How Democrats' beefed-up IRS could hurt low-income Americans

[JohnEngelman]

Joe Biden and the Democrats are fucking liars. They say those new 87,000 IRS agents are going to go after the billionaires. There are at present 664 billionaires in the US. so are they going to assign 130 IRS agents to each of those billionaires? Think again and get ready to be oppressed.

They will go after billionaires, and millionaires. Both groups have plenty of money. The government needs their money.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Keep those fingers in your ears and that head planted firmly up your ass........ the rest of us are going to laugh at your willful stupidity as you pretend the IRS is corruption and abuse proof.

LOL! Never said anything close to that. Not surprised to see you reduced to deflecting when wrong.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

LOL! Never said anything close to that. Not surprised to see you reduced to deflecting when wrong.

You saying I'm wrong means you're saying that the IRS is corruption and abuse proof.

Have to pick one.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

They will go after billionaires, and millionaires.

You don't need 87,000 more agents for that.

They're coming for the working and middle class, the Democrats most hated demographic.

Both groups have plenty of money.

Again, nope. There just aren't that many of them.

They're coming for the middle class.

The government needs their money.

Yup..... not for any sort of public good though.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You saying I'm wrong means you're saying that the IRS is corruption and abuse proof.

Have to pick one.

No one said you’re wrong. Not a surprise you’d go to ascription after deflection didn’t work.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

No one said you’re wrong. Not a surprise you’d go to ascription after deflection didn’t work.

You should wait and get a few posts away from the proof of your lie, before you lie.

Not surprised to see you reduced to deflecting when wrong.

 

[phrodeau]

Yea...... why would anyone not trust the government???

https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/u6FLJOAfaMmyEzvyiXjLxnnUxEI=/1960x1470/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/IED3VBQC45BAJLWWIUTF6CHPDI.jpg

They NEVER fuck up or abuse innocent or poor people......

It's amazing how much you pro-government boot lickers trust an obviously corrupt and abusive government.

BotanyBoy said that George Floyd deserved the treatment he got. I guess that proves you’re not him.

 

[YDB95]

You don't need 87,000 more agents for that.

That has been debunked. They're just hiring new agents to replace the ones who are retiring.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

BotanyBoy said that George Floyd deserved the treatment he got. I guess that proves you’re not him.

BotanyBoy Derangement Syndrome is almost as bad as Trump Derangement Syndrome.

That has been debunked. They're just hiring new agents to replace the ones who are retiring.

Sure, they're still militarizing them.

That means they are either throwing money at them for the sake of filling contractors pockets and/or the IRS is about to be a whole lot more violent.

Either way, I'm not a fan.

 

[jomar]

BotanyBoy said that George Floyd deserved the treatment he got. I guess that proves you’re not him.

If not that, still an evidence denier.

 

[phrodeau]

Sure, they're still militarizing them.

That means they are either throwing money at them for the sake of filling contractors pockets and/or the IRS is about to be a whole lot more violent.

Either way, I'm not a fan.

So having weapons makes an outfit more violent? Interesting.

 

[YDB95]

Whatever happened to the usual right wing rallying cry of "If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"?

 

[JohnEngelman]

Yup..... not for any sort of public good though.

The vast majority of domestic spending programs are popular with the voters. Republican politicians discover that as soon as they try to cut or eliminate them. For years public opinion surveys have indicated popular support for higher taxes on the well to do to pay for domestic spending programs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...MBiAGrEpIBBDIuMTeYAQCgAQGwAQo&sclient=gws-wiz

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

So having weapons makes an outfit more violent? Interesting.

No.

It makes it more capable of greater violence.

Whatever happened to the usual right wing rallying cry of "If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"?

They largely rejected it over the last several years. Seeing the cops abuse conservatives out of convenience to appease woke mobs REALLY accelerated their shift away from blind support of authoritarianism and the Democrats shift towards it. They love cops who toss the law to benefit them politically.

The vast majority of domestic spending programs are popular with the voters. Republican politicians discover that as soon as they try to cut or eliminate them. For years public opinion surveys have indicated popular support for higher taxes on the well to do to pay for domestic spending programs.

Sure, that doesn't mean we're not getting fucked though.

LIke who benefited the most from Covid relief?? The infrastructure bill?? Rich elites.....

All that "public" spending is mostly pork bullshit that has fuck all to do with what those bills were supposed to do.

 

[phrodeau]

No.

It makes it more capable of greater violence.

Well, boo fucking hoo. They have the same 2A rights that you do.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Well, boo fucking hoo. They have the same 2A rights that you do.

No, 2A has nothing to do with arming the government.

 

[phrodeau]

No, 2A has nothing to do with arming the government.

The eighteenth word of the Second Amendment is “people,” the same as the third word of the Preamble.

 

[dkovic77]

No, 2A has nothing to do with arming the government.

Well depends on which government you are referring to, right there Linus?

Arming state governments, through the well-regulated militia phrase has long been the interpretation. So it’s not just for individuals. In facts it was really until the last 20 years that was even guaranteed.

(Wait for it… I’m against freedom, don’t know what I’m talking about, yadda yadda yadda)

Check out that podcast I suggested for you?

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Well depends on which government you are referring to, right there Linus?

Nope. Nothing about any government rights in 2A, just their restriction.

Arming state governments, through the well-regulated militia phrase has long been the interpretation.

Only among the anti-2A leftoids who REFUSE to understand the word militia and understand that it's not the same as a formal military.

So it’s not just for individuals.

That's what "the people" are.

In facts it was really until the last 20 years that was even guaranteed.

Nope, 15DEC1791.

(Wait for it… I’m against freedom, don’t know what I’m talking about, yadda yadda yadda)

Yes, taking rights from the people and reserving them explicitly for the government as you suggest 2A does despite it saying the exact opposite does in fact prove you don't know what you're talking about.

