How much is enough?

[forkup]

In keeping with the thread title, do you believe that the democrats can spend an unlimited amount of money on every conceivable policy or program, without any consequences? And I'm asking any other progressive liberal to join in, and please provide your rationale. I know of no credible economist who will champion that idea; sure, you can say that increased demand will generate economic growth, but is there no law of diminishing returns where at some point the amount of money in the system dwarfs the supply of goods and services? I.E., inflation destroys everything? Or do you propose an ever increasing tax and spend policy, borrowing more money into infinity? Do you believe that there will always be somebody somewhere who will finance our debt?

And here is maybe the biggest question: are you prepared to accept the consequences if you are wrong? My answer: I don't think so. Do you realize that the decisions that are made today will have an impact in the future? Is there any limit to the amount of debt you are willing to pass onto the next generations?

In keeping with the thread title I will respond. Democrats aren't proposing an unlimited amount of money. They are proposing spending an enormous amount of money while funding it through taxation of the higher incomes.

It would be in essence a shift of wealth closing the wealth gap. I know that they are probably wrong or lying to what degree the expense would cover the cost, but I honestly don't see any difference between that and claiming tax cuts worth trillions will be covered by companies trickling down the wealth.

Where I do see a difference in both positions is that Democrats at least give the money directly to poorer people instead of a vague promise that the tax cuts will benefit them down the line.

 

[task0778]

Thanks for the response. First of all, right or wrong whatever Trump did should have no bearing whatsoever on what Biden and the democrats do now. We can argue about the tax cuts if you want, but the idea that the tax cuts should allow the profligate spending that the democrats want to enact is illogical. Just because the last guy did something stupid doesn't give anyone the license to do something just as stupid or even worse. Those tax cuts did go directly to poorer people BTW, same as the Relief checks did. Which Trump and the repubs passed too, when they were in the majority.

You see preoccupied with the wealth gap and income inequality. But should that be our goal? Is that a sufficient reason to go so much further into debt? And will the afore-mentioned profligate spending really address that to any degree? It's not like a wealth gap hasn't existed since the beginning of civilization. Maybe it only seems worse now, but the top 1% has always lived like royalty, and probably always will no matter what your form of gov't is. And do you really think all that gov't largesse will go to the poor? How is it that all the spending the US Gov't has been doing to address poverty over the last 50 or so years has done very little to fix the problem? Most of the money doesn't go to those who need it, it goes to bureaucrats and administrators. Is that going to change any time soon? I don't think so. Do you know what you get when you increase gov't spending? IMHO you get more fraud, waste, and abuse; you get more graft, corruption and greed. And you don't help the poorer people that much, relative to the amount of money you're spending.

I ask again for you and others to consider these questions and no dodging:

Do you propose an ever increasing tax and spend policy, borrowing more money into infinity? How much is enough? Do you believe that there will always be somebody somewhere who will finance our debt? And here is maybe the biggest question: are you prepared to accept the consequences if you are wrong? I highly doubt that the politicians will.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What Manchin forgot to mention is that in contrast to his opening statement:

"Every Member of Congress has a solemn duty to vote for what they believe is best for the country and the American people, not their party"

The GOP continues to refuse to vote for "what is best for the country and the American people". They are 100% voting in line with their party - a party that is undermining democracy.

If the GOP would act as individuals, rather than partisan weenies, then Manchin's argument would be valid. If the GOP would act as individuals, the 'Build Back Better' act would not have to be passed through reconciliation. It would have some chance of passing thru normal procedures - as would the Voting Rights Act.

Manchin has to realize that the behavior of the GOP has been atrocious, and to some degree he should be willing to compensate for this horrible behavior by siding with his fellow Democrats. He needs to show the GOP that their behavior will not pay off. He needs to punish the GOP.

The behavior of the GOP is the greatest threat to this country - far greater than any damage the 'Build Back Better Act' could possibly cause (not to mention that the build back better act would have far more benefits for America).

Manchin should send a clear message to the GOP - if you try to overthrow Democracy, if you refuse to execute the duties of your office - there WILL BE A PRICE TO PAY!

Oh so what is best for the country, do tell

 

[task0778]

Do you propose an ever increasing tax and spend policy, borrowing more money into infinity? How much is enough? Do you believe that there will always be somebody somewhere who will finance our debt?

I never got a satisfactory answer to these questions, so I'll put it out there on more time but with some added considerations.

Do you believe it is acceptable to pass our ever-increasing debt onto future generations? I think it is unconscionable, why am I wrong?

The amount of spending the democrats have done and are trying to do is unparalleled in history, any history. According to Joe Machin, we've already spent $5.4 trillion just since March, and the democrats want to double that. Are you seriously going to tell me that the proposed higher taxes will cover all that? C'mon, man.