• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

Are they? I thought OPEC was trying to make up for losses and is slow to prop up supply. The US can't single handledly control the prices in the market.
That is true. Even though US is producing a lot of both oil and gas, both commodities are part of a globally interconnected market. That said, hamstringing US production to appease the crazies in his own party is not going to serve the Biden administration well.

Regardless, I'm glad Derec was able to insert a void Thug or Bitch comment where it is completely irrelevant.
Heh? What are you babbling about?
 
@Derec — Although you attempted a response, I notice that you were unable to answer either question.
I answered both.

First: Make up your mind!
My mind is made up and the Bezos example was to show how absurd government benefits with no income ceiling are.

Your ilk likes to whine and whinge that Pocahontas wants to confiscate billions of dollars of hard-earned wealth from Jeff.

Actually I leave whining and whinging to your ilk. But yes, Warren wants to confiscate most of Bezos' et al wealth, because she is offended they get to develop space companies with that wealth.
Warren: Billionaires who 'have enough money to shoot themselves into space' will pay for reconciliation bill

Also, her name is Fauxachontas. Fake Indian and a fake progressive.

Now you're whining that the same people want to give him an extra $12,000! Is this consistent?
It is. I do not think Bezos should qualify for the child tax credit, but at the same time I do not think wealth taxes or taxing unrealized (i.e. paper) appreciation are good ideas.
Now, should billionaires pay more in taxes? Probably. But the rhetoric coming from Warren and some other Democrats is one of bellicose envy and confiscatory taxation. And it weirdly identifies travelling to the edge of space as this moral affront we all should be outraged at.

You don't want to give Jeff an extra dollar in tax relief, nor take away a dollar. You think that Ted Cruz, Steve Bannon and the rest of Trump's coven have stumbled on the PERFECT tax table, the tax table Yahweh would have come up with if he had a vote?
I don't even believe in Jebus! (Or Yahwe)
No, I do not think present tax rates are perfect. I was just commenting on the absurdity of saying that income limits on things like child tax credits are somehow unacceptable. Such limits already exist on myriad of tax credits and other programs.

Second: Please try to keep up!
Oh, I am kept up, baby! It's all I can do not to zoom ahead by a country mile!

It's already been patiently explained that means-testing introduces unnecessary costs and inequities.
It has not been explained. It has been asserted using a quite unrelated example of flat postage from 200 years ago. And that is the supposed explanation on cost. There wasn't even an attempted explanation on supposed "inequities".

Note that the old child tax credit, as well as EITC and SNAP etc. all have income limits. It's not some kind of dastardly novel idea concocted by Manchin and Sinema in their supervillain lair under the La Palma volcano.

Uncle Sam can simply give with one hand (an extra exemption box to click) and take back with the other hand (higher rates in the tax table). Presto: No means-testing, no welfare "cliffs", Bezos doesn't net that $12,000 of so much concern to you.

It could. Or it could do the same as it does for other tax credits and programs. This is not some new idea. It's what has been done up until now. Bezos is not getting EITC or SNAP either and neither do I because income limits are very low (at least if you don't have any kids).

@Derec — You have told us, over and over, that you have no children yourself and begrudge your tax dollars going to help other people's children.

Those are two unrelated things.
1. What do the things in the bill do for me?
True, I have no kids (always use a condom). And I do not think any of the proposed $3.5T spending would directly benefit me at all. I think that is fair to point out.
After all, that is a lot of money and the Dem spending priorities show how little they think of people like me.

2. Do I think the policies are good for the country?
I think US has more than enough subsidies for having children. Existing child tax credit for one. EITC is mostly another child tax credit in disguise as hardly anybody makes little enough to qualify unless they have children. Same goes for programs like SNAP or Medicaid. So when we already have so many subsidies, why add almost $2T of new ones? The expanded child tax credit alone
Now, do I think there are some good ideas in the bill? Some of the climate stuff is good (minus the climate paramilitaries). The free community college is not bad. Too bad both of these things will get cut out while increased breeding subsidies will survive in some form.

Do you understand that when debating public policy in a forum like this we want to focus on general benefit and not just our own tax?
In this case I think the two align. The expanded child tax credit is not good policy and it will cost me money if not in taxes then in increased inflation.

BTW, since benefits to the well-to-do will be effectively canceled by higher taxes on the well-to-do, is it interesting that QOP is the Party that insists on means testing? Do you wonder why that is?
GOP is against the bill anyway. It is Manchin, a Democrat who insists on limiting eligibility.

