Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Democrats Are Holding America Hostage


Recommended Posts

Democrats Are Holding America Hostage

The time to hesitate is through. Congress needs to get its act together.

If it doesn’t raise the debt limit, the government won’t be able to pay its bills come October. And the key to this is for Democrats to suck it up and do the job the American public elected them to do. If they don’t, there will be hell to pay.

Now, there is a temptation to try and blame Republicans for refusing to help. But according to a Politico and Morning Consult survey, twice as many people (33 percent compared with 16 percent) are prepared to blame Democrats over Republicans. This is a departure from the norm. Shutdown showdowns in the mid-1990s, and again in the early 2010s, predictably cut against Republicans and forced them to ultimately cave to pressure (whether we’re talking about a government shutdown showdown or a debt limit standoff, the blame dynamics are similar—with the only difference being no one has ever been insane enough to actually default on the debt). But things are looking different this time around, for a variety of reasons.

First, though, let’s concede a few things: a) America’s level of spending is out of control and reckless, b) This is a bipartisan problem, and c) Defaulting on our debt would be unwise.

So why are Democrats playing the weak hand this time around?

The most obvious reason is that, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, Democrats “have the House, the Senate and the presidency. It’s their obligation to govern.”

That’s a debatable assertion. Isn’t it everybody’s obligation to govern? But what’s inarguable is that Dems can do this alone. This is a factual statement that is easily understood by the masses. And facts are stubborn. They can’t blame Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump. The Dems have the majority. And they need to play to their strengths, come together, and be organized. (It’s worth noting that in 2018, then-Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said this: "Every American knows the Republican Party controls the White House, the Senate, the House. It’s their job to keep the government open.”)

So why don’t Democrats want to do this alone, via the reconciliation process, and be done with it? One reason, out of many, is that raising the debt limit can be easily portrayed as running up the nation’s credit card bill—so vulnerable swing-district Democrats would rather have some bipartisan cover.

Adding the debt ceiling to the existing $3.5 trillion reconciliation is complicated because moderates like Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema are busy trying to cut the bill down from $3.5 trillion, and they may not finish before we bump into the debt ceiling. But creating a stand-alone debt-limit reconciliation bill—if the Senate parliamentarian even allows it—would be procedurally complicated and take weeks.

But wait! There’s more. Democrats want to attach a suspension on the debt ceiling until December of 2022 to a continuing resolution.

*************************************************

Nobody in their right mind would vote to spend another $5 trillion dollars on pork projects like Democrats are trying to do, we don't have enough money to pay for any of it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MovieMadness said:

 

Nobody in their right mind would vote to spend another $5 trillion dollars on pork projects like Democrats are trying to do, we don't have enough money to pay for any of it.

Oh, come on.  The way you moan you would think they were coming for a trillion of your dollars.  

But if so, just remember ... you have ten years to cough it up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Oh, come on.  The way you moan you would think they were coming for a trillion of your dollars.  

But if so, just remember ... you have ten years to cough it up.

Why is it greedy for me to want to keep my hard earned money, but it is not greedy for a bunch of loafers ( and I don't mean shoes) who majored in study hall to want to take mine? 

BTW, I remember when the Canadian dollar was a laughing stock. If everybody else in Canada has the same understanding of economics that you do, I can see how that happened.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Why is it greedy for me to want to keep my hard earned money, but it is not greedy for a bunch of loafers ( and I don't mean shoes) who majored in study hall to want to take mine? 

BTW, I remember when the Canadian dollar was a laughing stock. If everybody else in Canada has the same understanding of economics that you do, I can see how that happened.

We benefit a lot from a low Canadian dollar but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

You are happy to subsidize the billionaires and pay their taxes for them.  i wouldn't say that is too bright.  People who have had the benefit of learning a thing or two in study halls might wish to make the system a little more equitable.  Right now billionaires are doubling their wealth every few years.  Are you doing that well?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

We benefit a lot from a low Canadian dollar but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

You are happy to subsidize the billionaires and pay their taxes for them.  i wouldn't say that is too bright.  People who have had the benefit of learning a thing or two in study halls might wish to make the system a little more equitable.  Right now billionaires are doubling their wealth every few years.  Are you doing that well?

There you go jumping to conclusions. I don't like tax cuts for billionaires anymore than I like handouts to stupid people. It just gives them the time and energy to reproduce.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LsDoorMat said:

There you go jumping to conclusions. I don't like tax cuts for billionaires anymore than I like handouts to stupid people. 

Earth to LSDoorMat:  Democrats are proposing to roll back the Trump tax cuts given to billionaires.  But you don't like anything about their plan, correct?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bogie56 said:

Earth to LSDoorMat:  Democrats are proposing to roll back the Trump tax cuts given to billionaires.  But you don't like anything about their plan, correct?

It's everything that comes with it. Monitoring all bank transactions over 600 dollars? Really? Do you think THAT is a good idea? Two years of "free" college to ANYBODY? Some people should not be in college. They would do better in the trades. They make tons of money and have no student debt. You'll just encourage people who can't hack a STEM or nursing degree, or some other degree that attaches to an actual job, to major in garbage degrees. Of course the schools like it because it keeps tuition rising and the money coming. The student gets out, and they may not have debt. But they have no job either. Don't major in African American Studies or Opera unless you have really good connections and a job waiting for you.  We could go on about how these tax hikes actually DO hit people who are not billionaires. But then I see you with a picture of AOC on YOUR wall just like you see me with a picture of McCarthy (loathsome man) on mine. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Just in case Fox News hasn't reported this to you, Joe Biden's reconciliation bill is completely paid for and the middle class will see tax cuts.

I don't watch Fox News. Just Fox sports. And that "paid for" stuff is as laughable as Joe's immigration policy which is "y'all come".  If you believe "paid for" I have a few bridges and elevator passes I'd like to sell you.  Bogie, you are an expert on foreign film it seems. You MUST be smarter than that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

Democrats Are Holding America Hostage

The time to hesitate is through. Congress needs to get its act together.

If it doesn’t raise the debt limit, the government won’t be able to pay its bills come October. And the key to this is for Democrats to suck it up and do the job the American public elected them to do. If they don’t, there will be hell to pay.

Now, there is a temptation to try and blame Republicans for refusing to help. But according to a Politico and Morning Consult survey, twice as many people (33 percent compared with 16 percent) are prepared to blame Democrats over Republicans. This is a departure from the norm. Shutdown showdowns in the mid-1990s, and again in the early 2010s, predictably cut against Republicans and forced them to ultimately cave to pressure (whether we’re talking about a government shutdown showdown or a debt limit standoff, the blame dynamics are similar—with the only difference being no one has ever been insane enough to actually default on the debt). But things are looking different this time around, for a variety of reasons.

First, though, let’s concede a few things: a) America’s level of spending is out of control and reckless, b) This is a bipartisan problem, and c) Defaulting on our debt would be unwise.

So why are Democrats playing the weak hand this time around?

The most obvious reason is that, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, Democrats “have the House, the Senate and the presidency. It’s their obligation to govern.”

That’s a debatable assertion. Isn’t it everybody’s obligation to govern? But what’s inarguable is that Dems can do this alone. This is a factual statement that is easily understood by the masses. And facts are stubborn. They can’t blame Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump. The Dems have the majority. And they need to play to their strengths, come together, and be organized. (It’s worth noting that in 2018, then-Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said this: "Every American knows the Republican Party controls the White House, the Senate, the House. It’s their job to keep the government open.”)

So why don’t Democrats want to do this alone, via the reconciliation process, and be done with it? One reason, out of many, is that raising the debt limit can be easily portrayed as running up the nation’s credit card bill—so vulnerable swing-district Democrats would rather have some bipartisan cover.

Adding the debt ceiling to the existing $3.5 trillion reconciliation is complicated because moderates like Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema are busy trying to cut the bill down from $3.5 trillion, and they may not finish before we bump into the debt ceiling. But creating a stand-alone debt-limit reconciliation bill—if the Senate parliamentarian even allows it—would be procedurally complicated and take weeks.

But wait! There’s more. Democrats want to attach a suspension on the debt ceiling until December of 2022 to a continuing resolution.

*************************************************

Nobody in their right mind would vote to spend another $5 trillion dollars on pork projects like Democrats are trying to do, we don't have enough money to pay for any of it.

Just add it to the national debt, doesn't matter anymore.

Might as well throw cash down this thing.

HKRwNMFYqAzZ5ZKVn6wKnm.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

I'm happy to let people have the last word when they hang themselves with it.

But you didn't let me have the last word because you replied. NOW I have the last word. Unless you reply again. And you obviously know nothing about the details of the 3.5 trillion dollar bill. At least no more than the wide eyed utopians who haven't read it either. Nobody has. It is 5000 pages long. But I do know something about the details, which is where the devil is. But then I guess you believe Nans when she says "We must pass it so we can find out what is in it." Barnum was right. 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The least they could do is send out a list of demands. Just ram it through, or at least whatever

Manchin, the rich man from the poor man's state, will allow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

But you didn't let me have the last word because you replied. NOW I have the last word. Unless you reply again. And you obviously know nothing about the details of the 3.5 trillion dollar bill. At least no more than the wide eyed utopians who haven't read it either. Nobody has. It is 5000 pages long. But I do know something about the details, which is where the devil is. But then I guess you believe Nans when she says "We must pass it so we can find out what is in it." Barnum was right. 

