~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[Typical Lax Dad]

note -- it starts trending upward in 2019. Defund the police + bail "reform" + Soros campaign funded prosecutors.

Stock market is down recently.

There were several policing reforms which brought the numbers down in the previous 2 decades, before defunding the police, no pretrial confinement, refusal to prosecute "minor" crimes, removing plain clothes street units, "reimagining" policing & criminalizing policing -- all forcing police to work "to the rule" & look the other way, rather than risk the blowback. Your chart ends with an estimate for 2020.

Do your job.

They are. Working to the rule & nothing more. Don't take the initiative, don't give chase, look the other way. Cops don't work on commission or get year end bonuses.

America’s finest.

[MDlaxfan76]

...Because of the terminations of programs that may or may not be extended, the costs are suppressed below what they would be IF extended.

On the other hand, they do terminate...and would need to find new revenues to cover them if extended. Same process, but the difference may be that they may then be so popular that voters are willing to fund them...but why would this be so scary to the right (oh yeah, that may mean more corporate taxes)

...gimme a break ! Whatever entitlement has ever been terminated. When the BBB short term funding ends, the costs will be piled into the deficit, along with all our other unfunded mandated entitlements.

Nope, they automatically terminate.
They have to be passed by Congress, again, to be extended.

And that'll return the question to "is this paid for" or "do we want to deficit finance"?
And, yeah, here's the thing, they are likely to be quite popular, so will very likely get extended (by vote)...if the Dems are in charge, that'll likely mean some higher corporate taxes (as I suggested) or if the GOP is in charge, that'll likely mean greater deficits...that's the pattern.

So, no, you 'gimme a break' and be honest about this.

[a fan]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-in-2020/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... n-2021-why

Homicides continue a trend!

Murders continue an upward trend in 2021.
2020 was not a one year blip, after BLM = defund the police.

So BLM does work in Minneapolis.......and "therefore" murders go up in Baltimore?

That's quite a thing. How'd that happen, in your mind?

[a fan]

They are. Working to the rule & nothing more. Don't take the initiative, don't give chase, look the other way. Cops don't work on commission or get year end bonuses.

You know, one day one of you "government ruins everything" guys are going to have to explain to me why you got so upset when some of your fellow Americans had the gall to *agree* with you that there are some problems in their local government that needs some fixing.

[old salt]

...Because of the terminations of programs that may or may not be extended, the costs are suppressed below what they would be IF extended.

On the other hand, they do terminate...and would need to find new revenues to cover them if extended. Same process, but the difference may be that they may then be so popular that voters are willing to fund them...but why would this be so scary to the right (oh yeah, that may mean more corporate taxes)

...gimme a break ! Whatever entitlement has ever been terminated. When the BBB short term funding ends, the costs will be piled into the deficit, along with all our other unfunded mandated entitlements.

Nope, they automatically terminate.
They have to be passed by Congress, again, to be extended.

And that'll return the question to "is this paid for" or "do we want to deficit finance"?
And, yeah, here's the thing, they are likely to be quite popular, so will very likely get extended (by vote)...if the Dems are in charge, that'll likely mean some higher corporate taxes (as I suggested) or if the GOP is in charge, that'll likely mean greater deficits...that's the pattern.

So, no, you 'gimme a break' and be honest about this.

I am being honest. BBB was proposed as a fully funded 10 year projection, including what are, in fact, mostly unfunded entitlements.
Since you're such a truth teller, tell us how universal the BBB promised universal pre-k will be,
or are you going to fog over that with a WSJ/Murdoch diversion ?

[old salt]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-in-2020/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... n-2021-why

Homicides continue a trend!

Murders continue an upward trend in 2021.
2020 was not a one year blip, after BLM = defund the police.

So BLM does work in Minneapolis.......and "therefore" murders go up in Baltimore?

That's quite a thing. How'd that happen, in your mind?

https://www.lawofficer.com/minneapolis- ... it-matter/

[MDlaxfan76]

...Because of the terminations of programs that may or may not be extended, the costs are suppressed below what they would be IF extended.

