Funding dropped for 87,000 IRS agents.

You're begging the question, since it has not been established that the IRS is about to send armed agents out to collect taxes from anyone.

 

Enforcing existing laws is not an overreach, - at least not according to conservatives. Anarchists would argue any law enforcement is an overreach, but its not a conservative stance. Why do you call yourself a conservative when you argue people should be allowed to get away breaking the law?

So, now law enforcement is TYRANNY. Again, why do you call yourself a conservative when you are an anarchist.

80B over 10 years or 8B per year to save $600B per year sounds like a solid investment. That kind of money can fund all kinds of things, even a nice wall on the border.

Its not about hiking taxes, its about collecting what is owed. You want to help tax cheats profit from their crimes. That's corrupt.

$600B would help hard working Americans quite a bit, because it can fund lot of things we currently borrow money to fund. Why do you want to keep borrowing?

No, it isn't. Conservatives would never insist on helping crime become profitable. Never!!

Trying to equate partisan politics with conservatism is a losing argument when it comes to things like this.

 

Strawman argument. Nothing in @Trixare4kids comments indicated she was opposed to paying taxes. Is this the best you've got after more than 49,000 posts?

 

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

The deficient will only increase by more spending. Raising taxes typically only allows democrats to spend more money, not less.

 

So why the hell do they need guns?

 

I can't help it if your feelings get hurt when your logical fallacy is pointed out.

 

Think of all the barnyards that could use the straw. Instead, it's wasted on this thread.

 

Except it's the Republicans who have been spending more and funding that spending less. Facts and Republicans seem to get along about as well as oil and water these days.

 

It would not increase taxes. An investment of $8B would bring in $600B annually, and that's a very good return for investment. With few additional changes, it could bring us close to balanced budget.

She calls tax collection "tyranny" as if people should be entitled to get away with cheating on their taxes, because its such an unfair practice.

 

Remember people this is the same administration that was trying to get it passed to where when you spent $600 or more at your bank they had to notify the government.
That's right... A relatively measly $600

 

One word. Omnibus. What else do you got?

 

And then we could send that money to Ukraine!

 

Sure, but as I pointed out raising taxes won't decrease the deficient as long as the democrats want to spend more. Is that how it works for you? Expect to have a balanced budget just because you have an increase in income while spending more money than before the increase in revenue.

 

What about it?

 

It would cover majority of US Military spending, and that means its a LOT of money.

Do you oppose or support the idea of balanced budgets?

 

Partisans rarely give mention to the fact that those who hold the majority in the House defund and fund at will. It's apparently way different when their team does it though. As an example, remember when?
Nancy Pelosi, Again, Says Democrats Won't Fund Trump’s Border Wall | HuffPost Latest News

 

There is a means of catching tax cheats already built into the program. Maybe they need a better program rather than 87,000 more agents. After Lois Lerner's debacle with targeting conservatives there's perhaps a good reason to think of a tyranny element attached to this plan.

 

Boy I'm so glad that witch no longer controls the House.

 

Trump ran on an empty promise to make Mexico pay for that border wall, not American taxpayers. Kudos to the Democrats for blocking that theft of taxpayer funds just to stroke Trump's ego.

 

Can you read? It would not raise taxes.

Who says you have to spend more? Isn't the GOP in control of the purse? They just threw $600B of annual revenue out the window, and if history if to repeat itself, they will increase spending as soon as they can.

How about we leave the assumptions aside about what one party or the other might do, and just do the math. Is it a bad investment to spend $8B to make $600B? How can you argue its a bad investment? If you make such arguments, then how can anyone take your economic views seriously?

 

If I opposed paying taxes, I wouldn't be living in the state of CA. We have the highest income tax rate in the country, i.e. 13/30%. Also, you don't want to see my property tax bill. It's worth it though, if just for the weather. Lol, not today though. The entire state is under a flash flood warning. Thankfully, we didn't get hit that badly.
At any rate, some should learn the difference between a conservative and an anarchist. Ah, the dumbing down of America rearing its ugly head on this thread.

 

Ahh, but there was more ways than one to make Mexico pay for the wall. I would prefer cutting off all the funding to Mexico and use the money saved to build the wall. But apparrently the democrats would prefer to spend our money defending the borders of foreign countries rather than spend a nickel defending ours.

 

Can you read? I didn't say raising new taxes. You raise taxes simply by collecting them. I'll try to be more specific next time for . . . .

 

They know how they can do it, but they don't have the resources, which is why they had the plan to hire the resources. Also, if you call the IRS with a question you'll likely be put on hold for an hour. Why? Because they are already defunded to a point where they don't even have people to answer the phones.

I get it. You do NOT think its worth investing $8B to make $600. Pseudo-con math says its a bad investment. So, lets borrow some more form China so we can fund our spending.