Biden proposes tax hikes to pay for $2 trillion infrastructure package

[jonny5]

I dont know why they even bother with tax hikes. They will still just spend more anyway. They just increased spending in the last bill, so theyve already spent the next tax hike and the one after that. The deficit will be over 5 trillion this year. Now, here comes another package theyre calling infrastructure, but its actually called a "Jobs Act". And it contains all the pork they missed in the last bill.

-broadband
-high speed rail
-public transit
-electric vehicles
-energy efficiency
-wages for home care workers
-green jobs
-unions

etc. This basically the green new deal. Hopefully this will cost Dems the House in the next election so we can get some obstruction going again.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Conservatives love spending trillions when a Republican is in office and it's the rich being showered with funds. When a Democrat tries to invest in infrastructure that will benefit real, middle class Americans, they dust off their tea party hat and start pretending to care about fiscal responsibility again.

The difference is that Democrats actually find a way to pay for their programs instead of just running up the deficit and debt.

 

[jonny5]

Conservatives love spending trillions when a Republican is in office and it's the rich being showered with funds. When a Democrat tries to invest in infrastructure that will benefit real, middle class Americans, they dust off their tea party hat and start pretending to care about fiscal responsibility again.

The difference is that Democrats actually find a way to pay for their programs instead of just running up the deficit and debt.

Except they dont. We spend nearly every dollar of revenue on their programs. How is Obamacare paid for? Income tax, which is already spent on medicare B and D, welfare,food stamps, housing subsidies and on and on.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Except they dont. We spend nearly every dollar of revenue on their programs. How is Obamacare paid for? Income tax, which is already spent on medicare B and D, welfare,food stamps, housing subsidies and on and on.

Republicans spend without trying to add revenue. Democrats spend while trying to add revenue to pay for it. You don't really have a leg to stand on here.

And yes, our healthcare system is atrocious and wildly over-expensive. We should switch to a UHC system that would cost a fraction of what we're paying now while covering every man, woman and child with higher quality of care. But, once again, the Republicans don't want a less expensive healthcare system, because they're not fiscally conservative.

 

[surfguy74]

I dont know why they even bother with tax hikes. They will still just spend more anyway. They just increased spending in the last bill, so theyve already spent the next tax hike and the one after that. The deficit will be over 5 trillion this year. Now, here comes another package theyre calling infrastructure, but its actually called a "Jobs Act". And it contains all the pork they missed in the last bill.

-broadband
-high speed rail
-public transit
-electric vehicles
-energy efficiency
-wages for home care workers
-green jobs
-unions

etc. This basically the green new deal. Hopefully this will cost Dems the House in the next election so we can get some obstruction going again.

Even the Washington Post is blasting this so-called Infrastructure Bill for what it really is. Biden and the Lefts Plan is to destroy every positive program that Trump put in place even if it means destroying the country.

 

[jonny5]

Republicans spend without trying to add revenue. Democrats spend while trying to add revenue to pay for it. You don't really have a leg to stand on here.

And yes, our healthcare system is atrocious and wildly over-expensive. We should switch to a UHC system that would cost a fraction of what we're paying now while covering every man, woman and child with higher quality of care. But, once again, the Republicans don't want a less expensive healthcare system, because they're not fiscally conservative.

Democrats spend while trying to add revenue, spend all that and then more.

 

[jonny5]

Even the Washington Post is blasting this so-called Infrastructure Bill for what it really is. Biden and the Lefts Plan is to destroy every positive program that Trump put in place even if it means destroying the country.

Its got nothing to do with Trump. This is every vote buying wealth redistribution wish list they have been demanding for the last few decades. Theyre just all in on massive central govt doing anything and everything they can think of, and do not care that half the country doesnt want it, or that 5% of the country has to pay for it now or later.

 

[Waddy]

Conservatives love spending trillions when a Republican is in office and it's the rich being showered with funds. When a Democrat tries to invest in infrastructure that will benefit real, middle class Americans, they dust off their tea party hat and start pretending to care about fiscal responsibility again.

The difference is that Democrats actually find a way to pay for their programs instead of just running up the deficit and debt.

