Chalk me up as someone who is deeply concerned that Biden wants to spend $4 trillion. I'm not sure he can find the dollars with changes to the tax code and expected increases in GDP. I worry he isn't cutting enough fat in the budget to compensate for the shift in focus. Since we're just printing money here, I'm also concerned about deeply devaluing the dollar and thus American's savings (if they have any to begin with of course). This is a big gamble to put so much into government programs that have a mixed record of success historically.
There rube, I gave a direct criticism of Biden without fawning all over him. Happy?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
It was more a warning than fawning. He knows that the Trump administration did good things for blacks, for example prison reform. Jones was part of it. But that's a hidden truth.
I specifically used Jones because rube posted him fawning over Biden. My point being there is a basic template to ensuring positive media response to a Presidential speech. When Trump mostly followed it, the same people fawning over Biden, like Jones, would have been positive about Trump (although maybe short of fawning). The template is basically:
- Appear confident
- Have a generally positive tone
- Preach unity
- Have an American flag lapel
- A blue or red tie
- Overall tone of "Murica, #### yeah!"
- God bless the troops
- Don't attack the media
- Don't appear to be on drugs
That Trump could rarely do that is an indictment of his inability/unwillingness to play the game. If he had played the game a bit more he'd probably still be President. But as long as any President follows the basic template, media coverage is locked in to be positive.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Your periodic reminder that Twitter represents 1/10th of 1% of reality so applying any meaning to anything, other than it is a cesspool, is overthinking it. Also, I personally like BlueAnon more than Blue MAGA. Blue MAGA is lazy and uninspired, and misguided too, as whatever fawning there is for Biden I can pretty much guarantee few people, if anyone, will die or go to jail for Joe Biden. We obviously know that ain't the case the Original MAGA (are we gonna have to treat this like the NWO with different factions like Hollywood and Wolfpac?).
BlueAnon doesn't really make sense though. For all their flaws, most Biden stans generally aren't conspiracy nutters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Excuse what? I'm saying it's irrelevant, not that it should be excused. And, in typical Twitter trending fashion, the majority of posts related to "Uncle Tim" were MAGA people talking about how racist it was. General rule of thumb on Twitter: the more controversial a trend is, the more likely it's being amplified by people speaking out against it.
The people who I saw using it were journalists and blue checkmarks that have been on the Uncle Joe hype train for ages.
I agree with your general rule of thumb that twitter isn't representative of the entire population, but it's a decent microcosm of the MSNBC "back to brunch" crowd on some of these things.
I was also a little liquored when I posted this stuff last night. Normally it just gets an eye roll and a massive sigh from me when I'm sober.
Chalk me up as someone who is deeply concerned that Biden wants to spend $4 trillion. I'm not sure he can find the dollars with changes to the tax code and expected increases in GDP. I worry he isn't cutting enough fat in the budget to compensate for the shift in focus. Since we're just printing money here, I'm also concerned about deeply devaluing the dollar and thus American's savings (if they have any to begin with of course). This is a big gamble to put so much into government programs that have a mixed record of success historically.
There rube, I gave a direct criticism of Biden without fawning all over him. Happy?
I mean deficit-hawking during a pandemic is some real, Reaganite ghoul ####, but you do you.
Chalk me up as someone who is deeply concerned that Biden wants to spend $4 trillion. I'm not sure he can find the dollars with changes to the tax code and expected increases in GDP. I worry he isn't cutting enough fat in the budget to compensate for the shift in focus. Since we're just printing money here, I'm also concerned about deeply devaluing the dollar and thus American's savings (if they have any to begin with of course). This is a big gamble to put so much into government programs that have a mixed record of success historically.
There rube, I gave a direct criticism of Biden without fawning all over him. Happy?
I am concerned about this as well, and quite interested from a Canadian and American perspective. I posted a few graphs and videos trying to get someone who may actually know something about this (in liue of me who really has no idea), but I couldn't get anyone to comment.
Not sure if that is because people don't care, don't have the knowledge to comment.... or my fear was so unfounded it didn't matter.
With the fear of hyperinflation hurting savings, this video presents a case that we are indeed in a dangerous situation, but Biden's plan is correct (he isn't speaking about Biden or our current situation specifically, just general government tools and downturns and I interpret this as similar to what Biden is doing), however a "Beautiful deleveraging" needs to occur, which likely involves at least a small downturn.
It starts off pretty slow with some basic stuff, but stick with it.
I mean deficit-hawking during a pandemic is some real, Reaganite ghoul ####, but you do you.
You don't really get to call someone a ghoul for having legitimate concerns about the way the government spends money.
It'd just be so nice if every policy disagreement didn't immediately devolve into "Oh yeah? Well, if you think that, that makes you a bad person".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
You don't really get to call someone a ghoul for having legitimate concerns about the way the government spends money.
It'd just be so nice if every policy disagreement didn't immediately devolve into "Oh yeah? Well, if you think that, that makes you a bad person".
I guess I'm just tired that concerns about government spending usually only come from these types when it has to do with making life better for people, improving public services, etc., and not on say tax cuts for the rich, military spending etc.
But perhaps I'm painting too broadly.
EDIT: But I also did say I was going to try to be better about that, so I'll apologize and walk the "ghoulish" part back.
Last edited by rubecube; 04-29-2021 at 09:16 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I mean deficit-hawking during a pandemic is some real, Reaganite ghoul ####, but you do you.
He's already spending a ton of money just on recovery plans. To roll out aggressive restructuring now when the economy is just beginning to recover is very risky.
