Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[s_bushido]

I’ll see your belief that spending bills should only benefit the states that voted for them, as support the idea that tax cuts should only benefit the states that vote for them.

Considering most tax cuts go to the obscenely wealthy, I'd love for you to describe some of these """benefits."""

[Edge-]

Considering most tax cuts go to the obscenely wealthy, I'd love for you to describe some of these """benefits."""

But Republicans already have. The 2017 tax cut.

Which, as a reminder, remains historically unpopular. Which is mighty impressive for any tax cut. Republican voters in Republican states didn't even benefit from their own parties fuckin tax cut, lol.

[tehdang]

That's not my belief, actually. And I don't believe anyone here has expressed that belief, either.

I'll quote myself and add emphasis to what I actually wrote

Just following the logic.

If you didn't vote for it and it passed, fine. If you want to be critical of it despite not voting for it and say you disagree with parts, or all of the bill, fine. But if you're going to spend the better part of a year frequently attacking the legislation and maligning it as "socialism" and "radical", then I'm not sure why they'd also come begging for the money?

Or why the administration should give a shit?

This is you continuing to try to normalize fairly extremist behavior by lawmakers.

The government is choosing to take all that money and throw it in the street. Anyone absolutely can criticize the process, while also trying to claw some back for the taxpayers it was taken from in the first place. Fair's fair. "Beg" is really the wrong word for money that was taken from others in the first place.

Then they had ample opportunity to work to get their specific spending desires included in the bill so that even if they don't like it, at least they're making sure that their district/state is being taken care of.

The representatives themselves have opportunity to see if there's enough good in the bill to tweak it to their desires, or if its just a morass of unwarranted spending that shouldn't be salvaged.

That's not what any are doing, they want the money to spend. Which helps stimulate local economies and create jobs.

Surely you can put two and two together. Return money to the taxpayers in the form of local spending that they're bound to see part of. All that, compared to the completely unjustified "standards" approach of rejecting any return of taxpayers money, because they disagreed with legislation that passed despite the opposition.

What messaging doesn't make sense? That they're highlighting the hypocrisy of reactionary Republicans?

National spending bills, but make red states out to be villains by expecting their part.

The better option was for the money not to be spent in the first place, but that option is off the table after the law passes. Time for second best: get back as much as you can from the taxpayers that fund the redistribution, and try like hell to mount a more successful opposition next time. (And it's hypocrisy for Democrats that believe in this to not feel they should reject tax cuts that benefit them, since their representatives voted against it!)

they actually could have refused to spend the money and even accept it. they have that ability.

They could have also, believe it or not, taken every dime and written a check from the state to the US treasury to pay down the national debt.

But they ate it all up, nom nom nom, and used to to spend spend spend while saying they hated doing it. I have the same problem with ice cream. hate hate hate eating it...yah...ummm hate...nom nom nom

Florida taxpayers cannot refuse to send taxes to the government in the proportion that opposed legislation puts that burden on them.

Considering most tax cuts go to the obscenely wealthy, I'd love for you to describe some of these """benefits."""

If your tax burden went down only 100$ under Trump's tax cuts, or you benefited from the increase in the standard deduction, just go ahead an pay the difference back to the government, to avoid profiting from legislation that the Democrats opposed. Maybe it is only a small benefit to you, but you'd reap the enormous benefit of having the same opinion on spending legislation as taxing legislation!

[Edge-]

Just following the logic.

No, you didn't. You misrepresented my fairly explicit post.

That's called lying, usually.

The government is choosing to take all that money and throw it in the street.

Is that how federal grants are done? That's news to me. Do you have any links about how this process unfolds?

Anyone absolutely can criticize the process, while also trying to claw some back for the taxpayers it was taken from in the first place.

Nothing was "taken", they paid taxes. Taxes that were already paid, or they would already pay. It's not "their" money, it's the federal government's money.

And if you actually read what I wrote, and then copy/pasted with added bolded emphasis, I have no problems with basic criticisms of government spending.

"Beg" is really the wrong word for money that was taken from others in the first place.

It was "taken"? Like, at gunpoint? Against their will?

I don't think you understand how taxation works, my guy.

The representatives themselves have opportunity to see if there's enough good in the bill to tweak it to their desires, or if its just a morass of unwarranted spending that shouldn't be salvaged.

