Without new taxes, Biden's campaign promises will cost Americans about $10 trillion over 10 years

[Polishprince]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Without new taxes, Biden’s campaign promises will cost Americans about $10 trillion over 10 years

President-elect Joe Biden has an expansive regulatory and spending agenda and a lot more room to maneuver than conservatives admit.

www.washingtontimes.com

So what? Biden pledged only to raise taxes on those who receive more than $400,000 a year. Not a dime more in federal taxes for us poor folk.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then the Republican Senate should block all of Biden’s legislative proposals and raise taxes to balance the budget.

What Biden ‘promises’ is irrelevant – Congress alone enacts laws, Congress alone controls spending.

cant raise taxes enough to balance the budget - ever

reminds me of that moron Alvin Lee

"Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more"

When the rich people are gone, what's left?

Right! Uberwealthy political class and slaves!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Without new taxes, Biden’s campaign promises will cost Americans about $10 trillion over 10 years

President-elect Joe Biden has an expansive regulatory and spending agenda and a lot more room to maneuver than conservatives admit.

www.washingtontimes.com

So what? Biden pledged only to raise taxes on those who receive more than $400,000 a year. Not a dime more in federal taxes for us poor folk.

...and you believed him!

Take your meds, Bro

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Democrats always seem to run on the same platform of "taxing the rich", even though a complete confiscation of the top 100's wealth wouldn't even make a dent in the debt.

Then when they get back into power, the tax burden always seems to fall on the shoulders of the wage-earners, creating an even more income disparity between the poor and the wealthy.

I think they want to drive the middle class out of existence or something.

even the democrats know that the middle class is the place to get their taxes as it is an inexhaustible resource because these people have to work to live. The rich don't have to work and can easily avoid taxes by not withdrawing from their portfolios

in left wing economic the middle class are the slaves
the marxist loath the "bourgeoisie" even more than the rich

 

[Blues Man]

Democrats always seem to run on the same platform of "taxing the rich", even though a complete confiscation of the top 100's wealth wouldn't even make a dent in the debt.

Then when they get back into power, the tax burden always seems to fall on the shoulders of the wage-earners, creating an even more income disparity between the poor and the wealthy.

I think they want to drive the middle class out of existence or something.

even the democrats know that the middle class is the place to get their taxes as it is an inexhaustible resource because these people have to work to live. The rich don't have to work and can easily avoid taxes by not withdrawing from their portfolios

in left wing economic the middle class are the slaves
the marxist loath the "bourgeoisie" even more than the rich

you need to look up the definition of slave

 

[Polishprince]

Democrats always seem to run on the same platform of "taxing the rich", even though a complete confiscation of the top 100's wealth wouldn't even make a dent in the debt.

Then when they get back into power, the tax burden always seems to fall on the shoulders of the wage-earners, creating an even more income disparity between the poor and the wealthy.

I think they want to drive the middle class out of existence or something.

even the democrats know that the middle class is the place to get their taxes as it is an inexhaustible resource because these people have to work to live. The rich don't have to work and can easily avoid taxes by not withdrawing from their portfolios

in left wing economic the middle class are the slaves
the marxist loath the "bourgeoisie" even more than the rich

"Bourgeoisie" is Communist lingo for "Middle Class", "chumps" or "Deplorables".

 

[HappyJoy]

In our binary solution set Presidential election, if you voted for anyone but Trump, you voted for Biden.

I didn't vote for Biden and we don't have just two choices. You choose to limit yourself to two.

You only had to viable choices and you punted. Let's be real.

 

[iceberg]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Without new taxes, Biden’s campaign promises will cost Americans about $10 trillion over 10 years

President-elect Joe Biden has an expansive regulatory and spending agenda and a lot more room to maneuver than conservatives admit.

www.washingtontimes.com

spending period is WAY out of control. both sides printing money at will, giving our resources to whoever they feel like.

our own gov is killing us.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Without new taxes, Biden’s campaign promises will cost Americans about $10 trillion over 10 years

President-elect Joe Biden has an expansive regulatory and spending agenda and a lot more room to maneuver than conservatives admit.

www.washingtontimes.com

So what? Biden pledged only to raise taxes on those who receive more than $400,000 a year. Not a dime more in federal taxes for us poor folk.

The rich can often just write those tax increases off or transfer it down to the middle class.

 

[AntonToo]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Without new taxes, Biden’s campaign promises will cost Americans about $10 trillion over 10 years

President-elect Joe Biden has an expansive regulatory and spending agenda and a lot more room to maneuver than conservatives admit.

www.washingtontimes.com

Now its time for the republicans to start caring about $ and for the dems to stop.

False equivalency.

Democrats are not the absolutely shameless opportunists Republicans are. Major roadblock to doing something about our long term deficits are Republicans, not Democrats that sound like THIS when in power:

Obama's speech from 2011:

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare -- and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about –- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

President Obama: Both Parties Have a Responsibility to Solve this Problem

The President addressed the nation on the consequences the stalemate in Congress could have on the stability of our economy

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

 

[AntonToo]

Then the Republican Senate should block all of Biden’s legislative proposals and raise taxes to balance the budget.

What Biden ‘promises’ is irrelevant – Congress alone enacts laws, Congress alone controls spending.

You can't raise enough taxes to balance the budget

You don't need to balance the budget and you don't need to only increase taxes.

We need a COMPROMISE where both parties give some to get to a sustainable budget path. Democrats need to give on social safety-nets spending and Republicans on Defense and taxes.

We need a Grand Bargain that Obama and Republicans could not get done (mostly because of the pervasive tax-cut cult on the right)