because no one else has.......is it really possible that the Republicans will take 56

PostmodernProphet said:
all four senate seats are in play with a probability of Republicans taking NV, WI and GA.....AZ still has 40% uncounted......based on the Lake numbers it seems likely most of those are red votes......
Click to expand...

Most likely Kelly wins AZ and Masto wins NV now. Kelly is walking away from the repub in AZ and Masto is closing fast on her opponent. Cark county is solid Masto and most votes left are from there. If she gets anywhere near that percent, she will win. Then Walker will lose Georgia by 20-30 pts. I mean who is going to bother to go vote for that fucking shithead if it's known the democrats already have the senate in the bag?

Your dreaming of 56 seats for the repubs in the senate is comical.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You're not sorry, you're pathetic. That aside, you choose not to converse because you know full well you ain't got nothin'. You choose not to engage, just like every empty-headed radical Leftist of your ilk, because you know you can't. You can't make a rational, logical, or factual argument that supports your positions so you don't even try.
Click to expand...

If you tried looking at the facts you would know those with higher education (smarter) vote democratic about 60% of the time and the less educated dumbshits like you vote for the republican about 60% of the time. That is simple fact.
 
Port Tack said:
Less election denying shitheads winning means less chance of us having a dictator. It shows most are realizing what an ignoramous the Velveeta man is, finally.
Click to expand...

Having the Left in power increases the chances of a dictatorship. Always has, always will. The Democrats today are a party of the Left, and Joke is a Leftist.
 
Port Tack said:
If you tried looking at the facts you would know those with higher education (smarter) vote democratic about 60% of the time and the less educated dumbshits like you vote for the republican about 60% of the time. That is simple fact.
Click to expand...

Education =/= smarter. There are plenty of dumbshits that graduate from college. Hell, Biden is one good example of that. He's a fucking moron.

As a proof of that, Biden regularly and repeatedly tells whopper of a lie stories about his life. He does it all the time. That's indicative of someone who is mentally preadolescent. It is a child-like behavior. Adults and the mentally competent don't go around telling what might be called "fish stories" expecting people to actually believe them.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
p1ij6.jpg
Click to expand...

You keep using that expression, "I do not think..."...but then you mess it up by adding other words after having said what has to be said.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Education =/= smarter. There are plenty of dumbshits that graduate from college. Hell, Biden is one good example of that. He's a fucking moron.

As a proof of that, Biden regularly and repeatedly tells whopper of a lie stories about his life. He does it all the time. That's indicative of someone who is mentally preadolescent. It is a child-like behavior. Adults and the mentally competent don't go around telling what might be called "fish stories" expecting people to actually believe them.
Click to expand...

Facts are facts, the more educated you are the better chance you vote democratic. The less educated you are the greater chance of being a conservative.
 
Port Tack said:
Facts are facts, the more educated you are the better chance you vote democratic. The less educated you are the greater chance of being a conservative.
Click to expand...

You have it wrong. The more indoctrinated you are the better chance you vote Democrat. It's the liberal arts sort that votes Democrat. They aren't particularly "better educated." I run into this sort regularly too. The I have a master's in education sort that when you start talking to them you realize they're really rather stupid.

For example I regularly attend several writer's groups here in Phoenix. I'm the odd one out being mostly a non-fiction writer on military history. I want dissimilar opinions on my pieces because that helps me make them more readable to those with little or no background in what I'm writing. I read the other people's pieces too. Many of those attending are ex-teachers, or other liberal arts sorts. A few have some pretty good pieces. Most are producing dreck. Talking to them I find they are STEM illiterates. They have no clue how the technical side of our society works. They might for example, have a master's in education yet, they are lost when you start talking about basic chemistry, moderately advanced algebra, anything to do with physics, and the like. How the hell can you get a master's and not know at least the basics in that stuff? But apparently that's how liberal arts are today.

Look at our current First Lady, Doctor Jill Biden. Her doctoral dissertation is a POS work of crap.

For example, here's a good Master's thesis (I pulled this one because it was on early guided missile development, a topic I am currently researching for a book)

https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/5517/JB2 Thesis Final.pdf?sequence=1

Compare the above 140 page paper to this dreck Jill Biden wrote:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20407226/bidens-dissertation.pdf

It's 137 pages of drivel.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
How is "authoritarian" adding 87,000 new IRS agents to conduct audits?
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

Put your argument out there like an adult. Make the argument...if you can.

