jerseyhoya wrote:The judge asking if Flynn should've been tried for treason is embarrassing

threecount wrote:I do enjoy helping my friends and family members whenever they have a problem or question...

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:If there's a problem, it's that the IRS seems to go after little people, because they're much less likely to be able to defend themselves rather than the Trumps of the world.

I don't get the sense that's true. I assume audits are generally heavily directed at business owners who write off a bunch of stuff. They are not going to audit people for smallish amounts unless it's an egregious mistake.

The IRS conducted 675,000 fewer audits in 2017 than it did in 2010, a drop in the audit rate of 42 percent. But even those stark numbers don’t tell the whole story, say current and former IRS employees: Auditors are stretched thin, and they’re often forced to limit their investigations and move on to the next audit as quickly as they can.

Without enough staff, the IRS has slashed even basic functions. It has drastically pulled back from pursuing people who don’t bother filing their tax returns. New investigations of “nonfilers,” as they’re called, dropped from 2.4 million in 2011 to 362,000 last year. According to the inspector general for the IRS, the reduction results in at least $3 billion in lost revenue each year. Meanwhile, collections from people who do file but don’t pay have plummeted. Tax obligations expire after 10 years if the IRS doesn’t pursue them. Such expirations were relatively infrequent before the budget cuts began. In 2010, $482 million in tax debts lapsed. By 2017, according to internal IRS collection reports, that figure had risen to $8.3 billion, 17 times as much as in 2010. The IRS’ ability to investigate criminals has atrophied as well.

The story has been different for poor taxpayers. The IRS oversees one of the government’s largest anti-poverty programs, the earned income tax credit, which provides cash to the working poor. Under continued pressure from Republicans, the IRS has long made a priority of auditing people who receive that money, and as the IRS has shrunk, those audits have consumed even more resources, accounting for 36 percent of audits last year. The credit’s recipients — whose annual income is typically less than $20,000 — are now examined at rates similar to those who make $500,000 to $1 million a year. Only people with incomes above $1 million are examined much more frequently.

Cutting the IRS budget didn’t make sense to him. It was one of the few areas of government that had a positive return on investment. Koskinen told the Senate, “I don’t know any organization in my 20 years of experience in the private sector that has said, ‘I think I’ll take my revenue operation and starve it for funds.’”

The Sarge wrote:Martha McSally was just appointed to McCain's old seat.

Ridiculous that she ran for the senate, lost, and still gets there anyway.

TenuredVulture wrote:On Flynn: I've seen two takes. 1. The judge is trying to get Flynn to retract his plea because he's not guilty. 2. The judge is trying to get the prosecutors to go after Flynn for something more than lying to the FBI, namely serving as an agent of a foreign country as national security adviser. (Not technically treason, I guess, but still pretty serious and probably something like espionage might stick.) If the judge really did "rip into Flynn" then 2 seems more likely than 1.

pacino wrote:it's that the voters said no to her

this happened with replacing my wife (when we moved out of the district); the school board selected the guy she ousted from the board, to the dismay of a lot of people. it's not a great look for any governing board, regardless of party, to put in place someone who so recently was rejected by the people you are to represent. This is a bit like if the Democrats had put Clinton in place as Speaker of the House.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Sarge wrote:Martha McSally was just appointed to McCain's old seat.

Ridiculous that she ran for the senate, lost, and still gets there anyway.

I could see myself half trollingly making this argument if it was a Dem who lost a close Senate race & a Dem gov, but I don't understand it on the merits and it's been all over Twitter today. Is Doug Ducey's ex-Chief of Staff or Jon Kyl or any of the other unelected people more democratically legitimate to serve as an appointed Senator than someone who just narrowly lost a race?

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:If there's a problem, it's that the IRS seems to go after little people, because they're much less likely to be able to defend themselves rather than the Trumps of the world.

I don't get the sense that's true. I assume audits are generally heavily directed at business owners who write off a bunch of stuff. They are not going to audit people for smallish amounts unless it's an egregious mistake.

Funnily enough, last week Pro Publica broke down how the IRS was gutted and what it means.
the basics of literally collecting the money to fund our government are being gutted so we can further gut more:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Sarge wrote:Martha McSally was just appointed to McCain's old seat.

Ridiculous that she ran for the senate, lost, and still gets there anyway.

I could see myself half trollingly making this argument if it was a Dem who lost a close Senate race & a Dem gov, but I don't understand it on the merits and it's been all over Twitter today. Is Doug Ducey's ex-Chief of Staff or Jon Kyl or any of the other unelected people more democratically legitimate to serve as an appointed Senator than someone who just narrowly lost a race?

I am simultaneously worried (as an anti-Trump person) and amused (as someone who enjoys a chuckle at the Democratic party) that the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential 2020 nomination is someone who lost an election 1 month ago to Ted #$!&@ Cruz.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Sarge wrote:Martha McSally was just appointed to McCain's old seat.

Ridiculous that she ran for the senate, lost, and still gets there anyway.

I could see myself half trollingly making this argument if it was a Dem who lost a close Senate race & a Dem gov, but I don't understand it on the merits and it's been all over Twitter today. Is Doug Ducey's ex-Chief of Staff or Jon Kyl or any of the other unelected people more democratically legitimate to serve as an appointed Senator than someone who just narrowly lost a race?