Yet they're still trying to "get theirs" out of it despite trying to stop it from happening, and then spending a year calling it "socialism" and "extreme". Not normal criticisms by any means, but critiques coming from a fairly extremist position.

Return money to the taxpayers in the form of local spending that they're bound to see part of. All that, compared to the completely unjustified "standards" approach of rejecting any return of taxpayers money, because they disagreed with legislation that passed despite the opposition.

That's not "returning" the money, that's spending the money. Taxpayers aren't getting a check back, they're benefitting from the federal government spending their tax dollars locally.

And the bolded is still grossly misrepresenting my explicit and clear point, at this point it seems very intentional on your part.

National spending bills, but make red states out to be villains by expecting their part.

Their part of a "socialist" bill? I thought they hated socialism? Wouldn't they reject that socialism like red states have rejected the federal Medicaid expansion money?

The better option was for the money not to be spent in the first place, but that option is off the table after the law passes.

So much for four years of Trump and Republicans talking about infrastructure week and a big infrastructure bill. I guess it was a really good idea until Democrats actually started making progress on it in their first year.

Guess we don't need money for bridges that are collapsing or modernizing our aging roadways and rail. Or hardening infrastructure against climate change to reduce the side-effects of more frequent extreme weather conditions. Or anything else.

I mean, it's not like this bill is actually majority-popular amongst Americans overall or anything...or actually it is! - https://morningconsult.com/2021/09/2...pport-polling/

Which I understand for Republicans might be confusing to see legislation passed have majority popularity given that the 2017 tax cut still remains majority-unpopular.

Time for second best: get back as much as you can from the taxpayers that fund the redistribution

...from donor blue states to welfare-queen red states? That's socialism, my guy!

(And it's hypocrisy for Democrats that believe in this to not feel they should reject tax cuts that benefit them, since their representatives voted against it!)

Show me the rhetoric from Democrats that was the same as Republican rhetoric on this bill, especially accurate rhetoric. Because criticizing it as a giveaway to corporations and the rich is factually accurate, as is calling it a pointless tax cut that has no point. This is a position shared by a great many economists who saw absolutely no reason for the tax cut nor any actual perceived benefits...unless you were a major corporation or already wealthy. You know, groups that already have a lot of money.

[postman1782]

I’ll see your belief that spending bills should only benefit the states that voted for them, as support the idea that tax cuts should only benefit the states that vote for them.

But back to reality, it’s money they didn’t want spent at all, but have no power to reverse the spending. All they can do is return as much of it as possible back to their taxpayers wallets. If they choose to forfeit the results of spending legislation, it doesn’t stop it from being spent anyways, or go any length to returning it to taxpayers.

But I am rather happy that Democrats are putting out messaging that doesn’t make sense to the average voter. It’s getting very close to election time.

The problem is, is that they called this socialism, after not voting for it, they are now taking credit for the bill passing and getting money to their state or district. STFU with this bullshit, hypocrite.

[Endus]

Nothing was "taken", they paid taxes. Taxes that were already paid, or they would already pay. It's not "their" money, it's the federal government's money.

Also note the fascinating insistence that this be called "taking people's money" (it's not, under any reasonable framing), while steadfastly refusing to accept the legitimate framing of the capitalist model doing exactly that; taking the value of people's labor away from them for the enrichment of capitalists, who do nothing to justify that transfer.

If you want to blame an economic system for "unfairly taking people's money", the system you should be blaming is capitalism, not socialism, whose central tenet is that all workers should retain the economic value of their own labor.

They're not willing to be honest about that, though, so they outright lie and spew intentionally dishonest propaganda like this to push a falsehood as if it were a believable truth. It's not. It's just bullshit, piled so deep that most people don't even realize that's what they're breathing any more.

As the mantra goes; ask a supporter of capitalism what they hate about socialism, and they'll have no argument or talking points beyond just describing capitalism for you.

[Edge-]

https://www.tennessean.com/story/new...s/69546775007/

Gov. Bill Lee does not plan to pardon those convicted of marijuana possession in Tennessee, despite a call to do so by President Joe Biden.

On Thursday, Biden pardoned all people with federal convictions for simple marijuana possession. The move could help around 6,500 people.