And if you are thinking that trying to increase the "police" of our tax laws is a bad idea...just say it. Don't try to play a "gonna getcha" game, because you do not have what it take to do so.
 
Port Tack said:
If you tried looking at the facts you would know those with higher education (smarter) vote democratic about 60% of the time and the less educated dumbshits like you vote for the republican about 60% of the time. That is simple fact.
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with the fact lib'ruls are dumber than conservatives 100% of the time.....
 
Frank Apisa said:
What the hell are you talking about?

Put your argument out there like an adult. Make the argument...if you can.

And if you are thinking that trying to increase the "police" of our tax laws is a bad idea...just say it. Don't try to play a "gonna getcha" game, because you do not have what it take to do so.
Click to expand...

It is a bad idea when you overdo it. 87,000 agents is overdoing it. Those agents won't just be going after "The Rich." They're coming to your and my door at some point. Cracking down on tax cheats with draconian measures won't accomplish much. People that are going to cheat will simply find ways around the system, whatever it is. That's true everywhere on the planet.

The reason it's a bad idea is if you as an agent are promoted and incentivized to find tax cheating / mistakes in filing, you will find them. If that comes from nitpicking people, the public will respond very negatively to that happening. People will be, in turn, incentivized to find ways to screw the system out of their share just because they feel the system is now unjust.

Italy has long been Europe's top tax cheat country. They have obtuse and convoluted tax laws not to mention high taxes. It has become a national pastime to cheat on your taxes there.

Tax Cheats Become Italy’s Public Enemy
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/world/europe/italy-tax-evasion.html

The government has tried to crack down on tax cheating and all it's gotten them is less revenue. The same will be true here. If the tax system becomes onerous, the rich will move their wealth elsewhere and avoid the taxes. Better to set reasonable rates and standards than try and use authoritarian measures to wring the last few pennies out of taxpayers. People don't mind paying reasonable taxes. What they do mind is being put under a microscope and being held to what they see as unreasonable and mean attempts to play gotcha.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It is a bad idea when you overdo it. 87,000 agents is overdoing it. Those agents won't just be going after "The Rich." They're coming to your and my door at some point. Cracking down on tax cheats with draconian measures won't accomplish much. People that are going to cheat will simply find ways around the system, whatever it is. That's true everywhere on the planet.

The reason it's a bad idea is if you as an agent are promoted and incentivized to find tax cheating / mistakes in filing, you will find them. If that comes from nitpicking people, the public will respond very negatively to that happening. People will be, in turn, incentivized to find ways to screw the system out of their share just because they feel the system is now unjust.

Italy has long been Europe's top tax cheat country. They have obtuse and convoluted tax laws not to mention high taxes. It has become a national pastime to cheat on your taxes there.


https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/world/europe/italy-tax-evasion.html

The government has tried to crack down on tax cheating and all it's gotten them is less revenue. The same will be true here. If the tax system becomes onerous, the rich will move their wealth elsewhere and avoid the taxes. Better to set reasonable rates and standards than try and use authoritarian measures to wring the last few pennies out of taxpayers. People don't mind paying reasonable taxes. What they do mind is being put under a microscope and being held to what they see as unreasonable and mean attempts to play gotcha.
Click to expand...

So you DO think that increasing the policing of our tax laws is a bad idea...because the people who cheat won't like it.

Jesus H. Christ, TA...what on Earth is wrong with you?

You sound as though you may be a tax cheat who is bothered that the chances of you getting away with your cheating will be impacted. Or are you concerned that Trump and people like him may stand less chance of paying less than they should?

Whichever! Bottom line...more agents are needed. MANY MORE. They will be hired slowly...not all at once, and they will be used in various much needed ways by the Service.

Here are a few articles about the move that might help you chill a bit:

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...ut-the-number-of-new-irs-workers/65418589007/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/31/irs-is-not-hiring-an-army-of-auditors-whats-really-happening.html

https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-i...s-is-hiring-new-employees-not-raising-an-army
 
Frank Apisa said:
So you DO think that increasing the policing of our tax laws is a bad idea...because the people who cheat won't like it.

Jesus H. Christ, TA...what on Earth is wrong with you?

You sound as though you may be a tax cheat who is bothered that the chances of you getting away with your cheating will be impacted. Or are you concerned that Trump and people like him may stand less chance of paying less than they should?

