Sen. Sanders says his initial $6T spending package 'too little,' Americans' support on 'our side'

[j brown's body]

Gov't doesn't provide crap without taxpayer dollars and only 54% of income earning Americans pay FIT so where is the money going to come from and why is that taxpayer responsibility to pay for your personal responsibility issues/

The money is going to come from people who already dodging their current tax bills.

 

[Conservative]

The money is going to come from people who already dodging their current tax bills.

Where is your proof and how much money?

 

[Conservative]

The money is going to come from people who already dodging their current tax bills.

You really have no clue, do you? We have a 6 trillion dollar budget and you claim that the additional spending can be funded by the evil rich people, typical liberal class envy and jealousy rhetoric. I find the radical left completely irrational and ignorant of even basic economics, I am waiting for you to document how much money you are going to take from the rich even if you took all their money? Your very poor liberal indoctrination is on display here, so answer the question?

 

[Puigb]

Yep, adding all of that ”free” stuff can become quite expensive.

Almost as expensive as a useless border wall?

 

[OrphanSlug]

$6 Trillion... do I have 7$... how about $8 Trillion...

Our GDP last year was $20.94 Trillion, Bernie Sanders and his flock of 'I've never set foot in an economics class' progressives are becoming dangerous.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Mostly because it has not yet been completely written.

Packaging it all into one bill is pure stupidity. Let's say they someone manage to pass it. The Republicans will run against it as huge bill that no one even knows what is all in it.

By contrast, let's say they split it up into the physical infrastructure bill that already passed - very popular, a bill making the extended childcare tax credit permanent - again very popular, a bill providing childcare assistance to nearly everyone with kids - again very popular.

Furthermore, until they address the supply and logistical issues that are driving inflation right now, it just seems to me that dumping a ton more money into the economy is a bad idea. We already have the problem of too many dollars chasing too few goods.

 

[Conservative]

Almost as expensive as a useless border wall?

Is there some reason you are so poorly informed? Walls keep people out but that has nothing to do with a 6 trillion dollar bill. Any idea where that money is going to come from and what the current budget of the U.S. is?

 

[ElChupacabra]

$6 Trillion... do I have 7$... how about $8 Trillion...

Our GDP last year was $20.94 Trillion, Bernie Sanders and his flock of 'I've never set foot in an economics class' progressives are becoming dangerous.

It's safe to say no one really cares about being fiscally responsible and hasn't for some time. The question is on what the US is going to get in debt over.

 

[trixare4kids]

Sen. Sanders says his initial $6T spending package 'too little,' Americans' support on 'our side'

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that his initial $6 trillion infrastructure plan was “probably too little,” and that the current $3.5 trillion social spending package is the “minimum.”

www.foxnews.com

So America is on their side? What is wrong with people today who have no clue where the money comes from to fund these programs and apparently the only ones supporting these programs are the ones who aren't paying any FIT and no understanding of the taxes they pay or the purpose. Are liberals truly that economically illiterate

Yeah, they really are!

These are the same people who are for Universal HealthCare because insurance companies are denying coverage and hiking premiums but are for insurance companies denying or raising premiums for those who won't take the Covid vaccines. Methinks they talk out of both sides or as you said above, are economically illiterate.

 

[aociswundumho]

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that his initial $6 trillion infrastructure plan was "probably too little," and that the current $3.5 trillion social spending package "should be a minimum."

"The $6 trillion that I originally proposed was probably too little. Three and a half trillion should be a minimum. But I accept that there's going to have to be give and take," Sanders said Sunday on ABC News

This is what a clown show democracy truly is. Bernie Sanders is partly in charge of spending trillions of dollars, and here he is giving his opinion about it. Bernie Sanders - a pathetic loser who was never even able to hold a steady job in the private sector. By his mid-30s he was broke and stealing electricity from his landlord. His one skill in life is figuring out how to live like a leech off of the American people. Wait, it get worse. For decades he had a 6 figure income paid for by the tax payer, but he has always had low net worth - because he couldn't even manage his own money, yet this worthless bum is voting on spending trillions of dollars of other people's money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Packaging it all into one bill is pure stupidity. Let's say they someone manage to pass it. The Republicans will run against it as huge bill that no one even knows what is all in it.

