What's next after this 2 trillion dollar pork bill, how about 3 trillion more?

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,085
Reaction score
3,883
Points
290
And two under Republican control all signed off by Trump. Trump even pushed for $2000. Is that the way to balance the budget?
No, and we on the right were not happy about some of his spending either. But since the commies took over the House, the biggest debate between the Republicans and Democrats were the Democrats kept wanting to spend more and the Republicans less. You can't blame the Republicans for half that spending.
That is a lie. Republicans wanted to spend more on their pet projects while cutting safety nets for people who need help. The co0ronavirus relief bill is the perfect example. Republicans were only willing to send out $600 relef checks. Now Republicans are apparently unanimously opposed to ordinary people coming first with $1,400 checks.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
119,941
Reaction score
34,687
Points
2,220
WASHINGTON (AP) — Looking beyond the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, President Joe Biden and lawmakers are laying the groundwork for another top legislative priority — a long-sought boost to the nation’s roads, bridges and other infrastructure that could run into Republican resistance to a hefty price tag.

Biden and his team have begun discussions on the possible outlines of an infrastructure package with members of Congress, particularly mindful that Texas’ recent struggles with power outages and water shortages after a brutal winter storm present an opportunity for agreement on sustained spending on infrastructure.

Democrats passed a $1.5 trillion package in the House last year, but it went nowhere with the Trump administration and the Republican-led Senate. A Senate panel approved narrower bipartisan legislation in 2019 focused on reauthorizing federal transportation programs. It, too, flamed out as the U.S. turned its focus to elections and COVID-19.

Biden has talked bigger numbers, and some Democrats are now urging him to bypass Republicans in the closely divided Congress to address a broader range of priorities urged by interest groups.

During the presidential campaign, Biden pledged to deploy $2 trillion on infrastructure and clean energy, but the White House has not ruled out an even higher price tag. McCarthy said Biden’s upcoming plan will specifically aim at job creation, such as with investments to boost “workers that have been left behind” by closed coal mines or power plants, as well as communities located near polluting refineries and other hazards.


DeFazio said General Motors’ recently announced goal of going largely electric by 2035 demonstrates the need for massive spending on charging stations across the country. Biden campaigned on a plan to install 500,000 charging stations by the end of 2030.


It's been written about that the Covid bill is around 90% pork that has nothing to do with the actual virus itself. Billions of dollars for nonsense like mass transit in Piglosi's state as well as a bridge to Canada in Shoemakers state. Now it's time to spend more money catering to their construction union supporters.

With the Republicans virtually helpless to control spending, we could very well find ourselves with a 4 to 5 trillion dollar additional debt within the first few months under this administration, mostly pandering to unions, environmentalists, and a host of Democrat loyalists. 500,000 charging stations by 2030? At this rate, the US will be Venezuela by then.
It's not a "Relief Package" it's an economic suicide pact guaranteed to run the USA off the cliff and end the US Dollar as the worlds reserve currency. You want relief, reopen the economy!

Printing money is NOT an economy.

We need politicians to end up like Mussolini for this!
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
70,567
Reaction score
18,371
Points
2,290
That is a lie. Republicans wanted to spend more on their pet projects while cutting safety nets for people who need help. The co0ronavirus relief bill is the perfect example. Republicans were only willing to send out $600 relef checks. Now Republicans are apparently unanimously opposed to ordinary people coming first with $1,400 checks.
You just proved my point and don't even realize it. Yes, the Republicans wanted to spend less or not at all, plus they didn't want to add federal money to those who were on unemployment. It would only encourage them not to get a job.

Now, the Republicans would have given in to what the Democrats wanted if they got rid of the pork from the bill. But they wouldn't even consider it. It's over 90% pork. Even if they cut half of it out of the bill, the Republicans would have probably given in half-way. But with Democrats, there is no giving in to Republicans, only the other way around.

Now that we have an all Communist led federal government, even they are bickering between themselves on what should or should not be in there. Whatever they decide on, it's still going to put us into further debt.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
70,567
Reaction score
18,371
Points
2,290
You stupid fuck. the 1.9 trillion is not all going to construction.

Road & bridge construction boost jobs in the steel, aggregate and cement industries. Those families spewd money boosting the entire economy.
It doesn't do shit except payoff their union supporters. Plus it has absolutely nothing to do with Covid much like 90% of the pork bill.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
70,567
Reaction score
18,371
Points
2,290
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
 

themirrorthief

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
998
Reaction score
903
Points
873
However much is necessary to destroy the US dollar and everyone’s savings.
Wouldn’t have been necessary if Trump had come through on his promise to reinvest in infrastructure.

I guess tax cuts for wealthy Americans was just more important than helping out average Americans.
most wealthy americans are democrats
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,504
Points
210
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,466
Reaction score
2,280
Points
893
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
You know who else went to the stock market after the tax cuts? The middle class guy or gal, that had more of their hard earned money, and invested it....
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,213
Reaction score
9,633
Points
900
Location
On a hill
Funny how the Republicans are only concerned about "spending" when the Democrats are in charge?

I mean, Trump ran up 8 trillion in new debt in one term... and you didn't hear a peep out of you guys on that one.
Not true. Several of us talked about it
 

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
19,013
Reaction score
10,014
Points
1,265
The Democrats are Looters.
They don't care if they bankrupt the country.
Pelosi and Schumer treat the citizens like they are their slaves.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
6,267
Reaction score
7,346
Points
1,918
However much is necessary to destroy the US dollar and everyone’s savings.
Wouldn’t have been necessary if Trump had come through on his promise to reinvest in infrastructure.

