American Politics: The Speaker's Cornered

[Zurkerx]

It's about an eighth of what was to be sent to the IRS: $80 billion was the original; this would cut it by $10 billion (12.5%). A sizable cut, but nowhere near what the GOP wanted, which was basically get rid of the spending entirely. Don't get me wrong, it will weakening the IRS a bit, but not too significantly I feel. Now, if it was 50% or more, than I think Democrats would balk.

The requirements aren't as bad though they will hurt people like Shrill unfortunately. In that case, Democrats better hope to win in 2024 so they can reverse some of those atrocious decisions.

A tall order indeed considering the Dems have already lost four seats just from the North Carolina mess.

Quite though they may be able to flip some Republican held/gained seats to make up for their loses though it ain't going to be easy for them. Essentially, it's a do or die for the Democrats come 2024. They fail and we're in trouble.

[Ifreann]

Which makes me cringe because not all Europeans are white skinned and not all non Europeans are not white. There are many southern Europeans who are darker shaded, and there are people not only in the middle east but also across places like east Asia who are pretty close to literally white. Yes, technically there are Americans of European descent, but they're not a racial group. Even in the wacky world of racialism, few people think that everyone in Europe is one race and everyone outside Europe is another.

Well, we draft new white people when the numbers start to go against us. That's how Irish and Italians etc go from 'out group' to 'white'. Under different circumstances we might draft Persians into the club. Jewish people are like Schrodinger's minority. They're either white or the original hate depending on what one needs them to be. Apparently Filipinos who settled in the south bid for whiteness, but it's been a while since I studied all that so I don't have anything to verify that.

Honestly all you need to know about race being some bullshit we made up can be found in the White Draft.

There's a historian I follow on the bird site who has done a lot of work trying to debunk the myth of "white slavery" that floats around the US discourse, and he's argued that this thing of "The Irish weren't white" isn't actually true. Now, my understanding is that there was some old timey race science that tried to argue that the Celts were more closely related to Africans than the Anglo-Saxons, but the census data from back then included Irish and Italian people under the racial category "White".

Of course, the broader point still stands. These people can find highly specific granularity in race such that the people from one island are above the people from the island right beside them, or they can throw a whole continent and millennia of history together as if Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, Norse vikings, and English crusader knights were all on the same team. It's all made up and they'll change the rules as they see fit. But they did sometimes treat people like shit even though they thought of those people as white.

[Cannot think of a name]

Well, we draft new white people when the numbers start to go against us. That's how Irish and Italians etc go from 'out group' to 'white'. Under different circumstances we might draft Persians into the club. Jewish people are like Schrodinger's minority. They're either white or the original hate depending on what one needs them to be. Apparently Filipinos who settled in the south bid for whiteness, but it's been a while since I studied all that so I don't have anything to verify that.

Honestly all you need to know about race being some bullshit we made up can be found in the White Draft.

There's a historian I follow on the bird site who has done a lot of work trying to debunk the myth of "white slavery" that floats around the US discourse, and he's argued that this thing of "The Irish weren't white" isn't actually true. Now, my understanding is that there was some old timey race science that tried to argue that the Celts were more closely related to Africans than the Anglo-Saxons, but the census data from back then included Irish and Italian people under the racial category "White".

Of course, the broader point still stands. These people can find highly specific granularity in race such that the people from one island are above the people from the island right beside them, or they can throw a whole continent and millennia of history together as if Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, Norse vikings, and English crusader knights were all on the same team. It's all made up and they'll change the rules as they see fit. But they did sometimes treat people like shit even though they thought of those people as white.

I'll cop to more or less shorthanding 'not on the team' since if we're strictly color coding folks what would we really end up calling the Irish, 'eggshell'? (I am of Irish decent but so far removed from that aside from my name I'm about as Irish as a green paper bowler and corn beef and cabbage. Only marginally more connected to the Norwegian side in that the family uses the term 'uff da'). Skin tone just happens to be the easiest way they've traditionally sorted whose 'on the team' or not. But being part of a group of new immigrants or a religion/ethnicity that has been demonized for centuries can get you excluded until they have to add some numbers.