I suggest you start by reading 2A.

Check out that podcast I suggested for you?

Nope.

 

[dkovic77]

Nope. Nothing about any government rights in 2A, just their restriction.

Again, Linus, I asked and you didn’t answer— because you don’t know… which government? Federal or states?

Only among the anti-2A leftoids who REFUSE to understand the word militia and understand that it's not the same as a formal military.

Hmmm I guess it’s misunderstood but constitutional scholars going back to ratification then. The parts you claim weren’t even considered as part of it until years after ratification. Look- Linus is wrong because he assumes he is always right. Research is always good before you just speak opinions you can’t back up with full fact.

That's what "the people" are.

The people are the government, or did you miss that part too?

Nope, 15DEC1791.

Heller? Or your “expert” analysis doesn’t go deeper than your guessing 8th grade reading ability? How did you graduate college?

Yes, taking rights from the people and reserving them explicitly for the government as you suggest 2A does despite it saying the exact opposite does in fact prove you don't know what you're talking about.

Please google, enjoy. You are wrong. I would say too much Turkey, but you are wrong often so it can’t be that.

I suggest you start by reading 2A.

I have, and the case law, and …(clearly you haven’t)

Nope.

Sure hope you do, but of course you won’t and something tragic will happen. But we tried to help you. I hope there are those in your life who cares enough to convince you to listen. Has been a life changer for many.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Again, Linus, I asked and you didn’t answer— because you don’t know… which government? Federal or states?

I did answer, you need to learn to read.

Nothing about ANY government rights in 2A, just their restriction.

Hmmm I guess it’s misunderstood but constitutional scholars going back to ratification then. The parts you claim weren’t even considered as part of it until years after ratification.

That's a bullshit fuckin' lie. 2A has never been amended.

The people are the government, or did you miss that part too?

No, they are not. Not in any case not in regard to ANY other right.

'the right of the people' = individual citizens in every single instance, including 2A.

You are wrong.

About what EXACTLY???

Not shocking you didn't come with any specifics, and likely never will.

I hope there are those in your life who cares enough to convince you to listen.

Listen to what?? Your lies about 2A getting changed in secret years after ratification??? Listen authoritarian psycho's like yourself talk about how the Bill of Rights is about government power to take rights from people not limitations on government authority to infringe on peoples rights??? LOL.... you're point blank full of fucking shit, an absolute liar who's clearly never read a single fucking word of the Bill of Rights. Yea idiots like that don't stay in my life because they don't give any fucks about me, like you're they're just psychopathic control freaks trying to get me to reject reality like you have.

 

[dkovic77]

I did answer, you need to learn to read.

Nothing about ANY government rights in 2A, just their restriction.

Again, look it up. You are soooooo sure of yourself. You are wrong.

That's a bullshit fuckin' lie. 2A has never been amended.

Who said amended? Reading skills are lacking.

No, they are not. Not in any case not in regard to ANY other right.

No? There are many great reads out there… you won’t read them, maybe you can’t. They are mostly college level stuff. That’s not your bag. No pictures either, you clearly like pictures.

'the right of the people' = individual citizens in every single instance, including 2A.



About what EXACTLY???

Not shocking you didn't come with any specifics, and likely never will.


Listen to what?? Authoritarian psycho's like yourself??? LOL

Again, please do some research first. Or sound uninformed. You seem to like being wrong so keep that going Linus.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Again, look it up. You are soooooo sure of yourself. You are wrong.

Again, no I'm not. Just read 2A, it says the exact opposite of what you claim it does.

Who said amended? Reading skills are lacking.No?

So then you understand it hasn't change AT ALL since ratification.

I'm glad you understand that you were wrong when you claimed

The parts you claim weren’t even considered as part of it until years after ratification.

And were 100% full of shit.

There are many great reads out there… you won’t read them, maybe you can’t. They are mostly college level stuff. That’s not your bag. No pictures either, you clearly like pictures.

Oh ad hominin.... hallmark of winning LOL

Read the Bill of Rights sometime, it's a list of restrictions on government, not a list of government powers.

Again, please do some research first. Or sound uninformed. You seem to like being wrong so keep that going Linus.

Ok so you can't say what exactly I'm wrong about, again.

Same as fuckin' ever.

 

[dkovic77]

Again, no I'm not. Just read 2A, it says the exact opposite of what you claim it does.



So then you understand it hasn't change AT ALL since ratification.

I'm glad you understand that you were wrong when you claimed

And were 100% full of shit.



Oh ad hominin.... hallmark of winning LOL

Read the Bill of Rights sometime, it's a list of restrictions on government, not a list of government powers.


Ok so you can't say what exactly I'm wrong about, again.

Same as fuckin' ever.

It is so comical. I have read all of the amendments, and the supporting documents, and the views of the time, and the case law.

You have read one sentence and think you are the authority on everything.

You, Linus, are the one who is wrong.

Did you look up Heller? No? Because you know how right you are you can’t bother?

I handed it to you, but I know reading is challenging- so I will find that video for you. Will explain it all for you. Not everyone is a good reader, nothing to be ashamed of, as long as we can mitigate it with some educational videos.

 

[dkovic77]

It is so comical. I have read all of the amendments, and the supporting documents, and the views of the time, and the case law.

You have read one sentence and think you are the authority on everything.

You, Linus, are the one who is wrong.

Did you look up Heller? No? Because you know how right you are you can’t bother?

I handed it to you, but I know reading is challenging- so I will find that video for you. Will explain it all for you. Not everyone is a good reader, nothing to be ashamed of, as long as we can mitigate it with some educational videos.

Here is a video for you. I really want to help your understanding, Linus.