Backintheday544

Let me fix this for you: Former NYPD officer was found guilty by a jury for attacking a cop with a flag pole. Two lawyers, accepted responsibility for their action and entered a guilty plea for throwing a Molotov cocktail into an empty police car.

Context for everyone on the board, Biden is more than 2 points higher than Trump was in approval ratings at the same time: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Sounds like not taking personal responsibility. Excuses excuses excuses. Very Republican MAGA of you.

Trumps were historically bad for midterms: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-historically-unpopular-heading-into-first-midterm-election-2018-11

His approval ratings are higher than Trump at the same time: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

I think the difference between say me and @Tiberius and you is we understand concepts like economics, politics and general reading comprehension. If you read the CBO scoring of the I clarion Reduction Act, revenues from the laws in the act, exceed spending. When that occurs, the deficit decreases. Comparing a household to a Federal govt is dumb but to use your example, say you just got $100 raise. Part of the raise requires you to spend $30 on new equipment. So you still have a $70 raise. Here, the govt is spending money but their raise is bigger than they’re spending. If we look at basic Econ, when demand for a good decreases, the price decreases. Absent all the other factors that affect gas, if more people have electric cars, demand for gas will decrease, which would decrease price.

The inflation reduction act has been scored by CBO to reduce the deficit by over $100 billion: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58366 The rest of your comments are just indescribable nonsense.

Have you researched any of this? Your first post was full of factual errors and so is this. 1. The bi-partisan infrastructure bill puts $73 billion into the electrical grid and another $7.5 billion into EV charging infrastructure as well. This is spending agreed upon by both parties. 2. There’s no right to a pickup truck in the Constitution. If you can’t afford a pick up truck, you don’t buy one. Plus the Inflation Reduction Act allowed for tax credits to help reduce the cost. 3. The Inflation Reduction Act takes away credits and provides incentives for batteries not made in China and cars assembled on North America. 4. Biden isn’t charging ahead on this. This is a CA policy that follows an EU policy that was negotiated with car companies. 5. Britain who you point out has banned the sales of gas car by 2030, 5 years earlier than the EU and CA: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/11/18/britain-will-ban-gasoline-cars-in-2030-why-are-experts-not-impressed/?sh=690910ef36e4

so your point is in the leftist era, the laws don’t matter and the leftists are going to allow someone without standing to sue to overturn the Secretary of Educations ability to forgive debt under the HEROS Act?

In order to sue, you need standing. To have standing, you need to show you are harmed. There is like no one harmed here to have standing. Fox News goes into it well here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-ags-weigh-legal-challenge-against-bidens-500b-student-loan-handout At the moment, finding someone that has been harmed by the decision looks difficult. The Supreme Court has already stated that taxpayers do not have standing to sue the government, and neither does Congress. Borrowers who already paid off their loans and therefore will not qualify for the handout are unlikely to have standing either since they are not directly injured by the White House's action. State governments similarly are viewed as not having standing since the student debt handout does not impose a burden on their finances or powers. Legal experts say that loan services might have the best standing for a lawsuit since they will be directly impacted the handout. Loan servicers could argue that Biden overreached by issuing a blanket handout, instead of tailoring the proposal to individuals with proven economic hardship. Some federal courts, though, have refused in the past to allow government contractors to sue against regulations that hurt their profit margin.

None of the debt you listed is held by the Federal government and therefore Biden wouldn’t have the ability to unilaterally cancel it. If they were to do it through legislation, they’d need Republican support. Republicans could have done something like that in 2017 as the total cost of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which favored corporations and wealth Americans would have been close to the total US consumer credit card debt. In addition, this was something Joe Biden ran on. It was a campaign promise. And a record number of people voted for him. Elections have consequences.

The infrastructure bill was a bi-partisan bill that included putting $73 billion into the electrical grid. Bi-partisan means it voted yes and supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Until you learn basic US politics, you’re opinion is worthless and you’re just spitting out asinine points. Not the best source but someone with rudimentary understanding of US politics should probably start their education here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

That’s an interesting what if that doesn’t seem to be an issue. CAs GDP is up 16.69 percent over 5 years. (https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/california/) Compared to TX which is 12.32 (https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/texas/) This while CA offers lower state and local taxes than TX: https://www.instagram.com/p/CdgZ6KOOGww/?igshid=ZWQxOWIzNTU= https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/texans-pay-more-taxes-than-californians-17400644.php According to ITEP, Texans whose salaries fall into the lowest 20 percent of income earners (making less than $20,900 annually) pay about 13 percent of their income in state and local taxes. Meanwhile, Californians in the bottom 20 percent (making less than $23,200 annually) pay 10.5 percent. In Texas, the middle 20 percent of income earners ($35,800-$56,000) pay 9.7 percent in state and local taxes in contrast to middle income Californians ($39,100-$62,300), who only pay 8.9 percent. Most glaringly, the top 1 percent of earners in Texas ($617,900 or more) pay 3.1 percent of their income in contrast to top earnings in California ($714,400 or more) who pay 12.4 percent. So I’d think people would want to go a lower taxes jurisdiction that has an actual electric grid that’s seeing higher economic growth.