On the other hand, they do terminate...and would need to find new revenues to cover them if extended. Same process, but the difference may be that they may then be so popular that voters are willing to fund them...but why would this be so scary to the right (oh yeah, that may mean more corporate taxes)

...gimme a break ! Whatever entitlement has ever been terminated. When the BBB short term funding ends, the costs will be piled into the deficit, along with all our other unfunded mandated entitlements.

Nope, they automatically terminate.
They have to be passed by Congress, again, to be extended.

And that'll return the question to "is this paid for" or "do we want to deficit finance"?
And, yeah, here's the thing, they are likely to be quite popular, so will very likely get extended (by vote)...if the Dems are in charge, that'll likely mean some higher corporate taxes (as I suggested) or if the GOP is in charge, that'll likely mean greater deficits...that's the pattern.

So, no, you 'gimme a break' and be honest about this.

I am being honest. BBB was proposed as a fully funded 10 year projection, including what are, in fact, mostly unfunded entitlements.
Since you're such a truth teller, tell us how universal the BBB promised universal pre-k will be,
or are you going to fog over that with a WSJ/Murdoch diversion ?

Salty,
I was the one explaining where both sides are not being 100% transparent, though I actually think the Dems are closer to telling it straight than this WSJ baloney which is what you're piling onto.

Sure, BBB was indeed proposed with higher corporate taxes to pay for longer benefits commitments. And yes, when Sinema and Manchin peeled out those taxes, to the joy of their donors and the GOP's donors, they needed to reduce the benefits periods...So, the Dems do expect to have to come back to the well to get them extended, and that'll mean they'll need to pitch new ways to pay for them or admit they won't get paid other than through deficits...but this is well understood, nothing actually hidden.

What I object to is claiming that the benefits will definitely be extended but also definitely that there won't be increased taxes to cover...why?
Who says so? That seems patently dishonest to me...

Your issue with the universal pre-K is what, that GOP run states won't do it, thus it won't be "universal"??? Or am I missing something (wouldn't be the first time). Would the spending be as high, if the GOP states don't play?...seems to me that if they don't want the money, the money won't get spent or will get redeployed to extend the benefits period in the states that do?

[a fan]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-in-2020/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... n-2021-why

Homicides continue a trend!

Murders continue an upward trend in 2021.
2020 was not a one year blip, after BLM = defund the police.

So BLM does work in Minneapolis.......and "therefore" murders go up in Baltimore?

That's quite a thing. How'd that happen, in your mind?

https://www.lawofficer.com/minneapolis- ... it-matter/

Yeah....that's not helpful. You're claiming that a couple of cities that tried to "defund the police" led to a nationwide murder spree.

We both know this is a silly claim, right?

[old salt]

...Because of the terminations of programs that may or may not be extended, the costs are suppressed below what they would be IF extended.

On the other hand, they do terminate...and would need to find new revenues to cover them if extended. Same process, but the difference may be that they may then be so popular that voters are willing to fund them...but why would this be so scary to the right (oh yeah, that may mean more corporate taxes)

...gimme a break ! Whatever entitlement has ever been terminated. When the BBB short term funding ends, the costs will be piled into the deficit, along with all our other unfunded mandated entitlements.

Nope, they automatically terminate.
They have to be passed by Congress, again, to be extended.

And that'll return the question to "is this paid for" or "do we want to deficit finance"?
And, yeah, here's the thing, they are likely to be quite popular, so will very likely get extended (by vote)...if the Dems are in charge, that'll likely mean some higher corporate taxes (as I suggested) or if the GOP is in charge, that'll likely mean greater deficits...that's the pattern.

So, no, you 'gimme a break' and be honest about this.

I am being honest. BBB was proposed as a fully funded 10 year projection, including what are, in fact, mostly unfunded entitlements.
Since you're such a truth teller, tell us how universal the BBB promised universal pre-k will be,
or are you going to fog over that with a WSJ/Murdoch diversion ?

Salty,
I was the one explaining where both sides are not being 100% transparent, though I actually think the Dems are closer to telling it straight than this WSJ baloney which is what you're piling onto.

Sure, BBB was indeed proposed with higher corporate taxes to pay for longer benefits commitments. And yes, when Sinema and Manchin peeled out those taxes, to the joy of their donors and the GOP's donors, they needed to reduce the benefits periods...So, the Dems do expect to have to come back to the well to get them extended, and that'll mean they'll need to pitch new ways to pay for them or admit they won't get paid other than through deficits...but this is well understood, nothing actually hidden.

