vtsnowedin wrote:It is time to look at the difference between what the Democrats say they will do and the actual results.
Bernie and the rest of the progressives say they want to improve things for the 'little guy' and create equal opportunity for all.
In ten months they have delivered a dollar a gallon increase in gas and fuel oil prices along with increased food and rent prices and an overall inflation that exceeds the more modest increase in wages.
They have flooded the country with hundreds of thousands of 'undocumented' (ie. illegal) immigrants that are un-vaccinated and have a ten percent positive covid-19 rate and paid to have them flown all over the country in what can be described as the biggest super spreader event ever.
Mixed in with these 'refugees' are a percentage of MS-13 gang members and others that are bringing in fentanyl by the ton and have caused over 100,000 overdose deaths this year along with increased crime rates nationwide.
Then we have the disastrous retreat from Afghanistan making decades of sacrifices made by the 'little guys' sons and daughters a complete waste, and doing so in a way that has destroyed the USA's credibility worldwide increasing the likelihood of aggressive actions by China and Russia with no plan or policy in place to check them.
Then we Have Joe Biden that promised no increase in taxes for anyone making $400k or less and would get the rich to "Pay their fair share".
Is a dollar paid in taxes a different color then a dollar paid at the gas pump or the grocery store?
And now the bill passed in the house last night raised the deduction from $10,000 dollars to $80,000 giving all those 'rich' people an average $50,000 tax cut while giving nothing to those making a low enough salary to not owe more then $10,000 in State and local taxes.
What is "fair" about that.
A couple more years of the Democrats 'Helping out the little guy' and they will all be homeless or under Chinese rule.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:I also agree about the $400K line for raising taxes. Something more like $100K as upper middle class would make far more sense for where to draw the line.
As it is, the bottom 50% only pay about TWO percent of the entire income tax burden. And the $100K limit wouldn't come near to touching that. But if you can't make it on $400K, then LIVE DIFFERENTLY, or LIVE SOMEWHERE CHEAPER for crying out loud.
And finally, the Afghanistan mess. Well, that was caused by the GOP, pushing for the wars, and refusing to ever stop, and wasting $trillions along the way. So we were supposed to just NEVER get out, no matter what? So you LIKE huge government spending? To me, the fact that it went bad so quickly is primarily a sign of HOW FOOLISH it was to ever be over there in the first place. WTH do we pay the CIA, military intelligence, etc. so much for, when what they produce over time is so pitifully inaccurate, re predictions the military relies on?
vtsnowedin wrote:How about not raising taxes at all and cutting spending to meet the record inflows that are coming in.
The US is in too deep a hole financially to be able to manage only by cutting spending. Sure, I see politicians in Canada claim they can balance the budget without raising taxes. Of course the balancing will only come after several decades and requires that during that time period economic growth will retain robust, and there won't be any big financial crisis, natural disasters, pandemics or wars. Highly unlikely in any case.
Plantagenet wrote:Biden just announced his big plan to reduce the price of gasoline......release oil from the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR). didn't even work.
SHEESH!
vtsnowedin wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:I also agree about the $400K line for raising taxes. Something more like $100K as upper middle class would make far more sense for where to draw the line.
As it is, the bottom 50% only pay about TWO percent of the entire income tax burden. And the $100K limit wouldn't come near to touching that. But if you can't make it on $400K, then LIVE DIFFERENTLY, or LIVE SOMEWHERE CHEAPER for crying out loud.
How about not raising taxes at all and cutting spending to meet the record inflows that are coming in.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
Now, hey, if you can get a large proportion of BOTH SIDES of the aisle to be willing to give up short term program desires (like the military and social programs) in favor of LESS spending (like me), I'm all for it.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:And finally, the Afghanistan mess. Well, that was caused by the GOP, pushing for the wars, and refusing to ever stop, and wasting $trillions along the way. So we were supposed to just NEVER get out, no matter what? So you LIKE huge government spending? To me, the fact that it went bad so quickly is primarily a sign of HOW FOOLISH it was to ever be over there in the first place. WTH do we pay the CIA, military intelligence, etc. so much for, when what they produce over time is so pitifully inaccurate, re predictions the military relies on?
vtsnowedin wrote: Wanting to get out of Afghanistan was pretty much universal. It was the disastrous execution of it that was the problem. They could have withdrawn in good order province by province taking all their equipment and allies with them. And don't say Biden was bound by any timeline or rules negotiated by Trump as Biden has had no problem undoing anything Trump put in place working or not.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:vtsnowedin wrote: Wanting to get out of Afghanistan was pretty much universal. It was the disastrous execution of it that was the problem. They could have withdrawn in good order province by province taking all their equipment and allies with them. And don't say Biden was bound by any timeline or rules negotiated by Trump as Biden has had no problem undoing anything Trump put in place working or not.
You're ignoring the main issue, which is that the GOP got us into that mess and pushed to keep us in that mess for nearly 20 years.
Getting out caused the bad guys to take over almost right away. Timing that a little differently or organizing it a little differently wouldn't have changed the basic outcome. Once the power vacuum was there, the Taliban seized control.
Total epic FAIL of the whole thing. Blaming the whole thing on Biden might be good political sport, but that's clearly ridiculous.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:... the Afghanistan mess. Well, that was caused by the GOP.....
Newfie wrote:Revi,
The Wife and I had a similar discussion yesterday. For my part there may have been good bits in BBB but it was all mixed up in one big stew. Thats a good way to hide some stuff.
I would like to see it broken up into logical components and then put up for discussion, the the bits stand or fall in their own merit. The way it was was just a massive bamboozle.
Munchin and I would disagree in many points but I think he did a very good thing.
The jails have lost about 500 corrections staff during the pandemic, according to the city’s publicly posted payroll records. In that same time period, only 143 new recruits were added, lawyers for the city said in recent court filings.
In June, City Controller Rebecca Rhynhart raised an alarm when the jails were 382 workers short, “a tipping point” she said required urgent attention. Now, according to Rhynhart’s office, the shortfall has grown to 582 staffers, putting the jails 31% below the city-approved deployment plan.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests