Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[LarryBnDC]

I didn’t think anyone could annoy me as much as Joe Manchin... then along came Gottheimer.

Damned if these “Moderates” aren’t doing their best to fuck things up.

They won’t succeed but sheesh! At least act like you give a damn about the voters that put you in the majority.

And you'd rather just keep printing Monopoly money.

Got it.

Nope.

It’s called investing in America’s future.

Not if you can't pay for it. Fixing roads and bridges and tunnels is a great thing. Still, one should only invest with money one has., or with what can reasonably earn back to pay.  There are always ways to leverage debt, of course, but there is also something called "too much debt".

Joe Manchin and others are right to question to the level of that debt.

Your view seems to indicate that you would call a credit card use an investment, it seems.

I wouldn’t because i am not a national government.

That you compare the federal budget to sting around the kitchen table (so to speak) and using a credit card... well.

That you don't grasp that debt is a problem for any entity, is...well...a reflection of your own economic ignorance.

“Debt is money we to ourselves. It only make us poorer in aggregate if it crowds out investment — which is isn't doing.”

Paul Krugman
Nobel laureate in ECONOMICS
2019


I think Krugman may know a tee nine chee bit more on the subject.

[josh]

No you don’t.

The cost of these programs is easily covered by even a remotely responsible tax code and endorsement regime, part and parcel of better budget, which Smokey Joe Manchin needs to get his ass behind.

No. They're not.

Oh boy! This is one of those hot, well reasoned debates that Piggy always claims to want. Somebody makes a claim asserting something is true and Piggy says "No," without a basis.

Fac, for my sake, not Piggy's, what would an example of a remotely responsible tax code (etc.) be to cover these programs.

Piggy, what underlies your claim that there is no remotely responsible tax code that could cover it?

“The framework claims $491 billion of offsets, and an additional $56 billion of savings from dynamic scoring, to pay for the bill,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget writes in a post on its website. “However, many of these pay-fors count savings that have already occurred. We estimate actual offsets will total roughly $200 billion before dynamic scoring.”

Dynamic scoring factors in the impact of economic effects.

Penn Wharton Budget Model Senior Economist Jon Huntley told us whether or not the legislation covers the cost of the new spending “depends on how you define ‘paid for.'”...

...The biggest sticking point is the $210 billion in repurposed COVID-19 relief funds, which CRFB says amount to just $40 billion to $50 billion in actual offsets. The bill claims another $53 billion in unused unemployment insurance funds; CRFB says that amounts to zero savings. And the $87 billion in the sale of wireless spectrum frequencies is really $20 billion in offsets for the bill, because the senators’ figure includes money from sales that already happened.

Goldwein told us there were two problems with counting savings from policies that ended up costing less than originally anticipated.

One, it’s not a valid way of budgeting. Determining how much a bill costs involves looking at how much the legislation will change the federal budget compared with not having the legislation. For the COVID-19 relief, unemployment insurance and spectrum sales, “for the most part, the answer is the legislation will do nothing.”

The bill doesn’t generate the money claimed by the senators. “None of these is actual savings,” Goldwein said.

Two, the method used by the senators amounts to cherry-picking, Goldwein said. Some parts of the COVID-19 relief bills cost less than anticipated, but others cost more. Overall, the relief acts will “end up costing more than the initial scores, not less.”

So, only counting the parts with savings is cherry-picking.



https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/senators-claim-infrastructure-bill-is-paid-for-experts-disagree/


The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the 2021-2031 period, enacting Senate Amendment 2137 to H.R. 3684 would decrease direct spending by $110 billion, increase revenues by $50 billion, and increase discretionary spending by $415 billion. On net, the legislation would add $256 billion to projected deficits over that period.


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57406

Sorry, but I opposed deficit spending when it became popular under Reagan, and under W, and under Obama, so at least I am consistent on the matter. Only Bubba Clinton knew what he was doing, and we saw what happened to the "lockbox" idea that Gore wanted.

I appreciate the answer, but the suggestion from Fac was something different than is in the bills.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Infrastructure racism. Two views.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58106414


And...https://nypost.com/2021/08/11/bidens-infrastructure-bill-is-chock-full-of-anti-white-racism/

The solution is a problem, and the problem needs a solution.

The problem is that the journalists who write for the BBC and the creepy fucking morons hired by the post to lie badly in their publications are put on the same level by feckless idiots on the internet and elsewhere.

How do you propose to solve this problem, oh Great Cheez Whiz Hamster?

Two views. Neither endorsed. The Left Coast leftist doesn't tolerate different views.

Your intolerant nature defines your ardent philosophy.

He didn't claim you endorsed it. He asked you how you would solve the problem, in response to your saying "The solution is a problem, and the problem needs a solution."

No, he didn't.

