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

[Lesh]

Im not an economist but I have good fucking sense.

God....save us from idiots like this

 

[maybelooking]

God....save us from idiots like this

fuck off twat waffle.

 

[Winston]

Ah. Tax the rich means let millionaires skip paying taxes!

It is indicative of what a sorry state of affairs our politicians have sunk to that they are attacking Biden's use of an S corporation. In order to be exempt from the Medicare surtax a S corporation's participant must meet one of seven tests. Biden easily meets each and every one in regards to his speaking engagements. The very same people that are wailing about this are the ones that defend corporations using tax loopholes because a good business would seek to minimize their tax liability through any means that are legal. The hypocrisy here is acting like Biden should act differently. Honestly, it is disgusting and insulting.

 

[Lesh]

fuck off twat waffle.

That was about as compelling as any assertion you made

 

[maybelooking]

It is indicative of what a sorry state of affairs our politicians have sunk to that they are attacking Biden's use of an S corporation. In order to be exempt from the Medicare surtax a S corporation's participant must meet one of seven tests. Biden easily meets each and every one in regards to his speaking engagements. The very same people that are wailing about this are the ones that defend corporations using tax loopholes because a good business would seek to minimize their tax liability through any means that are legal. The hypocrisy here is acting like Biden should act differently. Honestly, it is disgusting and insulting.

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!!!!!!!

 

[task0778]

So, the wife comes home one day with her arms full of stuff she bought.

I ask her how much all that stuff cost. It was free! she claimed.

How so? sez I.

I bought all this stuff on sale for half off! She says triumphantly. I got $200 worth of stuff for only $100! So it was all free!

I point out that you still paid $100, right?

Yeah, she says.

So, it wasn't free, right?

All I get back is a glare in return.

Upshot is, I'm out $100 and I had to sleep on the couch.


Moral of the story is, somebody has to pay the bills sooner or later.

 

[Nostra]

CBO estimated that the ACA would reduce the deficit in 2025 — the last year of its analysis — by $118 billion, or by $98 billion after accounting for macroeconomic feedbacks (i.e., the law’s impact on the economy). Repealing the three ACA taxes will cut revenues by just over $40 billion that year, still leaving roughly $55-75 billion in deficit reduction. The adjusted estimate also shows deficit reduction growing rapidly in the latter years of the ten-year budget window, even without the three repealed taxes.

CBO estimates…..

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

CBO estimates…..

Herr Lesh isn’t very good at math, please don’t laugh at him.

 

[Nostra]

In Macroeconomics there is something called the multiplier effect. Essentially it is a measurement of the return on a dollar of government spending, or tax cuts, to the GDP. In every case over the last fifty years every single tax cut has resulted in a multiplier of less than one. A budgetary policy decision that pays for itself results in a multiplier of greater than one. Estimates for the GI Bill are around seven, and honestly, that is probably conservative.

The reason that tax cuts always return a multiplier of less than one is explained by another Macroeconomic concept called the Paradox of Thrift. Inevitably, some of those tax savings are saved. In this infrastructure bill every single dollar is going to be spent. A dollar goes to build a road. Wages are paid to workers, supplies are purchased, and those dollars will cascade through the economy. It is almost a given that the multiplier will be greater than one.

That reality, combined with the historical low cost of servicing government debt, make this decision an easy one. Honestly, it should have been done years ago. It is not a right or left issue, a Republican or Democrat issue. It is damn common sense, and basic Macroeconomics.

Log In ‹ Invest in America — WordPress

investinamericanow.com

Now, I am clearly not impressed with a bunch of jackasses on a messageboard, whose knowledge of Macroeconomics is essentially non-existent, proven several times within this very thread. Like the ignorant costs are always passed on statement, which is actually Microeconomics. There are seventy economists, most of them active professors, supporting my position. I challenge any of you yahoos to trot out ONE economist ranked in the world's top 100 that supports your position.

Tax cuts are government spending?

To assume that one must be stupid enough to believe all money belongs to the government.

 

[tshrimp]

In Macroeconomics there is something called the multiplier effect. Essentially it is a measurement of the return on a dollar of government spending, or tax cuts, to the GDP. In every case over the last fifty years every single tax cut has resulted in a multiplier of less than one. A budgetary policy decision that pays for itself results in a multiplier of greater than one. Estimates for the GI Bill are around seven, and honestly, that is probably conservative.

The reason that tax cuts always return a multiplier of less than one is explained by another Macroeconomic concept called the Paradox of Thrift. Inevitably, some of those tax savings are saved. In this infrastructure bill every single dollar is going to be spent. A dollar goes to build a road. Wages are paid to workers, supplies are purchased, and those dollars will cascade through the economy. It is almost a given that the multiplier will be greater than one.

That reality, combined with the historical low cost of servicing government debt, make this decision an easy one. Honestly, it should have been done years ago. It is not a right or left issue, a Republican or Democrat issue. It is damn common sense, and basic Macroeconomics.

Log In ‹ Invest in America — WordPress

investinamericanow.com

Now, I am clearly not impressed with a bunch of jackasses on a messageboard, whose knowledge of Macroeconomics is essentially non-existent, proven several times within this very thread. Like the ignorant costs are always passed on statement, which is actually Microeconomics. There are seventy economists, most of them active professors, supporting my position. I challenge any of you yahoos to trot out ONE economist ranked in the world's top 100 that supports your position.

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

Zac Petkanas​

Director of Rapid Response for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign

and communications director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

served as senior advisor to the DNC

Elizabeth DeHaan​

Her favorite public investment is Social Security.

Paul Dhillon​

Paul most recently worked at the DCCC

DCCC is ...

• the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
• the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House of Representatives
• the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way to fortify and expand our new Democratic Majority

 

[Claudette]

Lesh
Every post you post is bullshit.

 

[j-mac]

God....save us from idiots like this

Why you praying to a god you deny?

 

[DBA]

The statement, that corporate taxes are passed on via lower wagers, higher prices, and layoffs reveals a stunning lack of simple Economic knowledge. Right off the bat you left out the shareholders, who could finance the increased taxes by lower dividends and decreased stock buybacks. Actually, most economists believe that a corporate tax hike would almost certainly be financed by the stockholders. I would be more than happy to document that but you assholes would just ignore it, mostly because you couldn't possibly understand it.

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.

If your ignorant statement was correct then why is the reverse not true? Did prices decline after Trump's corporate tax cut? Did wages go up? Hell, did business investment even increase? I mean talk about economically illiterate. In a demonstration of the complete ignorance of most of the American public corporations, from Walmart to Sprint, gave out cash bonuses claiming it was because of the corporate tax cut, but they sent out those bonuses, and wrote off those bonuses, BEFORE THE CORPORATE TAX CUT WENT INTO EFFECT. It was cynically sinister.

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.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Saying it don't make it true

 

[basquebromance]

everything costs nothing! (huh?)

 

[Dragonlady]

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

What part of "TAX and spend", don't you understand. When you tax to raise the capital to spend, things are paid for.

Also, when working people have more cash in their pockets, they spend more, generating jobs and taxes, increasing government revenues, and reducing government expenditures. Economics 101.

The "supply side" economy you're pushing has failed. "Supply and demand" works. Republican policies create "supply" but stifle demand by suppressing wages. Democratic policies address both supply and increase demand by raising minimum wages, and ensuring worker friendly tax and labour policies.

See Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, and all of the other countries leading the world as the best places to live.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Bullshit. You're just parrotting the lies of the Republican Party, which has crashed the economy 3 times in the past 40 years.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy has increased both the wealth and wage gap in the USA which is already the worst in the first world, and is driving the USA into second world status.

Keep promoting the failed policies of the Republican Party, and ignoring what the most successful economies in the world are doing.

 

[Nostra]

What part of "TAX and spend", don't you understand. When you tax to raise the capital to spend, things are paid for.

Also, when working people have more cash in their pockets, they spend more, generating jobs and taxes, increasing government revenues, and reducing government expenditures. Economics 101.

The "supply side" economy you're pushing has failed. "Supply and demand" works. Republican policies create "supply" but stifle demand by suppressing wages. Democratic policies address both supply and increase demand by raising minimum wages, and ensuring worker friendly tax and labour policies.

See Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, and all of the other countries leading the world as the best places to live.

What part of "TAX and spend", don't you understand. When you tax to raise the capital to spend, things are paid for.

List the taxes, the amounts they will bring in each year, and provide links. This is where Dipshit KKKanuck tells me to google it.

 

[Dragonlady]

What part of "TAX and spend", don't you understand. When you tax to raise the capital to spend, things are paid for.

List the taxes, the amounts they will bring in each year, and provide links. This is where Dipshit KKKanuck tells me to google it.

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.

 

[ColonelAngus]

What part of "TAX and spend", don't you understand. When you tax to raise the capital to spend, things are paid for.

List the taxes, the amounts they will bring in each year, and provide links. This is where Dipshit KKKanuck tells me to google it.

It is not going to happen.