[Elwher]

There's a historian I follow on the bird site who has done a lot of work trying to debunk the myth of "white slavery" that floats around the US discourse, and he's argued that this thing of "The Irish weren't white" isn't actually true. Now, my understanding is that there was some old timey race science that tried to argue that the Celts were more closely related to Africans than the Anglo-Saxons, but the census data from back then included Irish and Italian people under the racial category "White".

Of course, the broader point still stands. These people can find highly specific granularity in race such that the people from one island are above the people from the island right beside them, or they can throw a whole continent and millennia of history together as if Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, Norse vikings, and English crusader knights were all on the same team. It's all made up and they'll change the rules as they see fit. But they did sometimes treat people like shit even though they thought of those people as white.

I'll cop to more or less shorthanding 'not on the team' since if we're strictly color coding folks what would we really end up calling the Irish, 'eggshell'? (I am of Irish decent but so far removed from that aside from my name I'm about as Irish as a green paper bowler and corn beef and cabbage. Only marginally more connected to the Norwegian side in that the family uses the term 'uff da'). Skin tone just happens to be the easiest way they've traditionally sorted whose 'on the team' or not. But being part of a group of new immigrants or a religion/ethnicity that has been demonized for centuries can get you excluded until they have to add some numbers.

Since the entire concept of 'race' is a social construct, of course it is subject to change whenever it is convenient. What it boils down to is that the human species has a social need to divide itself into 'us' and 'them' based on whatever is best for 'us'. In the US, the dividing line has tended to be melanin content, although religion has often been added into the mix. In Africa, it is the tribal identity that usually does the split, although skin tone used to be a dividing line in southern Africa. In Europe, religion has been the dominant divisor. If the entire race suddenly became the same color, we would quickly find something else to divide us, and it would be equally stupid.

[Corrian]

NC is such a pain. It got fair maps so Dems gained a bunch, then somehow Republicans got a supermajority and Dems failed to win a whole bunch of supreme court seats and it immediately flips back the other way. What a sad state. It keeps bordering on progressing, and then collapses backwards again.

[Corrian]

Also the fact Kevin McCarthy cratered today and there was a bipartisan push to expel Ken Paxton in Texas is NOT what I expected.

[Haganham]

Hilariously to me one of the actually confirmed cuts is to the IRS, something that was actually going to be revenue generating! Shows you how much the Republican party actually cares about being fiscally conservative.

Considering that the IRS was given those funds with the promise that the would go after rich tax evaders and immediately when on a shakedown of low income earners I'm not missing that money.
We need to abandon the idea that we can get the rich to pay taxes by giving the IRS more money for audits. The IRS won't use it, because they know that the rich have so many avenues for avoiding tax that proving evasion costs more money then it brings in; and so they will go after people who are working gigs, have tip income or sidehustles, who don't have the resources to fight and will just pay up.

If we want to get the rich to pay taxes fairly we need to simplify the tax code and eliminate avenues for avoidance. But that's a legislative issue, not a budgetary one.

[Umeria]

Hilariously to me one of the actually confirmed cuts is to the IRS, something that was actually going to be revenue generating! Shows you how much the Republican party actually cares about being fiscally conservative.

Considering that the IRS was given those funds with the promise that the would go after rich tax evaders and immediately when on a shakedown of low income earners I'm not missing that money.
We need to abandon the idea that we can get the rich to pay taxes by giving the IRS more money for audits. The IRS won't use it, because they know that the rich have so many avenues for avoiding tax that proving evasion costs more money then it brings in; and so they will go after people who are working gigs, have tip income or sidehustles, who don't have the resources to fight and will just pay up.

If we want to get the rich to pay taxes fairly we need to simplify the tax code and eliminate avenues for avoidance. But that's a legislative issue, not a budgetary one.