I guess you don't do inferences when you read. The highlighted portion shows that his intolerance quite clearly, and that he saw that the only problem was mentioning that someone thought there were problems.

[Holly Martins]

Money would be better spent on old-fashioned foreign aid,  where the rich countries send peaceful assistance in building infrastructure and make sure corrupt officials don't pocket the money.

US committed to spending $20B over the next decade on salaries and weapons for the Afghan military.  So the sooner the Taliban take over the country, the more money the US saves, I guess.  I'd sooner blow the $20B giving $2000 to 10M poor Afghans, along with a written apology for the destruction and harms caused.

Amazing that you can spend $1T over 20 years in a dirt poor country and still have it a dirt poor country.  I guess a lot of those funds were used for destruction while plenty got skimmed off and is hidden away in off-shore companies and secretive banking.  Wonder if Afghani corruptocracy went in for cryptocurrencies.

Best thing for Afghanistan would have been to legalize drugs and let Afghanistan be the world's opiate supplier.  Also, should have gone to a federated system of gov't and let the Taliban rule their south stronghold largely autonomously....

Yep.   And I think your microeconomics works better than the clearly failing macroeconomics approach, many many places.   Locals often know what they really need to keep things running,  food on table,  mules healthy,  etc.   

Not big on drones,  which is another topic,  which is why I didn't quote that part.   

[Hamilton Samuels]

No you don’t.

The cost of these programs is easily covered by even a remotely responsible tax code and endorsement regime, part and parcel of better budget, which Smokey Joe Manchin needs to get his ass behind.

No. They're not.

Oh boy! This is one of those hot, well reasoned debates that Piggy always claims to want. Somebody makes a claim asserting something is true and Piggy says "No," without a basis.

Fac, for my sake, not Piggy's, what would an example of a remotely responsible tax code (etc.) be to cover these programs.

Piggy, what underlies your claim that there is no remotely responsible tax code that could cover it?

“The framework claims $491 billion of offsets, and an additional $56 billion of savings from dynamic scoring, to pay for the bill,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget writes in a post on its website. “However, many of these pay-fors count savings that have already occurred. We estimate actual offsets will total roughly $200 billion before dynamic scoring.”

Dynamic scoring factors in the impact of economic effects.

Penn Wharton Budget Model Senior Economist Jon Huntley told us whether or not the legislation covers the cost of the new spending “depends on how you define ‘paid for.'”...

...The biggest sticking point is the $210 billion in repurposed COVID-19 relief funds, which CRFB says amount to just $40 billion to $50 billion in actual offsets. The bill claims another $53 billion in unused unemployment insurance funds; CRFB says that amounts to zero savings. And the $87 billion in the sale of wireless spectrum frequencies is really $20 billion in offsets for the bill, because the senators’ figure includes money from sales that already happened.

Goldwein told us there were two problems with counting savings from policies that ended up costing less than originally anticipated.

One, it’s not a valid way of budgeting. Determining how much a bill costs involves looking at how much the legislation will change the federal budget compared with not having the legislation. For the COVID-19 relief, unemployment insurance and spectrum sales, “for the most part, the answer is the legislation will do nothing.”

The bill doesn’t generate the money claimed by the senators. “None of these is actual savings,” Goldwein said.

Two, the method used by the senators amounts to cherry-picking, Goldwein said. Some parts of the COVID-19 relief bills cost less than anticipated, but others cost more. Overall, the relief acts will “end up costing more than the initial scores, not less.”

So, only counting the parts with savings is cherry-picking.



https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/senators-claim-infrastructure-bill-is-paid-for-experts-disagree/


The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the 2021-2031 period, enacting Senate Amendment 2137 to H.R. 3684 would decrease direct spending by $110 billion, increase revenues by $50 billion, and increase discretionary spending by $415 billion. On net, the legislation would add $256 billion to projected deficits over that period.


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57406

Sorry, but I opposed deficit spending when it became popular under Reagan, and under W, and under Obama, so at least I am consistent on the matter. Only Bubba Clinton knew what he was doing, and we saw what happened to the "lockbox" idea that Gore wanted.

I appreciate the answer, but the suggestion from Fac was something different than is in the bills.

Fac is free to suggest anything he wants. I prefer dealing with the actual proposal as it has been written and as it has been promoted by the "bi-partisan" politicians.

You can talk with him on his subject, as it remains irrelevant to me.

[Holly Martins]

I didn’t think anyone could annoy me as much as Joe Manchin... then along came Gottheimer.

Damned if these “Moderates” aren’t doing their best to fuck things up.

They won’t succeed but sheesh! At least act like you give a damn about the voters that put you in the majority.

Is Gottheimer one of the Problem Solvers?   

Politicians answer now to their donors,  not their constituents (who usually only are a tiny percent of donors these days).

If that were true( which I doubt)..