What do you know that the rest of the world does not know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

I don't watch Fox News. Just Fox sports. And that "paid for" stuff is as laughable as Joe's immigration policy which is "y'all come".  If you believe "paid for" I have a few bridges and elevator passes I'd like to sell you.  Bogie, you are an expert on foreign film it seems. You MUST be smarter than that. 

It is "paid for" if the tax increases and increased auditing and reporting policies for IRS are passed along with the rest of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

THE BIDEN BILL - HANDOUTS TO THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS

President Biden is trying to rescue his $3.5 trillion tax and spend plan by playing the class card, claiming it will help “working people” who are “struggling” to pay the bills. This makes it sound like a safety net program for the poor rather than what it really is: a government subsidy engine for everyone including the affluent.

That’s one of the political secrets Democrats would rather not talk about, though it is central to their political project of hooking even the upper middle-class on government. Here are among the many alms for the affluent in the Bernie Sanders-Joe Biden- Nancy Pelosi bill.

• The expanded child tax credit has become a monthly government check that transfers large sums of money from childless taxpayers to financially secure middle-class families. The allowance is now $3,600 per child under age 6, and $3,000 for ages 6 through 17. A married couple making $150,000 a year with four children (two under the age of 6, two above) would qualify for $13,200 a year.

While the credits phase out with income, the same family earning $400,000 could still get up to $8,000 a year (an income level passed by Republicans in 2017). Mr. Biden recently said families earning more than $400,000 should pay more in taxes, since “that’s a lot of money.” He wants to tax them more and then get political credit for the handouts.

• A new entitlement caps child-care costs at 7% of income and was initially limited to parents making up to 200% of their state’s median income. But progressives eliminated the cap in committee so it would cover wealthier voters. The entitlement is now universal.

The U.S. median income for a family of four is about $90,000. Those families would pay 2% of income annually ($1,800) for child care. Taxpayers would pay the rest, roughly $21,000 for two kids in day care, according to estimates by Rachel Greszler of the Heritage Foundation. In wealthy states like Massachusetts, where child-care prices are higher, a family of four earning $200,000 a year could receive $23,000. Even at $367,000 in income, that Bay State family could get $10,000 in subsidies (as long as they self-certify they have less than $1 million in assets).

• Democrats also want paid family leave—about two-thirds of average wages for up to 12 weeks a year for any family care. It would apply to both full- and part-time employees, and in the case of newborns both parents would be entitled to leave. This means a married couple with a newborn—each earning $200,000 (Mr. Biden’s definition of a “rich” household)—could each collect more than $1,000 in weekly benefits, resulting in $24,000 of paid leave in one year. A couple making $100,000 each would be eligible for roughly the same amount.

• Democrats are also expanding ObamaCare. This spring’s Covid bill eliminated the income cap (400% of the poverty level) on who qualifies for subsidies. Brian Blase of the Galen Institute has calculated this windfall for higher-income earners. It’s especially large for older Americans or those living in parts of the country where the benchmark premium (used to calculate benefits) is higher than the national average.

A family of five with a 60-year-old head of household in Prescott, Ariz., for instance, could earn $350,000 a year and still qualify for an ObamaCare subsidy of $21,309. Even at $500,000 of income, that family would still get $8,559 in federal healthcare dollars.

• The bill includes a huge, new $12,500 electric vehicle tax credit. Since EVs cost between $10,000 and $15,000 more than similar gas-powered vehicles, this money will mostly flow to well-off coastal dwellers, especially in California. A couple can make $800,000 a year and still qualify for some of the credit.

• The biggest subsidy of all may be the return of the state and local tax deduction. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised her Members “meaningful” relief above the current $10,000 cap. Only some 15% of taxpayers itemize their deductions, and most of those who would benefit from a higher cap are the affluent—again mostly in richer coastal states.

Democrats want to subsidize the upper middle-class this way because they know that the broader the benefits are, the politically safer a program is. That’s the way it works politically in Europe, with one big caveat: The middle class who get the benefits also pay higher taxes. Democrats will send that bill to the middle class when the cost of their entitlements for the affluent is too entrenched to repeal.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

laurence-olivier.gif

Forgive my ignorance, but what does this mean?