What I object to is claiming that the benefits will definitely be extended but also definitely that there won't be increased taxes to cover...why?
Who says so? That seems patently dishonest to me...

Your issue with the universal pre-K is what, that GOP run states won't do it, thus it won't be "universal"??? Or am I missing something (wouldn't be the first time). Would the spending be as high, if the GOP states don't play?...seems to me that if they don't want the money, the money won't get spent or will get redeployed to extend the benefits period in the states that do?

You focus strictly on the corp taxes stripped out, while ignoring BBB lifting the SALT deduction cap before they both sunset.
Both are gimmicks used in establishing & funding entitlements under the Reconciliation process rather than via regular order.

BBB's proposed Universal Pre-K is hardly universal. It funds only low income families. It's already difficult for families willing & able to pay to find affordable quality pre-k. They can't access the govt provided pre-k already available (in limited quantity) to lower income families.
BBB's proposal does not correct this & could exacerbate it by layering fed standards on top of existing state standards, prompting some states to opt out.

https://www.vox.com/22796061/universal- ... ack-better

https://www.americanactionforum.org/ins ... sal-pre-k/

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/12/ ... n-manchin/

Schumer’s Spin Isn’t Working on Manchin
By JOHN MCCORMACK
December 13, 2021

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office announced that if most of the key provisions in the “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill were made permanent, the legislation would actually add $3 trillion to the deficit over ten years — a finding that flatly contradicted President Biden’s claims that his social-spending bill wouldn’t add a single penny to the debt.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer lashed out on Friday in response to the report’s findings. “The Republican-requested fake CBO score does not take into account the fact that President Biden and Democrats have committed that any extensions of the Build Back Better Act in the future will be fully offset,” he said in a statement.

But Schumer’s spin on the CBO report was weak for two big reasons.

First, Schumer says that Democrats are “committed” to paying for extending the major provisions of the bill, but he doesn’t identify how they might raise that revenue. Schumer can’t say where Democrats would find that $3 trillion over ten years, though, because raising that the money would obviously require the kinds of tax hikes that surely do not have 50 Democratic votes in the U.S. Senate.

The second reason why Schumer’s spin was ineffective is that West Virginia Democratic senator Joe Manchin hasn’t merely drawn a line against a reconciliation bill that adds to the deficit; Manchin has also insisted that the total amount of new spending should not exceed $1.75 trillion even if it is paid for. “Why I Won’t Support Spending Another $3.5 Trillion” read the headline of Manchin’s September 2 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Even in some hypothetical world in which 50 Senate Democrats were willing and able to raise the nearly $5 trillion necessary to finance the “Build Back Better” bill’s true ten-year cost, how would that win over Joe Manchin’s vote?

There’s no sign at the moment that Manchin is buying Schumer’s spin. While Schumer called Friday’s CBO report a “Republican-requested fake CBO score,” Manchin told reporters on Monday that the Friday announcement from CBO was “sobering.”

“CBO’s not a Republican or Democrat report,” Manchin said on Monday. “They’re nonpartisan, and they’re going to give it to us the way — the facts the way we like it or not.”

While the CBO report did come at the request of congressional Republicans, the projected cost simply vindicated the argument that Manchin has been making for many weeks. On November 1, as the House prepared to pass both the infrastructure and reconciliation bills, Manchin blasted the “shell games” and “gimmicks” in the House Democrats’ reconciliation bill. “As more of the real details in the basic outline of the framework are released, what I see are shell games, budget gimmicks that make the real cost of the so-called $1.75 trillion bill estimated to be almost twice that amount if the full time is run out — if you extended it permanently,” Manchin said. “This is a recipe for economic crisis.”

Yet when Manchin spoke on November 1, he didn’t know that he was actually underestimating the true cost of the program, over ten years. Indeed, whereas his projection was that the bill would cost “almost” $3.5 trillion, the CBO made clear on Friday that number is actually more than $4.6 trillion.