Not looking for what people doubt, but some facts.  Here is some indication of what I was actually talking about....

Median percent in-district among current candidates: 28.87%

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/in-district-vs-out-of-district

(and I've seen analyses that give even lower figures for in-district donation, with the percent of total monetary amount even lower when you compute it that way....)

My point (which was about Congress, specifically, if you read the post) is that outside donors may have different agendas (like the Koch foundation policy papers that Joe Manchin receives along with his bags of money from them...) from the actual constituents.  This is a problem in both parties and all coalitions in those parties, which should concern all of us, regardless of our politics. 

I wasn't, as you allege, "ignoring" smaller donors, but pointing out that, on average, too many of them are from outside that congressional district (or state, in the case of senators).

LOL
You are mad at Manchin and don’t like the Koch Foundation.
Why didn’t you just say that?
All the rest was just bullshit.

My bullshit was backed by the numbers.  Yours by unsupported bluster.   Outside donors gain undue influence on pols who should listen to their constituents.  QED.   

[Holly Martins]

No you don’t.

The cost of these programs is easily covered by even a remotely responsible tax code and endorsement regime, part and parcel of better budget, which Smokey Joe Manchin needs to get his ass behind.

[josh]

Dominion has a defamation case going against Giuliani, Powell, and Lindell (Pillow Guy). The three moved to get it stopped on the basis that opinions are not defamatory.

The judge denied their motion:
https://twitter.com/JanNWolfe/status/1425852428612685824

The judge shredded Sidney Powell's argument that she was merely opining, and that no reasonable person could think she was asserting facts. (2/10)
...
The judge recited a bunch of Sidney Powell's more outlandish claims, like that Dominion was founded to ensure Hugo Chavez stays in power. The judge said of course this is an assertion of fact, not opinion. It's either true, or it's not.
...
Sidney Powell argued -- and I quote her brief directly --  that her claims about Dominion "are not actionable because they were made in the context of pending and impending litigation."

The judge said: no, a law license isn't a license to make stuff up. (4/10)
...
Similar energy in this footnote regarding Giuliani. The judge seems to be signaling he knows how flimsy these election conspiracy theories are.

"The Venezuela theory presumably finds its roots in the Venezuelan origins of Smartmatic, a different company." (6/10)

Etc.

[facilitatorn]

Infrastructure racism. Two views.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58106414


And...https://nypost.com/2021/08/11/bidens-infrastructure-bill-is-chock-full-of-anti-white-racism/

The solution is a problem, and the problem needs a solution.

The problem is that the journalists who write for the BBC and the creepy fucking morons hired by the post to lie badly in their publications are put on the same level by feckless idiots on the internet and elsewhere.

How do you propose to solve this problem, oh Great Cheez Whiz Hamster?

Two views. Neither endorsed. The Left Coast leftist doesn't tolerate different views.

Your intolerant nature defines your ardent philosophy.

He didn't claim you endorsed it. He asked you how you would solve the problem, in response to your saying "The solution is a problem, and the problem needs a solution."

The problem Hammy can solve is how he’s lumped a fairly deep, nuanced, and detailed article by people who are very good at journalism with the ranting of death panel Karen in the Murdoch poop shoot gazette.

The false equivalence is the problem.

Hammy’s inability to distinguish one thing from another is a problem.

One imagines him leaving the house with a sensible loafer on his left foot and a smear of dog shit on the other. One imagines him doing this every damn day.

The problem as it relates to urban and residential planning and transportation, the solution, and the degree to which its both potentially and likely to be effective are covered in the BBC article and ignored in favor of salty incoherent bullshit in the Post. Hammy brought the BBC article to the table. I won’t fix his misunderstandings by feeding it to him again.

Ham is too ugly for me to want to pre-chew his food for him. Thanks all the same.

[Holly Martins]

Infrastructure racism. Two views.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58106414


And...https://nypost.com/2021/08/11/bidens-infrastructure-bill-is-chock-full-of-anti-white-racism/

The solution is a problem, and the problem needs a solution.

When you see "antiwhite racism" and "nypost" in a URL, you know you're headed for a litany of lies and deceptive half-truths.  Not wasting my time debunking.   Enjoy your ride,  Nate-Bed.   Knights in white muslin,  never reaching the end...

[Hamilton Samuels]

The Supreme Court refused on Thursday to block Indiana University's requirement that students receive a Covid vaccine to attend classes in the fall semester.

It was the first legal test of a Covid vaccine mandate to come before the justices. A challenge to the policy was directed to Amy Coney Barrett, the justice in charge of that region of the country, who denied it. There were no noted dissents from other justices.

