What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

DBA

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
6,458
Reaction score
6,048
Points
1,940
Well I don't teach. But I did some work for you, I found two articles.



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.

I love it how the left is so quick to dismiss any opinion which doesn't coincide with their teachings as dribble.

How Lowering Corporate Tax Rates Encourages Economic Growth
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
146,356
Reaction score
33,902
Points
2,180
Talk about Economic illiteracy, yes, the ACA more than paid for itself.

In March 2010, just before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that changes in direct spending and revenues under the legislation would reduce federal budget deficits by $124 billion over the 2010–2019 period and by roughly one-half of 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the ensuing decade (see the cost estimate for H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010 [Final Health Care Legislation], March 20, 2010). In the four years since those estimates were produced, there have been significant changes in the economic outlook, in the health care and health care financing systems, in CBO and JCT’s estimating methodologies, in provisions of law that relate to the ACA, and in the implementation of the ACA as guided by judicial decisions and administrative actions. All of those changes could affect the impact of the ACA on budget deficits, potentially in significant ways.

In response to the request for an estimate of the net impact on the deficit of the ACA, the following points are important:

  • Based on revisions to the estimated budgetary effects of aspects of the ACA that CBO and JCT have analyzed, the agencies have no reason to think that their initial assessment that the ACA would reduce budget deficits was incorrect.
The proven effect is an additional $1 Trillion in spending. Also much higher insurance rates.

"Estimated effects" don't mean jack shit.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32,030
Reaction score
27,337
Points
2,915
Do you even know what CBO stands for? Do you even know what they do, their purpose?
I know you can't show me a single instance where their projections were correct.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32,030
Reaction score
27,337
Points
2,915
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?
Yes, it does. If he thinks he should be paying more, and utilizes a battery of accountants and attorneys to pay as little as possible his opinion means nothing.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32,030
Reaction score
27,337
Points
2,915
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?
They are left wing Clintonista hacks.
 

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
35,504
Reaction score
26,473
Points
2,915
Have the lefties come up with any spending bill in the history of earth that "PAID FOR ITSELF"?

What does the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CREATE?
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,527
Reaction score
1,526
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
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.
What you are failing to understand in regards to the capital side of the equation is stockholders. They could cut dividends, or better yet, pull back on stock buybacks, which was the biggest benefactor of the Trump corporate tax cut. I did a white paper on Walmart. For every two dollars given to employees in the form of compensation one dollar was sent to the shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. It seems pretty obvious that is a warped calculus, and instead of increasing prices after a corporate tax cut it stands to reason that the profits flowing to shareholders would be the place to cover the costs.

The key phrase in the article I linked is the first sentence,

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

From Forbes,


The government capturing some of those returns is not a bad thing, especially if it is used to invest in infrastructure and other means of improving economic efficiencies.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32,030
Reaction score
27,337
Points
2,915
If this bill is going to pay for itself, why do we have to raise the debt limit before it can be passed? :cuckoo:
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,527
Reaction score
1,526
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
If this bill is going to pay for itself, why do we have to raise the debt limit before it can be passed? :cuckoo:
Wow, you Republicans really don't keep up with what is going on. The infrastructure bill has absolutely nothing to do with the current debt ceiling. Mitch McConnell is simply playing politics. We have to raise the debt ceiling because CURRENT OBLIGATIONS, you know, stuff that Congress has already passed, needs to be paid for. Ironically, IF the Trump corporate tax cut would have resulted in increased revenues instead of the massive decrease in federal revenues, we would not be in this situation.

Let me try to provide an illustration. You took an unpaid week off from work last month, and you went to the Casino with your buddies, drinking, eating out, and you had some gambling losses, all put on your credit card. You wife walks in and says she wants to sign a contract to replace your outdated and energy inefficient windows, you bitch a total fit and loudly proclaim that you aren't going to pay your credit card bills.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32,030
Reaction score
27,337
Points
2,915
Wow, you Republicans really don't keep up with what is going on. The infrastructure bill has absolutely nothing to do with the current debt ceiling. Mitch McConnell is simply playing politics. We have to raise the debt ceiling because CURRENT OBLIGATIONS, you know, stuff that Congress has already passed, needs to be paid for. Ironically, IF the Trump corporate tax cut would have resulted in increased revenues instead of the massive decrease in federal revenues, we would not be in this situation.

Let me try to provide an illustration. You took an unpaid week off from work last month, and you went to the Casino with your buddies, drinking, eating out, and you had some gambling losses, all put on your credit card. You wife walks in and says she wants to sign a contract to replace your outdated and energy inefficient windows, you bitch a total fit and loudly proclaim that you aren't going to pay your credit card bills.

