United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

DarthOne

☦️
Biden’s IRS ‘enforcement’ budget jumps 919%


The Internal Revenue Service saw its take from taxpayers rise over 19% last year and its enforcement budget boosted by 919%.

Making good to fatten up the tax collection agency’s enforcement team that targets taxpayers, a new audit said that appropriations from the Democratically controlled Congress jumped from $5 billion to $51 billion. When “operations support” was added in, the total was $80 billion, said the just-released review.

The Government Accountability Office also found that the agency collected far more from taxpayers in the just-ended fiscal year than the year before. It took $4.3 trillion, up from $3.5 trillion. Individual taxpayers funded 88% of the total collected last fiscal year.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden signaled that he planned to nominate Danny Werfel, a former acting IRS commissioner who served during the Obama administration, to head the agency.

He will replace IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, who left in October.

The Democratic head of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight used the announcement to blast the agency during the Trump era.

“For years now under a Trump appointee, the IRS has been mired in chaos and failure. Americans have lost trust in our tax system because there’s one set of rules for the powerful and another set for everyone else. After Congress made a big investment in fixing the IRS, the agency needs a leader who can answer the phones, get refund checks out fast, and crack down on big business tax cheats. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Werfel on his plans and acting together for tax fairness. It’s time to make the IRS work for Americans again,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell.
 

DarthOne

☦️
FhcWydZXwAAazuV
 

DarthOne

☦️
Nothing will happen to anyone involved, but if fantasizing that it will makes you feel better, go for it.

Shame that’s the case. Lord, of all the hills to die on, why on Earth would they pick a senile old fool like Joe Biden?

You’d think someone would throw him or someone else under the bus for the sake of not looking so blatantly corrupt. Know when to fold them and take a small loss for the sake of stability and greater long term gain.

Then again, given how entrenched the deep state is and how unwilling the neocon GOP establishment is to stand up and fight, they probably except they can keep doing this stuff indefinitely.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member

That's not what executive privilege means. As in, the first sentence of the tweet literally doesn't make sense. He might be ignoring 250 years of traditional interpretation of executive privilege. But unless the actions of ex-president trump and his aids involved time travel, there is no way to waive 250 years of privilege on them.

As for the second part, that is conversely exactly the kind of thing executive privilege is for? I mean, excepting that nothing that they've done is actually illegal. Feel free to argue it, but if you do I'd love for you to cite specific laws, and actually relate them to the provable evidence. If all you can do is scream "1st amendment!" then we really have nothing to talk about.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
It is a blatant violation of free speech
:rolleyes: Uh huh... Remind me again of the wording of the first amendment?

EDIT; You realise I hope, that's exactly the kind of low effort, zero thought response I hoped to avoid? It doesn't speak to the legal or technical issues at all, it's just you blathering about your poor precious feelings.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
:rolleyes: Uh huh... Remind me again of the wording of the first amendment?

EDIT; You realise I hope, that's exactly the kind of low effort, zero thought response I hoped to avoid? It doesn't speak to the legal or technical issues at all, it's just you blathering about your poor precious feelings.
The government can not restrict the speech of the people.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
:rolleyes: Uh huh... Remind me again of the wording of the first amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The Federal government constitutionally cannot have the power to censor.

This is censorship.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
The government can not restrict the speech of the people.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The Federal government constitutionally cannot have the power to censor.

This is censorship.
"Shall make no law" Perhaps you'd care to point out which law was passed that violates this?
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
"Shall make no law" Perhaps you'd care to point out which law was passed that violates this?

The U.S. Supreme Court has held[5] that all executive orders from the president of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[6] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the Congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times, when such orders either exceeded the authority of the President or could be better handled through legislation.[7]

There's actual lawyers discussing the issue here.

