We should not expect politicians to reap big electoral benefits for passing popular legislation when this piece of legislation was baked in by voters/inevitable due to the circumstances. Trump didn't receive any lasting electoral boost for passing covid relief in 2020 either.

I'm not saying your hypothesis that 'the electorate is so polarized that legislative success is no longer adequately rewarded at the ballot box' is wrong - all I'm saying is that the examples you chose are unsuitable to test this hypothesis.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 6 2021 02:15pm

First, I don't think it's true that the legislation was inevitable due to the circumstances. There's a reasonable case to be made that Biden's relief bill was far too large. If Trump pursued another relief bill as his first priority after just passing one in December(after McConnell and Pelosi teamed up to deny him the bill before the election, LMAO!!), which also wouldn't be inevitable, it's reasonable to conclude it would've been much less money for Americans, and maybe no child tax credit.

I don't know what Trump's electoral gains were, but the first relief bill he signed in March was bipartisan, so it doesn't make a lot of sense that he would get substantially more electoral benefit than Democrats. Whereas, Biden's relief bill had zero Republican support.

Also, how does this game work exactly? Does Biden not get credit for the infrastructure bill(if it passes) because it's reasonable to conclude that would've been a major legislative priority for Trump had he won? I don't believe most voters think that way, and people who do are wrong. Presidents get credit or blame for what happens under them, that's just how it works.

I think that just means Republicans should get a hefty chunk of blame for being against it. They were fighting over policy everybody agreed on for the sake of not giving Biden credit.

That's like the perfect example of putting party over country and it massively slowed down the process.

Like I said, Biden should get credit for the child tax credit part of the bill, but not for the sheer fact that he passed another round of covid relief. With restrictions lingering until well into spring in many states, this type of relief was inevitable imho. But what do I know...


Maybe I'm romantic in this regard, but I truly believe that in the long run, voters will judge bills by their content rather than by whether the opposition party decided to vote against it for optics. Case in point: Obamacare. Conservative voters bitched and moaned to no end about it, but when push came to shove in 2017 and it looked like Republicans might really repeal Obamacare, a majority of voters rallied around the bill and turned against the GOP. Healthcare, in particular the notion that Republicans want to take people's healthcare coverage away from them, was Dems' most potent issue during the midterm cycle and helped fuel the Dem wave of 2018.



It's not reasonable to assume that Trump would have gotten an infrastructure bill passed in his hypothetical second term. "Infrastructure week" had become a meme during his first term for a reason. Why should that have changed during his second term? He surely wasn't getting any mellower or wiser...

So yes, Biden imho does deserve credit if the bipartisan roads-and-bridges bill passes. That's the type of bill that really comes down to political will rather than external circumstances leaving the government and Congress no choice.





This might come as a shock to you, but... I have to agree.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 6 2021 02:59pm

Does he? I haven't heard him say anything like that. Everything that I've read seems to indicate that they want to keep revenue constant but trim the costs of the programs.

How is SS a failed, bankrupt program? If we don't do ANYTHING it will certainly be bankrupt in about 15 years but I really doubt that'll happen. Medicare is a different story and they'll have to raise premiums and/or the tax. Like it or not, taxes are going to go up up up over the next 10 years.

If the programs are more expensive than advertised then Congress and the electorate can deal with it when the time comes.


I guess you've never heard of Mitch McConnell.

Manchin is not comfortable with increasing corporate taxes to 28%, and he has suggested 25% as a compromise. That equates to less revenue. How he squares that with his desire to make sure everything is paid for, I don't know.

Would you rather I said "soon to be bankrupt"? The trust raises taxes, loans it to the government at interest, and the government pays it out of general revenue. The returns, anemic as they are, come at the government's expense. By contrast, Canada's pension fund has been averaging an ~11% 5-year return. Managing that with 10x the assets isn't realistic, but returning 5-6% per year would be fantastic. The model was based on a life expectancy that is far too low (fixable), and a population pyramid that no longer exists (not fixable). Either taxes need to go way up, which would be awful, or the return on investment needs to be much higher.

We debate and analyze the costs now precisely because we don't want to be dealing with it when the time comes. The political effort required to unwind even frankly terrible bills is astronomical. If the projections are a case of rose-tinted glasses, the legislators responsible deserve pushback until they present forecasts that are in line with reality.

Wasn't 25% always what the corporate rate was going to be though? Whether or not the bill is 3.5T, 6T, or 1.5T, corporate taxes will probably be around 25%. I really don't see them cutting revenue in this scenario unless the cut entire programs (such as the child tax credit). This is more of a matter of keeping revenue generating rates constant over 10 years and reducing program lengths.

The primary purpose of Social Security is to create a minimum standard of living for the elderly/disabled and there are many possible fixes for the program. One possible fix is to remove the cap on payroll taxes. Right now, income that's above ~140K doesn't receive the 7.5% payroll tax. In addition, you can reduce benefits through means testing. People who are middle class and above will not use SS as their primary form of retirement income.

It's the CBO's job to do the analysis (once the bill is written). You're correct that they tend to underestimate revenue and overestimate outlays but the error isn't terrible. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-09/55234-CBO-deficits-debts.pdf

corporate tax hikes are folly and a stupid point. they just jack up prices as a result (oh look more “transitory” inflation). you could say okay lets do taxes based on revenue, but be prepared for an absolute riot (a real one)

VAT and encouragement of onshoring of funds is a much more efficient form of “taxation”.

not that I am a huge VAT proponent but its much better than this clusterfuck we have had for about a century since they instrumented ‘temporary’ income taxes

This post was edited by excellence on Oct 7 2021 05:28pm

VAT is a very efficient form of taxation, but it's also one that disproportionately hurts the bottom ~40-70% of the population.


This touches on a big, general problem that most countries are faced with in this day and age: how can we raise taxes on corporations in a way that it eats into the profit margin of their shareholders rather than the purchasing power of their customers?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 7 2021 06:19pm

COVID THEATER Biden’s vaccine mandate for employers was a bluff
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1yhC8GYzewmb/