Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[uuuhname]

Are you homeless?

Nope.

Meanwhile, you couldn't be bothered to pay a fucking penny more, yet demand others pay for it all.

That is what selfishness looks like.

and you have no problem with Jeffery Epstein owning a 3rd island cuz that's the super duper not selfish route to go here.

[Elegiac]

You are literally arguing against yourself.

I'm not the one saying a government department being required to reinvest any surplus revenue rather than just sitting on it is inefficient, rofl.

[Machismo]

Urban dictionary is freeeeee.



Proving you really don't understand what happened in either 2008 or 2010.

If the Democrats get cleaned up next year it won't be because they spent too much money or taxed the rich too heavily.



You do realise this is just a massive appeal to popularity fallacy, right? Lol.



Republicans learned a long time ago it is far more effective to ban abortion by defunding public health in the name of "fiscal responsibility" to the point it's inaccessible to all but the wealthiest rather than attacking Roe v. Wade. You're the bigger threat to women's rights than a Republican SCOTUS, tbh.

The Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2010, because they pushed the ACA, and it was a fucking abortion.

At this rate, the Dems are going to lose 2022, and maybe even 2024. If Trump is back in office, I will absolutely blame the Dems for pissing away a golden opportunity.

- - - Updated - - -

and you have no problem with Jeffery Epstein owning a 3rd island cuz that's the super duper not selfish route to go here.

Jeffrey Epstein is dead, and a shitty pedophile.

Your desire to push that all wealthy people are somehow pedophiles... is moronic.

[Stormspellz]

It's a fantasy to think stopping spending increases for 5 years is a worthwhile endeavor?

Or, should we ust keep saddling future generations with more and more debt?

- - - Updated - - -

yes because that not how it works in any sense furthermore history has proven over the last 40 years, its the democrats who lower the deficit only for republicans to explode and the debt, followed by dems having to clean up gop's mess.

[Elegiac]

The Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2010, because they pushed the ACA, and it was a fucking abortion.

Ah yeah, you're one of those people who thinks the Tea Party was about fiscal responsibility and not people complaining that the President has too much melanin.

That's cute.

[uuuhname]

Jeffrey Epstein is dead, and a shitty pedophile.

Your desire to push that all wealthy people are somehow pedophiles... is moronic.

yet you cannot for one second pull yourself away from being the person who thinks they should have the money to do the things he did. that's the point.

[Machismo]

I'm not the one saying a government department being required to reinvest any surplus revenue rather than just sitting on it is inefficient, rofl.

I watched as a fiscal quarter was ending, and they went around and asked what we could spend money on as quickly as possible. The officers all got PDAs (or was the early 2000'S), and they bought useless shit that had no value in our actual mission. Meanwhile, the gear that we'd been trying to get replaced for years, because it was utter shit... was still there. Sure, we were still using radios from the Korean War.

- - - Updated - - -

yes because that not how it works in any sense furthermore history has proven over the last 40 years, its the democrats who lower the deficit only for republicans to explode and the debt, followed by dems having to clean up gop's mess.

It's when a Democrat is in the White House, and Republicans are in control of Congress.

That's what happened with Clinton.

As for Obama, his deficits went up at the end, and the effects of the bailouts were no longer there.

[Elegiac]

I watched as a fiscal quarter was ending, and they went around and asked what we could spend money on as quickly as possible. The officers all got PDAs (or was the early 2000'S), and they bought useless shit that had no value in our actual mission. Meanwhile, the gear that we'd been trying to get replaced for years, because it was utter shit... was still there. Sure, we were still using radios from the Korean War.

So you'd rather your superiors just kept the money for personal use, like what happens in the private sector?

Also: you worked in a government department of the post-Reagan era. It's designed to be shitty to justify further cutting it, which is aberrant and not the norm.

[Machismo]

Ah yeah, you're one of those people who thinks the Tea Party was about fiscal responsibility and not people complaining that the President has too much melanin.

That's cute.

Nope, the Tea Party was a bunch of racist fucktards, which is why they disappeared when Trump won.

The Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2010, and Obama wasn't on the ticket.

- - - Updated - - -

So you'd rather your superiors just kept the money for personal use, like what happens in the private sector?

Also: you worked in a government department of the post-Reagan era. It's designed to be shitty to justify further cutting it.

Nope, I'd rather they never have spent it, instead of using it on a bunch of shit that was never needed, and had no value.

They could have simply not spent it, but that would mean they wouldn't get it for the next year. So, they wasted it on frivolous shit, so they could justify getting it the next year.

