Biden claims the $3.5 TRILLION spending bill costs "zero dollars'.

[Lesh]

It is not going to happen.

A large part of how it will be paid for is taxes on the wealthy. Of course you are dead set against that so...

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dems always lie to get their bills passed.

 

[Nostra]

If you want this information, why don't you find it yourself, jackass? You can't move the goal posts and claim victory. That's strategy has failed for you utterly. If you refuse to educate yourself, you'll be a FuckBoi 'til you die.

Glad to see you admit once again you are a lying sack of KKKanadian shit.

Too easy.

 

[Nostra]

It is not going to happen.

The "just google it" part did.

 

[Nostra]

A large part of how it will be paid for is taxes on the wealthy. Of course you are dead set against that so...

Link?

Give us the numbers.

 

[ColonelAngus]

A large part of how it will be paid for is taxes on the wealthy. Of course you are dead set against that so...

How? Be specific.

 

[Lesh]

How? Be specific.

Higher taxes for the rich edged closer to reality on Wednesday morning, after Senate Democrats passed a $3.5 trillion budget plan along party lines.

The blueprint would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations and beef up tax enforcement to fund additional spending on education, paid leave, childcare, health care and climate initiatives, according to a framework issued Monday.

That outline offers scant detail on specific tax policy relative to the wealthy, saying only that it seeks “tax fairness for high-income individuals.”

But it’s likely the richest Americans will face higher taxes on their ordinary income, capital gains from investments and appreciated assets bequeathed to heirs, according to tax experts.

Not specific eough for you?

Tough shit.

There are plans to pay for this...you of course wouldn't approve of them in any case so...yea...fuck off.

 

[Nostra]

Higher taxes for the rich edged closer to reality on Wednesday morning, after Senate Democrats passed a $3.5 trillion budget plan along party lines.

The blueprint would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations and beef up tax enforcement to fund additional spending on education, paid leave, childcare, health care and climate initiatives, according to a framework issued Monday.

That outline offers scant detail on specific tax policy relative to the wealthy, saying only that it seeks “tax fairness for high-income individuals.”

But it’s likely the richest Americans will face higher taxes on their ordinary income, capital gains from investments and appreciated assets bequeathed to heirs, according to tax experts.

Not specific eough for you?

Tough shit.

There are plans to pay for this...you of course wouldn't approve of them in any case so...yea...fuck off.

So you were talking out of your ass, again.

 

[Nostra]

 

[Weatherman2020]

Higher taxes for the rich edged closer to reality on Wednesday morning, after Senate Democrats passed a $3.5 trillion budget plan along party lines.

The blueprint would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations and beef up tax enforcement to fund additional spending on education, paid leave, childcare, health care and climate initiatives, according to a framework issued Monday.

That outline offers scant detail on specific tax policy relative to the wealthy, saying only that it seeks “tax fairness for high-income individuals.”

But it’s likely the richest Americans will face higher taxes on their ordinary income, capital gains from investments and appreciated assets bequeathed to heirs, according to tax experts.

Not specific eough for you?

Tough shit.

There are plans to pay for this...you of course wouldn't approve of them in any case so...yea...fuck off.

AOC makes $174K not including benefits, can openly conduct insider trading, and she’s not rich according to her.
Funny how Democrats always make themselves immune from every law they pass.
Taxes
Vaccines
Masks
Obamacare
Insider trading

 

[emilynghiem]

This guy has lost his last marble. How can something so stupid be put out by this Regime? Shades of his claim one of his last massive spending bills would cut child poverty in half.

Biden team ripped as 'economically illiterate' for claim Build Back Better 'costs zero dollars'​

The Build Back Better agenda is projected to cost $3.5 trillion​

Analysts and lawmakers called President Joe Biden out for tweeting that his Build Back Better plan "costs zero dollars," with even one supporter calling the claim false.

Republicans have ripped Build Back Better, a $3.5-trillion reconciliation package, as a massive bill that "ultimately provides benefits to wealthy liberal elites at the expense of working-class families." Moderate Democrats like Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., have also raised concerns about the reconciliation package, the latter noting the bill lacks cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

"I don’t think we can afford everything," Murphy said. "Unless something changes, I have no choice but to vote no on every subtitle (in the bill) and on final passage."

n the midst of the Democrats' infighting, Biden argued his social spending bill is an "investment in working America" and will cost nothing.

BIDEN DOUBLES DOWN ON $3.5 TRILLION PLAN THAT MANCHIN, MODERATE DEMS OPPOSE: 'NOT ABOUT SHORT-TERM STIMULUS'

"My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars," Biden's account tweeted Saturday. "Instead of wasting money on tax breaks, loopholes, and tax evasion for big corporations and the wealthy, we can make a once-in-a-generation investment in working America. And it adds zero dollars to the national debt."