If you think you know the answer, write a brief 50-word essay on the topic. Suggested title: "Making voters resentful: Directing hatred at non-existent Welfare Mama elects Republicans."

Before Clinton's reforms, there indeed were ma many "welfare mamas", people who could live long term of government benefits without even trying to find work. Unfortunately, Biden wants to go back to the bad old days.
 
It's red states that are where the problem is. Who is in control in a red state??
My point is that a lot of control of the election system is local. Who is in control in DeKalb or Fulton?

The budgets aren't local. There is nothing the locals can do about not being funded well enough.
 
Are you unaware that the power of the House Speaker is not absolute?
I never suggested it was. How about you be honest for a second and admit you did not know what the Hastert Rule actually was.

A motion to vacate the Office of Speaker is always in order. Admittedly, such a motion is extremely rare, but any QOPsters opposed to the Hastert Rule could have simply voted elsehow at the beginning of any session. They didn't.
What does all that rambling have to do with you misstating what the Hastert Rule was?

Anyway, I didn't know we were playing Congressional Trivia. "I'll take Hastert's bedtime stories for $200, Alex."
It's not trivia. Just admit you were wrong.

Whether John McCain died in 2017 or 2018, the point is that he is dead. You wanted to name a Senator who isn't in the Kremlin-Koch pocket and could only come up with a dead guy!

Sigh. Try to keep up with your own argumentation. I brought up McCain to refute your claim that GOP passes laws easily when they have thin majorities. I will report it again, because you have such a short attention span.
If the R's had a majority this razor-thin do you think they'd have any problem coming together and passing an agenda that their leaders wanted?
GOP had significantly bigger majorities in Congress under Trump and yet Trump's agenda hardly cruised through. The only major legislative accomplishment of the Trump administration was the tax cut bill.
Trump tried hard to get rid of Obamacare and failed - and the stumbling block was that time also a mavericky Senator from Arizona.

QOPsters know (or at least the ones with 100+ IQs know) that repealing Obamacare would be a chaotic disaster. QOP has no interest in the well-being of citizens, but they don't want to cause a disaster that they would be blamed for. Talking about repealing Obamacare is just a talking-point for the base. Most of the QOPster Senators were probably grateful that McCain voted Nay to save the Party from itself.

And maybe likewise most of the Dem Senators are grateful that Manchin and Sinema because spending $3.5T in additional entitlement spending in an already inflationary economy would be a disaster as well.
 
It's good to note that, when speaking of the highest income brackets, the mean income is usually three (or more) times the threshold. The "< 3 million taxpayers making more than $400k" are mostly not struggling middle-class families trying to make due on a mere $400,000. Their mean income is $1.3 million or thereabouts. In 2012 (last time I Googled) the top 0.1% of households averaged almost $8 million in Adjusted Gross Income. I, for one, think such taxpayers should pay a higher rate than those struggling on just $400k.

"Struggling" at $400k? If you are "struggling" making $400k you need to rethink a few things in your budget, honestly.
But yes, my calculation was just a quick one showing that just taxing those making more than $400k more will likely not be able to raise $350G per year.
Take your 0.1%. If you want half the money ($175G/a) to come from that group, you'd need to tax each of them almost $900k more per year assuming about 200M adults in the US. That's over 10% of the average income in that category by your own numbers.

And don't forget that all these figures from the IRS are self-reported AGI's. When one considers sheltered income, unrealized capital gains, estate inheritances, and so on, rich people's income is much greater.
Taxing "unrealized capital gains" is not going to happen, and it would not be a good idea either (what do you do when a stock drops in value the next year?)
I do not think the $3.5T proposal changes the tax code re sheltered income or estate taxes either, or have you heard differently. But who knows. Unlike the actual infrastructure bill that could be signed by Biden tomorrow if not for Fauxgressive obstructionism, the $3.5T Spendapalooza is not even written yet.

A billion bucks seems like a lot of money, but even small Navy vessels cost $1 billion apiece. Do QOPAnoners whinge when these moneys are spent?

No, but I bet you do.
 
But yes, my calculation was just a quick one showing that just taxing those making more than $400k more will likely not be able to raise $350G per year.

Good thing that's not what is being proposed then.
 
