Rewarding fiscal irresponsibility...

[Hagbard Celine 10763]

4 hours ago, JohnLocke said:

There is plenty of reason to worry about the debt.  Back in the old days of capitalism, when the government borrowed 2 trillion dollars, they had to go out on the open market and sell treasury bonds.  This tended to make interest rates rise, and acted somewhat as a brake on excessive borrowing. Now that republicans and democrats have figured out how to skip this step by having the fed buy the bonds,  I don't see any brakes on spending.  This grand experiment can't end well. But it will be much harder on the poor and middle class, who won't have appreciating assets to counter balance rising prices. Wages will struggle to keep up. So far the rich are doing great in this environment. They will likely continue to do well as they can borrow at low rates and watch their assets increase in value.  If you set up an economic plan specifically to benefit the rich, you would be hard pressed to come up with anything better.  And yeah, Trump and the Republicans were horrible on the deficit. Now the democrats are in "Hold my beer" mode. Next up 2 trillion for infrastructure, then 2 trillion for the green new deal.

dude.  your side killed glass-steagall, the banks went 50 to 1 on the planet, no one did any jail time, the discount window was opened at 0% for infinity, and the banks continue to rape the 99%.

and you want to bitch about 2 trillion here and 2 trillion there.

go.

fuck.

yourself.

[Hagbard Celine 10763]

3 hours ago, GRHorn said:

I would say that the Bush tax cuts in retrospect helped contribute to the Housing bubble and subsequent crisis. 

I would say that the GQP repeal of Glass-Steagall was 100% responsible for the banks going full aggy and crashing the global finance system.  The housing bubble was the feature, not the product.

[Post Oak 20187]

5 hours ago, JohnLocke said:

I'm not sure what covid relief has to do with rewarding blue states that were fiscally irresponsible pre-covid.   Not a good precedent.  It looks like the democrats have figured out how to get red states to pay for blue state public employee pensions. I don't get why any Texan is for this.

Looks like you have a pretty thorough grasp of Tucker Carlsons asshole

[cactusflinthead 27594]

4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

My taxes WERE raised in 2018, so fuck that noise.  Seriously, fiscal responsibility hasn't been a thing since Reagan.  It is just something the GQP talks about when the other side is in charge.

Same. 

3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Because this. 

2 hours ago, mchookem said:

this has been pointed out a couple of times in this thread with no acknowledgement from the OP that his entire premise is based on a mistruth.

i don't like mass negs in CR because they stifle discussion, but the OP seems truly disingenuous. 

He is a fuckhead. Neg at will. We can go visit him in purgatory. GR has been in the thick of this and not one neg. 

2 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

This was a fun read from the OP right before the election. This place has a lot of intentional humor which is cool and partially what makes the site a great read. Unintentional humor is fun too! Bolded for emphasis.
 

 

Lost quote but, the point remains.

 

[Homercles 10205]

I’m glad some of y’all called out the ridiculous $1T+ tax cut / job acts crap.  Was in the car during A1 on NPR Friday, and was constantly yelling at the radio every time a GOP guy was railing on the cost of the bill...maybe we’d have money for covid relief if we hadn’t reduced the corporate tax rate and eliminated taxes on fucking private jets.  

Everyone here called it last year anyways...with a Democrat in office suddenly the right cares about the budget again. 

[David Dennison 18658]

1 hour ago, Homercles said:

I’m glad some of y’all called out the ridiculous $1T+ tax cut / job acts crap.  Was in the car during A1 on NPR Friday, and was constantly yelling at the radio every time a GOP guy was railing on the cost of the bill...maybe we’d have money for covid relief if we hadn’t reduced the corporate tax rate and eliminated taxes on fucking private jets.  

Everyone here called it last year anyways...with a Democrat in office suddenly the right cares about the budget again. 

People are wise to their bullshit. 

[pyrohornIII 4809]

5 hours ago, JohnLocke said:

There is plenty of reason to worry about the debt.  Back in the old days of capitalism, when the government borrowed 2 trillion dollars, they had to go out on the open market and sell treasury bonds.  This tended to make interest rates rise, and acted somewhat as a brake on excessive borrowing. Now that republicans and democrats have figured out how to skip this step by having the fed buy the bonds,  I don't see any brakes on spending.  This grand experiment can't end well. But it will be much harder on the poor and middle class, who won't have appreciating assets to counter balance rising prices. Wages will struggle to keep up. So far the rich are doing great in this environment. They will likely continue to do well as they can borrow at low rates and watch their assets increase in value.  If you set up an economic plan specifically to benefit the rich, you would be hard pressed to come up with anything better.  And yeah, Trump and the Republicans were horrible on the deficit. Now the democrats are in "Hold my beer" mode. Next up 2 trillion for infrastructure, then 2 trillion for the green new deal.

So instead of ranting about the stimulus package increasing the debt, you should be ranting about fixing the broken system that keeps funneling money up.  You seem to have a handle on it, why not done yet?

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

We could always raise taxes if Republicans are really worried about fiscal responsibility.

Oh, that's right.

The taxes need to be raised just to get back to where we were 20 years ago when it comes to local and state spending on roads, schools, healthcare.  I would imagine a graph on infrastructure and other spending would show the same stagnation as our wage scale.  Flat, while the upper elite and their corporations keep raking it in at a exponential rate.   

4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I think you are talking about the Tech bubble of the late 90s, the housing bubble in the late 00s, and then the oil and gas issues in the 80s and the mid 2010's, yes?  Boom and bust cycles are a natural part of the economy.  Always have been.

And all of those bubbles were aided in great part by deregulation.  See Hagbard's post below as and example.

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

I would say that the GQP repeal of Glass-Steagall was 100% responsible for the banks going full aggy and crashing the global finance system.  The housing bubble was the feature, not the product.

 

[shnsajax 3589]

So did OAN run a piece this morning to trigger this dumbass?

[RomaVicta 29793]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

 

Again, dismissing that which is not dogma from the liturgy.

I'd actually prefer a more illuminating response. Where do I go wrong? You asked a question that I answered. I don't dismiss you as a troll because you post other places with good intention. If I've ever negged you it's because of perceived dishonesty. 

So, where do I go wrong?

I'll concede an opinion that I had that may be wrong. I read Rage by Woodworth a few months ago. It presented Cohn's argument for lowering corporate taxes from 30 to 20 in order to be able to at least get something from them rather than having them move to other places that taxed at 20%. I'm not an instant scholar on this issue, but it did cause me to step back from my knee-jerk opposition to that tax reduction. There is more than I consider to the issue.

Was your gif a knee-jerk?

[GRHorn 105]

32 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Again, dismissing that which is not dogma from the liturgy.

I'd actually prefer a more illuminating response. Where do I go wrong? You asked a question that I answered. I don't dismiss you as a troll because you post other places with good intention. If I've ever negged you it's because of perceived dishonesty. 

So, where do I go wrong?

I'll concede an opinion that I had that may be wrong. I read Rage by Woodworth a few months ago. It presented Cohn's argument for lowering corporate taxes from 30 to 20 in order to be able to at least get something from them rather than having them move to other places that taxed at 20%. I'm not an instant scholar on this issue, but it did cause me to step back from my knee-jerk opposition to that tax reduction. There is more than I consider to the issue.

Was your gif a knee-jerk?

Your post explained how I would label something, then became somewhat disjointed so I lost interest. Also my eyes rolled back into my head when you mentioned Brisket and his ledge that he fantasizes about.

You want to control spending by cutting military spending. That sounds fine. Will you count that as "savings" or would you roll that money into something else?

You want to tax the rich. Fine. There's a CBO projected deficit of 2.2T this year. I'm not sure if that includes our recently passed stimulus, but I don't think it does. You cannot make up that difference taxing people. So if you think any of this matters then it's a spending problem.

But honestly, it doesn't matter. Alea iacta est, Roma.

There will be more massive stimulus programs on the way. There will be token tax raises/schemes to attempt to pay for it. The Fed will be forced to continue monetizing the debt. We will eventually lose our reserve currency status at some point in the medium term. 

What happens beyond that is TBD.

[ndawg 1242]

13 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Your post explained how I would label something, then became somewhat disjointed so I lost interest. Also my eyes rolled back into my head when you mentioned Brisket and his ledge that he fantasizes about.