But the vast majority of marijuana convictions occur at the state level.

"I'm calling on governors to pardon simple state marijuana possession offenses," Biden said on Twitter. "Just as no one should be in a federal prison solely for possessing marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either."

Jade Byers, a spokesperson for Lee, said the administration was "not considering" issuing pardons for marijuana possession.

Dank Robinette continues to be way cooler than these Republican governors who still wanna lock someone up for having a roach or some shake or a gram or some shit, and continue to make it challenging for someone who got picked up for a gram of weed from getting a job or housing given their "criminal" record.

If Gov. Lee wants to continue costing TN taxpayers millions in housing folks for minor marijuana possession that's fine, but I'll question the fiscal responsibility of such a move given the economic policy positions held by Republicans.



Conservatives continue to do a better job of making 79 year-old Joseph Robinette Biden look cool as fuck than even his own administration or party.

[Dontrike]

But back to reality, it’s money they didn’t want spent at all, but have no power to reverse the spending. All they can do is return as much of it as possible back to their taxpayers wallets. If they choose to forfeit the results of spending legislation, it doesn’t stop it from being spent anyways, or go any length to returning it to taxpayers.

Weird how in that "reality" you talk about you forgot to mention how those Republicans that voted no on it constantly say how it was them that brought said money to those taxpayers. You really don't seem to understand how people are tired of them going "We don't want socialism" and then turn around and say "I have graciously provided for you."

Almost like you ignored part of reality in the hopes it would make your argument better, and folks would ignore your bias, which it didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

while also trying to claw some back for the taxpayers it was taken from in the first place. Fair's fair. "Beg" is really the wrong word for money that was taken from others in the first place.

I like the use of "taken from" as though this money was stolen from your average American. Your choice of words makes your views on a topic so blatant and obvious that the game becomes boring.

The representatives themselves have opportunity to see if there's enough good in the bill to tweak it to their desires, or if its just a morass of unwarranted spending that shouldn't be salvaged.

Imagine being so ignorant you think Republicans hate unwarranted spending.

The better option was for the money not to be spent in the first place,

That's one stupid way to look at it, sure.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.tennessean.com/story/new...s/69546775007/

Of course they won't consider it, how will they fill up their for profit prisons without cops being able to go "I think I smell weed"? They're afraid to lose money and having to treat people like people.

[tehdang]

Is that how federal grants are done? That's news to me. Do you have any links about how this process unfolds?

It's a metaphor for the process, because you stubbornly refuse to recognize this from the perspective of the taxpayer, and the representatives that serve them.

Nothing was "taken", they paid taxes. Taxes that were already paid, or they would already pay. It's not "their" money, it's the federal government's money.

And if you actually read what I wrote, and then copy/pasted with added bolded emphasis, I have no problems with basic criticisms of government spending.

Increases in spending puts the burden on the taxpayer. Your point of view refuses to recognize this simple fact. The government does not have a surplus with the current money it takes, it operates at a deficit. It has huge debt and unfunded liabilities. I could see you having somewhat of a point if current rates of taxation were accruing a growing surplus, so federal disaster relief was being taken from a budget with a surplus.

It was "taken"? Like, at gunpoint? Against their will?

I don't think you understand how taxation works, my guy.

The government takes in money from the taxpayer. It doesn't have an alternative funding stream that amounts to the size of disaster relief. Taxpayers are obligated by law to pay, if you have a problem with take. I know others have problems with words like seize.

Yet they're still trying to "get theirs" out of it despite trying to stop it from happening, and then spending a year calling it "socialism" and "extreme". Not normal criticisms by any means, but critiques coming from a fairly extremist position.

You want to call it extremist rhetoric, but double down on denying them a principled stance in wanting to see some of the money they're using to fund the government. I think your stance is more ignorant and unprincipled than extreme, but it could be fairly called that too.

That's not "returning" the money, that's spending the money. Taxpayers aren't getting a check back, they're benefitting from the federal government spending their tax dollars locally.

And the bolded is still grossly misrepresenting my explicit and clear point, at this point it seems very intentional on your part.

The government doesn't have its own coffers before first taking it from the American people. The laws behind FEMA and "Major Disaster Declaration" are partially funded by Florida taxpayers. They have their right to apply just like any other state. Congressional legislation like Sandy relief bills (different legislation, mind you) doesn't exempt them from laws on the federal register.