By contrast, let's say they split it up into the physical infrastructure bill that already passed - very popular, a bill making the extended childcare tax credit permanent - again very popular, a bill providing childcare assistance to nearly everyone with kids - again very popular.

Furthermore, until they address the supply and logistical issues that are driving inflation right now, it just seems to me that dumping a ton more money into the economy is a bad idea. We already have the problem of too many dollars chasing too few goods.

It’s not wise to implement a negative (refundable credit?) income tax. That opens the door to UBI and/or BIG. We already have a huge menu of “safety net” programs - no need to have the IRS add cash to the mix.

 

[Exquisitor]

How does that supposedly work?

Ask Bill Clinton.

 

[Schism]

"6 Trillion"

Thanks for the laughs, Bernie.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Sen. Sanders says his initial $6T spending package 'too little,' Americans' support on 'our side'

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that his initial $6 trillion infrastructure plan was “probably too little,” and that the current $3.5 trillion social spending package is the “minimum.”

www.foxnews.com

So America is on their side? What is wrong with people today who have no clue where the money comes from to fund these programs and apparently the only ones supporting these programs are the ones who aren't paying any FIT and no understanding of the taxes they pay or the purpose. Are liberals truly that economically illiterate

Bernie is misrepresenting what's in the bill, the costs and the amount of support. He makes the inference that all these people are in favor of the bill. What he doesn't do is tell you that (80%) as he claims, are not all in favor of all of the bill. He's playing games with the math, and making the claim that if you are in favor or say free community college but not in favor of money for electric charging ports on US hiways, you are in favor of the bill. It's typical of politicians, if you like any of it you like it all. Of course we all know that's just dishonest.

 

[tshade]

Sen. Sanders says his initial $6T spending package 'too little,' Americans' support on 'our side'

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that his initial $6 trillion infrastructure plan was “probably too little,” and that the current $3.5 trillion social spending package is the “minimum.”

www.foxnews.com

So America is on their side? What is wrong with people today who have no clue where the money comes from to fund these programs and apparently the only ones supporting these programs are the ones who aren't paying any FIT and no understanding of the taxes they pay or the purpose. Are liberals truly that economically illiterate

We are 28 trillion in debt. Yeah----let's start saving every penny to get out of debt. Get real. I support 7 trillion more.....

 

[ElChupacabra]

"6 Trillion"

Thanks for the laughs, Bernie.

Well, the US has spent $6.4 trillion in its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Pakistan so it's not as if spending that kind of money is something new.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, the US has spent $6.4 trillion in its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Pakistan so it's not as if spending that kind of money is something new.

That $6.4T was spent over 20 years (an average of $320B/year) and includes lots of ‘normal’ DoD, State Department and DHS spending which persists to this day.

Bumping the cost of these war efforts up by nearly $1T (almost 20%?) for “interest on the debt” was a bit dishonest IMHO, but I doubt that is being done for the cost of our “safety net” social programs.

While it, no doubt, costs more to fight overseas wars I seriously doubt that the Biden FY 2022 “budget” will reduce (combined) DoD, State Department and DHS funding by anything close to $320B now that (most of) these overseas wars have ended.

 

[jpevans]

I'm not so concerned if they put a little more on the credit card, I want to know when they're going to pay it back.

Furthermore, the tax structure and minimum wage needs to be adjusted so the rich aren't just lapping it all up, or the spending is all in vain.

Nothing will grow the economy more than fiscal responsibility.

Fiscal responsibility, meaning trickle down, defense spending & tax cuts for the wealthy? Been there, done that.
The Build Back Better Bill is paid for by increasing taxes on those making over$400K per, & plugging loopholes in the tax code that allows so many billionaires to pay zero tax.
but you knew that...

 

[jpevans]

The sales pitch is that it is coming from increased taxation of “the rich” and corporations who, despite now paying the bulk of FIT, are allegedly not paying their “fair share” of taxes.

Reality is that $2T in new federal taxes will not “fully pay for” $3.5T (or more) in new federal spending. Of course “normal” annual federal spending is already about $1T more than federal tax revenue provides.