At this point, something has to give for the Democrats to enact the “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill. Either Manchin caves and votes for a bill that is two or three times more expensive than the $1.75 trillion bill to which he has been amenable, or Democrats trim the bill down so the cost is actually less than $2 trillion. The problem with the latter approach, as the CBO made clear on Friday, is that extending new child tax credits over a decade will add $1.6 trillion to the deficit. That single provision would almost eat up almost the entirety of a Manchin-sized reconciliation bill.

It’s possible that Manchin will back down, but at the moment he’s giving no sign he has any intention to do so. On Friday, Manchin was handing out palm cards to colleagues and reporters pointing out that while Congress has already spent an additional $6.6 trillion on Covid relief and infrastructure since March 2020, the entire inflation-adjusted financial cost of World War II was $4.5 trillion.

[MDlaxfan76]

...Because of the terminations of programs that may or may not be extended, the costs are suppressed below what they would be IF extended.

On the other hand, they do terminate...and would need to find new revenues to cover them if extended. Same process, but the difference may be that they may then be so popular that voters are willing to fund them...but why would this be so scary to the right (oh yeah, that may mean more corporate taxes)

...gimme a break ! Whatever entitlement has ever been terminated. When the BBB short term funding ends, the costs will be piled into the deficit, along with all our other unfunded mandated entitlements.

Nope, they automatically terminate.
They have to be passed by Congress, again, to be extended.

And that'll return the question to "is this paid for" or "do we want to deficit finance"?
And, yeah, here's the thing, they are likely to be quite popular, so will very likely get extended (by vote)...if the Dems are in charge, that'll likely mean some higher corporate taxes (as I suggested) or if the GOP is in charge, that'll likely mean greater deficits...that's the pattern.

So, no, you 'gimme a break' and be honest about this.

I am being honest. BBB was proposed as a fully funded 10 year projection, including what are, in fact, mostly unfunded entitlements.
Since you're such a truth teller, tell us how universal the BBB promised universal pre-k will be,
or are you going to fog over that with a WSJ/Murdoch diversion ?

Salty,
I was the one explaining where both sides are not being 100% transparent, though I actually think the Dems are closer to telling it straight than this WSJ baloney which is what you're piling onto.

Sure, BBB was indeed proposed with higher corporate taxes to pay for longer benefits commitments. And yes, when Sinema and Manchin peeled out those taxes, to the joy of their donors and the GOP's donors, they needed to reduce the benefits periods...So, the Dems do expect to have to come back to the well to get them extended, and that'll mean they'll need to pitch new ways to pay for them or admit they won't get paid other than through deficits...but this is well understood, nothing actually hidden.

What I object to is claiming that the benefits will definitely be extended but also definitely that there won't be increased taxes to cover...why?
Who says so? That seems patently dishonest to me...

Your issue with the universal pre-K is what, that GOP run states won't do it, thus it won't be "universal"??? Or am I missing something (wouldn't be the first time). Would the spending be as high, if the GOP states don't play?...seems to me that if they don't want the money, the money won't get spent or will get redeployed to extend the benefits period in the states that do?

You focus strictly on the corp taxes stripped out, while ignoring BBB lifting the SALT deduction cap before they both sunset.
Both are gimmicks used in establishing & funding entitlements under the Reconciliation process rather than via regular order.

BBB's proposed Universal Pre-K is hardly universal. It funds only low income families. It's already difficult for families willing & able to pay to find affordable quality pre-k. They can't access the govt provided pre-k already available (in limited quantity) to lower income families.
BBB's proposal does not correct this & could exacerbate it by layering fed standards on top of existing state standards, prompting some states to opt out.

https://www.vox.com/22796061/universal- ... ack-better

https://www.americanactionforum.org/ins ... sal-pre-k/

You want a better BBB, more taxes?
You want pre-K to be free to middle class families (I guess the child tax credit is not enough help?) and rich families too?

OK, go ahead and make your case, lobby Congress.
I have no issue with your wanting better.

[youthathletics]

....you are gonna love this: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/146947 ... 77958?s=20

So let me get this straight. If we pay our debts, then why do we need to raise our debt ceiling? Is the US gov't running a ponzi scheme we currently know nothing about?

[Typical Lax Dad]

....you are gonna love this: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/146947 ... 77958?s=20

So let me get this straight. If we pay our debts, then why do we need to raise our debt ceiling? Is the US gov't running a ponzi scheme we currently know nothing about?