You want to control spending by cutting military spending. That sounds fine. Will you count that as "savings" or would you roll that money into something else?

You want to tax the rich. Fine. There's a CBO projected deficit of 2.2T this year. I'm not sure if that includes our recently passed stimulus, but I don't think it does. You cannot make up that difference taxing people. So if you think any of this matters then it's a spending problem.

But honestly, it doesn't matter. Alea iacta est, Roma.

There will be more massive stimulus programs on the way. There will be token tax raises/schemes to attempt to pay for it. The Fed will be forced to continue monetizing the debt. We will eventually lose our reserve currency status at some point in the medium term. 

What happens beyond that is TBD.

I'm curious how you are preparing for the day when we lose reserve currency status.

[GRHorn 105]

4 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm curious how you are preparing for the day when we lose reserve currency status.

Buying some real estate as well. Higher barriers to entry there.

[Sawbonz 27434]

Where did OP go? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Where did OP go? 

WiFi on the boat went out again.

[atomheartbevo 89447]

8 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

Here they come dusting off their tea party hats....idiots. 

The ones realizing that Trump is A) looking to financially and politically gut the GOP and B) that they can't win with Trump anyways, are probably going to pivot to "We are actually Tea Party members, we just had to stay quiet and bide our time while the GOP was messing around with Trump, but we were good conservatives all along!"

[Nivek 16859]

I’m glad some of y’all called out the ridiculous $1T+ tax cut / job acts crap.  Was in the car during A1 on NPR Friday, and was constantly yelling at the radio every time a GOP guy was railing on the cost of the bill...maybe we’d have money for covid relief if we hadn’t reduced the corporate tax rate and eliminated taxes on fucking private jets.  
Everyone here called it last year anyways...with a Democrat in office suddenly the right cares about the budget again. 

To be fair we called it the moment the tax cuts were passed. We could have called it before that, too this shit had been going on for a long time.

[Mole 4320]

When I read the title, I figured it would be a righteous rant about how my out-of-state tax dollars will be going to save Texas from their irresponsible power management policies. Texans saving money for years and then coming hat in hand when the bill is due. I was ready to provide whole-hearted support of the righteous indignation. But alas, it was just a barely sensible partisan rant.
 

We live in a society. Social contract out front should have told you.

[Biff Tannen 45495]

51 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm curious how you are preparing for the day when we lose reserve currency status.

 

45 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Buying some real estate as well. Higher barriers to entry there.

I love this.  I actually have a tiny amount in crypto currency as well, but it's just hysterical to me that this guy's fallback is an unproven prayer to the tech gods.

[GRHorn 105]

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

I love this.  I actually have a tiny amount in crypto currency as well, but it's just hysterical to me that this guy's fallback is an unproven prayer to the tech gods.

Oh no, Biff. Say it ain’t so. 
 

 

[Biff Tannen 45495]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Oh no, Biff. Say it ain’t so. 
 

 

I negged you because you are a fucking hack.  Fuck you.  You sad, pathetic simpleton.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Biff Tannen
oh and change your avatar you stupid fuck

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just reading the thread title cracks me up. Way too soon, pal.

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Oh no, Biff. Say it ain’t so. 
 

 

Again with the gifs? 

[GRHorn 105]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I negged you because you are a fucking hack.  Fuck you.  You sad, pathetic simpleton.

The irony is thicc coming from the guy who calls Bitcoin an “unproven prayer to the tech Gods”. Shows you haven’t really looked into it. Sad for you. Leaving so much on the table. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by GRHorn

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Do any of you know when our complete debt is due? Is it all at the end of the month March 2021? Year? 15 years? 30? Is it all consolidated into one note? 
 

Pretending the worlds largest, biggest, baddest dick has to pay everything off on anyone’s terms but it’s own is a little silly. Make your foreign payments, or don’t, we have leverage as a nation. Stop looking at our financials like a household

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The irony is thicc coming from the guy who calls Bitcoin an “unproven prayer to the tech Gods”. Shows you haven’t really looked into it. Sad for you. Leaving so much on the table. 

