If he were a fiscal conservative, he wouldn't be trying to take away the long overdue modernization funding for the Internal Revenue Service that was in the Inflation Reduction Act.
If he were a fiscal conservative, he wouldn't be trying to take away the long overdue modernization funding for the Internal Revenue Service that was in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Taxes don't collect themselves
Apparently, you don't consider the IRS money even slightly excessive. Personally, I believe it's way over the top. But, that's just my opinion.
I guess I am a bigot for feeling prayer (for two weeks on one's knees no less!) shouldn't be used to try and curry favor with The Big Guy for a position of power and influence. What if a better candidate didn't have a wife with that much spare time on her hands (and knees)? Doesn't seem like a fair system.
What if pigs could fly ? I do not pray to curry favor from God.
even after the rumps taxes disclose the total BS rates he paid MORE 0000 THEN ANYTHING
FAR TOO LITTLE IS PAID ON FAR TOO MUCH WEALTH
PLUS WE KNOW HE AND MOST OTHER CHEAT
Let's go with your "truth", whether it be true or not. Then, I suggest that they (our elected leadership) eliminate a bunch of those loopholes and rules that let folks pay lessor taxes.
I can't blame anyone for paying (legally) less taxes than they absolutely have to. I can't blame anyone that takes advantage of some tax rules that allow them to pay less. Don't like the rules that are in effect then, I suggest you support a legislator that believes in flat tax rates with no loop holes.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-02-2023).]
Let's go with your "truth", whether it be true or not. Then, I suggest that they (our elected leadership) eliminate a bunch of those loopholes and rules that let folks pay lessor taxes.
I can't blame anyone for paying (legally) less taxes than they absolutely have to. I can't blame anyone that takes advantage of some tax rules that allow them to pay less. Don't like the rules that are in effect then, I suggest you support a legislator that believes in flat tax rates with no loop holes.
Rams
JUST CAN'T PASS UP A CHANCE TO stick it to the underclass with the FLAT RATE RIP- OFF PLANS
HOW ABOUT NO LOOP HOLES REAL CURRENT RATES
NO INTEREST NO INSURANCE NO BS EXPENSE FAKED DEDUCTIONS
make the rump and all other 1%ers pay full rate taxes every year
I must say, it's pretty weird to hear (see) an atheist quoting Jesus Christ.
and so many who claim to be in his flock but do not follow his way at all
as Gandhi said I like your christ I do NOT like your christians
btw he was likely a man or several men who said things recorded who had some good ideas I do not believe in the son of or any god BS or any other crazy bits like zombies
btw 2 they claimed other gods had kids but never made a big deal of them
one angel or devil but your guys never can catch one even as they claim they are everywhere all the time ever wonder why ?
JUST CAN'T PASS UP A CHANCE TO stick it to the underclass with the FLAT RATE RIP- OFF PLANS
HOW ABOUT NO LOOP HOLES REAL CURRENT RATES
NO INTEREST NO INSURANCE NO BS EXPENSE FAKED DEDUCTIONS
make the rump and all other 1%ers pay full rate taxes every year
OK Ray, OK.
But, regardless of how much (or how little) any rich folks pay, as long as it was done legally, cry 'n about it on here won't do squat, tell your elected officials, they are the ones making the rules.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-02-2023).]
those that do have the laws they bought working for them the system never did care about right or fair just cash buys rules the real golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rules this speaker is worse as corrupt as they all are but god bothered also
so out spoken on record as against SS medicare/caid plus most other people programs some how missing JC's the least ARE HIM point as only a Gop nut christian can/will/must do
those that do have the laws they bought working for them the system never did care about right or fair just cash buys rules the real golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rules this speaker is worse as corrupt as they all are but god bothered also
so out spoken on record as against SS medicare/caid plus most other people programs some how missing JC's the least ARE HIM point as only a Gop nut christian can/will/must do
Blame whomever you wish, if you lay down and don't get involved in getting the people who agree with you elected, then look into the mirror. There's your problem. So far, I like this Speaker.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-02-2023).]
Speaker Johnson is supposedly going to make a decision on impeachment of Biden.
I think all of us here know Biden isn't running... I mean, for pride and team support I know the left here won't admit it... but all of us know that Biden is not going to be on the ballot in November, we ALL know this.
