 
     |
| Rinse, please make me feel better about this... (Page 1/1) |
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUL 02, 10:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUL 02, 11:41 PM
|
|
First, we must stabilize the report, in order to examine it. The Epoch Times is not the best platform.
"Congressman [Matt] Gaetz [Republican from Florida] introduces bill to prohibit ammunition purchases by the IRS"
Kai Davis for ABC3-WEAR TV; July 1, 2022.
https://weartv.com/news/loc...purchases-by-the-irs
Next, we zero in on the crux of the matter; to wit:
| quote | Congressman Gaetz claims the IRS spent $725,000 on ammunition from March to June of this year. He criticizes the purchase by saying the IRS does not require ammunition, and has no reason to purchase it.
Only the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS is permitted to carry guns and ammunition, according to federal law. |
|
I dunno. Someone should explain why they did it. I'm not sure a new federal law is in order. First, I'd want to know more about how the IRS can justify this budgetary outlay. It could be an issue for a federal Inspector General.
This could be the high point (is that a pun, in this context?) of Matt Gaetz's singularly controversial history as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-02-2022).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUL 03, 10:09 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I dunno. Someone should explain why they did it. I'm not sure a new federal law is in order. First, I'd want to know more about how the IRS can justify this budgetary outlay. It could be an issue for a federal Inspector General.
This could be the high point (is that a pun, in this context?) of Matt Gaetz's singularly controversial history as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
|
|
The number of "Special Agents" (nomenclature for Federal law enforcement officers that work for an agency) that work for the IRS is small... I would counter it's probably in the neighborhood of like... maybe ~500 or less? Most IRS investigations would involve the FBI anyway, so I'm just not understanding it.
I am questioning if the reason is as he says... it raise the cost of ammunition to the country, in some kind of weird attempt to reduce gun crime (at best).
|
|
|
|
randye
|
JUL 03, 09:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The number of "Special Agents" (nomenclature for Federal law enforcement officers that work for an agency) that work for the IRS is small... I would counter it's probably in the neighborhood of like... maybe ~500 or less? Most IRS investigations would involve the FBI anyway, so I'm just not understanding it.
I am questioning if the reason is as he says... it raise the cost of ammunition to the country, in some kind of weird attempt to reduce gun crime (at best).
[b][/b] |
|
Any ammunition manufacturer would happily fulfill gooberment ammo orders and still be more than able to meet civilian consumer demand.
Anyone that somehow believes that there is a small, finite, ammo manufacturing capacity in this country is delusional.
Moreover, a $2.2M annual purchase of ammunition by the IRS isn't a blip on the radar compared to the annual sales volume of small caliber ammo on the civilian market.
https://www.fortunebusiness...om/industry-reports/[This message has been edited by randye (edited 07-04-2022).]
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
JUL 04, 04:55 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I dunno. Someone should explain why they did it.
The Epoch Times is not the best platform.
|
|
Worry not. I am sure CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and other fake news media will be along shortly to explain it,  .
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUL 04, 05:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Worry not. I am sure CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and other fake news media will be along shortly to explain it, . |
|
It's kind of incumbent on U.S. Congressman from Florida Matt Gaetz (R) to say more about this..? Among others. At least that's what comes to my mind.
Has anyone already made up their mind that this new legislative proposal should go the whole nine yards and be enacted into law?
https://gaetz.house.gov/sit...20Act%207.1.2022.pdf
Just passing the bill, and then having the Senate approve it, and then sending it to the President for his signature, without having more background on it... that's where I'm at. That's like spinning a roulette wheel. Looking back on it from the perspective of year 2030, it could be hailed (in retrospect) as the legislative accomplishment that turned "Matt Gaetz" a household name. Or it could engender such a fiasco (via the law of unintended consequences) that it's already (as of year 2030) been enshrined in American history textbooks as "Gaetz's Folly."
If you throw out the IRS enforcement baby with the bath water, you could be defunding the federal government. Which may sound great. But it might boomerang.
I've taken a cautious approach. A "wait and see" attitude. Will those who are registering their opinions about this in a more clearly opinionated way be keeping an eye out for more news about the progress of this legislative proposal and any further debates, analyses, investigate reports (etc.) that may yet surface, in whatever media or channel(s) the opinionated on this matter are keeping tabs on?[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-04-2022).]
|
|
|
|