Those liberal outfits “fact-checkers”? lol
If the Government is involved the numbers will only GROW!
Fact Check is useless propaganda, not a serious source
I just love this laughable quote from the article:
“PolitiFact.com is a Pulitzer Prize-winning, nonpartisan project of the St. Petersburg Times.”
...nonpartisan!? Now that got a real chuckle out of me!
DEFUND!!!
DEFUND!!!
DEFUND!!!
That's the job of the IRS is new superfriendly Obamistan!! Can the IRS get me a cup of coffee while they're serving me?
And even though people will have to get insurance starting in 2014, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before Ways and Means last month that the IRS won't be auditing anyone to certify that, FactCheck.org reports. Interestingly enough, the law also rules out any criminal penalties for those who don't get coverage or refuse to pay the tax.
So you're required by law to get insurance, but nobody has to pay the penalties and they won't be punished in any way if they don't!
Thanks liberals for providing the self-contradicting and obviously false information to "fact" me straight, you effin moron jackasses. The awesomeness of your stupidity confounds my ability to grasp its dimensions.
This is what the author states:
The 16,500 number was extrapolated from an early Congressional Budget Office forecast that the IRS might need $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years for all the administration and processes involved...
The CBO did not specify, however, how many new hires the IRS would have to make...but it used IRS employment figures and "reasonable assumptions" to suggest that as many as 16,500 additional "examiners, agents, and other employees" could be needed...
Overhead costs, such as offices, desks and computers, were not included, nor were any salary increases...
When you factor in those costs, the number of employees that could be hired is somewhere between 11,800 and 16,500...
I find this disingenuous. First, you won't need additional offices, desks, and computers unless you have additional people. Second, 11,800 new IRS agents is not a whole lot better than 16,500. Third, what does "salary increases" mean? You're going to need to pay salary increases no matter what, so I doubt that was included in the $5 to $10 billion estimate in the first place.
Third, I edited it out above, but the author's suggestion that the St. Pete Times is a "non-partisan" source is laughable, as is the author's assertion that William Ayers' benefactor, the Annenberg Foundation, is a non-partisan source.
Truth or Fiction may be a better source for such debunking stuff.
the Gop says “as many as 16,500”
and the nonpolitical outfit says “ the number of employees that could be hired is somewhere between 11,800 and 16,500, PolitiFact.com notes”
Where does that differ from “as many as 16,500”?
Does not their figures exactly bear out the GOP figures?
Right. They'll just fine the hell out of you. That's fair. (morons).
Interesting that they didn't point out that the IRS ALREADY has 104,000 employees. Maybe a few of those could take up the slack?
Well that shouldn't be a problem, it's the same math they used to push this bill down our throats.
They will only get bigger and bolder if we allow it to happen.
Kinda glad I didn't have any kids.
It is obivious that all of these so called writers did not bother to read the d@med bill. Why do they all rely upon what someone else said to misinform themselves?