You can't just print money forever and hope to get away with it. It will devalue currency to a point where it could mean major economic turmoil and depressed purchasing power. Raising the minimum wage doesn't do anything for people if they can't actually buy anything more because the dollars aren't worth the same. At what point do cryptocurrencies start to replace the federal reserve dollar?
I'm just saying, you can't just roll out programs and not figure out a way to pay for them. It's the same #### I've been ranting at the Republicans for. They play at being fiscally conservative but then spend like a drunken sailor and cut taxes.
Biden is at least changing some things in order to pay for this, but I don't think it's going to be nearly enough and deficit spending may never go away as a result of rolling out some of these big programs.
But yeah, just throw a one-liner at me and not have a meaningful debate. Well done.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
I guess I'm just tired that concerns about government spending usually only come from these types when it has to do with making life better for people, improving public services, etc., and not on say tax cuts for the rich, military spending etc.
But perhaps I'm painting too broadly.
EDIT: But I also did say I was going to try to be better about that, so I'll apologize and walk the "ghoulish" part back.
cheers.
Firstly, I have no problems with taxing the rich. My in-laws are quite wealthy and even they are 100% in favor of it. Besides, there are always ways to work the system to maintain wealth even if taxation on the rich is heavier. It only works so well to solve funding problems.
As always, my first point about any budget discussion has consistently been that the military budget is ridiculous and needs some major hack and slash, but nobody has the political courage to do it. That's what I was implying by saying Biden isn't really trimming the fat to pay for these new plans. If he did slash the military budget he'd get a huge thumbs up from me. The military-industrial complex is significantly hindering the success of the average American, but then again, I also know lots of people who have been directly employed by those industries, so it cuts both ways if those people lose their income as well.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
I guess I'm just tired that concerns about government spending usually only come from these types when it has to do with making life better for people, improving public services, etc., and not on say tax cuts for the rich, military spending etc.
I'll grant that I don't spend as much time in this thread as I used to, but I honestly cannot remember anyone in here ever championing tax cuts for the rich or increased military spending. Maybe one of those wingnuts who shows up from time to time and doesn't last long did so, but I don't know who you mean by "these types".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Biden is at least changing some things in order to pay for this, but I don't think it's going to be nearly enough and deficit spending may never go away as a result of rolling out some of these big programs.
Deficit spending isn't nearly the boogeyman conservatives make it out to be, so long as it's not a massive deficit and it's tied to spending on things that bring value to a society. It's actually considered sound fiscal policy in many European countries that are considered good places to live (e.g. Germany, Denmark, etc.).
The problem in the U.S. is that they've kicked the can so far down the road in terms of infrastructure and social services that it's now going to require a massive investment to bring things up to the standards they need to be at. However, if you keep saying "we can't afford that" and only make half-assed attempts at things, it's really only putting a band-aid over the problem.
IMO, the easiest solutions to the U.S.' deficit issues (other than cutting military spending) are to put more resources into updating and enforcing its tax code on corporations, and to start throwing its weight around internationally in terms of crushing tax shelters and repatriating tax dollars.
Fat chance of that ever happening with how much money both parties receive from their big donors.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I'll grant that I don't spend as much time in this thread as I used to, but I honestly cannot remember anyone in here ever championing tax cuts for the rich or increased military spending. Maybe one of those wingnuts who shows up from time to time and doesn't last long did so, but I don't know who you mean by "these types".
I'm probably spending too much time on the internet during this pandemic to the point where all of my platforms are starting to blur together, so you could be right.
Your periodic reminder that Twitter represents 1/10th of 1% of reality so applying any meaning to anything, other than it is a cesspool, is overthinking it. Also, I personally like BlueAnon more than Blue MAGA. Blue MAGA is lazy and uninspired, and misguided too, as whatever fawning there is for Biden I can pretty much guarantee few people, if anyone, will die or go to jail for Joe Biden. We obviously know that ain't the case the Original MAGA (are we gonna have to treat this like the NWO with different factions like Hollywood and Wolfpac?).
Orale!! Don't forget about the LWO!
__________________
Sent from an adult man under a dumpster
Are you afraid of the global competition argument? Tax corporations too high and they'll go elsewhere?
There are ways around that if you fix your tax code and, as I said, start leaning on countries that act as tax shelters. Partner with the EU and other G20 countries that may have interest and you have a pretty formidable collection of markets.
The notion that companies are going to withdraw from the U.S. market if they start getting taxed more is absurd. It's the biggest consumer market in the world.
IMO, the easiest solutions to the U.S.' deficit issues (other than cutting military spending) are to put more resources into updating and enforcing its tax code on corporations, and to start throwing its weight around internationally in terms of crushing tax shelters and repatriating tax dollars.
Fat chance of that ever happening with how much money both parties receive from their big donors.
Funny you should bring that up, it was just reported that Biden wants to pump 80 Billion into the IRS to go after ultra-wealthy tax dodgers
IRS funding is also one of the best returns you can get for any government organization, with it somewhere between 4-1 and 6-1 return per dollar spent. I really wish Trudeau would do the same with the CRA
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
IRS funding is also one of the best returns you can get for any government organization, with it somewhere between 4-1 and 6-1 return per dollar spent. I really wish Trudeau would do the same with the CRA
Lol, Canada is a tax shelter. Not a chance in hell Trudeau wants to go after that revenue stream.
EDIT: It's not really a revenue stream, but it certainly boosts the economic numbers for sitting governments.
deficit spending is fine right up to the point where it isnt fine at which point the whole economy craters in a week or two, the currency becomes completely worthless and the government losses any ability to function, things devolve down to bartering assets for food real quick.
The problem with both the pro and con argument is no one knows at which point it will all go sideways, but it will eventually all go sideways