President Biden

@POTUS



United States government official
My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars. Instead of wasting money on tax breaks, loopholes, and tax evasion for big corporations and the wealthy, we can make a once-in-a-generation investment in working America. And it adds zero dollars to the national debt.
7:34 PM · Sep 25, 2021

38.3K

8.3K

Share this Tweet

Even some who support Biden's agenda questioned his recent message.

Biden team ripped as 'economically illiterate' for claim Build Back Better 'costs zero dollars'

Analysts and lawmakers called President Biden out for tweeting that his Build Back Better plan "costs zero dollars," with even one supporter calling the claim false.

www.foxnews.com

Brought to you by the same Liberals who claim that requiring taxpayers to buy insurance isn't depriving or denying individual liberty because this isn't a choice to begin with, and exemptions based on forcing people to pay for membership in religious groups approved by federal laws isn't govt regulating or discriminating on the basis of religion.

 

[Lesh]

And OFF the RWNJs go

Fact is...this "$3.5T" is to be spent over ten years.

Making it $350B per year. For that we boost the economy and create a shitload of jobs as well as upgrading the nation's infrastructure and dealing with a whole host of issues.

And these RWNJs aren't even addressing the fact that it will largely if not completely be paid for by taing the wealthy...who have benefited so handsomely even during the pandemic.

And yes...significant money can be raised by those taxes

 

[Winston]

CBO estimates…..

Do you even know what CBO stands for? Do you even know what they do, their purpose?

 

[Winston]

No different than the hypocrisy of screaming for everyone else to be forced to pay more taxes, when the ones screaming for increases never EVER volunteer to send more without the force of govt!!!!!!!

That is about as lame an argument as one can come up with. Warren Buffet has called for higher tax rates on those with high incomes, does it make his argument less significant because he doesn't voluntarily give extra money to the government?

 

[Winston]

Did you look at the "About" section of your link? Unbiased?

Zac Petkanas​

Elizabeth DeHaan​

Paul Dhillon​

DCCC is ...

So flippin what. Those are professional Economists. What is wrong, can you not find a real Economist, you know, like with a Phd, and not from George Mason, that is against this infrastructure bill?

 

[Winston]

Patently false. ~70% of tax increases on corporations are passed to the labor pool either by pay cuts or by layoffs. ~30% is passed to consumers in the form of higher prices.



My statement was in reference to tax revenues in relation to tax increases vs tax cuts. In fact, tax revenues increased following the tax cuts of both Kennedy and Reagan. They would have also increased under Trump in the long term. Tax increases coupled with paying people to say home disincentivizes people from working, thus creating a labor shortage and less tax revenue. Incentivizing people to work by not paying them to stay home and allowing them to keep more of the money they earn means more people working thus more tax revenue in the long term.

You are a blubbering fool who clearly has no real world experience, which explains why you cling to the moronic economic policies of Democrats.

Did you pull those numbers out of your ass? I doubt very seriously you spent two seconds on research, but there is a slim to none chance that you were actually taught those numbers, back in the dark ages. It is not like that now, not even close. Impress me, and tell me you can almost understand the following,

More recently, some analysts have suggested that “super-normal” returns due to monopoly rents or successful risk-taking impact the distribution of the corporate tax burden. Activity associated with rents is assumed to be insensitive to tax, limiting the amount of the tax that may be shifted to labor. U.S. Treasury and Tax Policy Center tax models adopt this approach, and assign most of the corporate tax to capital rather than labor (roughly an 80-20 split toward capital). • There appear to be serious errors in both theory and measurement in the super-normal returns work. Replicating Treasury’s methodology, we find it overstates the amount of super-normal returns being earned by businesses by two or three times. Correcting for the overstatement, and assuming such returns determine incidence, implies a business tax incidence that is roughly split 50-50 between capital and labor, more in line with the empirical literature.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/20181107145034/Tax-Foundation-SR2382.pdf

And please, attack the source, that will be a hoot. Because I am leaning towards the US Treasury and Tax Policy Center's numbers.

And yes, Kennedy's tax cuts resulted in increased revenue. But you are sadly mistaken when it comes to Reagan. Hell, he was reversing course and raising taxes within two years after his initial tax cut because of the devastating effect it had on revenues. Rather a tax cut results in increased revenue or decreased revenue depends upon the marginal tax rate at the time. It is called the Laffer curve, and it IS A DAMN CURVE. Most economists believe the peak of the curve is somewhere around 60%, which means tax cuts when marginal rates are lower than 60% will decrease revenues, and the Kennedy/Reagan contrast supports that belief.

