The goal is to oppose what the Dems want. Even if it’s things you once said are good or necessary. Once Dems say they are for it it becomes bad and unnecessary. It’s the anti Obama playbook 2.0.
1 Like
Roads and sewers are socialism.
So no reasonable defense against my points… okay, don’t blame you.
Now see here buddy, we need to create jobs for all of the illegals. They need to be paid back for their votes.
Ouch. In the vein of US stimulus checks causing employee shortages in China,
I don’t think spending on infrastructure is a negative here.
Nor do I.
Creating bills which have 3/4 of allocation to non infrastructure items was misleading. For the record - info pipeline is equal to road/utility in my eyes.
The new spending bill is the family deal, not infrastructure.
You know what? I really want a new truck, but l would have to pay for it. I can’t just shake a money tree or decide to let my daughter and grandkid pay for it. I know you personally say you live this way (frugal). So do l. I just want my country to also.
IIRC, the DEMs (Biden) is proposing paying by partially rolling back the tax cuts for the top earners that were enacted in 2017, as well as increasing capital gains tax. To me it sounds like they have proposed ways to pay for it. I don’t think they are proposing funding though larger deficits?
I agree with rolling back some of the tax cuts that were enacted in 2017. I don’t think that the promise that they will pay for themselves has panned out, and I don’t think economic modelling (Laffer curve) agreed with the idea that they would pay for themselves.
Basically, on this graph, we were likely left of the second point (from left to right) on the graph. Then we cut the tax rate further, lowering government revenue. Basically, the tax cuts were funded by debt, and there wasn’t a way for them to pay for themselves (it was either a lie, or an uneducated statement not based in reality).
If we had already been right of the second point on the graph it, then it would have been good to cut rates (the tax cut would increase government revenue).
As to the capital gains tax increase. I would have to see the details on it. I feel that increasing it on the wealthy might have some rather obvious impacts to the stock market.
I would like to see us be better with money. I at least like that they seem to have a feasible method of payment. Not all spending is a cost, some is an investment (much of this bill). Not saying I approve govt. spending, but some of it makes sense for sure.
One thing we really need to address is healthcare. It is just getting to be crazy. We are spending roughly ~18% of GDP on it.
Canada spends under 12% of GDP on it. I don’t see us getting that much more for 6% of our entire economy on it.
You could, if you could use force against them. And if they couldn’t afford it, you could use force against other family members, friends, friends of friends, etc.
Nice post but l won’t reply to all of it.
I see govt spending and the absolute unwillingness to dial it back, as a huge % of the issue. Sure we gotta raise money, and the rich will pay more than they claim (see CA and NY) they are willing to be in an area.
Plus govt is a major source of the issue. Health care has found an easy mark in using Medicare / Medicaid with it’s convoluted treatment and payment schemes, for siphoning off that 1/5 GDP.
To wit, it’s a spending problem not income.
IMO, private insurance companies are a big part of the problem as well. The American healthcare system has been a boon to private insurance companies.
I think we both agree on stuff like infrastructure (roads, pipe, internet, etc…). I think we probably agree on school being funded? The areas with a lot of fat seem to be entitlements, military, and healthcare (now I am saying this as both private and public as it could be an option to combine them). Where do we cut?
To me if we can even split the difference between the efficiency of our healthcare and Canada’s (which I don’t think is a beacon of efficiency), then we save 3% GDP. Military spending is what 3-4% GDP. Is it feasible to have it be 2.5%? Entitlements are tricky as it is a political hot potato. So we do this stuff, and we save 5% of GDP. That is amazing, right? I don’t see that really leading to a lot lower taxes. I think that would allow us to have a balanced budget at our current rates.
Republicans are back to the frugality stuff now? So the time to dial down spending is right after a global pandemic? The time to continue or increase spending and cut taxes for the wealthy is when the economy is doing fine?
I mean I don’t mind the whole frugal mindset with the government. It just seems weird to me that Republicans demanded it with Obama (who inherited a clusterfuck) didn’t care one bit with Trump (who inherited a much better situation) and now demand it with Biden (who inherited a clusterfuck). If someone wasn’t screaming from the rooftops why are we cutting taxes on the wealthy while increasing spending I just don’t have much time for someone saying we’re spending and talking about increasing taxes on the wealthy!
One of those is more “frugal” than the other and it isn’t spend whatever you want and cut all the taxes at the same time.
We knew it would happen or course I’m just taken back by the inconsistency even knowing it’s coming.
Not mediocre.
Not a middle ground.
This will only make sense if you watched the video in the post above.
3 Likes
Wow.
This.
You’re making me want to watch King of the Hill from start to finish for about the third time. Not the greatest animated show ever, but a classic.
1 Like
Blasphemy. It is the best.
2 Likes
Rocky and Bullwinkle.
2 Likes
Redundancy is scary. 
https://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/pandemic/en/
“So, the time to dial down spending is when your income is down?” Why, yes. It’s probably appropriate at all times, but definitely when income is down.
“You think it’s okay to spend more when you’re making more?” Might not be the best decision, but not as big a problem as the opposite.
We’re talking about a country. When you start libertopia you can make sure no one has a credit card if you would like. When disasters strike people want help and it’s the most appropriate time to help. Talking about a country the size of the United States like it should follow the same spending ideas as a family of four doesn’t make any sense.
Once again we’re talking about a country. It’s a really shit argument to say you should spend when things are good and not spend when they are bad. If you want to say spending at either time isn’t ideal that’s fine. But if it’s more ideal it’s always during a crisis. Try to think in terms of reality and not just anarchy some.
I’m going to guess not many people are going to your place. Wonder how World War II would have turned out if we thought like you. “We were attacked today and Americans lost their lives we must respond!”
“Nope less taxpayers our income is down. decrease spending and they won’t want to invade if the country is a shithole!”
Hey maybe it would work.