Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

A Bidentastic week and Trump's very bad one

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    The posting got taken down after the blowback it got.

    Here's the current posting.

    If you paste that into archive.org, you can find the original posting with "deadly force" language.
    Yup. The seeking of those willing to use deadly force for an agency that is supposed to do audits received a lot of press the last couple of days.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      No.

      Prices went up by zero in July. That's zero inflation.

      Inflation did not occur during the month of July. There was none.

      It's not that it remained at the same levels as before. It's that it dropped to zero.

      Hopefully you can understand some of that.

      No.

      It wasn't zero acceleration. It wasn't zero rate of change in inflation. It was zero actual inflation. Zero speed.

      It was the parachute suddenly working 100% in your analogy. It was like a person who had been falling at speed suddenly not falling at all.
      What a dumbass. First, some prices did go up and others went down. The net was zero price increase. But the prices of everything is still WAY UP and we have 8.5% inflation over normal prices. Inflation didn't go away. It's still there costing families a huge chunk of their paycheck.

      No wonder you are a socialist, you can't grasp basic economics.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

        For someone working the criminal enforcement side, such a requirement isn't all that shocking, nor outrageous. This is NOT your run of the mill IRS agent. He's not an auditor, etc. So, TBH, I feel this thing is overblown, and deliberately taken out of context
        They're hiring 87,000.

        Are there job postings for IRS agents for positions that don't require potential deadly force?

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          They're hiring 87,000.
          No, they are not hiring 87,000 criminal investigation special agents for the IRS. As for one that doesn't require "deadly force" see my post above.

          You are making the mistake of thinking that the CI/SA position is the only IRS position. That's the equivalent of thinking that the Secret Service Special Agent (i.e presidential protection) is the only secret service position out of a group of 14,000 people.


          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Are there job postings for IRS agents for positions that don't require potential deadly force?
          Here is more information on the criminal investigation special agents:
          https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us
          Of note is this snippet:
          CI is the 6th largest federal 1811 law enforcement agency with about 2,000 special agents and over 2,800 employees.


          The current workforce of the IRS is around 80,000.


          This is conspiracy theory level stuff, Rogue, and I KNOW you are smarter than that.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

            For someone working the criminal enforcement side, such a requirement isn't all that shocking, nor outrageous. This is NOT your run of the mill IRS agent. He's not an auditor, etc. So, TBH, I feel this thing is overblown, and deliberately taken out of context
            Here's the job description at the top of the page:

            As a Special Agent you will combine your accounting skills with law enforcement skills to investigate financial crimes. Special Agents are duly sworn law enforcement officers who are trained to "follow the money." No matter what the source, all income earned, both legal and illegal, has the potential of becoming involved in crimes which fall within the investigative jurisdiction of the IRS Criminal Investigation. Because of the expertise required to conduct these complex financial investigations, IRS Special Agents are considered the premier financial investigators for the Federal government.

            It seems pretty broad in scope.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post

              What a dumbass. First, some prices did go up and others went down. The net was zero price increase. But the prices of everything is still WAY UP and we have 8.5% inflation over normal prices. Inflation didn't go away. It's still there costing families a huge chunk of their paycheck.

              No wonder you are a socialist, you can't grasp basic economics.
              Socialists don't have a compelling reason to understand basic economics because their expectation is that somebody else will pay for it. They are the societal equivalent of the unemployed 35 year old living in his parents' garage.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                Here's the job description at the top of the page:

                As a Special Agent you will combine your accounting skills with law enforcement skills to investigate financial crimes. Special Agents are duly sworn law enforcement officers who are trained to "follow the money." No matter what the source, all income earned, both legal and illegal, has the potential of becoming involved in crimes which fall within the investigative jurisdiction of the IRS Criminal Investigation. Because of the expertise required to conduct these complex financial investigations, IRS Special Agents are considered the premier financial investigators for the Federal government.

                It seems pretty broad in scope.
                Yes. These are the guys going after criminals, and even work undercover. It's kind of the equivalent of NCIS. (Naval Criminal Investigative Serivice)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                  Yes. These are the guys going after criminals, and even work undercover. It's kind of the equivalent of NCIS. (Naval Criminal Investigative Serivice)
                  FWIU, they stockpiled something like 5 million rounds of ammunition and purchased $725,000 worth more just this year.

                  That isn't for a small department. That's for an army.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                    Yes. These are the guys going after criminals, and even work undercover. It's kind of the equivalent of NCIS. (Naval Criminal Investigative Serivice)
                    But here's the thing: anybody who makes a mistake on their tax return is technically a criminal. I think it's naive to think this new army of IRS agents will only be going after mob bosses and corrupt corporate accountants.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      But here's the thing: anybody who makes a mistake on their tax return is technically a criminal. I think it's naive to think this new army of IRS agents will only be going after mob bosses and corrupt corporate accountants.
                      Again, IRS Agent <> IRS Criminal Investigation/Special Agent

                      They are not hiring 87,000 more Criminal Investigation/Special Agents. Do you have anything that shows that THIS PARTICULAR JOB is the one that they are hiring 87,000 new ones? This is the equivalent of seeing McDonalds buying 15 million burger patties, and assuming that it means that they are making 7.5 million big macs.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        Along with the addition of tens of thousands of new IRS agents to "recover" taxes from hard-working US citizens. Of course Joe pinky swears that they won't be going after anybody making less than $400,000 a year, but statistically, 90% of those audited by the IRS each year earn less than $400,000.

                        Oh, and this new army of IRS agents? They will be armed and authorized to use deadly force.

