The dollars necessary to support the BBB were not that much money in the big picture and in fact were fiscally responsible just not enough pork .....

[Razoo]

Face it three trillion tax $$$$$$ is not that much in the big picture and would increase local economic growth across the nation.
This must have put the fear of god in the narrow minded right wing nuts. They could see themselves losing elections in generous
numbers.

Not enough pork for the 1% as they are the most reckless spenders of our tax dollars. Pork is simply not an investment just a tax
increaser.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

The 1% are mostly closely tied to the energy industry and the bill is a non-starter for them no matter what.

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

How much was the defense spending package Joe Manchin supported? This country is about soshalizm, it's just a matter of who gets the "soshalizm".

 

[Bullseye]

Face it three trillion tax $$$$$$ is not that much in the big picture and would increase local economic growth across the nation.
This must have put the fear of god in the narrow minded right wing nuts. They could see themselves losing elections in generous
numbers.

Not enough pork for the 1% as they are the most reckless spenders of our tax dollars. Pork is simply not an investment just a tax
increaser.

It's NOT. It's almost as much as we spend on running the entire government. Oh, and it has more pork than an Iowa farm.

 

[kjwins]

Face it three trillion tax $$$$$$ is not that much in the big picture and would increase local economic growth across the nation.
This must have put the fear of god in the narrow minded right wing nuts. They could see themselves losing elections in generous
numbers.

Not enough pork for the 1% as they are the most reckless spenders of our tax dollars. Pork is simply not an investment just a tax
increaser.

Yes its 3 trillion over 10 years. Less than what is overseas avoiding tax's.

The military buget over the same time frame is 7 trillion. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Face it three trillion tax $$$$$$ is not that much in the big picture and would increase local economic growth across the nation.
This must have put the fear of god in the narrow minded right wing nuts. They could see themselves losing elections in generous
numbers.

Not enough pork for the 1% as they are the most reckless spenders of our tax dollars. Pork is simply not an investment just a tax
increaser.

Face it! You must be ignorant or have no concept of money.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Yes its 3 trillion over 10 years. Less than what is overseas avoiding tax's.

The military buget over the same time frame is 7 trillion. This is why we can't have nice things.

Except the CBO says it's closer to 5.5 T.

 

[KLATTU]

Face it three trillion tax $$$$$$ is not that much in the big picture and would increase local economic growth across the nation.
This must have put the fear of god in the narrow minded right wing nuts. They could see themselves losing elections in generous
numbers.

Not enough pork for the 1% as they are the most reckless spenders of our tax dollars. Pork is simply not an investment just a tax
increaser.

omg ....hardly cost any money, will be great for the economy,paid for easily .
its the bomb.
Who could be against it.

 

[Razoo]

Except the CBO says it's closer to 5.5 T.

still not that much money in the big picture BECAUSE it is being invested in projects that belong to the government that need maintenance always. And it will provide jobs in the USA that will impact many many many USA communities.

As I said narrow minded right wing nuts fear they might lose many many many seats on capitol hill as they should for screwing around the nation as they do.

Yes this is smart use of tax dollars whereas tax cuts for the 1% never pay back instead right wing nuts BORROW big dollars to replace revenue lost to the tax cuts. Right Wing Nuts are NOT fiscally responsible managers....... always looking after themselves and screwing america at the same time.

 

[Razoo]

Two independent analyses estimate that, when factoring in both spending and tax expenditures, the Build Back Better Act costs more than $2 trillion. The price tag could double if Congress makes the bill's programs permanent.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that promotes deficit reduction, estimates that, based on Congressional Budget Office scores, the Build Back Better Act includes $2.4 trillion in spending and tax cuts through 2031.

$5 trillion as suspected becomes a matter of misinterpretation......... if this is done or that is done or maybe it is done this way. Loads of confusing misinformation.......of course from the party that always shares misinformation.

 

[Jay59]

Face it three trillion tax $$$$$$ is not that much

This is the most nonsensical thing I have read this week and that is saying something.

Congratulations. You beat Glitch for the prize.

in the big picture and would increase local economic growth across the nation.

This is ordinary BS.

This must have put the fear of god in the narrow minded right wing nuts. They could see themselves losing elections in generous numbers. Not enough pork for the 1% as they are the most reckless spenders of our tax dollars. Pork is simply not an investment just a tax
increaser.

BBB is way too much pork for the 1%.

 

[Razoo]

I have read many many opinions from fiscal responsible thinkers some certainly who are not liberal nor moderate thinkers who have stated that borrowing money to take care of infrastructure or to stimulate the economy say with economic boost checks is good use of tax dollars.

As opposed to tax cuts for people who don't need it.

War is a money hole and as are tax cuts for the wealthy as are subsidies to wealthy corporations are too many TIF's.

If debt is so awful why do wealthy corporations tie up expansion with borrowed money instead of spending their own money? To shelter other investments and property from a bad decision?

Bottom line ....... it is all contingent on how borrowed money is spent!!!!!!!

 

[BirdinHand]

It was not a popular bill except amongst progressives. That is why it didn't pass.

 

[Razoo]

This is the most nonsensical thing I have read this week and that is saying something.

Congratulations. You beat Glitch for the prize.


This is ordinary BS.


BBB is way too much pork for the 1%.

You might have a fever. In fact you come off as a politician who fears losing his/her job due to bad economic decisions. Go lie down and sweat out your fever.

