Why NOT to vote Republican

[LDAHL]

Using troops to describe IRS employees is probably intended to denigrate the professionalism of IRS auditors while having plausible deniability that that was what was being done. Republicans are big on the whole plausible deniability thing.

You’re packing an awful lot of narrative into a single word. When did “troop” become a term of denigration? A lot of my favorite people are current or former troops.

[LDAHL]

Or it could be that people with a military background are accustomed to referring to the mass of people within fixed organizations as troops. For that matter, I suppose those with a background in Scouting might do the same.

Civilians. What you gonna do?

[Alan]

Civilians. What you gonna do?

As my favorite aunt would say "Oh, bless their heart."

[bae]

Yeah, OK…

[jp1]

You’re packing an awful lot of narrative into a single word. When did “troop” become a term of denigration? A lot of my favorite people are current or former troops.

Thanks for validating the second part of my post. But in reality you know perfectly well that the word troops implies fighting and war. This is neither an accurate nor kind interpretation of the work that IRS auditors do.

[Alan]

Thanks for validating the second part of my post. But in reality you know perfectly well that the word troops implies fighting and war. This is neither an accurate nor kind interpretation of the work that IRS auditors do.

According to a Congressional Research Services analysis of the original $80B windfall granted by the Inflation Acceleration Act, a little more than 50% of the funding would go towards tax enforcement activities such as additional enforcement agents, criminal investigation and litigation agents.

According to the IRS jobs portal, they're actively hiring those positions now. https://www.jobs.irs.gov/resources/j...-special-agent

[jp1]

According to a Congressional Research Services analysis of the original $80B windfall granted by the Inflation Acceleration Act, a little more than 50% of the funding would go towards tax enforcement activities such as additional enforcement agents, criminal investigation and litigation agents.

According to the IRS jobs portal, they're actively hiring those positions now. https://www.jobs.irs.gov/resources/j...-special-agent

Would you feel better about my statement if I'd said "IRS employees" instead of "IRS Auditors"? That seems like quibling over pointless minutiae. Undoubtedly some of that money is going to be spent on things like IT upgrades that will make the agency more efficient and potentially better at spotting tax cheaters. Those people wouldn't fall into the category of enforcement agents, etc, but they are still very much doing work that helps the agency accomplish it's goal of collecting the taxes lawfully owed to the government. They are no more "troops" than I or the other employees where I work are insurance underwriting "troops".

I am, though, curious how money spent on the IRS that will bring in well over twice the amount in unpaid taxes is a windfall. Funding our government's tax collection agency to a level that they can actually do their job effectively seems more like rational budgeting to me. And I'm also curious how increasing the collection of unpaid taxes will increase inflation.

[Alan]

Would you feel better about my statement if I'd said "IRS employees" instead of "IRS Auditors"? That seems like quibling over pointless minutiae.

No quibbling here, I'm not offended by a generic term such as 'troops'. I was really just curious about how many of those "auditors" you mentioned would be issued bulletproof vests, semi-automatic weapons and have to undergo 6 months of mandatory tactical and police procedural training at FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center). I'm guessing quite a few.

[LDAHL]

Thanks for validating the second part of my post. But in reality you know perfectly well that the word troops implies fighting and war. This is neither an accurate nor kind interpretation of the work that IRS auditors do.

Is that a trigger word now? Like for the people who pretend to be offended by “field” or “mother” or “postmaster”? When Elizabeth Warren publishes books with titles like “This Fight is Our Fight” should I bristle at the violent implications? I guess I just don’t hear the same dog whistle symphony more enlightened people do.

[jp1]

No quibbling here, I'm not offended by a generic term such as 'troops'. I was really just curious about how many of those "auditors" you mentioned would be issued bulletproof vests, semi-automatic weapons and have to undergo 6 months of mandatory tactical and police procedural training at FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center). I'm guessing quite a few.

Considering that even a mild mannered person such as LDAHL chose to use a loaded word associated with the military to describe these people I would imagine that it might be a good idea for them to protect themselves from a second amendment end to their life.