Democrats haven't paid for anything yet. The debt is still climbing. But I'm all for free money. Screw the debt. We're never gonna pay it off anyways. Maybe borrow more from China? They seem to have it.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Democrats haven't paid for anything yet. The debt is still climbing. But I'm all for free money. Screw the debt. We're never gonna pay it off anyways. Maybe borrow more from China? They seem to have it.

Bush ran the deficit up, Obama reduced it and got it back to somewhat manageable, and Trump ran it up again. Don't pretend you're a fiscal conservative. It's completely incompatible with Republican policy.

 

[Logophile]

Even the Washington Post is blasting this so-called Infrastructure Bill for what it really is. Biden and the Lefts Plan is to destroy every positive program that Trump put in place even if it means destroying the country.

Link?? Thanks!!

 

[ttwtt78640]

Republicans spend without trying to add revenue. Democrats spend while trying to add revenue to pay for it. You don't really have a leg to stand on here.

And yes, our healthcare system is atrocious and wildly over-expensive. We should switch to a UHC system that would cost a fraction of what we're paying now while covering every man, woman and child with higher quality of care. But, once again, the Republicans don't want a less expensive healthcare system, because they're not fiscally conservative.

Paying for 8 years of increased spending with 15 years of increased taxation is smoke and mirrors accounting. That is not in any way a partisan matter - both demorat and republicant congress critters are incapable of resisting the temptation to borrow and/or print funds to “invest” in whatever new federal spending they would rather not ask the public to fund via taxation (just yet).

 

[Waddy]

Bush ran the deficit up, Obama reduced it and got it back to somewhat manageable, and Trump ran it up again. Don't pretend you're a fiscal conservative. It's completely incompatible with Republican policy.

nice straw man attempt. but it didn't work. when I said; "But I'm all for free money. Screw the debt. We're never gonna pay it off anyways. Maybe borrow more from China?" you tried to get that I'm a fiscal conservative out of that? ......Obama didn't "reduce" the debt, it just climber slower. And it will climb faster under Biden. But who gives a rat's ass? Like I said, we ain't gonna pay it back anyways.

 

[TurtleDude]

Democrats spend while trying to add revenue, spend all that and then more.

the goal of democrats is to pander to class envy, while pretending it is "fair".

 

[nvflash]

Those that can, do.

Those that can not, print.......

 

[Logophile]

Paying for 8 years of increased spending with 15 years of increased taxation is smoke and mirrors accounting. That is not in any way a partisan matter - both demorat and republicant congress critters are incapable of resisting the temptation to borrow and/or print funds to “invest” in whatever new federal spending they would rather not ask the public to fund via taxation (just yet).

The Fed is currently buying $120 billion of assets per month — $80 billion of Treasury securities and $40 billion of mortgage-backed debt — and has pledged to keep up that pace “until substantial further progress” has been made toward its goals of maximum employment and 2% inflation.

The chairman “gave absolutely no indication that the Fed is thinking about changing its very dovish policy stance,” Cornerstone Macro analysts Roberto Perli and Benson Durham wrote in a note to clients.

Will interest rates rise in 2021? Powell Says No Rate Hike, No Taper | Gold Silver Reports

Will interest rates rise in 2021? Fed Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell made it very clear on Tuesday that there will be no interest rate hikes

www.goldsilverreports.com

Amazing. Thanks!!

 

[Waddy]

The entire globe is awash in money. And it has brought inflation with it; it's right there in housing prices, the stock market and even auto prices. Food prices are at an all time high.
So the FED buys Treasury Bonds to keep that market from collapsing, and home mortgages for the same reason. The FED simply prints money to cover those purchases.
It's a system that will work until it doesn't. You will know it doesn't work any longer when oil starts being traded in something other than US Dollars.

 

[jpn]

etc. This basically the green new deal. Hopefully this will cost Dems the House in the next election so we can get some obstruction going again.

Contra to what a lot of conservatives think, investing in America is widely popular.
So is taxing wealthy individuals and profitable corporations.

 

[jpn]

Even the Washington Post is blasting this so-called Infrastructure Bill for what it really is. Biden and the Lefts Plan is to destroy every positive program that Trump put in place even if it means destroying the country.

No they aren't. The Washington Post has printed several analyses which properly point out that some of the items in Biden's plan are not what has been traditionally considered "infrastructure." They then discuss the differences and whether that is important or not. Here's WP "fact-check" article on this issue.

