Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Compassionate Liberalism: WFH, Delivery Taxes

Recommended Posts

Also, the vitriol should be focused on the soulless pieces of shit in Congress that didn’t pass a COVID relief package, not states looking to replace revenue they were previously getting so they don’t have to cut services for the most vulnerable or lay people off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Also, the vitriol should be focused on the soulless pieces of shit in Congress that didn’t pass a COVID relief package, not states looking to replace revenue they were previously getting so they don’t have to cut services for the most vulnerable or lay people off. 

Oh I agree. Congress can go phuck themselves 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Also, the vitriol should be focused on the soulless pieces of shit in Congress that didn’t pass a COVID relief package, not states looking to replace revenue they were previously getting so they don’t have to cut services for the most vulnerable or lay people off. 

Things are so polarized that political parties intentionally harm the country out of spite for the other party. People's livelihoods are treated as a game. It's disgraceful

The sad thing is that some voters are so dedicated to their "team" that they justify things. "My party won ____, why should we cooperate? There are consequences for losing." I've seen that attitude a lot lately

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, IanforHeisman said:

Commercial real estate industry is phukked.

And residential is going to climb even higher. My wife has been dropping hints that we should upsize to give ourselves a dedicated space for a home office. I doubt we're the only family who is considering that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, misplacedcowboy said:

And residential is going to climb even higher. My wife has been dropping hints that we should upsize to give ourselves a dedicated space for a home office. I doubt we're the only family who is considering that...

The denser areas will likely see little change, maybe even a drop.  Suburbs and the fringe exurbs though?  The increases have already been drastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, misplacedcowboy said:

And residential is going to climb even higher. My wife has been dropping hints that we should upsize to give ourselves a dedicated space for a home office. I doubt we're the only family who is considering that...

Everything here in Boise has sky rocketed.. I’m sure it’s the same everywhere. Makes me wonder how any young people will ever be able to buy a house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2020 at 10:57 AM, Spaztecs said:

When Billionaire's get their taxes cut to

 

                 ZERO

This is how Communities make up the lost funding.

 

face facepalm GIF by The Boss Baby

Oh stop it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Also, the vitriol should be focused on the soulless pieces of shit in Congress that didn’t pass a COVID relief package, not states looking to replace revenue they were previously getting so they don’t have to cut services for the most vulnerable or lay people off. 

Let's be honest here, the government pisses away billions of dollars daily on unnecessary bloat. Not every dollar in the federal budget prevents women and children from starving in the streets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Let's be honest here, the government pisses away billions of dollars daily on unnecessary bloat. Not every dollar in the federal budget prevents women and children from starving in the streets. 

For 2019:

Screenshot_20201123-145538_Firefox Beta.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Let's be honest here, the government pisses away billions of dollars daily on unnecessary bloat. Not every dollar in the federal budget prevents women and children from starving in the streets. 

No let’s really be honest, they won’t be able to make up the difference without cutting social services or laying people off. Will they be able to cut some spending that doesn’t “prevent women and children from starving in the streets”? Sure. Will that even come close to balancing the budget? No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

No let’s really be honest, they won’t be able to make up the difference without cutting social services or laying people off. Will they be able to cut some spending that doesn’t “prevent women and children from starving in the streets”? Sure. Will that even come close to balancing the budget? No. 

I left the Rand Paul phase for that very reason. Is spending a few million dollars on a some quirky science project wasteful? Maybe. It's also insignificant compared to mandatory spending. The national government can't balance the budget without drastically reducing mandatory spending, raising taxes, or some combination of the two

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Maji said:

For 2019:

Screenshot_20201123-145538_Firefox Beta.jpg

There is probably a lot of bloat in the Other , Non Defense, & Defense and the category labeled 375 Billion.  Those categories make up 2.35 Trillion in spending. Lets say we find ways to consolidate duplicate programs, and get rid of things we don't need and we could cut that 2.35 trillion by 15% that would be 350 Billion dollars saved for taxpayers, all done without sending grandmas or children to the streets. Not every penny of the federal budget is sacrosanct. There is plenty of fat that can be cut, it is just that every penny of the federal budget is someones sacred cow, that they will defend to the death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

There is probably a lot of bloat in the Other , Non Defense, & Defense and the category labeled 375 Billion.  Those categories make up 2.35 Trillion in spending. Lets say we find ways to consolidate duplicate programs, and get rid of things we don't need and we could cut that 2.35 trillion by 15% that would be 350 Billion dollars saved for taxpayers, all done without sending grandmas or children to the streets. Not every penny of the federal budget is sacrosanct. There is plenty of fat that can be cut, it is just that every penny of the federal budget is someones sacred cow, that they will defend to the death. 

Even if that's true, the deficit was around a trillion dollars in 2019. It wouldn't make up the difference

This is the 375 Billion. It doesn't look like that spending is discretionary:

Source: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324

 

Screenshot_20201123-155318_Firefox Beta.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

No let’s really be honest, they won’t be able to make up the difference without cutting social services or laying people off. Will they be able to cut some spending that doesn’t “prevent women and children from starving in the streets”? Sure. Will that even come close to balancing the budget? No. 

No it probably wouldn't but you can take a good chunk out of the federal budget by eliminating waste, and combining duplicate programs.  Balancing the budget is probably going to require a combination of cutting spending, and raising taxes. There is no political will to do this however, until the interest on the debt is so burdensome that our hand is forced. The debt will have to be paid either through cutbacks and tax hikes, or though devaluation of the dollar. Both are bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maji said:

Even if that's true, the deficit was around a trillion dollars in 2019. It wouldn't make up the difference

This is the 375 Billion:

 

Screenshot_20201123-155318_Firefox Beta.jpg

Its a damn good start. I would be willing to support tax hikes if there was also a true effort to be more prudent with the federal budget. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

No it probably wouldn't but you can take a good chunk out of the federal budget by eliminating waste, and combining duplicate programs.  Balancing the budget is probably going to require a combination of cutting spending, and raising taxes. There is no political will to do this however, until the interest on the debt is so burdensome that our hand is forced. The debt will have to be paid either through cutbacks and tax hikes, or though devaluation of the dollar. Both are bad. 

Yea, there are no good options, I can agree with you there. Just a crappy situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...