                        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-deadly-force/
                        And the weapons they can use are the "weapons of war" that Biden and the Democrats are unconstitutionally taking away from the American people.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post

                          And the weapons they can use are the "weapons of war" that Biden and the Democrats are unconstitutionally taking away from the American people.
                          On that note,

                          Source: AP Stylebook Finally Recognizes AR-15s Aren’t Weapons of War


                          The term “assault weapon” is nonsensical. Finally, the Associated Press’s highly influential Stylebook followed by the news media is recognizing that fact. As the AP now acknowledges, the term conveys “little meaning” and is “highly politicized.”

                          Politicians will obviously continue calling AR-15s “assault weapons” and “weapons of war,” as President Biden did a few days ago. And many seem to think that “AR” means assault rifle when it stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. But at least some of the media is now recognizing that “AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market” are fundamentally different than military weapons.

                          “The preferred term for a rifle that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and automatically reloads for a subsequent shot, is a semi-automatic rifle,” according to the AP Stylebook. “An automatic rifle continuously fires rounds if the trigger is depressed and until its ammunition is exhausted. Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon, which are highly politicized terms that generally refer to AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market, but convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon.”

                          All this comes as first lady Jill Biden called AR-15s “machine guns” at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Massachusetts on Thursday. House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York announced that next Wednesday the Judiciary Committee will mark up a bill to ban the sale of most rifles.

                          The AR-15 and AK-47 are frequently called “military-style weapons.” But the key word is “style” – they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns are almost never the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but rather semi-automatic versions of those guns.

                          The civilian AR-15 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles. It also fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. Military weapons have machine gun modes whereby the gun will continue firing bullets as long as the trigger is pressed. The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet – .30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. Still, no self-respecting military in the world would use the civilian versions of either of these guns.

                          The uninformed may still ask, “Why do people need an AR-15 to kill deer?” “What do you think – deer are wearing Kevlar vests?” Biden joked a few months ago. The answer is simple: It is a hunting rifle. It has just been made to look like a military weapon.

                          The .223-inch rounds used by the AR-15 are actually small compared with what is usually used to hunt deer. Many states prohibit using .223-inch bullets out of concern that the animal will suffer from its wounds rather than experiencing a quick death.

                          But hunting isn’t the important issue here. Semi-automatic weapons are needed to protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles that require manual reloading after every round may not do people a lot of good. The first shot may miss, or there may be multiple attackers. As Biden has frequently talked about banning all semi-automatic guns, the one concern about the AP Stylebook update is that it is being changed as part of the push for such a ban.

                          Most mass public shootings aren’t carried out with semi-automatic rifles. Fifty-five percent involve only handguns, and only 11% solely involve rifles of any variety.

                          It should be little wonder that banning “assault” rifles did very little. Under the 1994-2004 ban, there was no drop in the number of attacks with “assault weapons,” and virtually no change in total mass shootings.

                          But President Biden would have people believe otherwise. “When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled,” he claimed. In fact, even studies paid for by the Clinton administration couldn’t find statistically significant changes in the number of attacks.

                          Biden’s claim that mass shootings tripled relies on one researcher’s unique definition – a definition that includes fights between drug gangs over turf. But even with that definition, there is no statistically significant change in the number of attacks with assault weapons. Instead, it’s the increase in non-assault weapon shootings that drives the growth in attacks. The percentage of attacks with assault weapons fell once the ban became obsolete – just the opposite of what proponents of the ban would expect.

                          It’s good that the Associated Press has taken this step, choosing to be more precise and less alarmist in its language. Let’s hope the news media and gun control advocates take note, but the timing of this change as the Congress considers language to ban most semi-automatic rifles raises questions. We shouldn’t hold our breath that there is going to be a meaningful change in the debate.



                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Slowly but surely. Much like it took a few years for the MSM to stop calling a decrease in the amount in the growth of spending a "cut."

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                            Again, IRS Agent <> IRS Criminal Investigation/Special Agent

                            They are not hiring 87,000 more Criminal Investigation/Special Agents. Do you have anything that shows that THIS PARTICULAR JOB is the one that they are hiring 87,000 new ones? This is the equivalent of seeing McDonalds buying 15 million burger patties, and assuming that it means that they are making 7.5 million big macs.
                            This seems like semantics.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post

                              This seems like semantics.
                              No. It's not semantics. It's different jobs. The IRS currently has ~80,000 employees, of which ~2000 are Criminal Investigaion/Special Agents. The agency has other positions (auditors, accountants, etc). Some positions are more specialized than others. It's pure conspiracy theory to assume that they are adding 87,000 of one specific job field.

                              Take the Navy as another example. There are a ton of job specialties, engineers, pilots, cryptology, intel specialists, botswains mates, supply clerks, and among that ton of jobs are Navy Seals. What you are doing is assuming that because the navy said they are bringing in a million new sailors, that they MUST be bringing in 1,000,000 new Seals. Which would be a dumb assumption. It's not semantics to say that navy seals aren't the same thing as other sailors.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                                No. It's not semantics. It's different jobs. The IRS currently has ~80,000 employees, of which ~2000 are Criminal Investigaion/Special Agents. The agency has other positions (auditors, accountants, etc). Some positions are more specialized than others. It's pure conspiracy theory to assume that they are adding 87,000 of one specific job field.

                                Take the Navy as another example. There are a ton of job specialties, engineers, pilots, cryptology, intel specialists, botswains mates, supply clerks, and among that ton of jobs are Navy Seals. What you are doing is assuming that because the navy said they are bringing in a million new sailors, that they MUST be bringing in 1,000,000 new Seals. Which would be a dumb assumption. It's not semantics to say that navy seals aren't the same thing as other sailors.
                                Wouldn't you need the 80k foot soldiers to harass "tax dodgers" before you need the criminal investigators? I don't see where you're disproving anything?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                120 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                321 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X