Their part of a "socialist" bill? I thought they hated socialism? Wouldn't they reject that socialism like red states have rejected the federal Medicaid expansion money?

And apparently progressives demand compliance and political support in order to benefit from national legislation. I'd like to see how a message of "Support our massive spending bills, or we'll browbeat you for accepting dimes" works in persuading voters and winning elections.

So much for four years of Trump

non sequitur about Trump...

...from donor blue states to welfare-queen red states? That's socialism, my guy!

Campaign to split the country if the results of your preferred legislation are so odious to you. Or, have blue states tax and fund their own spending programs. This just looks like sour grapes at not being able to rig it so proportionally more goes to blue states. We'll see just how well Red states perform if public spending is brought down nationally.

Show me the rhetoric from Democrats that was the same as Republican rhetoric on this bill, especially accurate rhetoric. Because criticizing it as a giveaway to corporations and the rich is factually accurate, as is calling it a pointless tax cut that has no point. This is a position shared by a great many economists who saw absolutely no reason for the tax cut nor any actual perceived benefits...unless you were a major corporation or already wealthy. You know, groups that already have a lot of money.

It's the logic of your argument. You cry about people opposed to the Hurricane Sandy bill wanting federal disaster relief spending, despite such spending being funded by their taxpayers and available nationally. Alright, try, as a show of good faith, refusing to benefit from tax cuts applied nationally, because blue states majority oppose the tax cuts. It's just so unfair that their tax burden goes down and they reap the benefits, despite their representatives campaigning against them nationally, you see. But this is progressive logic. Accept benefits from legislation they oppose, and criticize others from doing the same. "But nobody is saying to withhold tax relief?" Yes, because conservatives see the failures in logic of denying taxpayers their lawful disaster relief for reason of their political positions, and wouldn't seriously consider applying the same failed logic to tax relief.

[Shadowferal]

Conservatives are hypocrites, news at 11.

[Edge-]

It's a metaphor for the process, because you stubbornly refuse to recognize this from the perspective of the taxpayer, and the representatives that serve them.

I am a taxpayer, so I have a perspective.

It's not my fault that you, or other taxpayers, choose bad metaphors because you don't understand how taxation and the distribution of federal dollars to states and counties works.

Increases in spending puts the burden on the taxpayer.

Again, this is not how an economy works. In the abstract, yes. In the practical reality of it as $31T in debt, not really. That money is borrowed against, not taken directly from folks "now" and consequently doesn't increase their immediate tax burden.

There's a conversation to be had about our approach to the debt, but that's another topics.

The government does not have a surplus with the current money it takes, it operates at a deficit. It has huge debt and unfunded liabilities. I could see you having somewhat of a point if current rates of taxation were accruing a growing surplus, so federal disaster relief was being taken from a budget with a surplus.

Deficits and large debts are the status quo for most developed nations right now thanks to our fundamentally broken global economic system but again, topic for another thread.

This does not increase the tax burden on taxpayers now, which remains the point you seem to be trying to make and a point that is not accurate.

You want to call it extremist rhetoric, but double down on denying them a principled stance in wanting to see some of the money they're using to fund the government. I think your stance is more ignorant and unprincipled than extreme, but it could be fairly called that too.

You call it a principled stance, I call it hypocritical bullshit from spineless losers that are happy to make a deal with the devil if it will get them to a leadership position within their conference. Potayto, potahto.

The government doesn't have its own coffers before first taking it from the American people. The laws behind FEMA and "Major Disaster Declaration" are partially funded by Florida taxpayers. They have their right to apply just like any other state. Congressional legislation like Sandy relief bills (different legislation, mind you) doesn't exempt them from laws on the federal register.

...what does disaster relief have to do with anything I posted? I mean, I fully support giving Florida everything they need to get through the recovering even if they elected a combative, lying, amoral governor who can barely squeeze into his suits even with the likely man-girdle he wears underneath. Because I don't give a shit what state of community is hit with a natural disaster or how they voted in the last election, they're Americans and they need help.

