Cat

[Cat @CatRM16]

@BernieSanders We *do* tax the rich, you bumbling old Communist!

It *would* be weird to NOT tax the rich.

But since we do, the real weirdo is the guy who keeps suggesting it.

[Cat @CatRM16]

In other news, there are currently thousands of high school seniors, pregnant women, and people with cancer being held in prisons across the country for crimes ranging from theft to violent murders.

Why do you assume 'every day people' can't be criminals?

Or, more importantly, why do you think certain laws shouldn't apply to people if they also happen to be in high school, or are pregnant, or have cancer?

...or if they live next door, have a kid, have a pet dog, drive a white car, whatever?

At some point, all you're doing is describing PEOPLE in general. And all you're saying is that you think laws shouldn't apply to ANYONE.

[Cat @CatRM16]

@RepTedLieu Ted Lieu is just a guy who makes a career out of spreading weird conspiracy theories.
https://t.co/XOR5fSGPum

[Cat @CatRM16]

@SenSchumer Doesn't really look like being "targeted". Maybe you don't understand what that word means.

[Cat @CatRM16]

@BasedMikeLee Lol. My favorite part is where he says he will transfer ownership to "responsible stewards", then goes on to list the most worst, most irresponsible, fraud-perpetrators in world history.

[Cat @CatRM16]

@mattvanswol You know all those taxes you pay? They live on your money. You work all day in order to pay them to sit on the streets and shout obscenities all day.

[Cat @CatRM16]

@amyklobuchar So, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Mexico don't have democracies?

To vote, they all require IDs which include proof of citizenship.

Which means they don't have the right to vote???

[Cat @CatRM16]

They don't have billions of dollars.
They are owners of companies that are considered to be worth billions of dollars.

But that's only hypothetical. To actually turn the companies into billions of dollars, they would have to sell those companies. But that means someone even richer would have to buy those companies. There is nobody with that much money. Other billionaires are in the same status. They would also have to sell companies to buy Musk's or Bezo's companies.

So even though we say the companies are 'worth' a certain amount, it's just a number we come up with to compare company worth--it's not even possible to turn their 'worth' into actually money.

Furthermore, even if they DID sell their companies in order to buy food for hungry people, that would mean putting thousands of other people out of work. Then THOSE people would also need someone to buy them food.

It would start a domino effect of collapsing jobs and soaring need for hand-outs. (This is exactly why socialism doesn't work, by the way.)

Even more importantly, food and houses are limited commodities. There aren't an unlimited amount of those things that just 'exist' out there, waiting for someone with money to buy them. Even if a kind-hearted billionaire actually HAD a billion dollars (instead of was just 'worth' that much because of his company ownership) and tried to use it to buy a house for everyone and food for everyone, he would quickly find that there weren't enough houses, and there isn't enough food stocked in supermarkets. He could then try to hire people to build more houses and grow more food, but he'd need millions more people willing to work for pay...and they'd need to gain the skills necessary to do those things.

And the next thing you know, you're right back where you started. You have a guy who employs a bunch of people, making things and providing services...and he's considered a 'billionaire' because all these products and services are considered to be 'worth' that much. And you'd be whining that he doesn't use those billions to feed people.

[Cat @CatRM16]

@ewarren Remember when Democrats cared about government accountability?
Way back before Democrats became the 'GOVERNMENT' party.
Ah, those were the days!

[Cat @CatRM16]

No one is above the law. Right?
The IRS broke the law.

We can't have a rogue IRS that answers to no one and releases stolen financial information for anyone they don't like to try to sway elections.

That's what they were found to have done.

Regardless of how you feel about Trump, that's not okay.

That's creepy Soviet stuff that has no place in a free country.

And it's not right to say that the IRS can't be held accountable just because their plan didn't work and Trump is now president. They MUST be held accountable for what they did just like any other business or government agency would.

Equal application of the law. It's an invaluable requirement of any free and functional society.

And it's not a slush fund. (But you know that. This is just a stupid 'talking point' that's gone out to all you Democrats to post onto X.) It is to be used for people who were legitimately found to have been targets of illegal activity committed by government agencies.

It's called accountability. Before Democrats became the 'Government' party, they used to believe in that.

[Cat @CatRM16]

@RepCasar As a publicly traded company, CBS had no choice but to fire Colbert for costing them millions per year without providing a profitable audience. How Trump feels about it doesn’t matter.

[Cat @CatRM16]

Colbert got cancelled because he wasn’t bringing an audience. He was costing CBS millions instead of making money for the network. No matter what theories you spread, there’s no escaping that simple fact. They HAD to fire him or risk law suits from their stockholders. CBS is a public business. They can’t keep someone on the air who is causing them to lose money without risking legal issues from stock holders. No business can continue hemorrhaging money like that and survive. What do you expect them to do? Go bankrupt and lose the business??? Because you think they are somehow obligated to provide talking points to the DNC?? If Colbert was funny and entertaining enough to bring in a competitive audience, they would not fire him. It’s really that simple. Forcing them to continue to lose money in order to offer a platform for Colbert to lecture people and spread his Trump hatred WOULD be a violation of the first amendment. That’s not their job. They HAVE to air what people want to watch. People weren’t watching Colbert.