Republicans have been reluctant to impeach him for fear that it'll help him, or that it'll make him look like a victim... or worse yet, they actually decide to remove him, and then we're stuck with Kamala. But we know Biden isn't running and that Newsom is going to be the Democrat's pick... so let's just get it over with. There's absolutely enough to put him in jail... so let's get going.
Speaker Johnson is supposedly going to make a decision on impeachment of Biden.
I think all of us here know Biden isn't running... I mean, for pride and team support I know the left here won't admit it... but all of us know that Biden is not going to be on the ballot in November, we ALL know this.
Republicans have been reluctant to impeach him for fear that it'll help him, or that it'll make him look like a victim... or worse yet, they actually decide to remove him, and then we're stuck with Kamala. But we know Biden isn't running and that Newsom is going to be the Democrat's pick... so let's just get it over with. There's absolutely enough to put him in jail... so let's get going.
I think we all know an impeachment of President Biden won't get past the Senate. But, let's just say it would, then I have no doubt Gavin Newsome will throw his hat into the ring. But, there's a wildcard here, VP Harris still wants the job. I'm pretty sure she won't get support from the Dems but, who knows what could happen. If Biden were to be impeached and found guilty by the Senate a month or so prior to the election, then it's time to pop the corks on the champaign bottles. I sincerely believe any Republican candidate can beat Harris.
Do I think Biden and his crime syndicate family are guilty, you can bet you bippy I do but, I doubt he'll get impeached and found guilty by the Dem controlled Senate regardless of how much proof there is.
I think we all know an impeachment of President Biden won't get past the Senate. But, let's just say it would, then I have no doubt Gavin Newsome will throw his hat into the ring. But, there's a wildcard here, VP Harris still wants the job. I'm pretty sure she won't get support from the Dems but, who knows what could happen. If Biden were to be impeached and found guilty by the Senate a month or so prior to the election, then it's time to pop the corks on the champaign bottles. I sincerely believe any Republican candidate can beat Harris.
Do I think Biden and his crime syndicate family are guilty, you can bet you bippy I do but, I doubt he'll get impeached and found guilty by the Dem controlled Senate regardless of how much proof there is.
But, I like this Speaker (so far).
Rams
What if Newsom keeps Kamala Harris... because he's expected to?
What if Newsom keeps Kamala Harris... because he's expected to?
I honestly don't think he's that stupid. Even he sees her polling numbers. Who knows, even HRC might want to jump into the race. But, I'm still liking this Speaker.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-08-2023).]
I honestly don't think he's that stupid. Even he sees her polling numbers. Who know, even HRC might want to jump into the race. But, I'm still liking this Speaker.
Rams
Yeah, I just wonder. The Democrat party is not like the Republican party in the way they elect their candidates... the DNC has a lot more leverage to pick and choose their candidates, where as the Republicans (rightfully so) are literally at the mercy of the voters... whether the GOP likes it or not, and they did NOT like Trump. But the DNC... the use of super delegates and the ability to transfer votes... it just seems to me that Newsom is being "primed."
I consider the fact that he's been to the White House some 40+ times already as of last time I checked, and most of those times, Biden wasn't even at the White House. So you question, why would Newsom go to the White House if the President isn't even there? I just think that unless he picks another black woman as his running mate, the DNC may fear backlash for booting Kamala.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I just think that unless he picks another black woman as his running mate, the DNC may fear backlash for booting Kamala.
We can always hope.....................
BTW, did I mention that so far, I like this Speaker?
Originally posted by blackrams:We can always hope.....................
BTW, did I mention that so far, I like this Speaker?
Rams
Yes, you did... haha, I do too... he's awesome.
I read an article somewhere... some liberal **** rag, and they were saying that the media didn't have time to vet Mike Johnson, and now they're stuck with MAGA. Haha... I kept thinking to myself... the arrogance here. The media doesn't decide who gets elected speaker.
First, the idea that cutting the I.R.S. budget would somehow help pay for aid to Israel is utterly wrong. America has a huge “tax gap”—taxes legally owed but not paid. The bulk of that tax gap probably comes from wealthy Americans underreporting their incomes, which they can get away with because the I.R.S. lacks the resources to fully enforce the law.
As a result, cutting I.R.S. funding would actually increase the deficit by enabling more tax evasion, a conclusion confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday in its score of the House proposal.