You need to do both. Just making it easier to tax the rich still leaves you with a defunded IRS (even with the budget increases they're still smaller than before)

[Restructured Russia]

I find it hilarious that people just treat the Fourteenth Amendment as optional, when the true and clear meaning of it is this: default is unconstitutional on its face. The moment that the Federal Government defaults, bond holders should simply sue to overrule and nullify said default. They would definitely have standing to do so.

[Spirit of Hope]

Hilariously to me one of the actually confirmed cuts is to the IRS, something that was actually going to be revenue generating! Shows you how much the Republican party actually cares about being fiscally conservative.

Considering that the IRS was given those funds with the promise that the would go after rich tax evaders and immediately when on a shakedown of low income earners I'm not missing that money.
We need to abandon the idea that we can get the rich to pay taxes by giving the IRS more money for audits. The IRS won't use it, because they know that the rich have so many avenues for avoiding tax that proving evasion costs more money then it brings in; and so they will go after people who are working gigs, have tip income or sidehustles, who don't have the resources to fight and will just pay up.

If we want to get the rich to pay taxes fairly we need to simplify the tax code and eliminate avenues for avoidance. But that's a legislative issue, not a budgetary one.

Do you have some evidence that the IRS has been going "on a shakedown of low income earners," that I can see?

[Galloism]

Hilariously to me one of the actually confirmed cuts is to the IRS, something that was actually going to be revenue generating! Shows you how much the Republican party actually cares about being fiscally conservative.

Considering that the IRS was given those funds with the promise that the would go after rich tax evaders and immediately when on a shakedown of low income earners I'm not missing that money.
We need to abandon the idea that we can get the rich to pay taxes by giving the IRS more money for audits. The IRS won't use it, because they know that the rich have so many avenues for avoiding tax that proving evasion costs more money then it brings in; and so they will go after people who are working gigs, have tip income or sidehustles, who don't have the resources to fight and will just pay up.

If we want to get the rich to pay taxes fairly we need to simplify the tax code and eliminate avenues for avoidance. But that's a legislative issue, not a budgetary one.

FYI, one of the reasons the tax code is so complex is that the rich keep inventing new financial instruments and structures to avoid it. Then we pass a law on how to treat that instrument.

The repeated calls to “simplify the tax code”, while understandable, will largely lead to it being more easy to avoid and lower effective taxes on the rich as they are more able to maneuver their way out of it.

(We do need to restructure capital gains tax though, and we need to put a catch in the system for floating loans based on stocks being recognizable income above a certain bar, those both significantly lower effective taxes on the wealthy)

[Zurkerx]

Considering that the IRS was given those funds with the promise that the would go after rich tax evaders and immediately when on a shakedown of low income earners I'm not missing that money.
We need to abandon the idea that we can get the rich to pay taxes by giving the IRS more money for audits. The IRS won't use it, because they know that the rich have so many avenues for avoiding tax that proving evasion costs more money then it brings in; and so they will go after people who are working gigs, have tip income or sidehustles, who don't have the resources to fight and will just pay up.

If we want to get the rich to pay taxes fairly we need to simplify the tax code and eliminate avenues for avoidance. But that's a legislative issue, not a budgetary one.

FYI, one of the reasons the tax code is so complex is that the rich keep inventing new financial instruments and structures to avoid it. Then we pass a law on how to treat that instrument.

The repeated calls to “simplify the tax code”, while understandable, will largely lead to it being more easy to avoid and lower effective taxes on the rich as they are more able to maneuver their way out of it.

(We do need to restructure capital gains tax though, and we need to put a catch in the system for floating loans based on stocks being recognizable income above a certain bar, those both significantly lower effective taxes on the wealthy)

As someone that understands all of this, I agree. I think what we should mean by "simplifying" the tax code is trying to eliminate as much broadness, loopholes, and leeway as possible for the rich - limit their ability to use the system to benefit them. How though is a tough in some aspects, but easy in others.