You see, the "liberal" press prints fact-based, nuanced discussions about real policy matters. If to you that reads as a "blast," that's because after years of consuming Fox News and the like, you think anything other than full-throated sycophantic cheerleading denotes criticism.

 

[jpn]

The entire globe is awash in money. And it has brought inflation with it; it's right there in housing prices, the stock market and even auto prices. Food prices are at an all time high.
So the FED buys Treasury Bonds to keep that market from collapsing, and home mortgages for the same reason. The FED simply prints money to cover those purchases.
It's a system that will work until it doesn't. You will know it doesn't work any longer when oil starts being traded in something other than US Dollars.

A globe "awash in money" is the recipe for deflation, not inflation. Food prices in real dollars are nowhere near an all time high.
You're about the only person on the planet who thinks inflation is currently an issue.

(This measure of inflation is useful because it excludes volatiles which can mask the actual underlying trend)
Other than that, great post.

 

[Waddy]

A globe "awash in money" is the recipe for deflation, not inflation. Food prices in real dollars are nowhere near an all time high.
You're about the only person on the planet who thinks inflation is currently an issue.
View attachment 67326987
(This measure of inflation is useful because it excludes volatiles which can mask the actual underlying trend)
Other than that, great post.

this is just March-April of last year. Increases have continued.



Here is since 2013. Wages only up 1.4%.........

You did notice that your chart EXCLUDES food and energy. Energy is also up quite a bit. I don't know where you get the idea that the globe being awash in money is deflative. Cheap money causes inflation. That's ECON 101. And yes, inflation is an issue if you are buying a home, invest in stocks, want a new car, or buy food regularly.

I'm not obsessed with inflation, but it is there. What I think we're headed into is old fashioned stagflation; where wages are stagnant but prices rising. And we've been in that rut for a while now. How much inflation we'll get from all the Stemmie is uncertain, but it will push inflation.

Another rule of ECON101 is that all business costs are eventually paid by the end user; in this case the consumer. This includes higher taxes, which can be in the form of direct taxes, tariffs, or even government regulation. The 20% tariff on Canadian lumber is one reason lumber prices in the USA are at extremely high levels. A 2X4 stud that used to cost $3 is now $7.50..... so raising taxes on corporations is simply raising taxes on average consumers. You aren't hurting the corporation any, except their foreign sales, as they become less and less competitive. So what they will do is move more and more production out of the USA, as you see GM and other major corporations currently doing. And they will keep those foreign earnings out of the USA to avoid taxes. Funny thing is, the USA is one of the few countries that taxes their corporation's foreign earnings in the first place. Most countries don't tax foreign earnings. Oh, well, we don't need no stinkin' good jobs, we got plenty of illegals happy with whatever they can find. The perfect work force in a high tax society.

 

[jpn]

this is just March-April of last year. Increases have continued.

Oh. I see you read The Federalist. That explains everything.
I did notice that the chart excludes food and energy. Had you taken the time to read my post, you'd have seen me explicitly point this out and explain why professionals use "sticky" prices or core inflation over the headline-grabbing, volatiles that rags like The Federalist like to shove in the faces of their poorly educated readers who believe they live in a "high tax society."

 

[highroller]

this is just March-April of last year. Increases have continued.

You used a one month change? Seriously....

Also your second chart has no date as of when it is; it only says “since 2013”.

Is it this year? is it last year? is a 2016?

 

[highroller]

Oh. I see you read The Federalist. That explains everything.
I did notice that the chart excludes food and energy. Had you taken the time to read my post, you'd have seen me explicitly point this out and explain why professionals use "sticky" prices or core inflation over the headline-grabbing, volatiles that rags like The Federalist like to shove in the faces of their poorly educated readers who believe they live in a "high tax society."

That is because the federalist is not a economic organization; it is a political organization. They will cherry pick anything if it makes their political point seem more valid.

 

[jpn]

Here is since 2013. Wages only up 1.4%.........

Wages up only 1.4% argues against the presence of inflation.

So do long-term bonds.

 

[jpn]

The entire globe is awash in money.

Amazing how many people still insist that printing money always causes inflation.