I have intimate knowledge of the Reagan years. I was the TA for Andrew Benavie, an economics professor who was the initial head of Reagan's OMB. Specializing in Econometrics, it was my job to crunch the numbers. Every Thursday the Economics department at Carolina hung out at a bar called "He's not Here". The fights I had with Benavie were legendary. The gist of that fight was just where we were on the Laffer curve. Benavie claimed the tax cuts would increase revenue, I claimed they would not, mostly due to the Paradox of Thrift. The MPS, called the marginal propensity to save, was underestimated in the Wharton Business School Macroeconomic model we were using at the time. I had the empirical evidence to back up my position and it infuriated Benavie. In the end, I was right, he was wrong, and not only did he lose his job at the OMB, he completely retired from his tenured position and played Cello for the New York Symphony.

 

[hadit]

This guy has lost his last marble. How can something so stupid be put out by this Regime? Shades of his claim one of his last massive spending bills would cut child poverty in half.

Biden team ripped as 'economically illiterate' for claim Build Back Better 'costs zero dollars'​

The Build Back Better agenda is projected to cost $3.5 trillion​

Analysts and lawmakers called President Joe Biden out for tweeting that his Build Back Better plan "costs zero dollars," with even one supporter calling the claim false.

Republicans have ripped Build Back Better, a $3.5-trillion reconciliation package, as a massive bill that "ultimately provides benefits to wealthy liberal elites at the expense of working-class families." Moderate Democrats like Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., have also raised concerns about the reconciliation package, the latter noting the bill lacks cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

"I don’t think we can afford everything," Murphy said. "Unless something changes, I have no choice but to vote no on every subtitle (in the bill) and on final passage."

n the midst of the Democrats' infighting, Biden argued his social spending bill is an "investment in working America" and will cost nothing.

BIDEN DOUBLES DOWN ON $3.5 TRILLION PLAN THAT MANCHIN, MODERATE DEMS OPPOSE: 'NOT ABOUT SHORT-TERM STIMULUS'

"My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars," Biden's account tweeted Saturday. "Instead of wasting money on tax breaks, loopholes, and tax evasion for big corporations and the wealthy, we can make a once-in-a-generation investment in working America. And it adds zero dollars to the national debt."

President Biden
@POTUS

United States government official
My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars. Instead of wasting money on tax breaks, loopholes, and tax evasion for big corporations and the wealthy, we can make a once-in-a-generation investment in working America. And it adds zero dollars to the national debt.
7:34 PM · Sep 25, 2021
38.3K
8.3K

Share this Tweet

Even some who support Biden's agenda questioned his recent message.

Biden team ripped as 'economically illiterate' for claim Build Back Better 'costs zero dollars'

Analysts and lawmakers called President Biden out for tweeting that his Build Back Better plan "costs zero dollars," with even one supporter calling the claim false.

www.foxnews.com

Whoops. The president is tweeting lies. Better take down his Twitter account. You know how bad it is to lie on social media today.

 

[tshrimp]

So flippin what. Those are professional Economists. What is wrong, can you not find a real Economist, you know, like with a Phd, and not from George Mason, that is against this infrastructure bill?

Sure, I can find many. Just like you can if you know how to do a web search.

"Government spending doesn't stimulate the economy, it de-stimulates the economy and causes inflation," said Stephen Moore, an economist at FreedomWorks...

"The one thing we learned from Milton Friedman is government spending doesn't stimulate anything except government," Moore said. Friedman was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics while teaching at the University of Chicago and was a champion of free markets.

A report authored by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said worries that Biden’s $3.5 trillion spending plan will ignite "undesirably high inflation" are "overdone."

And why would I want to choose an economist from George Mason or any other college professor. (BTW...your reputable leftist website stated 70, but there were only 62 on their list). "Those who can do, do. Those who can't teach". .

Edit: This saying should be change to reflect the times. "Those who can do, do. Those who can't teach liberal garbage".

 

[Winston]

Sure, I can find many. Just like you can if you know how to do a web search.




And why would I want to choose an economist from George Mason or any other college professor. (BTW...your reputable leftist website stated 70, but there were only 62 on their list). "Those who can do, do. Those who can't teach". .

Well I don't teach. But I did some work for you, I found two articles.