Not effective. Needs more gifs.

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Not effective. Needs more gifs.

 

[elfenix 34171]

4 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

your side killed glass-steagall,

let's let aggy rewrite the banking laws, what could go wrong?

[elfenix 34171]

8 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Seriously, fiscal responsibility hasn't been a thing since Reagan. 

this is bullshit.  it's not been a thing with republicans.  democrats wedded themselves to paygo for normal economic times, literally costing themselves at the polls. 

[ndawg 1242]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I love this.  I actually have a tiny amount in crypto currency as well, but it's just hysterical to me that this guy's fallback is an unproven prayer to the tech gods.

I'm sure that before the very first hairlines of the Visigoths begin creeping up over the northern horizon, there were some Romans who really, truly did fear an incursion. But I also bet there were plenty more who loved to talk about it and sound like they were really in the know about future events, even though the reality hadn't really sunk in for them.

We all had to realize this on own own, and in our own way.. but one of the ways I managed to figured out that conservatives are truly full of shit is that I could probe in to all their fears they loved to warn me about, and find out that they actually weren't really afraid. They were just blustering.

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

9 hours ago, JohnLocke said:

 Next up 2 trillion for infrastructure, then 2 trillion for the green new deal.

 

unlike dotard's tax cuts, both of these things will more than pay for themselves long term.

 

Also, go fuck yourself.

 

[hookemATL 11611]

Methinks GRUHorn would like a NowThis moment with the Veep. 
 

Edited March 14, 2021 by hookemATL
Seriously all you GQP traitors need to sit in the corner with a Capri sun and stfu while the adults unfuck the country

[Bama Chick 28596]

I thought [mention]immamac [/mention] said posters who started dumb bomb throwing troll threads who post and run were to be banned?

[Bullneck 18987]

10 hours ago, JohnLocke said:

I'm not sure what covid relief has to do with rewarding blue states that were fiscally irresponsible pre-covid.   Not a good precedent.  It looks like the democrats have figured out how to get red states to pay for blue state public employee pensions. I don't get why any Texan is for this.

Blue states = donor states

Red states = welfare/taker states

[Hagbard Celine 10763]

22 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I thought [mention]immamac [/mention] said posters who started dumb bomb throwing troll threads who post and run were to be banned?

didn't see that policy announcement but this thread certainly qualifies

paging @immamac

[GRHorn 105]

45 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm sure that before the very first hairlines of the Visigoths begin creeping up over the northern horizon, there were some Romans who really, truly did fear an incursion. But I also bet there were plenty more who loved to talk about it and sound like they were really in the know about future events, even though the reality hadn't really sunk in for them.

We all had to realize this on own own, and in our own way.. but one of the ways I managed to figured out that conservatives are truly full of shit is that I could probe in to all their fears they loved to warn me about, and find out that they actually weren't really afraid. They were just blustering.

What exactly are you trying to say? Please be kind. Remember, I’m a simpleton. 

[GRHorn 105]

24 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I thought [mention]immamac [/mention] said posters who started dumb bomb throwing troll threads who post and run were to be banned?

CR is full of formal hall monitors, patrolling this and other forums. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

7 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

dude.  your side killed glass-steagall, the banks went 50 to 1 on the planet, no one did any jail time, the discount window was opened at 0% for infinity, and the banks continue to rape the 99%.

and you want to bitch about 2 trillion here and 2 trillion there.

go.

fuck.

yourself.

 

6 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

I would say that the GQP repeal of Glass-Steagall was 100% responsible for the banks going full aggy and crashing the global finance system.  The housing bubble was the feature, not the product.

Facts aren't exactly on your side. The repeal of Glass Steagall was overwhelmingly bipartisan in the house and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The only place it was contentious was the Senate. So, yes, it was more of a GOP (pre Q, I guess?) thing, but it was also a Dem thing.

[TwiceHorn 31282]

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

 

Facts aren't exactly on your side. The repeal of Glass Steagall was overwhelmingly bipartisan in the house and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The only place it was contentious was the Senate. So, yes, it was more of a GOP (pre Q, I guess?) thing, but it was also a Dem thing.