$3.5 Trillion is over ten (10) years.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Fiscal responsibility, meaning trickle down, defense spending & tax cuts for the wealthy? Been there, done that.
The Build Back Better Bill is paid for by increasing taxes on those making over$400K per, & plugging loopholes in the tax code that allows so many billionaires to pay zero tax.
but you knew that...

One can’t pay for $3.5T of additional spending with $2.2T in additional taxation. Let’s wait for the Build Back Better bill to be written (in final form) and (honestly?) scored by the CBO before we boldly declare it to be ‘fully paid for’.

It is dishonest to use 10 years of increased taxation to cover 3 years of increased spending. That is akin to leasing a car for 3 years and agreeing to make monthly car lease payments for 10 years - 70% of those lease payments would be made after use of the car is over.

 

[jpevans]

I was listening this morning to some White House / Biden spin doctor trying to tell Chris Wallace that the trillions of dollars in spending will cost "zero". Wallace challenged the fuzzy math, how can it cost zero? And the guy said they will raise taxes on "the wealthy".

Typical socialist a-holes. If you charge some people MORE then it COSTS THEM, and therefore it is not zero.

People pay taxes, that's where the government gets their money. The proposed tax hike for those making over $400K is returning to the pre Drumpf rate, plus closing loopholes that allowed dozens of wealthy Americans to pay $0 taxes, such as Bezos, who just took a billion Dollar 3 minute ride in space. Maybe he's got too much money to not pay taxes?

 

[ttwtt78640]

$3.5 Trillion is over ten (10) years.

So they say, yet making the childcare (refundable) tax credit “permanent” is scheduled to last only through FY 2025.

It is dishonest to use 10 years of increased taxation to cover 3 years of increased spending. That is akin to leasing a car for 3 years and agreeing to make monthly car lease payments for 10 years - 70% of those lease payments would be made after use of the car is over.

 

[jpevans]

Just listen to them. They're furious over the thought of stuff like government providing child care with taxpayer dollars. I guess we can't make it easier for the vulnerable to do what they demand of them and pull themselves up out of poverty. Best idiotically demand that humans ignore human nature, and some lower middle class parent has to figure out how they can possibly care for their child all day and work enough hours to feed them. Then they can condemn said parent for having to take a bunch of government benefits. I guess they should have magicked more hours into the day.

Either the GOP is economically illiterate - I doubt that - or they are utter bastards who simply don't care if they burn our childrens' and grandchildrens' futures to win another election, playing to people who never opened an economics textbook in their lives and probably wouldn't understand it if they did.

It's the later, of course. If they say "guns, gays, abortion, and freedoms!", they can get a whole bunch of you know who to line up and bend over, thinking it a glorious stand for justice. GOP pols have it that easy. Thanks to slave state bargains like the EC (went hand in hand with 3/5ths) and partisan gerrymandering, they have outsized power and ease of election. Then when they're in office they only need to actually deliver for a narrow slice of the population. The rest don't need results. They just need a spectacle and they're on board.

What do I mean by spectacle? Why for example do you think the GOP rejected bill after Democrat bill providing billions in mixed border security like more drones, patrols, sensors, etc, insisting only on a Great Wall of Derp, something they knew would not pass at all? Why reject stuff that would help secure the border and demand only a ten thousand year old technology be used instead?

Answer: because they wanted the border to be minimally secured. They want more more illegals in all so that they can point to the spectacle and say "Look at the spectacle! Don't Democrats suck?".

It's like what I opened with: fighting government-funded child care so. Block a program that would alleviate something they claim to care about - poor / lower middle class people pulling themselves up - and then blame those people for taking government benefits so they can work whatever hours are possible after the child is asleep and not end up homeless. Besides, they can virtue-signal by demanding that person have remained chaste until middle class.

(Guess what their stance is on free contraception. Sex ed? Starting to see?)




When you get down to it, the GOP does seem to amplify or create the very problems it screams loudest about.

What really pisses 'em off is enabling old folks to get dental & vision care.

 

[Logophile]

Will the real Bernie Sanders please stand up. He went from a smart, credible populist to an impractical fool. Thanks!!

 

[jpevans]

Almost as expensive as a useless border wall?

Right, what people lose sight of is it's about needed services & fighting Climate change. Reducing the plan to only money is such a shameful diversion.