PIK

[MDlaxfan76]

....you are gonna love this: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/146947 ... 77958?s=20

So let me get this straight. If we pay our debts, then why do we need to raise our debt ceiling? Is the US gov't running a ponzi scheme we currently know nothing about?

Lemme explain in simplistic terms, under the assumption that you are genuinely asking.

I want to put a new kitchen in my house. But I don't have enough cash on hand, so I go to bank and I take out a home equity line based upon my good credit and the equity value of my house. I hire a contractor, pay him a deposit using the credit line, he does the work, and I pay him when due out of the credit line.

My home is now worth more, but I owe more against it. Over time, I pay interest on this debt and all the while the equity value of my home goes up (hopefully) and from time to time I consolidate my debts into a larger first mortgage, paying off the old.

Now, in that example I don't need to go to Congress to get my "debt limit" increased, I simply go to the bank. But the US gov't needs to get explicit permission to go to the markets and offer our debt to the best bidder...simply to refinance what has already been obligated (to the contractor).

It's a dumb requirement, as we already decided to hire the contractor, already signed the contract with him...are we gonna stiff him or are we going to borrow some cash and pay our bills as due?

[kramerica.inc]

More on Biden and Inflation, this time taking a historical look:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... inflation/

[kramerica.inc]

Biden Won’t Extend Student Loan Relief And Confirms Student Loan Payments Restart February 1:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedm ... 3ac282290c

A good call. Finally some good sense coming from the Biden camp.

[kramerica.inc]

I predicted it 2 years ago and mentioned it a few times since. Biden unlikely to make it beyond his first term.

Democrats Are Solidly Behind Biden. There’s No Consensus About a Plan B:

https://www.pressreader.com/

11 Democrats who could replace Biden in 2024:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/13/politics ... index.html

[old salt]

You want pre-K to be free to middle class families (I guess the child tax credit is not enough help?) and rich families too?

No. As usual, you misstate my position. It's not universal pre-k, so don't advertise it as such,
...& don't make it less available & more expensive for families already scrambling to locate & pay for quality pre-k, just to purchase the votes of low income voters.
Tell the voters what it really is & why it's worth doing in a way that all states will join in.

[kramerica.inc]

You want pre-K to be free to middle class families (I guess the child tax credit is not enough help?) and rich families too?

No. As usual, you misstate my position. It's not universal pre-k, so don't advertise it as such,
...& don't make it less available & more expensive for families already scrambling to locate & pay for quality pre-k, just to purchase the votes of low income voters.
Tell the voters what it really is & why it's worth doing in a way that all states will join in.

just like some districts are doing "full-year" school calendars.
It's not universal, and not for the whole district.

[cradleandshoot]

....you are gonna love this: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/146947 ... 77958?s=20

So let me get this straight. If we pay our debts, then why do we need to raise our debt ceiling? Is the US gov't running a ponzi scheme we currently know nothing about?

Lemme explain in simplistic terms, under the assumption that you are genuinely asking.

I want to put a new kitchen in my house. But I don't have enough cash on hand, so I go to bank and I take out a home equity line based upon my good credit and the equity value of my house. I hire a contractor, pay him a deposit using the credit line, he does the work, and I pay him when due out of the credit line.

My home is now worth more, but I owe more against it. Over time, I pay interest on this debt and all the while the equity value of my home goes up (hopefully) and from time to time I consolidate my debts into a larger first mortgage, paying off the old.

Now, in that example I don't need to go to Congress to get my "debt limit" increased, I simply go to the bank. But the US gov't needs to get explicit permission to go to the markets and offer our debt to the best bidder...simply to refinance what has already been obligated (to the contractor).

It's a dumb requirement, as we already decided to hire the contractor, already signed the contract with him...are we gonna stiff him or are we going to borrow some cash and pay our bills as due?

Or you could do what I have always done.. do the remodeling work yourself. You sub out the stuff you are not comfortable doing. Sorry to burst your hypothetical scenario. FYI those newfangled shark bite fittings and Pex tubing make plumbing so simple..even a liberal republican can do it. It might involve dirt and grime on your fingers.