Whichever! Bottom line...more agents are needed. MANY MORE. They will be hired slowly...not all at once, and they will be used in various much needed ways by the Service.

Here are a few articles about the move that might help you chill a bit:

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...ut-the-number-of-new-irs-workers/65418589007/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/31/irs-is-not-hiring-an-army-of-auditors-whats-really-happening.html

https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-i...s-is-hiring-new-employees-not-raising-an-army
Click to expand...

I think there are far more important things we should be policing, like our borders, stopping criminals, and ending the mass flow of fentanyl into the country, to name a few. Spending billions to try and wring a few more dollars out of taxpayers is an asinine lapse in judgement.

As for the articles you cite, they are all variants using logical fallacies to try and make this hiring of new agents seem reasonable.

The first one, cites Politico who claims arguments against this hiring are false based on numbers. What they are using is a Continuum fallacy. Their rejection of the arguments against the IRS are entirely based on the numbers those who made it used being imprecise. Politico fails entirely to make a credible counter argument here. Their fact check is a fail.

The CNBC story contains a number of red herring arguments like this one:

What's more, is the IRS's workforce is aging. Between retirement and other departures, the agency will lose around 50,000 to 80,000 of its workers over the next five years.

That's a red herring. Retirements and people leaving positions will be replaced by normal hiring that is ongoing. The 87,000 NEW agents are in addition to the current workforce.

It then tries arguments to moderation by claiming that audits won't suddenly jump up, but if they did would be targeted at The Rich, big corporations, and the usual other suspects. These groups already are high priority targets of the IRS so adding a huge new number of agents won't particularly increase audits against those the IRS already audits, but rather against new groups not already at high chances of being audited. That is, you and me most likely.

The Bloomburg article focuses on an etymological fallacy. They focus on the word "Army." The bulk of the article however drifts off into anecdotal nonsense meant to try and demonstrate how IRS agents are a good thing.

It's all bullshit trying to convince the reader that 87,000 new agents will do no harm and be a good thing to society. I'm not buying it.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
can the Republicans really shift 56 House seats tomorrow?.....

things not looking good for Demmycrats not currently in double digit leads......polls collapsing beneath their feet.......is 56 also the magic number for the Senate seats the Republicans could control after tomorrow's election.......RCP seems to see it coming.......

Walker takes lead in the last six polls in GA.......Oz leads in last 4 polls in PA......Washington looks possible......Boldec threatens in NH as he pulls within margin of error......Masters surges against Kelly in AZ......
Click to expand...

Dems won the Senate tonight
House of Reps is still up for grabs.

If Warnock wins the runoff, Dems will actually expand their Senate majority this election.

5stz8g.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I think there are far more important things we should be policing, like our borders, stopping criminals, and ending the mass flow of fentanyl into the country, to name a few. Spending billions to try and wring a few more dollars out of taxpayers is an asinine lapse in judgement.

As for the articles you cite, they are all variants using logical fallacies to try and make this hiring of new agents seem reasonable.

The first one, cites Politico who claims arguments against this hiring are false based on numbers. What they are using is a Continuum fallacy. Their rejection of the arguments against the IRS are entirely based on the numbers those who made it used being imprecise. Politico fails entirely to make a credible counter argument here. Their fact check is a fail.

The CNBC story contains a number of red herring arguments like this one:

What's more, is the IRS's workforce is aging. Between retirement and other departures, the agency will lose around 50,000 to 80,000 of its workers over the next five years.

That's a red herring. Retirements and people leaving positions will be replaced by normal hiring that is ongoing. The 87,000 NEW agents are in addition to the current workforce.

It then tries arguments to moderation by claiming that audits won't suddenly jump up, but if they did would be targeted at The Rich, big corporations, and the usual other suspects. These groups already are high priority targets of the IRS so adding a huge new number of agents won't particularly increase audits against those the IRS already audits, but rather against new groups not already at high chances of being audited. That is, you and me most likely.

The Bloomburg article focuses on an etymological fallacy. They focus on the word "Army." The bulk of the article however drifts off into anecdotal nonsense meant to try and demonstrate how IRS agents are a good thing.

It's all bullshit trying to convince the reader that 87,000 new agents will do no harm and be a good thing to society. I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...

You poor MAGA bastard. You guys have to work harder and harder at inventing reasons for hating anything done by people not duped by the MAGA "arguments."

Continue to fool yourself. At least you provide the rest of us a bit of amusement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top