Not Your Father’s Infrastructure | National Review

If the past five decades are any guide, the Senate infrastructure bill is unlikely to stimulate economic growth.

www.nationalreview.com

https://www.cato.org/commentary/10-reasons-oppose-infrastructure-package

Note, National Review and the Cato Institute. The National Review article quotes on Economists, Gilles Duranton. He does have a Phd, and from good schools, The London School of Economics and the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. But he is a transportation and urban development specialist, not a Macroeconomic specialist. He heads the Real Estate Department at Wharton. Pretty telling, a fine institution like Wharton they have to sink to the Real Estate department to get an "expert" on their position. Note, I said I used the Wharton's Econometric model. They have more than half a dozen professors of Business and Public Policy. Why could they not quote one of them?

And honestly, the article is plagued with misinformation, I would be happy to detail them for you. Mostly, it is just smoke and mirrors. Go figure. But then the Cato Institute article, written by another economics professor, and I fell over laughing from where his degree came from, George Mason. You couldn't pay me to go there, and they tried. And that was more than forty years ago, far worse now. That article too, postulates claims that are just not accurate. It is propaganda, nothing more and nothing less, which is the one thing George Mason can teach.

 

[DBA]

Did you pull those numbers out of your ass? I doubt very seriously you spent two seconds on research, but there is a slim to none chance that you were actually taught those numbers, back in the dark ages. It is not like that now, not even close. Impress me, and tell me you can almost understand the following,

More recently, some analysts have suggested that “super-normal” returns due to monopoly rents or successful risk-taking impact the distribution of the corporate tax burden. Activity associated with rents is assumed to be insensitive to tax, limiting the amount of the tax that may be shifted to labor. U.S. Treasury and Tax Policy Center tax models adopt this approach, and assign most of the corporate tax to capital rather than labor (roughly an 80-20 split toward capital). • There appear to be serious errors in both theory and measurement in the super-normal returns work. Replicating Treasury’s methodology, we find it overstates the amount of super-normal returns being earned by businesses by two or three times. Correcting for the overstatement, and assuming such returns determine incidence, implies a business tax incidence that is roughly split 50-50 between capital and labor, more in line with the empirical literature.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/20181107145034/Tax-Foundation-SR2382.pdf

And please, attack the source, that will be a hoot. Because I am leaning towards the US Treasury and Tax Policy Center's numbers.

And yes, Kennedy's tax cuts resulted in increased revenue. But you are sadly mistaken when it comes to Reagan. Hell, he was reversing course and raising taxes within two years after his initial tax cut because of the devastating effect it had on revenues. Rather a tax cut results in increased revenue or decreased revenue depends upon the marginal tax rate at the time. It is called the Laffer curve, and it IS A DAMN CURVE. Most economists believe the peak of the curve is somewhere around 60%, which means tax cuts when marginal rates are lower than 60% will decrease revenues, and the Kennedy/Reagan contrast supports that belief.

I have intimate knowledge of the Reagan years. I was the TA for Andrew Benavie, an economics professor who was the initial head of Reagan's OMB. Specializing in Econometrics, it was my job to crunch the numbers. Every Thursday the Economics department at Carolina hung out at a bar called "He's not Here". The fights I had with Benavie were legendary. The gist of that fight was just where we were on the Laffer curve. Benavie claimed the tax cuts would increase revenue, I claimed they would not, mostly due to the Paradox of Thrift. The MPS, called the marginal propensity to save, was underestimated in the Wharton Business School Macroeconomic model we were using at the time. I had the empirical evidence to back up my position and it infuriated Benavie. In the end, I was right, he was wrong, and not only did he lose his job at the OMB, he completely retired from his tenured position and played Cello for the New York Symphony.

implies a business tax incidence that is roughly split 50-50 between capital and labor
Ok, so according to your article, there is a 50/50 split between capital and labor. By my math, that leaves zero for price increases for consumers. The competition in the market is a huge component here. In a small business environment where competition is regional, prices may increase as the competition is subject to the same new higher tax rate. Capital expenditures aren't as prevalent at this level. That leaves labor and product. Profit must increase somehow to allow for the owner to still take home the same amount of money after the tax increase. In large corporations, given that US corporations are in competition with foreign corporations that have lower taxes and lower costs of labor, raising prices and staying competitive would be challenging....it already is. If profits are taxed at higher levels where does that leave the corporation? As you stated from your article, they don't invest in capital expenditures and/or they cut labor to increase revenue, they will leave the country to a more favorable tax environment or they simply cease to exist as their profit is no longer sufficient to stay in business. You ok with that and don't think that any of that will have a negative impact on our economy?

Subsidizing more "freebees" and government inefficiency on the backs of US corporations(and individual taxpayers) to the tune of some of the highest corporate taxes in the world is just plain stupid in the long run.