[Moltian]

I am sadly in Canada, so I wouldn't know about 'merican Politics. all I know is that Sleepy joe likes ice cream

[Galloism]

FYI, one of the reasons the tax code is so complex is that the rich keep inventing new financial instruments and structures to avoid it. Then we pass a law on how to treat that instrument.

The repeated calls to “simplify the tax code”, while understandable, will largely lead to it being more easy to avoid and lower effective taxes on the rich as they are more able to maneuver their way out of it.

(We do need to restructure capital gains tax though, and we need to put a catch in the system for floating loans based on stocks being recognizable income above a certain bar, those both significantly lower effective taxes on the wealthy)

As someone that understands all of this, I agree. I think what we should mean by "simplifying" the tax code is trying to eliminate as much broadness, loopholes, and leeway as possible for the rich - limit their ability to use the system to benefit them. How though is a tough in some aspects, but easy in others.

What you just described is actually complicating the code. Not that I disagree with the goal, but making it more lengthy, more specific, and with more catches isn’t simplifying the code; it’s complicating it.

[Zurkerx]

As someone that understands all of this, I agree. I think what we should mean by "simplifying" the tax code is trying to eliminate as much broadness, loopholes, and leeway as possible for the rich - limit their ability to use the system to benefit them. How though is a tough in some aspects, but easy in others.

What you just described is actually complicating the code. Not that I disagree with the goal, but making it more lengthy, more specific, and with more catches isn’t simplifying the code; it’s complicating it.

Hmm, fair point: I've never thought of it that way actually. So, then I don't support simplifying it then

But we at least agree in principal that changes are needed: I've always felt there should be as less ambiguity and more certainty. You would collect more money in that regards I would think.

[Port Caverton]

3% of Americans think DeSantis is very Liberal

[Eternal Algerstonia]

3% of Americans think DeSantis is very Liberal

3% of patriots destroyed the british, 3% of patriots see ron desantis's true evil

[The Jamesian Republic]

3% of Americans think DeSantis is very Liberal

LMHO. How? In what universe does Ron DeSantis = Joe Biden in terms of Liberalism?

[Arvenia]

3% of Americans think DeSantis is very Liberal

How can DeSantis be liberal if he is a Republican?

[Port Caverton]

3% of Americans think DeSantis is very Liberal

How can DeSantis be liberal if he is a Republican?

Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald "Gipper" Reagan were both Republicans

[The Jamesian Republic]

How can DeSantis be liberal if he is a Republican?

Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald "Gipper" Reagan were both Republicans

Senator, I served with Nelson Rockefeller. I knew Nelson Rockefeller. Nelson Rockefeller was a friend of mine. Senator, Ronald Reagan and Ron DeSantis are no Nelson Rockefeller.

[Port Caverton]

Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald "Gipper" Reagan were both Republicans

Senator, I served with Nelson Rockefeller. I knew Nelson Rockefeller. Nelson Rockefeller was a friend of mine. Senator, Ronald Reagan and Ron DeSantis are no Nelson Rockefeller.

The point is that you don't necessarily have to be a conservative to be a republican

[The Jamesian Republic]

Senator, I served with Nelson Rockefeller. I knew Nelson Rockefeller. Nelson Rockefeller was a friend of mine. Senator, Ronald Reagan and Ron DeSantis are no Nelson Rockefeller.

The point is that you don't necessarily have to be a conservative to be a republican

I know.

[Arvenia]

How can DeSantis be liberal if he is a Republican?

Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald "Gipper" Reagan were both Republicans

I know, but there are big differences between those two and DeSantis. Rockefeller is what we call a "Rockefeller Republican", while Reagan was neoliberal (like Margaret Thatcher). The Republican Party is nowadays more conservative than the Democratic Party. DeSantis is also pretty anti-LGBT.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Senator, I served with Nelson Rockefeller. I knew Nelson Rockefeller. Nelson Rockefeller was a friend of mine. Senator, Ronald Reagan and Ron DeSantis are no Nelson Rockefeller.

The point is that you don't necessarily have to be a conservative to be a republican

That was a different time. A more sane time in American politics.