Government, ladies and gentlemen.

Even the idea of a 2-3% cut to government, sent you guys into a tailspin.

[Elegiac]

The Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2010, and Obama wasn't on the ticket.

Because the 2018 elections were not a reaction as a result of Trump.

[Machismo]

Because the 2018 elections were not a reaction as a result of Trump.

It was an indictment of Trump.

2010 can be considered an indictment of Obama, and the ACA was widely unpopular at the time. Or, had you forgotten?

It was quite the shellacking.

[Elegiac]

They could have simply not spent it, but that would mean they wouldn't get it for the next year.

So, you're saying that government departments do in fact have an efficiency incentive? Lol.

Private companies can not spend it and still get the same level of revenue, and this is viewed as a good thing because reasons™. It's a silly double standard.

2010 can be considered an indictment of Obama

Then why bring up that nonsense about Obama not being on the ticket?

2010 was a function of the Democrats dropping the ball at the state and local level, the increased rural/urban divide, and a racist reaction. Bitching about he ACA was the fig leaf for the last group.

[Machismo]

So, you're saying that government departments do in fact have an efficiency incentive? Lol.

Private companies can not spend it and still get the same level of revenue, and this is viewed as a good thing because reasons™. It's a silly double standard.

That's not efficiency, that is literally inefficiency...

I see we're having a problem with definitions.

[Kellhound]

Considering 2000 and 2016? Yeah, the GOP wasn’t representing the will of the people during those terms.

Neither candidate in 2000 or 2016 had the support of the majority of voters, and the GOP held both the Senate and the House.

[bladeXcrasher]

So you'd rather your superiors just kept the money for personal use, like what happens in the private sector?

Also: you worked in a government department of the post-Reagan era. It's designed to be shitty to justify further cutting it, which is aberrant and not the norm.

Problem with military spending is there is nothing to reward good spending. If you don't use up your budget, your next years budget is reduced to what you spent the prior year. That's the problem, you are punished for being fiscally responsible because you never know when you might actually need most or all of your $1M yearly budget.

[Kellhound]

Why any increase? Just a slight little 13 billion dollars. Do that for for a few years and suddenly we are near 800bn.

Because the US military is under funded for the tasks it is commanded to do.

[Elegiac]

Neither candidate in 2000 or 2016 had the support of the majority of voters, and the GOP held both the Senate and the House.

The Senate and the House are also not reflective of popular will, so.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the US military is under funded for the tasks it is commanded to do.

Maybe y'all should rein in your imperialist ambitions if you can't manifest them with your existing funds, then.

How good is colonialism neoliberalism war!

[Kellhound]

Cool: the military can get a raise when the civilian sector does.

Until that time they need to finish their existing high tech money pit before they can have dessert.

Most civilian government employees get raises every year.

[Zan15]

The earnings cap is a good thing, because there's also a cap on benefits.

No its not. If done right it can be one of the solutions needed.

the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) estimates that phasing in an increase in the taxable maximum (for
both contributions and benefits bases) to cover 90% of covered earnings over the next decade would eliminate roughly 20% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. OCACT’s estimates also show that if all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the current-law base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security trust funds would remain solvent for over 40 years.

As for cutting benefits, we should have done it years ago. Once it becomes insolvent, then we'll get those benefits cut, regardless... and immediately. That's less than 15 years away.
.

It would be instantly funded with general tax dollars just like Medicare is today or every official would be voted out of office. It would be bailed out like just about every defunct govt program in the past.

More non Medicare tax money is used each year to fund the program vs actual money collected from the Medicare tax + premiums.

Once again, the solution for all Democrats... seems to be... raise taxes.

Wrong, they want a combination of things not just raising taxes. I just listed a bunch of them.

T

Fuck that, we've done it more than 20 times so far, and it hasn't fixed the issue. It's time to try something else.

We've actually raise the employment tax i believe over 24 times since its inception. That stopped with republican's in the 1990s.
Wasn't until this happened that these programs became technically insolvent.

and we were talking about increases like 7.51 to 7.65%. 6.06 to 6.2. 15.02 > 15.3 So on 100k that's $5.38 a week of which only half is from the employee.
Oh the horror!

[Elegiac]

That's not efficiency, that is literally inefficiency...

I see we're having a problem with definitions.

Yes: you view hoarding money as efficient, which is why I pointed out it's ridiculous for capitalists to complain about fiscal responsibility when their system is built around maximizing inefficiency for the benefit of a particular social class with the assumption that everyone else benefits.