The short of it is that the president cannot pass laws, period. Only Congress can. Any executive order is thus legally the President instructing the executive branch on how to carry out laws passed by Congress. Thus if the President's executive orders violate a constitutional right, this means either congress passed a law violating the constitution or the President has exceeded his authority, but either way it is illegal.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
here is a basic smell test, if the right was doing this to the left if your side was the one being censored and be honest would you still be cool with this?
:rolleyes: I don't have a "side" because thank god I'm not American and forced into the ridiculous false dichotomy of their political system. As a general rule, obviously no, I don't like any political party in any country pressuring companies be they tech, media or anyone else to discourage a point of view I believe. That said, I do fully expect it from all parties, and I certainly don't consider it automatically illegal.

Are you rules-lawyering censorship by the government? The government literally colluded with big tech to silence people, and you're over here all like "they didn't pass a law, though." :cautious:
Goodness... Imagine rules lawyering a legal issue...

There's actual lawyers discussing the issue here.

The short of it is that the president cannot pass laws, period. Only Congress can. Any executive order is thus legally the President instructing the executive branch on how to carry out laws passed by Congress. Thus if the President's executive orders violate a constitutional right, this means either congress passed a law violating the constitution or the President has exceeded his authority, but either way it is illegal.
I'm not aware of any executive order involved here? AFAIK, the issue was politicians and their staffers making a concerted and targeted effort to flag things to tech companies as misinformation, with the tech companies generally accommodating such flagging and enabling easier reporting. If you can suggest a particular one, that would be a much better answer to my first post than any other so far.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
:rolleyes: I don't have a "side" because thank god I'm not American and forced into the ridiculous false dichotomy of their political system. As a general rule, obviously no, I don't like any political party in any country pressuring companies be they tech, media or anyone else to discourage a point of view I believe. That said, I do fully expect it from all parties, and I certainly don't consider it automatically illegal.


Goodness... Imagine rules lawyering a legal issue...


I'm not aware of any executive order involved here? AFAIK, the issue was politicians and their staffers making a concerted and targeted effort to flag things to tech companies as misinformation, with the tech companies generally accommodating such flagging and enabling easier reporting. If you can suggest a particular one, that would be a much better answer to my first post than any other so far.
You really should have read the link I gave you, then you wouldn't make such an embarrassing gaffe. Presidential orders, specifically numbered or not, are considered executive orders. Every President has issued them (aside from William Henry Harrison for obvious reasons) even without numbers.

So either Biden gave the orders or the staffers are going rogue and bypassing him.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
You really should have read the link I gave you, then you wouldn't make such an embarrassing gaffe. Presidential orders, specifically numbered or not, are considered executive orders. Every President has issued them (aside from William Henry Harrison for obvious reasons) even without numbers.

So either Biden gave the orders or the staffers are going rogue and bypassing him.
I did glance through, and I didn't see anything that supports that. Perhaps you could quote the bit I'm missing? It would seem to fail the common sense test to claim that literally any instruction from the president is a de facto law. Even accepting that though, if the instructions came from other democrats to their staffers, rather than the president directly instructing people, that's irrelevant.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
I did glance through, and I didn't see anything that supports that. Perhaps you could quote the bit I'm missing? It would seem to fail the common sense test to claim that literally any instruction from the president is a de facto law. Even accepting that though, if the instructions came from other democrats to their staffers, rather than the president directly instructing people, that's irrelevant.

Since you are not American, perhaps this is a perspective failure.

Here in America, if the government or a government official is not specifically granted a power, it does not have that power. A government official acting outside the authority granted to his office is doing something illegal.

As an example, while a police officer can issue you a parking ticket for parking illegally on public roads, he cannot give you a ticket for parking on a private parking lot or driveway. If he does that, he has exceeded his legal authority, and may be subject to punitive action.

The Federal Government has no authority whatsoever over the exercise of free speech, and thus anything done by the Federal Government to abrogate that right, is exceeding their legal authority, and thus, illegal.


And in case you didn't pick up on it, here in America we take our rights, especially those specifically ennumerated in the Constitution, very seriously.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top