Telecom deregulation happened under Clinton, too.  It's worked out ok, but was kind of hairy for a minute there and has had a bad influence on broadband proliferation.

#bothsides have a bad history of being in the pockets of big business, and it's not ancient history, either.

Edited March 14, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Bookman 4610]

11 hours ago, JohnLocke said:

There is plenty of reason to worry about the debt.  Back in the old days of capitalism, when the government borrowed 2 trillion dollars, they had to go out on the open market and sell treasury bonds.  This tended to make interest rates rise, and acted somewhat as a brake on excessive borrowing. Now that republicans and democrats have figured out how to skip this step by having the fed buy the bonds,  I don't see any brakes on spending.  This grand experiment can't end well. But it will be much harder on the poor and middle class, who won't have appreciating assets to counter balance rising prices. Wages will struggle to keep up. So far the rich are doing great in this environment. They will likely continue to do well as they can borrow at low rates and watch their assets increase in value.  If you set up an economic plan specifically to benefit the rich, you would be hard pressed to come up with anything better.  And yeah, Trump and the Republicans were horrible on the deficit. Now the democrats are in "Hold my beer" mode. Next up 2 trillion for infrastructure, then 2 trillion for the green new deal.

Wow maybe the Republicans shouldn't have nominated a corrupt, immoral, piece-of-shit failed-businessman for President of the United States.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Bookman

[Bullneck 18987]

11 hours ago, JohnLocke said:

There is plenty of reason to worry about the debt.  Back in the old days of capitalism, when the government borrowed 2 trillion dollars, they had to go out on the open market and sell treasury bonds.  This tended to make interest rates rise, and acted somewhat as a brake on excessive borrowing. Now that republicans and democrats have figured out how to skip this step by having the fed buy the bonds,  I don't see any brakes on spending.  This grand experiment can't end well. But it will be much harder on the poor and middle class, who won't have appreciating assets to counter balance rising prices. Wages will struggle to keep up. So far the rich are doing great in this environment. They will likely continue to do well as they can borrow at low rates and watch their assets increase in value.  If you set up an economic plan specifically to benefit the rich, you would be hard pressed to come up with anything better.  And yeah, Trump and the Republicans were horrible on the deficit. Now the democrats are in "Hold my beer" mode. Next up 2 trillion for infrastructure, then 2 trillion for the green new deal.

If in four years Covid was a memory, the economy was humming, infrastructure was being updated and replaced all over the country, and we were switching to renewable energy and were seriously addressing climate control . . . 

would you be happy or sad?

[Bullneck 18987]

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Where did OP go? 

He forgot he logged in as GRUHorn

[Sawbonz 27434]

9 hours ago, elfenix said:

this is bullshit.  it's not been a thing with republicans.  democrats wedded themselves to paygo for normal economic times, literally costing themselves at the polls. 

No it actually was a thing with republicans. Reagan put that aside to bankrupt the Soviet Union in the arms race and it worked. Then Bush raised taxes and it cost him the election and that was the end of republican fiscal responsibility 

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

13 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Where did OP go? 

Galt’s Gulch or wherever Libertarian Kochsuckers are grown now.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

The problem with crypto-currency as your fallback reserve currency plan is all in the PR. Ya gotta repackage this shit, ya see? Stay with me here, but how about an ad campaign where we get people all hyped up about

*jazz hands*

Mystery Bucks!

[VRHorn 718]

13 hours ago, GRHorn said:

What exactly are you trying to say? Please be kind. Remember, I’m a simpleton. 

Politifact rates this claim as true.

[Hagbard Celine 10763]

12 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Facts aren't exactly on your side. The repeal of Glass Steagall was overwhelmingly bipartisan in the house and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The only place it was contentious was the Senate. So, yes, it was more of a GOP (pre Q, I guess?) thing, but it was also a Dem thing.

I will concede your point that it was bipartisan.  For the record i will also note that Graham, Leach and Bliley were pubs, and quote the following for posterity (from the wiki):

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[8]

[Beau Vine 54003]

On 3/13/2021 at 10:16 AM, JohnLocke said:

I'm not sure what covid relief has to do with rewarding blue states that were fiscally irresponsible pre-covid.   Not a good precedent.  It looks like the democrats have figured out how to get red states to pay for blue state public employee pensions. I don't get why any Texan is for this.