Republicans, however, often claim that tax cuts do great things for the economy, and maybe even pay for themselves. There’s not a shred of evidence for that belief. Still, starving the I.R.S. of funds is in a way a kind of tax cut. So can’t they make a similar argument here?
No, for several reasons.
For one thing, even if you believe (wrongly) that low taxes on the rich strongly encourage entrepreneurship or something, making it easier for a businessman to cheat on his taxes probably doesn’t have the same incentive effects as reducing his legal tax rate.
Furthermore, enabling tax evasion doesn’t help all businesses equally; it biases the economy toward activities, often unproductive, where tax fraud is relatively easy, such as real estate speculation. Did I mention that the Trump Organization has been convicted of tax fraud?
And making it easier to cheat on taxes by defunding the tax police probably has spillover effects that go beyond the direct adverse effect on enforcement. The more we become a society that rewards people who evade their fiscal obligations, the more likely it is that people who don’t cheat on their taxes will feel like chumps and losers. If Americans start to believe, as Leona Helmsley put it, that “only the little people pay taxes,” the damage to our society will surely be moral as well as fiscal.
Yet starving the I.R.S. has long been a Republican priority; what’s new is the party’s willingness to serve that priority by endangering national security.
Where does this priority come from? I don’t pretend to have a full answer. I will note, however, that, as the historian Rick Perlstein has pointed out, there has long been a close association between right-wing conspiracy theorizing and financial grifting. Alex Jones, the proprietor of the conspiracy site Infowars, best known for claiming that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook was a left-wing hoax, made his money by selling bogus dietary supplements—what my colleague Farhad Manjoo calls the “wellness-conspiracy industrial complex.”
And now that conspiracy theorists have effectively taken over the G.O.P., it kind of makes sense that one of their overriding policy priorities is to deprive the government of the resources it needs to crack down on grifters and financial fraud.
In any case, don’t be skeptical about news reports that Republicans are willing to sacrifice crucial national interests unless we make life easier for tax cheats. That is, in fact, exactly what is happening.
Paul Krugman is explaining what he believes is the fallacy of linking additional funding for aid to Israel to a cancellation of increased funding for the Internal Revenue Service, that was passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The new House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has been trying to predicate additional funding for aid to Israel with a cancellation of increased funding for the Internal Revenue Service, that was passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-05-2023).]
"The bulk of that tax gap probably comes from wealthy Americans underreporting their incomes, which they can get away with because the I.R.S. lacks the resources to fully enforce the law."
Probably? Well, we need to get right on that. I'm sure the average taxpayer isn't trying to pay less in taxes. I'm not sure I can believe the agency under the thumb of this Administration and many Americans feel the same way. Other agencies have been politized, this one is just as suspect.
[QUOTE] "The bulk of that tax gap probably comes from wealthy Americans underreporting their incomes, which they can get away with because the I.R.S. lacks the resources to fully enforce the law."
Probably? Well, we need to get right on that. I'm sure the average taxpayer isn't trying to pay less in taxes. I'm not sure I can believe the agency under the thumb of this Administration and many Americans feel the same way. Other agencies have been politized, this one is just as suspect.
Rams[/QUOTE]
''making it easier to cheat on taxes by {defunding the tax police } probably has spillover effects that go beyond the direct adverse effect on enforcement. ''
again {defunding the tax police } but not the regular police JUST the COPS WHO TAX THE RICH AS THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LIFE OF POOR PEOPLE
again {defunding the tax police } but not the regular police JUST the COPS WHO TAX THE RICH AS THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LIFE OF POOR PEOPLE
JUST THEIR MONEY
Gop dogma
So, appears you support de-funding the Police? Hmm, may I ask you if you have any idea as to where (what neighborhoods) the majority of crimes are committed?
It's not in the richer areas, that I can assure you so, where do you think needs greater LEO protection?
Never mind, closed minds are too busy spinning their wheels to really understand.
BTW, have I told you I really like Speaker Johnson (so far).
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-03-2023).]
This blog entry on the website of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation echoes what I already posted in this thread from Paul Krugman. Which begs the question, what did I already post in this thread from Paul Krugman? https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...ML/000947-2.html#p59
But it raises a new question: what blog entry on the website of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation?
