do not know if this is really why the Roman empire declined, and I understand at least that plagues may have been another factor. The point is: this is Gibbon's argument, not that Christianity caused the decline.

There's no reference to homosexuality.

So there you have it!

------------------
Viva la revolución del 15 de agosto

blackrams NOV 16, 08:47 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
[quote]Speaker of the House Mike Johnson once appeared



So there you have it!


[/QUOTE]

Yep, absolute proof...................................

Rams
rinselberg NOV 17, 01:54 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Yep, absolute proof...................................


Are you questioning that the new House Speaker once linked homosexual behavior with the "fall of Rome"..?

This queues up a CNN video post on YouTube to the 3:22 mark. It's Mike Johnson's voice. I guess it's from before he was selected as the House Speaker.
https://youtu.be/dFPWOrfUDwI?t=202


quote
Many historians, those who are objective, would look back and recognize and give some credit to the fall of Rome to not only the deprivation of the society and the loss of morals, but also to the rampant homosexual behavior that was condoned by the society.



You may or may not consider this an accurate reading of history, or a good "take" or a not so good "take," but there's no doubt that he said it.
blackrams NOV 17, 04:34 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


You may or may not consider this an accurate reading of history, or a good "take" or a not so good "take," but there's no doubt that he said it.



Don't really know or care. It's simply interesting that some are so sensitive to such a statement and zero in on that particular part of the statement.

But, if "Many" historians believe it, so what? What's that got to do with being a Fiscal Conservative?

------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. .
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-17-2023).]