[Cat @CatRM16]

He lost his job because he was bad at it. That’s not an opinion, it’s just a fact. The network was hemorrhaging money by keeping him on the air because no one was watching him. It was literally his job to get people to watch. This was purely a business decision. He is no different from anyone else who gets fired for not being able to do their job. The network was losing so much money that paying him was actually, by definition, charity welfare payments. The welfare dried up, and he has to now get a job where he actually contributes something. That’s a good thing. And that would actually help our economy.

[Cat @CatRM16]

And Folks,

THIS is why Tulsi left the Democrat Party

(or more accurately the Democrats left her and went absolutely NUTS)...

...and why everyone else is leaving the Democrat Party too.

They are simply terrible people.

She literally served as a soldier for 22 years, including voluntarily serving in the Middle East to ensure that people like Adam Schiff can sleep safely at night.

But the moment she DARED to question 'the party' (her own party), she was branded 'MAGA' and a 'Trumper' (even though her views have not changed)...

...and now, apparently, her "only positive contribution to our nation's national security is her resignation".

[Cat @CatRM16]

Um, not true. You obviously don't understand metaphors. As an American citizen, that baby is perfectly eligible for all benefits and social programs paid for by tax payers. The mother can run off tomorrow and leave the child in your house, if she really wanted...and YOU (in this case, you are 'America') are LITERALLY financially responsible for the child. (Even if the mother doesn't run off, you are responsible for the child financially. It just became YOUR child, in this metaphor.)

See, that's why it's so stupid: the idea of making anyone who was born in your house suddenly BELONG to you. (Again, 'you' being 'America'.)

I can't believe I have to explain this, but...In the metaphor, see, the 'house' is our country. The mother broke in illegally. She didn't knock on the door (in fact, that would be a great example of the equivalent of a "legal" immigrant...which we happily allow to come in by the millions, by the way, because we're friendly that way). No, she decided to just break your window and sneak in, simply because she didn't feel like waiting for you to answer your door (perfect metaphor for ILLEGAL entry).

Oh, and she also has her own home, by the way, right across the street (if we're going to make this metaphor even MORE accurate). She just happens to like YOUR home better than hers. (And to be fair, you have a nice home. And that's why, because you're so nice, you totally let people in by the millions...when they knock and ask.)

As a caring person, even though she DID break your window instead of waiting for you to answer the door, you'd probably be perfectly willing to help the mother and newborn out, (I know I would), even helping out financially if you are able. (America DOES that, by the way.) And you'd even help her get safely back into her own home, with a pack of diapers and baby formula.

However, that's not good enough for Democrats. Democrats (in this metaphor) are saying that YOU now own the child. It's YOUR child. You are responsible for the child financially for life. (Again, you, being America' in this metaphor.) And that newborn baby is not only allowed to stay in your house now (i.e. 'citizenship'), the mother now never has to go back to her own home across the street. But the child is officially part of YOUR family. The child no longer belongs to the family across the street.

So no, the mom doesn't have to pay a penny for the child.

The child is now 100% entitled to everything you buy for your own children.

This is exactly what Democrats are saying.

[Cat @CatRM16]

Read the actual document instead of the media's hysteria. The explicit terms of the settlement state that it applies ONLY to previously filed tax returns, meaning the IRS still retains the authority to audit future tax submissions.

https://t.co/J1lAQtsBfj

The IRS agreed to the terms because the filed tax returns have already been scrutinized at this point. They were guilty of illegally releasing private financial information in an attempt to sway a political election.

We can't have a country where that happens.

[Cat @CatRM16]

The *corruption* was that Biden's IRS had an agent use his position to illegally steal personal information (simply because he hates Trump) and released it to the public.

That is HIGHLY corrupt.

As a society, we can't have an IRS running that way.

We can't have the government agency we trust with all our financial information using it to play politics and trying to maliciously use it against people they don't like.

We need to DETER this kind of corruption.

And if you READ the actual ruling, it doesn't ban the IRS from ever auditing Trump.

The explicit terms of the Justice Department's settlement addendum state that it applies only to previously filed tax returns, meaning the IRS retains the authority to audit future tax submissions.

The IRS agreed to the settlement because 1) they were guilty and financially liable 2) the previously filed returns have already been scrutinized at this point without auditable irregularities--and further auditing would just be harassment at this point, and 3) the previously filed returns are at the issue of the IRS's corruption.

[Cat @CatRM16]

@its_The_Dr It's pretty amazing that she has her hair and makeup done after a 3 mile swim though. There should be some kind of award for that.

[Cat @CatRM16]

@mattvanswol To pay fraudsters to run fake day cares and hospices. Don't forget about them!

If we don't pay them, how will they buy their expensive cars?