IF the Trump corporate tax cut would have resulted in increased revenues instead of the massive decrease in federal revenues, we would not be in this situation.

Which year did tax revenues go down?

FY 2021$3.86 (estimated)
FY 2020$3.71 trillion (estimated)
FY 2019$3.46 trillion (actual)
FY 2018$3.33 trillion


 

maybelooking

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
2,000
Points
1,893
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?
yes, absolutely.

LEAD BY EXAMPLE or STFU!!!!!
 

366h34d

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
720
Reaction score
408
Points
898
Wow, you Republicans really don't keep up with what is going on. The infrastructure bill has absolutely nothing to do with the current debt ceiling. Mitch McConnell is simply playing politics. We have to raise the debt ceiling because CURRENT OBLIGATIONS, you know, stuff that Congress has already passed, needs to be paid for. Ironically, IF the Trump corporate tax cut would have resulted in increased revenues instead of the massive decrease in federal revenues, we would not be in this situation.

Let me try to provide an illustration. You took an unpaid week off from work last month, and you went to the Casino with your buddies, drinking, eating out, and you had some gambling losses, all put on your credit card. You wife walks in and says she wants to sign a contract to replace your outdated and energy inefficient windows, you bitch a total fit and loudly proclaim that you aren't going to pay your credit card bills.
I am not GOPs, but your example really contradicts your point. First of all, your credit card limit is good for your casino trip (you did not need to raise the limit). Now, unless you pay the contract in cash or the contractor works for free, you need to put it into your credit card. With that, you either raise the credit card limit or pay the bills first. In the end, it is because of the new contract.

Are only AOCs in the DEMs now :rolleyes:
 

366h34d

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
720
Reaction score
408
Points
898
I am all for his zero dollar plan, I hope he can get Congress to pass a zero dollars bill, that will save us $3.5 trillion right there!!!!!!
I don't mind the 3.5T bill. Why not raise the 3.5T first before pass the 3.5T bill?
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,527
Reaction score
1,526
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
IF the Trump corporate tax cut would have resulted in increased revenues instead of the massive decrease in federal revenues, we would not be in this situation.

Which year did tax revenues go down?

FY 2021$3.86 (estimated)
FY 2020$3.71 trillion (estimated)
FY 2019$3.46 trillion (actual)
FY 2018$3.33 trillion


Talking about corporate tax revenue you dumb shit. Besides, your article provided an estimate for 2020. Same source, two weeks before your article provides the actual number 3.42 trillion, so even total revenue declined. Remember how great things were in the 50's and 60's, well take a look

Six-Charts-That-Show-How-Low-Corporate-Tax-Revenues-are-in-the-United-States-Right-Now-chart-5.jpg

They are not paying their fair share. Now look at their profits as a share of GDP

CP-GDP_3-25-21-.09688.png


.We been getting hosed.
 

Persuader

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
3,000
Reaction score
2,540
Points
1,928
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.


1632870020823.png
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,527
Reaction score
1,526
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
I am not GOPs, but your example really contradicts your point. First of all, your credit card limit is good for your casino trip (you did not need to raise the limit). Now, unless you pay the contract in cash or the contractor works for free, you need to put it into your credit card. With that, you either raise the credit card limit or pay the bills first. In the end, it is because of the new contract.

Are only AOCs in the DEMs now :rolleyes:
The problem here is that the debt limit has to be raised, not because of a bill that has not even been passed, but because of allocations that have already been authorized. Pretty sure all the most recent allocations were approved by a Republican senate and signed by a Republican president. McConnell and his Republican comrades are grandstanding. They want Democrats on the hook for approving a debt increase due to spending that THEIR FAWKING ASSES APPROVED. Where the hell is Preston Brooks when you need him.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32,030
Reaction score
27,337
Points
2,915
Talking about corporate tax revenue you dumb shit. Besides, your article provided an estimate for 2020. Same source, two weeks before your article provides the actual number 3.42 trillion, so even total revenue declined. Remember how great things were in the 50's and 60's, well take a look

Six-Charts-That-Show-How-Low-Corporate-Tax-Revenues-are-in-the-United-States-Right-Now-chart-5.jpg

They are not paying their fair share. Now look at their profits as a share of GDP

CP-GDP_3-25-21-.09688.png


.We been getting hosed.
Your graph doesn't show a massive decrease in "corporate taxes" dues to the across the board Trump tax cuts, Dipshit.


In fact, it shows a spike in the last year.

:oops8: :oops8: :oops8:
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$95.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top