Eight Indiana students asked the court for an emergency order, arguing that the risks associated with the vaccine outweighed the potential benefits to the population in their age group. "Protection of others does not relieve our society from the central canon of medical ethics requiring voluntary and informed consent," they told the justices, seeking an emergency order to block the vaccine requirement.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-indiana-university-s-vaccination-requirement-n1276714

[Hamilton Samuels]

Infrastructure racism. Two views.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58106414


And...https://nypost.com/2021/08/11/bidens-infrastructure-bill-is-chock-full-of-anti-white-racism/

The solution is a problem, and the problem needs a solution.

The problem is that the journalists who write for the BBC and the creepy fucking morons hired by the post to lie badly in their publications are put on the same level by feckless idiots on the internet and elsewhere.

How do you propose to solve this problem, oh Great Cheez Whiz Hamster?

Two views. Neither endorsed. The Left Coast leftist doesn't tolerate different views.

Your intolerant nature defines your ardent philosophy.

He didn't claim you endorsed it. He asked you how you would solve the problem, in response to your saying "The solution is a problem, and the problem needs a solution."

The problem Hammy can solve is how he’s lumped a fairly deep, nuanced, and detailed article by people who are very good at journalism with the ranting of death panel Karen in the Murdoch poop shoot gazette.

The false equivalence is the problem.

Hammy’s inability to distinguish one thing from another is a problem.

One imagines him leaving the house with a sensible loafer on his left foot and a smear of dog shit on the other. One imagines him doing this every damn day.

The problem as it relates to urban and residential planning and transportation, the solution, and the degree to which its both potentially and likely to be effective are covered in the BBC article and ignored in favor of salty incoherent bullshit in the Post. Hammy brought the BBC article to the table. I won’t fix his misunderstandings by feeding it to him again.

Ham is too ugly for me to want to pre-chew his food for him. Thanks all the same.

You inferred what was never implied. I presented two pieces with two different takes on how race is and has played a role with regard to infrastructure. The rest is your overreaction to what was clearly written.

Perhaps the larger problem here was your own eagerness to attack another poster, and perhaps due to your own prejudices.

Ciao, Che.

[REDSTATEWARD]

I didn’t think anyone could annoy me as much as Joe Manchin... then along came Gottheimer.

Damned if these “Moderates” aren’t doing their best to fuck things up.

They won’t succeed but sheesh! At least act like you give a damn about the voters that put you in the majority.

Is Gottheimer one of the Problem Solvers?   

Politicians answer now to their donors,  not their constituents (who usually only are a tiny percent of donors these days).

If that were true( which I doubt)..

Not looking for what people doubt, but some facts.  Here is some indication of what I was actually talking about....

Median percent in-district among current candidates: 28.87%

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/in-district-vs-out-of-district

(and I've seen analyses that give even lower figures for in-district donation, with the percent of total monetary amount even lower when you compute it that way....)

My point (which was about Congress, specifically, if you read the post) is that outside donors may have different agendas (like the Koch foundation policy papers that Joe Manchin receives along with his bags of money from them...) from the actual constituents.  This is a problem in both parties and all coalitions in those parties, which should concern all of us, regardless of our politics. 

I wasn't, as you allege, "ignoring" smaller donors, but pointing out that, on average, too many of them are from outside that congressional district (or state, in the case of senators).

LOL
You are mad at Manchin and don’t like the Koch Foundation.
Why didn’t you just say that?
All the rest was just bullshit.

My bullshit was backed by the numbers.  Yours by unsupported bluster.   Outside donors gain undue influence on pols who should listen to their constituents.  QED.

If the pols ignore their constituents they don’t win elections.
BTW Koch is not raising money for Manchin, he is trying to pressure Manchin through grassroots support via emails on issues they both support.

[Holly Martins]

http://theweek.com/politics/1003600/anti-vaxxers-coddling

Good policy and good politics to squash these fucks.

Agree.

But libs need to kick POC'S asses into gear, too.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/black-people-remain-undervaccinated-may-180000759.html

‘Blame (whitey) black people, that’s what you do.”

LOL

Behave as expected. From that piece on yahoo, "According to USA Today, Black people count for 15 percent of those vaccinated in the United States."

Math cleanup,  aisle four!   If a group that's 12 percent of the population is 15 percent of the vaxxed population, then....

[Hamilton Samuels]

Los Estados Unidos!

Latinos drove the country’s demographic growth, shooting up to 62.1 million, the Census Bureau announced Thursday.

Latinos accounted for 51.1 percent of the country’s growth, rising to 18.7 percent of the U.S. population, according to numbers from the 2020 census. Latinos, or Hispanics, were 50.5 million and 16.3 percent of the national population in 2010. That means the Hispanic population grew by 23 percent from 2010 to 2020.

In contrast, the country’s white population alone is shrinking and aging, while people identifying as white in combination with some other race grew by 316 percent.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-account-half-countrys-population-growth-rcna1667

Soccer soon replaces football.