I guess tax cuts for wealthy Americans was just more important than helping out average Americans.
Oh nonsense---this is just a money grab-------it serves no purpose or reason
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,466
Reaction score
2,280
Points
893
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
The bipartisan CBO, and the data, highlight you are incorrect: Trump's Tax Cut 'Scam' Created 1.3 Million New Jobs, New CBO Data Show


Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story.

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%


In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,504
Points
210
However much is necessary to destroy the US dollar and everyone’s savings.
Wouldn’t have been necessary if Trump had come through on his promise to reinvest in infrastructure.

I guess tax cuts for wealthy Americans was just more important than helping out average Americans.
most wealthy americans are democrats


Who is Richer? Democrats or Republicans? The Answer ...



budgetandthebees.com › who-is-richer-democrats-or-re...

Aug 19, 2020 — In everyday American households, it seems that Democrats have a higher mean salary. It's true that many of the wealthiest families in the ...
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,503
Reaction score
8,116
Points
465
Oh nonsense---this is just a money grab-------it serves no purpose or reason
Trump failed in his promise to rebuild America's infrastructure.

If he hadn't been so bad at governing, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,504
Points
210
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
The bipartisan CBO, and the data, highlight you are incorrect: Trump's Tax Cut 'Scam' Created 1.3 Million New Jobs, New CBO Data Show


Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story.

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%


In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected
Jobs were being created before Trump's tax cut for the super-wealthy. Trump inherited an already recovering economy and goosed it with his wealthy tax reduction, low-interest rates, and the slashing of environmental regulations. Totally unnecessary since the economy was on the mend. Now, when the economy collapses, the president has no arrows left in his quiver to goose the economy by putting money into the economy, lowering interest rates, and relaxing environmental regulations. You don't goose an economy on the upswing, because it isn't necessary and puts you in a corner when a goosing is needed.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,466
Reaction score
2,280
Points
893

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
3,466
Reaction score
2,280
Points
893
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
The bipartisan CBO, and the data, highlight you are incorrect: Trump's Tax Cut 'Scam' Created 1.3 Million New Jobs, New CBO Data Show


Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story.

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%


In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected
Jobs were being created before Trump's tax cut for the super-wealthy. Trump inherited an already recovering economy and goosed it with his wealthy tax reduction, low-interest rates, and the slashing of environmental regulations. Totally unnecessary since the economy was on the mend. Now, when the economy collapses, the president has no arrows left in his quiver to goose the economy by putting money into the economy, lowering interest rates, and relaxing environmental regulations. You don't goose an economy on the upswing, because it isn't necessary and puts you in a corner when a goosing is needed.
The CBO says the tax cuts created a boom.....I don't know of any tax cut only for the super-wealthy that happened....can you please provide the link to the law?

The economy was bumping along, a little better since the GOP took Congress, but still very slow recovery....it went off like a speeding bullet after the GOP Congress had a President in office that was willing to work for the American people.

As the data from the bipartisan CBO highlights
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,504
Points
210
Correct. Never said that they did not get a paycheck, and I was responding to a blogger on that subject. They do not necessarily increase their pay whenever. My discussion was geared toward that tax reduction for the super-wealthy, who spent that money on the stock market. When they lose that huge windfall, they won't necessarily take a larger paycheck, and businesses do not always recoup their losses.
Businesses and business owners were in the stock market long before the tax cut and after the tax cut. It's not like they never had this money before and ran to their brokers for the first time.

When business grows, so do jobs in many instances. You are correct, they may not take a bigger paycheck, but they're not going to allow the company to make less profit either. They will cut hours or overtime, increase employee contributions to their healthcare plan, increase prices on their products or services, but nobody is digging deeper into their pockets without reclaiming that money somehow or some way.

Bottom line is no matter what, it's the little guy who actually has to pay those higher taxes one way or another.
Wrong. Very often the company can't control the reduction in income.
The tax reduction was no help except to those who got the deal and did not create more jobs. The jobs market was increasing before the tax windfall.
The bipartisan CBO, and the data, highlight you are incorrect: Trump's Tax Cut 'Scam' Created 1.3 Million New Jobs, New CBO Data Show


Democrats claim that the solid growth in 2018 was baked in the cake while Barack Obama was president. But that's simply not the case.

In January 2017 — before Trump entered the White House — the CBO projected that the economy would expand by only 2% in 2018, followed by 1.7% in 2019 and 1.5% next year.

That's what was baked in the cake. Continued tepid economic growth. Keep in mind that, when the CBO made those economic forecasts at the start of the Trump administration, they were right in line with other mainstream economic forecasts.

What actually happened was a very different story.

The actual growth for 2018 will likely have been 2.9% or 3%. And the CBO now expects GDP to climb 2.7% this year, and 1.9% next year.

The jobs picture improved dramatically as well.

In January 2017, CBO forecast an average unemployment rate of 4.4% for 2018. The actual number: 3.9%


In January 2017, CBO said that the economy would create an average of just 94,000 jobs a month in 2018. The actual results for 2018: 203,000 news jobs a month.

In other words, the nation's economy in 2018 was almost $400 billion bigger and there were about 1.3 million more jobs created than the CBO had expected
Try to understand that this recession was one fart from collapsing into a depression. Deepest recession in history. A slow recovery was just fine and would have increased in speed as jobs increased and money flowed into the economy.
There are unintended consequences when one can't see the big picture and just wants his pocket and ego stroked.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,503
Reaction score
8,116
Points
465
All we, as a people can do is look to the experts...the CBO is what Congress depends on....and as the article highlights, their predictions were echoed by other economists.
So in 2018, the economy was $400 billion bigger.

But the deficit was $360 billion bigger.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top