Your post ignores several things. First, the EU already put this law in place and CA is just following suit. ( If CA was a country it would have the fifth largest economy in the world too). Second the US govt also pledged to stop purchasing gas cars by 2035. With the above, especially in the EU the auto industry was part of those negotiations and did get some concessions in these plans. Also, with CA, US govt and the EU, it could be enough economic pressure to force the stopping of production on gas cars. You’re looking at the US power grid as of today and are ignoring the bi-partisan infrastructure bill that is designed to update the US power grid to fix the problem of everyone having electric cars. As for gas prices with more people using electric, if we’re looking at basic Econ, wouldn’t the decrease in demand decrease price (assume then OPEC et all would shift supply to maintain gas prices) You rant about a whole bunch of what ifs without any justification or reasons to believe those will occur except for your feels.

Just using your words here: Needs based: “If approved, a loan was offered based on need and payment disbursed.” Using the term based on need really sounds like it’s needs based. Yes we know what PPP is an acronym for. So now we just trust the government naming of things? I guess we can all agree the Inflation Reduction Act reduces inflation. Yes, PPP is a Federal program, but your point was “The most vital element of the program was keeping employees employed while the govt kept society and the economy locked down. Failure to do so resulted in repayment terms that might be considered predatory if offered by a private bank.” If Florida didn’t keep society and the economy locked down as you put. So why should a Florida person such as Gaetz get bailed out with over $400,000? We can use another Florida person Tom Brady, had $1,000,000 of PPP loans forgiven. His net worth is over $400,000,000. If these Republicans don’t believe in the government forgiving loans, they could have just paid back the PPP loans. There is no requirement to ask the government for forgiveness. PPP loans and the student loans are both loans made by the government to US persons. Both have forgiveness aspects built in. The business owners used the legislation to get their forgiveness. The President used his power to grant forgiveness on those loans. If looking at policy, I’d much rather have the government give $300 billion to people making under $125,000 then the huge amounts of PPP money that went to people like Brady and Gaetz who could have used their personal assets to keep their company going (assuming there was even a going concern issue).

I disagree with several points you make on PPP. 1. there were not need based requirements for PPP1. PPP2 did have a drop in gross receipts of 25 percent requirement. 2. PPP has a requirement that just 60 percent of the funds go to wages (including owner wages). The other 40 percent could go towards items such as rent, mortgage, etc. So the PPP did in fact pay mortgages and expressly allowed for them to be used for mortgage payments. 3. You bring in the shut downs but in states where there were no shut downs, people still received PPP loans. Florida for example brags about not being shut down, yet Matt Gaetz had $482,000 in PPP loans forgiven.

Here is the per capita data:

TCJA was projected to add $1.889 trillion to the deficit per CBO: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/cbo-thinks-tcja-will-cost-433-billion-more-last-decembers-estimate-what-happened This is projected to cost $330 billion. Baes on the National Taxpayer Unions methodology, TCJA would cost an average American $11,900 each. Didn’t see outrage there.

is the point you’re trying to prove that you don’t have reading comprehension? CBO hasn’t score it. The thing you highlighted says that specific thing. The $2,000 cost per taxpayer you highlighted is again, not from the CBO, but from a right leaning policy group The National Taxpayers Union. If you read the National Taxpayers Union policy paper on how they got that number, they took the $330 cost from Wharbutons study and simply divided that by the number of individual tax returns filed in 2019. That is not finding the average cost this will be to an average Joe you pick off the street.

Source? Data?

yes the real taxpayers are left leaning since blue states pay the most Federal taxes:

It’s too bad you didn’t do more education in order to apply critical thinking before you post. 1. That’s not a CNBC study, that’s a National Taxpayer Union Foundation study. A right wing group 2. to call it a study is laughable. Their study is to take the projected cost and divide it by the total number of people who filed a return in 2019. It doesn’t take into account that many Americans don’t pay $2,000 in taxes. A better model to see what the average American will pay for this will take into account the disparity in the amount of taxes paid by each American. So if you were to look at what this will cost the average Joe American WalMart worker, it’s probably closer to a fraction of cent. A couple pieces of advice: 1. read what you post 2. think to yourself who is writing this and why 3. understand math If you can do this, then maybe you can join the rest of us as well informed taxpayers!

Democrats included a provision that student loan forgiveness is tax free through 2025 in the last stimulus reconciliation bill.

Everyone should pull themselves up by the bootstrap and send their kids to private education like me? Don’t know what you’re looking for here. Public school has been broke for decades. I’d start by watching the Revionaries as a start: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/revisionaries/ After that I’d look at a system that doesn’t have schools being paid for via real estate taxes.

It’s quoting the Times. The main gist from the Times: Times notes: - (1) Sussmann’s conversation with the CIA had already been reported last October -(2) Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]” -(3) the special counsel also never claimed the Clinton campaign had paid Joffe’s company and -(4) perhaps most importantly, “the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era.” In fact, lawyers for the data scientist who helped develop the data analysis in question, say this happened during— wait for it—Barack Obama’s presidency. Here’s the Times piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/us/politics/durham-sussmann-trump-russia.html And Vanity Fair is much more legit than 99 percent of Bonnie’s spam.