House GOP passes Israel aid bill offset by IRS funding cuts

You like a bill that won’t aid our allies because the GOP poisoned it?

 

It raises the deficit by lowering the revenue from catching tax cheats. It’s a stoopid political ploy to appease confused followers who think that is a good idea.

Regardless if the dems passed an Israel aid bill with a rider raising taxes on the rich you’d think differently. That wouldn’t pass either.

 

The GOP is the party of aiding and abetting criminals of all stripes.

 

CBO said cutting IRS funding would increase deficit. So I guess this bill is a twofer, a two-pronged method of increasing the deficit.

 

So you're telling me if my wife said she requested a paycut at work but also wants to go on a shopping spree that's a bad formula?

 

Depends. Would it own the libs?

 

Math is very difficult for Pubs. The CBO spells it out clearly.

 

"Say, how much you want for that $15B?"
"$30B."
"You gotcherself a deal partner!"

 

I think we finally figured out a way to cut off aid to Israel

 

Explain this to us... How is spending more MONEY on more federal workers (more IRS agents) going to save us money?

Less federal employee expenditures means less deficit spending... less deficit.

 

I think only a serious partisan could love such a bill.

Imagine a bill for building facilities in impoverished small towns to help children affected by parents with fentanyl addictions …funded by reducing tax breaks for churches to make it harder for “those Christian hypocrites to brainwash our youth.” What is going on in the mind of the authors of such a bill? Whatever it is, it certainly isn’t guided entirely by compassion.

 

So an article I read says this bill raises the deficit by 12.5 billion over a decade. But passing the act sending 14.5 billion to Israel without the IRS cuts raises the deficit by 14.5 billion right now. So doesn't this save 2 billion over a decade?

Either way the deficit increases putting a bigger burden on Americans.

 

How is spending less on more workers … Is that what you meant to say?

 

If one of your best friends gets in a fight and gets his ass beat…he needs a hand getting back on his feet, and maybe some retribution. You wouldn’t over extend yourself to help him out?

 

I understand you must disagree with me given the “come on man” rating, @flgator2 but I don’t see the difference here. In both cases, we have 1) giving resources to those in need, but then also 2) taking those resources from your ideological opponents while taking a verbal swipe at them.

In what way could an impartial spectator view this as virtuous behavior?

 

There are a handful in Congress who oppose funding wars. And likely zero who oppose wars on moral grounds.

 

Prove him wrong.