I understand that both The Heritage Foundation and The Galen Institute are very conservative, pro-business organizations if that is the implication.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

 

THE BIDEN BILL - HANDOUTS TO THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS

President Biden is trying to rescue his $3.5 trillion tax and spend plan by playing the class card, claiming it will help “working people” who are “struggling” to pay the bills. This makes it sound like a safety net program for the poor rather than what it really is: a government subsidy engine for everyone including the affluent.

That’s one of the political secrets Democrats would rather not talk about, though it is central to their political project of hooking even the upper middle-class on government. Here are among the many alms for the affluent in the Bernie Sanders-Joe Biden- Nancy Pelosi bill.

• The expanded child tax credit has become a monthly government check that transfers large sums of money from childless taxpayers to financially secure middle-class families. The allowance is now $3,600 per child under age 6, and $3,000 for ages 6 through 17. A married couple making $150,000 a year with four children (two under the age of 6, two above) would qualify for $13,200 a year.

While the credits phase out with income, the same family earning $400,000 could still get up to $8,000 a year (an income level passed by Republicans in 2017). Mr. Biden recently said families earning more than $400,000 should pay more in taxes, since “that’s a lot of money.” He wants to tax them more and then get political credit for the handouts.

• A new entitlement caps child-care costs at 7% of income and was initially limited to parents making up to 200% of their state’s median income. But progressives eliminated the cap in committee so it would cover wealthier voters. The entitlement is now universal.

The U.S. median income for a family of four is about $90,000. Those families would pay 2% of income annually ($1,800) for child care. Taxpayers would pay the rest, roughly $21,000 for two kids in day care, according to estimates by Rachel Greszler of the Heritage Foundation. In wealthy states like Massachusetts, where child-care prices are higher, a family of four earning $200,000 a year could receive $23,000. Even at $367,000 in income, that Bay State family could get $10,000 in subsidies (as long as they self-certify they have less than $1 million in assets).

• Democrats also want paid family leave—about two-thirds of average wages for up to 12 weeks a year for any family care. It would apply to both full- and part-time employees, and in the case of newborns both parents would be entitled to leave. This means a married couple with a newborn—each earning $200,000 (Mr. Biden’s definition of a “rich” household)—could each collect more than $1,000 in weekly benefits, resulting in $24,000 of paid leave in one year. A couple making $100,000 each would be eligible for roughly the same amount.

• Democrats are also expanding ObamaCare. This spring’s Covid bill eliminated the income cap (400% of the poverty level) on who qualifies for subsidies. Brian Blase of the Galen Institute has calculated this windfall for higher-income earners. It’s especially large for older Americans or those living in parts of the country where the benchmark premium (used to calculate benefits) is higher than the national average.

A family of five with a 60-year-old head of household in Prescott, Ariz., for instance, could earn $350,000 a year and still qualify for an ObamaCare subsidy of $21,309. Even at $500,000 of income, that family would still get $8,559 in federal healthcare dollars.

• The bill includes a huge, new $12,500 electric vehicle tax credit. Since EVs cost between $10,000 and $15,000 more than similar gas-powered vehicles, this money will mostly flow to well-off coastal dwellers, especially in California. A couple can make $800,000 a year and still qualify for some of the credit.

• The biggest subsidy of all may be the return of the state and local tax deduction. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised her Members “meaningful” relief above the current $10,000 cap. Only some 15% of taxpayers itemize their deductions, and most of those who would benefit from a higher cap are the affluent—again mostly in richer coastal states.

Democrats want to subsidize the upper middle-class this way because they know that the broader the benefits are, the politically safer a program is. That’s the way it works politically in Europe, with one big caveat: The middle class who get the benefits also pay higher taxes. Democrats will send that bill to the middle class when the cost of their entitlements for the affluent is too entrenched to repeal.

Sources please.  Or is this just your opinions or reworkings or information from others?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Sources please.  Or is this just your opinions or reworkings or information from others?

I forgot to quote last night. My apologies. These are direct quotes from an article in the Wall Street Journal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Lawrence "fixes" the economy BIden style:

 

You got one thing right.  It always falls to the Democrats to "fix" the economy after the Republicans get through with it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

You got one thing right.  It always falls to the Democrats to "fix" the economy after the Republicans get through with it.

And you think Curly fixing the bathtub problem is a perfect example of their work? Got it. 

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

I forgot to quote last night. My apologies. These are direct quotes from an article in the Wall Street Journal. 

Oh, an obviously unbiased source. 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...