A position largely not shared by Republicans, if you want to bring this topic up, as we've seen through Republicans consistently voting against aid to "liberal" areas hit with natural disaster while where's almost none of that behavior within the Democratic party when the victims of a natural disaster are in "conservative" areas. Nor did the Democratic POTUS shit talk or muse about not providing aid in retribution for Florida not voting for him as the last Republican president did.

This topic is a hugely losing topic for conservatives and I have no clue why you brought it up.

And apparently progressives demand compliance and political support in order to benefit from national legislation.

Again, this is you lying about my position. I have never written this.

I'm beginning to think you're not discussing in good faith.

non sequitur about Trump...

Actually no, I was curious where your criticisms about how unnecessary infrastructure week was and how we don't need to spend anything on infrastructure while Trump was giving the nation blue-balls for four years on it.

Republicans thought it was a pretty good idea at the time too, you know, while it was just a vague idea they could agree with and not even a specific legislative proposal.

You said it was bad money to be spending regardless, so I'm just looking for some consistency with that view, yaknow?

Campaign to split the country if the results of your preferred legislation are so odious to you. Or, have blue states tax and fund their own spending programs. This just looks like sour grapes at not being able to rig it so proportionally more goes to blue states. We'll see just how well Red states perform if public spending is brought down nationally.

See, this is what you don't get: Folks in blue states are actually pretty fine with being donor states and helping out our struggling fellow American in red states. You know, in places in the deep south where UN inspectors have been shocked at the devastating levels of poverty they've seen, which they didn't think possible in a developed nation.

If the states and their elected officials weren't complete shitdick fucking assholes about the whole affair. They're the beneificiaries of the very "socialism" they decry daily. If they hate it so much, they don't deserve it. If they at least shut the fuck up about it, nobody would give a fuck.

If they don't want "socialism", don't take blue state donor money, simple as that. Charity, which is essentially what this is, is a bit less rewarding and desirable when the recipients are spitting in your face and calling you a baby murderer, yaknow?

You cry about people opposed to the Hurricane Sandy bill wanting federal disaster relief spending, despite such spending being funded by their taxpayers and available nationally.

Again, you seem to be intentionally missing the point.

I'm pointing out that Republicans will consistently vote against aid for Democratic parts of the country hit by natural disasters, claiming we can't afford it.

These same Republicans will be on their knees, hat in hand, begging for support and help and talking about how America needs to come together to support victims when there's a natural disaster in a Republican part of the country.

There is no analog to this behavior from Democrats at the same scale, scope, and frequency as with Republicans.

Alright, try, as a show of good faith, refusing to benefit from tax cuts applied nationally, because blue states majority oppose the tax cuts.

Again, I've been explicit on my position on this and you continue to appear to be intentionally misrepresenting it.

But this is progressive logic.

No, just quite literally you making up a lot of shit while also lying a lot in the process.

[Zan15]

The better option was for the money not to be spent in the first place, but that option is off the table after the law passes. Time for second best: get back as much as you can from the taxpayers that fund the redistribution, and try like hell to mount a more successful opposition next time. (And it's hypocrisy for Democrats that believe in this to not feel they should reject tax cuts that benefit them, since their representatives voted against it!)

Florida taxpayers cannot refuse to send taxes to the government in the proportion that opposed legislation puts that burden on them.

Again Florida has/had the right to spend the money however it wanted to. It could have passed as part of the budget to make a single payment to the US treasury from the state of Florida to reduce the national debt. This in turn would have reduced the overall tax burden since they would no longer have to pay interest on this money given to florida.

They could have also sent a check to every FL taxpayer in the state that would have equaled the full sum of the funding, for which they didn't do either. You know, "rebate checks bad" all of a sudden

[Kaleredar]

It's a metaphor for the process, because you stubbornly refuse to recognize this from the perspective of the taxpayer, and the representatives that serve them.

Increases in spending puts the burden on the taxpayer. Your point of view refuses to recognize this simple fact. The government does not have a surplus with the current money it takes, it operates at a deficit. It has huge debt and unfunded liabilities. I could see you having somewhat of a point if current rates of taxation were accruing a growing surplus, so federal disaster relief was being taken from a budget with a surplus.

The government takes in money from the taxpayer. It doesn't have an alternative funding stream that amounts to the size of disaster relief. Taxpayers are obligated by law to pay, if you have a problem with take. I know others have problems with words like seize.