This is from a Lisa Murkowski editorial explaining why she voted against the relief bill:

Quote

Working to shape formulas for state and local relief targeted to those most negatively affected — like Alaska, with more than 30% revenue loss, made sense. Directing billions of state relief to a state like California, which had a record surplus in 2020, doesn’t make sense.

https://www.adn.com/opinions/2021/03/13/murkowski-why-i-didnt-vote-for-the-covid-19-relief-bill/

[Gravy Train 974]

Funny, given the title of this thread, I assumed it hinted at ever-expanding entitlements programs, now the no-strings-attached, $3,600-per-child benefit attached to the COVID-19 relief bill.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/child-allowance-payment-stimulus-bill-basic-income-2021-3

Quote

"It functions almost exactly the way that guaranteed income functions, which is a predictable stream of income each month that you can rely on," Amy Castro Baker, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Policy and Practice, told Insider.

Under the existing child tax credit, parents can reduce their taxes by up to $2,000 for every child they have under age 17. If that credit exceeds their total taxes owed, families can pocket some of the extra money in cash — up to $1,400 per child — but not the entire sum. Parents who earn no income don't qualify; they have to make at least $2,500 annually.

The new child tax credit is different: If a family's tax bill drops to $0, they can pocket the full $1,500 or $1,800 per child (that's on top of the monthly checks they've received). This is also the first time parents can claim a tax credit for 17-year-olds. 

Parents are eligible for these payments if they earn up to $112,500 as a single parent, or up to $150,000 as a married couple. Parents with no income can get the credit, too.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/03/14/thanks-to-the-stimulus-bill-child-allowances-are-here-to-stay-but-we-have-to-pay-for-them/?utm_source=pushly

Quote

A family that uses this payment to fund paid leave cannot also use it to pay for child care (which is why I’ve been critical of the child tax credit in the past when it’s presented as a panacea). There’s also no mechanism for ensuring this money is actually spent on children and isn’t instead frittered away on consumption that has little connection to a child’s well-being, an inescapable downside of a broad credit.

Quote

But the current proposals for a permanent child allowance are far from perfect. I’d posit three major improvements. The first is that the benefit must — IT MUST — be paid for. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. deficit is expected to increase by a whopping $12 trillion by 2031, and that’s before accounting for this recent $1.9 trillion stimulus package, a $4 trillion infrastructure bill, and whatever universal health care or green energy investments are made. This raises the very real possibility that the government cannot pay obligations that are promised, from entitlements to child allowances.

 

[Bateshorn 9903]

On 3/13/2021 at 11:37 AM, GRHorn said:

Just for the record, nobody on this thread sees any need to check spending in any way. Correct?

i’m not reading this whole thread, but I have some STRONGLY WORDED notes for America’s agriculture states on this issue. 

 

Also, as I’m sure has been pointed out:  the Red/Blue State thing is generally a product of per capita spending.

 

Finally, if you were on this site when the 2017 tax cuts passed and didn’t ask how it would be paid for: FUCK OFF.  if you did, show you’re work.  And “giving money back to the taxpayer” is not an excuse if you borrowed it from China. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Bateshorn

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 hours ago, Gravy Train said:

Funny, given the title of this thread, I assumed it hinted at ever-expanding entitlements programs, now the no-strings-attached, $3,600-per-child benefit attached to the COVID-19 relief bill.  

• It's a stimulus measure due to a crater in our economy caused by Covid. 
• Economic stimulus is designed to boost organic economic growth for the entire economy.
• We live in a consumer-driven mixed-market economy. 
• The Republican Deficit Hawk running the Fed has been begging for stimulus to get the sluggish economy moving. 

The only difference, now, is parents whose income is less than $2,500 a year (think covid job losses) qualify for the child tax credit benefit and can draw on the credit, if they choose. In the past they would get nothing. 

This is priming the pump. This is the tranche headed to the most vulnerable in our society. Ideal for stimulating our consumer mixed market economy. 

__________________________________

New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not common. ~John Locke

Edited March 15, 2021 by washparkhorn