The last paragraph of the March 15, 2023 blog entry on the Peter G. Peterson Foundation website:
quote
The IRS has faced funding and staffing shortages for many years, resulting in less robust annual tax collections and a widening tax gap, which have raised questions about fairness and our fiscal outlook among many policymakers and citizens. Analysis from CBO concludes that providing additional funding and resources to the IRS to bolster its enforcement capabilities would have a positive effect on the accuracy of the collection of taxes owed as defined under existing law and subsequently on federal revenues, the tax gap, and the deficit.
That reminds me of the more recent article from Paul Krugman in the New York Times:
quote
First, the idea that cutting the I.R.S. budget would somehow help pay for aid to Israel is utterly wrong. America has a huge “tax gap”—taxes legally owed but not paid. The bulk of that tax gap probably comes from wealthy Americans underreporting their incomes, which they can get away with because the I.R.S. lacks the resources to fully enforce the law.
As a result, cutting I.R.S. funding would actually increase the deficit by enabling more tax evasion, a conclusion confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday in its score of the House proposal.
Republicans, however, often claim that tax cuts do great things for the economy, and maybe even pay for themselves. There’s not a shred of evidence for that belief. Still, starving the I.R.S. of funds is in a way a kind of tax cut. So can’t they make a similar argument here?
Paul Krugman was explaining what he believes is the fallacy of linking additional funding for aid to Israel to a cancellation of increased funding for the Internal Revenue Service, that was passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The new House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has been trying to predicate additional funding for aid to Israel with a cancellation of increased funding for the Internal Revenue Service, that was passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-05-2023).]
Regardless of where this money comes from, it needs to come from the explosive budget set last year. Don't want it to come from the IRS budget, OK, find it somewhere else in the socialist bills passed by the Dems during the last round of budgets. Personally speaking, I still support draining the IRS funding but, that's just me.
My habit of following MSNBC just clued me to this. So where could I post it? Why not this thread? It started with the House Speaker... so, a no-brainer.
House Speaker Mike Johnson once blamed fall of Roman Empire on ‘homosexual behavior’: audio
quote
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson once appeared to blame the fall of the Roman Empire on same-sex relations, a recently resurfaced audio clip shows.
“Many historians, those who are objective, would look back and recognize and give some credit to the fall of Rome to, not only the deprivation of the society and the loss of morals, but also to the rampant homosexual behavior that was condoned by the society,” Johnson told a radio host in 2008.
The clip was part of an investigative report by CNN’s KFile that looked into the Louisiana Republican’s past links with prominent anti-LGBTQ groups.
It's been said that the celebrated historian Edward Gibbon, best known (I guess) for "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," thought that it was Christianity that directly (or perhaps indirectly) led to the "cancellation" of the Roman Empire.
But I thought I should look into it. And where better to look than PhyloBotanist?
quote
The blog of a systematic botanist of German origin, now working in Australia. It covers botany, phylogenetics, cladistics, science in general, freethought, and occasionally sillier issues.
As recently as June of 2020, this botanist (whoever he is) took a stab at it. His blog entry isn't all that long. Looks like about two book pages of text. Here's how it ends:
quote
So there we have it: the two key problems were the decreasing loyalty and increasing corruption of the armed forces and the institutional weakness of the republic. And both of them were probably entirely unavoidable. You cannot conquer and control an empire with an army made up of free farmers who have to travel back to northern Italy to bring in the harvest just when the enemy attacks in Mesopotamia, so you need a professional army. And even if you have very nice institutional arrangements they won't be of any use against a large army that has no loyalty to those institutions. The only alternative would have been not to have an empire in the first place.
I am not a historian. I do not know if this is accurate in all details. I do not know if this is really why the Roman empire declined, and I understand at least that plagues may have been another factor. The point is: this is Gibbon's argument, not that Christianity caused the decline.
There's no reference to homosexuality.
So there you have it!
------------------ Viva la revolución del 15 de agosto
Originally posted by blackrams: Yep, absolute proof...................................
Are you questioning that the new House Speaker once linked homosexual behavior with the "fall of Rome"..?
This queues up a CNN video post on YouTube to the 3:22 mark. It's Mike Johnson's voice. I guess it's from before he was selected as the House Speaker. https://youtu.be/dFPWOrfUDwI?t=202
quote
Many historians, those who are objective, would look back and recognize and give some credit to the fall of Rome to not only the deprivation of the society and the loss of morals, but also to the rampant homosexual behavior that was condoned by the society.
You may or may not consider this an accurate reading of history, or a good "take" or a not so good "take," but there's no doubt that he said it.
