$3.5T Not As Big As You Might Think

[mudwhistle]

The last time we Dems (because Republicans don't give a shit) tried to pass Climate legislation was TEN years ago. Republicans defeated it then.

And the problem has gotten exponentially worse since.


THIS is our last chance to do anything meaningful

So exponentially worse do you mean the air temperature is 250 degrees?
Or is is 150 degrees below zero?

 

[mudwhistle]

Why should I pay for your hearing aid?

Or sexual-reassignment surgery.

 

[Who_Me?]

Where is the line between personal responsibility and government provided?

 

[whitehall]

I know it's hard for you...considering it was in the OP

Probably the most significant is a proposal to control the price of prescription drugs. That would mean less government spending through Medicare, which pays for older Americans’ drugs. It would also reduce what the federal government spends to subsidize private insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
The total net savings for the drug plan could approach or even exceed half a trillion dollars, depending on what policy particulars Democrats eventually endorse.
Taking those savings and some other factors into account, Kogan said, a fair figure for new spending under the Democrats’ proposal is closer to (and quite possibly less than) $2.5 trillion over 10 years.

I am honestly confused about the claim. How does a gigantic taxpayer funded program cut Medicare costs? It seems to me that the Biden administration is in the business of cutting medicare costs by killing off Medicare recipients by dumping infected illegal aliens who never saw a freaking doctor in their sorry lives into their neighborhoods. Andy Cuomo killed off about 10,000 medicare recipients in NY but it was just a drop in the bucket.

 

[busybee01]

Here's Why Democrats' $3.5 Trillion Legislation Isn't (Quite) As Big As It Sounds

It's a lot of money, but still less than the Great Society — and still not what they spend in Europe.

www.huffpost.com

In fact it includes Medicare and other items that save $1T.

Including savings on drug costs. Something long overdue

This is not a $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill. The permanent increase in the child tax credit is not spending for example.

 

[busybee01]

Is that so?


then you pay for it.

The Republicans didn't have to pay for their tax cuts. Most of it went to the rich. The bulk of the tax increases are on the rich and big business Worth noting the tax increases on the rich would raise the top rate to 39.6%. The corporate rate increase would still leave it 9 points below the 35%. In addition, giving the IRS the money to enforce the current tax laws would be a start.

 

[Lesh]

Or sexual-reassignment surgery.

Are seniors getting that?

 

[Nostra]

This is not a $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill. The permanent increase in the child tax credit is not spending for example.

Why are tax cuts for the rich considered spending, but a tax credit for children isn’t?

 

[Lesh]

Why are tax cuts did the rich considered spending, but a tax credit for children isn’t?

English. Try it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wall Street bailouts cost $12.8 trillion? LOL!

Post your math. So we can all laugh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The last time we Dems (because Republicans don't give a shit) tried to pass Climate legislation was TEN years ago. Republicans defeated it then.

That sounds awful!!!

How many votes did it get?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is not a $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill. The permanent increase in the child tax credit is not spending for example.

Handing refunds to people who pay no income tax isn't spending?

 

[Hossfly]

Handing refunds to people who pay no income tax isn't spending?

Actually, no. It costs nothing.

 

[dudmuck]

Wall Street bailouts cost $12.8 trillion? LOL!

Post your math. So we can all laugh.

its not an easy answer, look for your self. Much of the amount refers to loans, some of which may not have been paid back.

As TARP Turns 10, Looking Back at the U.S. Government’s Assistance to the Banking Sector

Ten years ago this week, Congress responded to turmoil in the financial markets by creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

blog.gao.gov

 

[Turtlesoup]

Most if not all of it IS paid for by raising taxes on capital gains and higher income folks

Only an asshole and/or moron buys the nonsense of RAISING taxes on others to get free stuff line of bullshit.. Moral people want to treat all fairly not just singling out "others" to pay and only a moron doesn't realize that communists/crooks/socialists lie all the time about the tax increases being just for "OTHERS" not affecting them as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

its not an easy answer, look for your self. Much of the amount refers to loans, some of which may not have been paid back.

As TARP Turns 10, Looking Back at the U.S. Government’s Assistance to the Banking Sector

Ten years ago this week, Congress responded to turmoil in the financial markets by creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

blog.gao.gov

its not an easy answer,

Not easy? Cost means they gave out money that wasn't repaid. TARP paid out $635 billion.
They received over $740 billion back so far. That's a profit, not a cost.

Certainly not a cost of $12.8 trillion.

Bailout Tracker

ProPublica is still tracking where every dollar of taxpayer money from the 2008 bailout of the financial system has gone. See for yourself.

projects.propublica.org

 

[Roudy]

According to Nancy, 3.5 trillion dollars costs zero because sleepy lying Joe said "it's all paid for". You gotta admire the insanity. Exactly how stupid and gullible do they think the American people actually are?

 

[Care4all]

For the SECOND time today, you twist his own words for your stupid partisanship
“My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars.” From HIS twitter account.
Stop being such a dishonest twat. Goddamn

Well, we all know what he's been talking about, it adds nothing to the national debt.... Just because you rely on a condensed tweet and right wing spin and commentary for your news and understanding, is not my problem. It's yours.

 

[Smokin' OP]

You don't get it...there is a business tax that Trump cut coming back in Joe's bill that will cost all self employed more in taxes...no matter what they lost during covid.....and its just not right....businesses should be incentivized by lower taxes for the risk they take and jobs they create....not taxed out of business or made to wait on investing because they are taxed too much....that helps no one....

You don't get it.
No business in US history has ever gone bankrupt because of taxes.
Back taxes? Plenty have.

'Made to wait on investing'?
Guess what? That's the very thing that lowers your tax obligation.
'The jobs they create'?
Why would businesses hire more people if their taxes are too high?
Never heard of that, they hire more people because...............................they have more business.

Of course, it's going to cost more, it's going to cost everyone more.
The tax obligation only goes up after you reach $400,000, the all the $$$, you make after that amount is taxed at a higher rate.
My taxes haven't decreased in 40 years, and I damned sure never had a tax bill that was $0.

 

[Smokin' OP]

According to Nancy, 3.5 trillion dollars costs zero because sleepy lying Joe said "it's all paid for". You gotta admire the insanity. Exactly how stupid and gullible do they think the American people actually are?

Not as gullible as the retards that believe 'tax cuts pay for themselves' that republicans have been lying about for 40 years.