But yes, my calculation was just a quick one showing that just taxing those making more than $400k more will likely not be able to raise $350G per year.

Good thing that's not what is being proposed then.

Yabut it's easy to argue against. Kinda like spending 3.5 trillion for the betterment of American society is easy to argue against, while pointing out that only 760 billion is spent on defense.
Oh, wait - that's 7.6 trillion on defense. And only 350 billion on bettering our society. Sounds like a deal when you put it like that. Except that it's so easy to scare Republicans into thinking we actually NEED to spend more on "defense" than the next six nations combined...
Republican are trying to turn us into a nation of sniveling weenie cowards, in the image of their orange avatar.
 
Kinda like spending 3.5 trillion for the betterment of American society is easy to argue against,
People disagree to what extent the $3.5T Spendapalooza would be for the "betterment of American society" vs. its detriment.

while pointing out that only 760 billion is spent on defense.
This is a straw man. Nobody is making such a comparison.

Oh, wait - that's 7.6 trillion on defense. And only 350 billion on bettering our society. Sounds like a deal when you put it like that.
Well it sounds like a deal because it is dishonest argumentation,, even without the 10x overestimate of defense cost.

Ok, so $760G/a for defense and $350G/a for Spendapalooza. So you might argue, defense is more than twice as expensive. And many proponents of the bill argue in exactly that way.
But it is deeply dishonest, because it compares total defense spending with a proposed increase in entitlement spending. Even without Spendapalooza, entitlements are much more expensive than defense.

Except that it's so easy to scare Republicans into thinking we actually NEED to spend more on "defense" than the next six nations combined...
Given Chinese and Russian developing hypersonic missiles, we do not to spend more on defense R&D for sure. We certainly do not need even more subsidies for having children - existing ones are more than generous enough.
Republican are trying to turn us into a nation of sniveling weenie cowards, in the image of their orange avatar.
And Democrats are trying to turn us into a nation of sniveling welfare weenies. At least those who like to have unprotected sex at taxpayer dime.
5SeyXo.gif
Imagine the money Clevon will get through the expanded child tax credit alone!
 
Good thing that's not what is being proposed then.

How do you figure? The claim that the $3.5T bill will only increase taxes on those making over $400k a year is a big part of the selling of the bill.

There are also higher corporate taxes and corporate penalties that are going to be used to fund the bill.
 
I like these cutesy emojis.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "Last time I checked, your 👁, 👂🏾, and 🦷 are all part of your body. So why doesn’t Medicare cover them?

It’s time to expand Medicare to finally cover vision, hearing, and dental." / Twitter


Latest rumors: $700 voucher for dental care, financing of hearing aids.

Most of the rumors I've been seeing are about Sen. Joe Manchin, and he's been doing a lot of talking in public about what he wants.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema has been mostly silent.
 
There are also higher corporate taxes and corporate penalties that are going to be used to fund the bill.
Yes, which is why I used half of $350G/a in my calculations.
In any case, raising taxes on those making >$400k has been a big part of the Dem plan and messaging.
Although they now seem to be pivoting from that toward trying to raise all that money by massively taxing the billionaires.
Democrats Draw Up Billionaire-Tax Plan as Corporate Hike Fades
 
LoL, from the gutter.. of course
Fuck, tax billionaires?
That sounds like robbery.... ETA: the generosity
 
So they are just going to try and tax the uberwealthy. I guess dropping so low as $400k was too callous. Like that is some kind of poverty line for the affluent or something. Pity the individual scraping by on a measly $400k a year ($450k for couples). They being barely recognized by the well-to-do and often mistaken for the help.
Well, whatever they write (or have written by the lawyers of the people they purport to tax), I trust it will be many thousands of pages and some months afterwards stories of loopholes will surface.

Well now that's odd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LoL, from the gutter.. of course
Fuck, tax billionaires?
That sounds like robbery.... ETA: the generosity
The billionaires are already taxed on their income. What Warren, Wyden and Biden want is to tax any unrealized gain in their wealth. That would be a major change in US tax code.
 
LoL, from the gutter.. of course
Fuck, tax billionaires?
That sounds like robbery.... ETA: the generosity
The billionaires are already taxed on their income. What Warren, Wyden and Biden want is to tax any unrealized gain in their wealth. That would be a major change in US tax code.
so what is the effective tax rate on a gain of 99 billion in one year for bezos... not amazon... bezos...
 
Back
Top Bottom