You want to call it extremist rhetoric, but double down on denying them a principled stance in wanting to see some of the money they're using to fund the government. I think your stance is more ignorant and unprincipled than extreme, but it could be fairly called that too.

The government doesn't have its own coffers before first taking it from the American people. The laws behind FEMA and "Major Disaster Declaration" are partially funded by Florida taxpayers. They have their right to apply just like any other state. Congressional legislation like Sandy relief bills (different legislation, mind you) doesn't exempt them from laws on the federal register.

And apparently progressives demand compliance and political support in order to benefit from national legislation. I'd like to see how a message of "Support our massive spending bills, or we'll browbeat you for accepting dimes" works in persuading voters and winning elections.

non sequitur about Trump...

Campaign to split the country if the results of your preferred legislation are so odious to you. Or, have blue states tax and fund their own spending programs. This just looks like sour grapes at not being able to rig it so proportionally more goes to blue states. We'll see just how well Red states perform if public spending is brought down nationally.

It's the logic of your argument. You cry about people opposed to the Hurricane Sandy bill wanting federal disaster relief spending, despite such spending being funded by their taxpayers and available nationally. Alright, try, as a show of good faith, refusing to benefit from tax cuts applied nationally, because blue states majority oppose the tax cuts. It's just so unfair that their tax burden goes down and they reap the benefits, despite their representatives campaigning against them nationally, you see. But this is progressive logic. Accept benefits from legislation they oppose, and criticize others from doing the same. "But nobody is saying to withhold tax relief?" Yes, because conservatives see the failures in logic of denying taxpayers their lawful disaster relief for reason of their political positions, and wouldn't seriously consider applying the same failed logic to tax relief.

Conservative politician's "outrage" about spending under democrat-controlled whitehouses or bodies of congress is entirely performative. They have no legitimate greivances about spending, most notably because they raised none about the objectively terrible spending initiatives under Trump and continue to raise none about frivolous spending in red states.

The only spending conservative politicians support is spending that directly lines their pockets or the pockets of their rich donors. I haven't seen a single piece of conservative-authored legislation to the contrary. The most generous I can give them is not going out of their way to actually stop things like disaster relief spending, despite them signaling that they want to because they think the people affected need to be punished. See... New York hurricane damage, Puerto Rico hurricane damage, California wildfire damage.

Notice how Biden didn't signal any such thing. Because that's what an actual leader looks like.


So I'm sure you understand when I say "who the fuck cares" to conservatives suddenly caring about budgets and spending. It's nothing but show to score political points against their opponents.

[DarkTZeratul]

So I'm sure you understand when I say "who the fuck cares" to conservatives suddenly caring about budgets and spending. It's nothing but show to score political points against their opponents.

Shit, my dad's a lifelong Republican and even he gets this, having remarked once that both Democrats and Republicans will get into office and increase spending but at least the Democrats are honest about it.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/cons...-biden-2022-10

Another conservative group is suing over student loan forgiveness.

Their claim?

The Job Creators lawsuit argues that the loan forgiveness violates the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment procedure, which requires an unelected administrator to justify rulemaking to the public. The group wrote in the court filing that the Education Department never sought public comment on the debt relief, and instead, "the countless legal, policy, economic, and other issues implicated by such a program were all debated and determined in secret" and with the goal of implementing the policy before the November midterms to help Democrats win votes.

I mean...fair if they didn't follow the rules, but I'm not sure, "Enacting a popular policy ahead of the midterms that you may benefit from in terms of votes." is actually illegal.

Who are the plaintiffs?

The lawsuit lists two plaintiffs in the case — one is suing because he does not qualify for the full $20,000 in debt relief since he was never a Pell Grant recipient himself. He believes the amount of relief he receives shouldn't be "based on the financial circumstances of his parents many years ago." The other is suing because her commercially-held student loans do not currently qualify for Biden's loan forgiveness. The Education Department recently updated its guidance to note that while borrowers with privately-held loans will not be able to access the relief, it will continue to assess ways to help those borrowers separately.

So...two people mad that they aren't getting loan forgiveness - not that they're opposed to the whole process - and want to ruin it for everyone else if they can't get the same benefits.

Dank Robinette will likely come out on top on this one, salty conservatives who don't like dealing with the consequences of their own choices will continue to be very sad and low energy.