You may or may not consider this an accurate reading of history, or a good "take" or a not so good "take," but there's no doubt that he said it.
Don't really know or care. It's simply interesting that some are so sensitive to such a statement and zero in on that particular part of the statement.
But, if "Many" historians believe it, so what? What's that got to do with being a Fiscal Conservative?
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-17-2023).]
Don't really know or care. It's simply interesting that some are so sensitive to such a statement and zero in on that particular part of the statement.
But, if "Many" historians believe it, so what? What's that got to do with being a Fiscal Conservative?
LYING FOR JESUS
something most christians spew lies about gays/morals and the fall of the western empire
the gay stuff was REPRESSED BY THE CHRISTIANS who got total power by 380 after 320 legal ruling so NO the enforced their CHRISTIAN ''MORALS'' AND BAN GAYS THE ATTACKERS WERE NOT PAGANS THEY WERE MOSTLY ARIAN CHRISTIAN [NO THREE PART bs GOD] THEIR MAJOR DIFFERENCE SO IT WAS A CHRISTIAN CIVIL WAR NOT PAGAN BARBARIANS
the christian then shut down schools hospitals and started a DARK AGE OF CHRISTIAN TOTAL RULE
btw the Fiscal Conservative is BS the guy is a god bothered nut case and EVIL
Many historians, those who are objective, would look back and recognize and give some credit to the fall of Rome to not only the deprivation of the society and the loss of morals, but also to the rampant homosexual behavior that was condoned by the society.
Recent remark from Mike Johnson, now the Republican House leader.
I personally doubt that it's been at all common for "top drawer" historians to have singled out homosexuality or homosexual behavior as a significant factor that caused the "Decline" and ultimately, the "Fall" of the Roman Empire.
Although I'm not a scholar, I think I would have picked up on that—if it were accurate—in the unguided readings and browsing's that are characteristic of my online recreations.
I see Mike Johnson, in that remark, conflating rampant homosexual behavior with rampant behavior in general. Rampant greed. Rampant corruption. Rampant infidelity in both heterosexual and homosexual ways. And above all, I venture, it was the absence of vision that brought about the stagnation of the Roman Empire. There wasn't enough forward thinking. Rampant behavior of all kinds was not so much a cause of their stagnation, as it was a consequence of their stagnation. A case of idle hands becoming the devil's workshop.
I"m sure I'm right about this.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-18-2023).]
So, appears you support de-funding the Police? Hmm, may I ask you if you have any idea as to where (what neighborhoods) the majority of crimes are committed?
It's not in the richer areas, that I can assure you so, where do you think needs greater LEO protection?
Never mind, closed minds are too busy spinning their wheels to really understand.
BTW, have I told you I really like Speaker Johnson (so far).
Rams
I note there sure are an excess of them every time something happens crowds of cops decend if 3 or 4 could handle what ever there are 40 or 50 in the street so we have too many who cost too much
they still steal money mostly but cars also this civil stealing needs to stop if there is a crime they should PROVE IT BEFORE STEALING
AND THE VERY ODD IDEA THEY CAN'T BE SUED because of no law or any thing ever voted on but the court SAID SO [QUALIFIED IMMUNITY] JUDGES SAID THEY TOO PROSTITUTING ATT ALSO EVERY PIG TYPE COP JUDGE STATE ATT ARE IMMUNITY so they steal or blow up your car and say tuff chit we are pigs and immune THAT NEEDS TO STOP SO YES LESS OF THEM AND STOP STEALING PLEASE
[QUOTE]Many historians, those who are objective, would look back and recognize and give some credit to the fall of Rome to not only the deprivation of the society and the loss of morals, but also to the rampant homosexual behavior that was condoned by the society.
Recent remark from Mike Johnson, now the Republican House leader.
I personally doubt that it's been at all common for "top drawer" historians to have singled out homosexuality or homosexual behavior as a significant factor that caused the "Decline" and ultimately, the "Fall" of the Roman Empire.
Although I'm not a scholar, I think I would have picked up on that—if it were accurate—in the unguided readings and browsing's that are characteristic of my online recreations.