 

[Razoo]

It was not a popular bill except amongst progressives. That is why it didn't pass.

it is very popular among the majority of taxpayers and voters. The majority of taxpayers includes progressives, liberals and moderates.

The ALEC GOP is a minority party which is why they resort to crime in order to win elections.

 

[Razoo]

A Recap You Didn't Need: Build Back Better Was Popular All Year​

By Sean McElwee

This weekend, Senator Joe Manchin dropped a major bomb on the American people and the Biden agenda, announcing on Fox News Sunday that he would be a “no” vote on President Biden’s Build Back Better framework.

That announcement not only blindsided Democratic lawmakers, but once again delayed what would have been the largest investment in families, jobs, and the social safety net since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. While negotiations over the bill are expected to continue in the new year, it’s no understatement to say that the future of the Biden agenda hangs in the balance by Senator Joe Manchin.

Data for Progress spent most of 2021 tracking the popularity of Build Back Better’s various iterations and provisions, and have found that the Build Back Better Act continues to be a wildly popular piece of legislation. As Democrats look ahead to 2022 negotiations over the bill, it’s worth charting voters’ stances on the bill and its provisions over the course of its debate.

Voters Have Consistently Supported Build Back Better, Even Despite Republican Opposition​

We partnered with Invest in America to track Build Back Better’s popularity over the course of November — and found that support never wavered below 55 percent. Voters across the political spectrum have supported Build Back Better over its various iterations.

Even despite an onslaught of negative messaging from Republicans, recent polling finds that Build Back Better continues to hold majority support from voters: 61 percent support from likely voters, including a majority of Independents and a third of Republicans.

Voters Support Every Major Provision of Build Back Better​

DFP polled the major provisions of the Build Back Better Act repeatedly throughout the year and found repeatedly that the major provisions continued to receive support from voters.

Investments in long-term care consistently remained the most popular provision in Build Back Better — carrying a net support margin of around or at least +60 points in our polling with Invest in America — followed closely by the expansion of Medicare to include hearing.

We also found strong voter support for Build Back Better’s housing investments, clean energy investments, child care investments, and universal pre-K.

A Recap You Didn't Need: Build Back Better Was Popular All Year

(Actually, maybe a recap only Joe Manchin needs).

www.dataforprogress.org

 

[kjwins]

Except the CBO says it's closer to 5.5 T.

You do understand that the government doesn't run like a household?

We spend more on the military than the next 10 countries combined. So I really don't care what the CBO says, even if its true.

Spend more on the people that live in this country, than a bloated military that makes arms dealers wealthy.

Ever hear of the MIC?

 

[Craig234]

Face it three trillion tax $$$$$$ is not that much in the big picture and would increase local economic growth across the nation.
This must have put the fear of god in the narrow minded right wing nuts. They could see themselves losing elections in generous
numbers.

Not enough pork for the 1% as they are the most reckless spenders of our tax dollars. Pork is simply not an investment just a tax
increaser.

Why is it that every mention of the BBB spending only uses its ten year total, which many don't understand is a ten year total, while I basically never see other spending like military spending referred to by their ten year totals? So the BBB would, after cuts, spend $2 trillion on the American people over ten years, while the military budget might spend $8 trillion over the next 10 years. And we approve only of the military spending.

 

[Jay59]

You might have a fever. In fact you come off as a politician who fears losing his/her job due to bad economic decisions. Go lie down and sweat out your fever.

Sorry, but I don't have Omicron.

I am not the politician who might lose his job over runaway inflation. That would be a guy named Joe.

Why is it that every mention of the BBB spending only uses its ten year total, which many don't understand is a ten year total, while I basically never see other spending like military spending referred to by their ten year totals? So the BBB would, after cuts, spend $2 trillion on the American people over ten years, while the military budget might spend $8 trillion over the next 10 years. And we approve only of the military spending.

Don't forget the tax cut for the 1%. That's in there too.

 

[Razoo]

The BBB has support for example take a peek at who invests in the USA...... the USA is considered extremely low risk in the world of money:

Former President Bush claimed the trust fund is just a bunch of government IOUs and therefore worthless. Is this true? ​

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.)

Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation. Former President Bush appeared to be ready to break this tradition. He appeared to want the Treasury to “selectively default” on the bonds in the Social Security trust fund.

He obviously felt the United States doesn’t have to meet its obligation to the working people of America the way it meets its obligations to ultra-wealthy bondholders.

His suggestion that the U.S. government might not be willing to repay its debt obligations was remarkable and for a time completely disrupted global financial markets.

Any kind of BBB debt can be covered through the selling of USA government bonds.....people with big money recognize a great investment when they see one. Put the original BBB legislation back on the table.

​

 

[Razoo]

The BBB has support for example take a peek at who invests in the USA...... the USA is considered extremely low risk in the world of money:

Former President Bush claimed the trust fund is just a bunch of government IOUs and therefore worthless. Is this true? ​

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.)

Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation. Former President Bush appeared to be ready to break this tradition. He appeared to want the Treasury to “selectively default” on the bonds in the Social Security trust fund.

He obviously felt the United States doesn’t have to meet its obligation to the working people of America the way it meets its obligations to ultra-wealthy bondholders.

His suggestion that the U.S. government might not be willing to repay its debt obligations was remarkable and for a time completely disrupted global financial markets.

Any kind of BBB debt can be covered through the selling of USA government bonds.....people with big money recognize a great investment when they see one. Put the original BBB legislation back on the table.

​

hmmmmmmmmm kind of interesting to read ....