[tehdang]

I am a taxpayer, so I have a perspective.

It's not my fault that you, or other taxpayers, choose bad metaphors because you don't understand how taxation and the distribution of federal dollars to states and counties works.

In this case, you seek to disenfranchise other taxpayers. You might as well be saying that if you're willing to forgo any interest in the spending of federal money to infrastructure, then others ought to follow suit.

Again, this is not how an economy works. In the abstract, yes. In the practical reality of it as $31T in debt, not really. That money is borrowed against, not taken directly from folks "now" and consequently doesn't increase their immediate tax burden.

There's a conversation to be had about our approach to the debt, but that's another topics.

Their long term tax burden, the changes in the servicing of the debt, and attendant effects of having a large and growing tax burden. As before, just because you're willing to kick the can down the road under "doesn't increase their immediate tax burden," does not make others hypocrites for considering such effects.

Deficits and large debts are the status quo for most developed nations right now thanks to our fundamentally broken global economic system but again, topic for another thread.

This does not increase the tax burden on taxpayers now, which remains the point you seem to be trying to make and a point that is not accurate.

Rallying other developed nations to your side as examples of deficit spending does not make the example of the United States any less relevant to the individual taxpayer, the taxpayers in a particular Congressional district, or the taxpayers in a state. They still have an equal claim to opposed or supported spending, so long as it is a nationally levied tax.

You call it a principled stance, I call it hypocritical bullshit from spineless losers that are happy to make a deal with the devil if it will get them to a leadership position within their conference. Potayto, potahto.

Another example of each calling the other extremist according to his/her own worldview.

...what does disaster relief have to do with anything I posted? I mean, I fully support giving Florida everything they need to get through the recovering even if they elected a combative, lying, amoral governor who can barely squeeze into his suits even with the likely man-girdle he wears underneath. Because I don't give a shit what state of community is hit with a natural disaster or how they voted in the last election, they're Americans and they need help.

A position largely not shared by Republicans, if you want to bring this topic up, as we've seen through Republicans consistently voting against aid to "liberal" areas hit with natural disaster while where's almost none of that behavior within the Democratic party when the victims of a natural disaster are in "conservative" areas. Nor did the Democratic POTUS shit talk or muse about not providing aid in retribution for Florida not voting for him as the last Republican president did.

This topic is a hugely losing topic for conservatives and I have no clue why you brought it up.

The various articles on the subject of attacking DeSantis for his criticism of other bills include the Superstorm Sandy legislation. Others focus on comparing, or misattributing, his criticism of one federal spending bill to another.

Republicans will gain politically if Democrats persist in sending a message that you're a hypocrite to benefit from opposed legislation.

Again, this is you lying about my position. I have never written this.

I'm beginning to think you're not discussing in good faith.

If we investigate your post
"Fuck 'em.
They get nothing.
They voted against it and spent a year shit talking it publicly. You get nothing if that's your position."

It's an easy logical step to conclude that if only these representatives had supported this legislation, they wouldn't be subject to your declaration that they get nothing. Let's just reflect on the meaning behind denying them a principled stance at receiving the money if they opposed it, and giving them the benefit of a principled stance for both supporting it and receiving benefit from it. Political support and compliance is the test you're proposing for whether "they get nothing" and "fuck 'em" and "you get nothing."

infrastructure week

I'm sure there's depths to legislation from the Trump administration we could plumb in a thread dedicated to it.

See, this is what you don't get: Folks in blue states are actually pretty fine with being donor states and helping out our struggling fellow American in red states. You know, in places in the deep south where UN inspectors have been shocked at the devastating levels of poverty they've seen, which they didn't think possible in a developed nation.

Considering the extent to which users of this forum bring up (to me) which states receive more federal monies than remit to the federal government, I'm going to call this a lie on its face.

If the states and their elected officials weren't complete shitdick fucking assholes about the whole affair. They're the beneificiaries of the very "socialism" they decry daily. If they hate it so much, they don't deserve it. If they at least shut the fuck up about it, nobody would give a fuck.

If they don't want "socialism", don't take blue state donor money, simple as that. Charity, which is essentially what this is, is a bit less rewarding and desirable when the recipients are spitting in your face and calling you a baby murderer, yaknow?