I see Mike Johnson, in that remark, conflating rampant homosexual behavior with rampant behavior in general. Rampant greed. Rampant corruption. Rampant infidelity in both heterosexual and homosexual ways. And above all, I venture, it was the absence of vision that brought about the stagnation of the Roman Empire. There wasn't enough forward thinking. Rampant behavior of all kinds was not so much a cause of their stagnation, as it was a consequence of their stagnation. A case of idle hands becoming the devil's workshop.
I"m sure I'm right about this.
[/QUOTE]
Seems like you have a lot of interest in Mr. Johnson's sexual issues. You might want to look into that.
Originally posted by blackrams: Seems like you have a lot of interest in Mr. Johnson's sexual issues. You might want to look into that.
The only aspect of this that is (or was) interesting to me is the way in which the new House Speaker connected homosexuality with the proverbial "Decline and Fall" of the Roman Empire.
Mike Johnson's remark in that vein is something I would expect from a person—like Mike Johnson—who is ardently and publicly disapproving of homosexual engagement, which I think is a better term for it than homosexual "behavior"—but not from someone who I would associate with the more secular, cosmopolitan and generally liberal-minded ethos that I heartily subscribe to.
I am not closing the possibility that Mike Johnson could manifest in other ways that would prompt me to say "that was a good thing for Mike Johnson to have done, or said."
I concur with forum member ray b that Mike Johnson belongs within the Venn diagram circle that ray b has labeled as "God-bothered people and groups," in ray b's mental Venn diagram of the world, which I think is something we all have.
So, once again—there you have it!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-18-2023).]
The only aspect of this that is (or was) interesting to me is the way in which the new House Speaker connected homosexuality with the proverbial "Decline and Fall" of the Roman Empire.
Mike Johnson's remark in that vein is something I would expect from a person—like Mike Johnson—who is ardently and publicly disapproving of homosexual engagement, which I think is a better term for it than homosexual "behavior"—but not from someone who I would associate with the more secular, cosmopolitan and generally liberal-minded ethos that I heartily subscribe to.
I am not closing the possibility that Mike Johnson could manifest in other ways that would prompt me to say "that was a good thing for Mike Johnson to have done, or said."
I concur with forum member ray b that Mike Johnson belongs within the Venn diagram circle that ray b has labeled as "God-bothered people and groups," in ray b's mental Venn diagram of the world, which I think is something we all have.
So, once again—there you have it!
Well, it's your story so stick to it. As I've said several times, it really doesn't matter to me. I still haven't figured out how this ties into Speaker Johnson being a Fiscal Conservative. Or are you just desperately trying to come up with something the left or woke crowd can use to further disapprove. I really don't care if Speaker Johnson (or you) believe in Unicorns and Fairy Farts, this Congress is going to spend us into a bankrupt nation. I have no idea if you have children or grandchildren but if so, why would you want to bankrupt their future?
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
Well, it's your story so stick to it. As I've said several times, it really doesn't matter to me. I still haven't figured out how this ties into Speaker Johnson being a Fiscal Conservative. Or are you just desperately trying to come up with something the left or woke crowd can use to further disapprove. I really don't care if Speaker Johnson (or you) believe in Unicorns and Fairy Farts, this Congress is going to spend us into a bankrupt nation. I have no idea if you have children or grandchildren but if so, why would you want to bankrupt their future?
well then TAX THE RICH no more billionaire who dodge taxes on income or wealth
AND THE NATION CAN BALANCE A BUDGET
if the RWNJ follow there dogma to never ever tax the rich then the nation will go bankrupt and it is the RWNJ's fault
Many historians, those who are objective, would look back and recognize and give some credit to the fall of Rome to not only the deprivation of the society and the loss of morals, but also to the rampant homosexual behavior that was condoned by the society.
Recent remark from Mike Johnson, now the Republican House leader.
The North Hertfordshire Museum is about 40 miles north of London, and its scholars have just announced that based on the historical evidence (in their view), one of pagan Rome's emperors should no longer be regarded as cisgendered and male. These worthies of academia say that Marcus Aurelius Antoninus—known more commonly as Elagabalus—identified as female, and so the museum will change its Elagabalus exhibit to reflect that, using the pronouns "she" and "her" instead of "he" and "him."
Elagabalus landed the coveted title of Princeps (emperor) in 218 AD, but lasted just four years, falling victim to assassination in 222 AD.
Given what House Speaker Mike Johnson said not too long ago, about homosexuality and Rome, you have to wonder how this might "sit" with him... assuming he learns about it.
OK Ray, OK. 