The question here is what show of gratitude are freely elected representatives required to display in order to not be called "shitdick fucking assholes" by you.

At least, that's a major stopping off point in your argument. They oppose certain legislation, and back it up with votes in opposition. But are they required to also make a press release acknowledging, with every vote, how much federal largesse is being directed to their states or districts? I propose something of a different nature. They can make opposition for any host of reasons, whether for the growing debt, or ways in which it is spent unproductively, or the overall price tag, or the precedent it would set, or failures in structural limits and administration, or other reasons I haven't considered yet. That's their right, and they're welcome to exercise it. Whatever money is currently spent is not tantamount to buying their support, and requiring obeisance. I acknowledge you have a point if they gave not one dollar in any revenue to the federal government, because then they could hardly want a voice in how their money is redistributed in that case.

Again, you seem to be intentionally missing the point.

I'm pointing out that Republicans will consistently vote against aid for Democratic parts of the country hit by natural disasters, claiming we can't afford it.

These same Republicans will be on their knees, hat in hand, begging for support and help and talking about how America needs to come together to support victims when there's a natural disaster in a Republican part of the country.

There is no analog to this behavior from Democrats at the same scale, scope, and frequency as with Republicans.

I haven't truly seen an application by DeSantis or any Republicans mentioned in your linked article for a new Congressional bill in their favor. Have at it on the hypocrisy and the price tag when Republicans clamor for Hurricane Ian Bill.

Again, I've been explicit on my position on this and you continue to appear to be intentionally misrepresenting it. No, just quite literally you making up a lot of shit while also lying a lot in the process.

You can stonewall me as long as you wish on any comparisons to similar hypotheticals on demanding "they get nothing" on an issue blue states, and progs like you, might be less willing to yield up. I take it to mean you have no intention on applying your logic with spending bills to those of tax reduction bills.

Again Florida has/had the right to spend the money however it wanted to. It could have passed as part of the budget to make a single payment to the US treasury from the state of Florida to reduce the national debt. This in turn would have reduced the overall tax burden since they would no longer have to pay interest on this money given to florida.


They could have also sent a check to every FL taxpayer in the state that would have equaled the full sum of the funding, for which they didn't do either. You know, "rebate checks bad" all of a sudden

FL taxpayers will have their portion due on any debts of the United States until and unless they leave the union. Money taken from Floridians to pay down the national debt doesn't reduce any tax burdens ... it's just additional taxes on the state taxpayers to gain the money in the first place.

Conservative politician's "outrage" about spending under democrat-controlled whitehouses or bodies of congress is entirely performative. They have no legitimate greivances about spending, most notably because they raised none about the objectively terrible spending initiatives under Trump and continue to raise none about frivolous spending in red states.

Obviously, when you debate some Republican hypocrisy on benefitting from spending legislation, it becomes a pretty easy debate once you consider another side of the debate to be illegitimate because of Republican hypocrisy on spending legislation.

[Edge-]

In this case, you seek to disenfranchise other taxpayers.

Again, this is you making things up I've never said and misrepresenting my positions. If this is how you're going to start out your response I see no reason to take it remotely seriously when your next response will similarly ignore the actual content of my posts in favor of the content you'd like to argue against.

[Elegiac]

In this case, you seek to disenfranchise other taxpayers.

The way you don't seem to realise what a massive self-own it is that you as a conservative rock up to a discussion of how Republicans forgo having any substantive positions in favor of nonsense emotional appeals and lying about what their opponents say and think your strongest strategy is... forgoing having any substantive position in favor of nonsense emotional appeals and lying about what your opponents say.

Maybe it was legalist brainrot and not the mercury poisoning that did Qin Shi Huang in after all.

[Dontrike]

Obviously, when you debate some Republican hypocrisy on benefitting from spending legislation, it becomes a pretty easy debate once you consider another side of the debate to be illegitimate because of Republican hypocrisy on spending legislation.

"Some Republican hypocrisy" is sure a weird way to say "Every time they open their mouths they show their hypocrisy." Most of that was word salad.

[YUPPIE]

what are the broader implications of the US turning into an enemy of Saudi Arabia? The news indicates Biden's relationship with MBS compared to Trump is nearly hostile despite the fistbumping posture earlier this year.