President Biden says that 3,500,000,000,000 equals 0.
 

Even i thought his brain was at least better than this.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-...s-zero-dollars

Yet the million times Republicans said the tax cuts would pay for themselves...

and every time, you criticize them. but it’s only a problem for you, when republicans do it.

when that’s the best that even you can do, we know Biden made a big, big mistake. Not even you can spin your way out of it.

tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, they can have some stimulative effect ( like any price cut) but not to the extent of paying for themselves. they need to be offset with spending cuts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the same thing the Right has been saying since Reagan, cut taxes and things will miraculously get better, churches will do it and rising tides......but it hasn't happened on any front compared to the rest of the developed world.

There is a real payback for investment in social infrastructure and here is a look at one part of that multifaceted investment.

For decades, U.S. politicians on the right have resisted calls for income redistribution and universal insurance under the theory that inequality was a fair price to pay for freedom. But now we know that the price of inequality is paid in early death—for Americans of all races, ages, and income levels. With or without a pandemic, when it comes to keeping Americans alive, we really are all in this together.

Before the 1990s, average life expectancy in the U.S. was not much different than it was in Germany, the United Kingdom, or France. But since the 1990s, American life spans started falling significantly behind those in similarly wealthy European countries.

According to a new working paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Americans now die earlier than their European counterparts, no matter what age you’re looking at. Compared with Europeans, American babies are more likely to die before they turn 5, American teens are more likely to die before they turn 20, and American adults are more likely to die before they turn 65. At every age, living in the United States carries a higher risk of mortality. This is America’s unsung death penalty, and it adds up. Average life expectancy surged above 80 years old in just about every Western European country in the 2010s, including Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, the U.K., Denmark, and Switzerland. In the U.S., by contrast, the average life span has never exceeded 79—and now it’s just taken a historic tumble.

Why is the U.S. so much worse than other developed countries at performing the most basic function of civilization: keeping people alive?

“Europe has better life outcomes than the United States across the board, for white and Black people, in high-poverty areas and low-poverty areas,” Hannes Schwandt, a Northwestern University professor who co-wrote the paper, told me. “It’s important that we collect this data, so that people can ask the right questions, but the data alone does not tell us what the cause of this longevity gap is.”

Finding a straightforward explanation is hard, because there are so many differences between life in the U.S. and Europe. Americans are more likely to kill one another with guns, in large part because Americans have more guns than residents of other countries do. Americans die more from car accidents, not because our fatality rate per mile driven is unusually high but because we simply drive so much more than people in other countries. Americans also have higher rates of death from infectious disease and pregnancy complications. But what has that got to do with guns, or commuting?

By collecting data on American life spans by ethnicity and by income at the county level—and by comparing them with those of European countries, locality by locality—Schwandt and the other researchers made three important findings.

First, Europe’s mortality rates are shockingly similar between rich and poor communities. Residents of the poorest parts of France live about as long as people in the rich areas around Paris do. “Health improvements among infants, children, and youth have been disseminated within European countries in a way that includes even the poorest areas,” the paper’s authors write.

But in the U.S., which has the highest poverty and inequality of just about any country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, where you live is much more likely to determine when you’ll die. Infants in the U.S. are considerably more likely to die in the poorest counties than in the richest counties, and this is true for both Black and white babies. Black teenagers in the poorest U.S. areas are roughly twice as likely to die before they turn 20, compared with those in the richest U.S. counties. In Europe, by contrast, the mortality rate for teenagers in the richest and poorest areas is exactly the same—12 deaths per 100,000. In America, the problem is not just that poverty is higher; it’s that the effect of poverty on longevity is greater too.

Second, even rich Europeans are outliving rich Americans. “There is an American view that egalitarian societies have more equality, but it’s all one big mediocre middle, whereas the best outcomes in the U.S. are the best outcomes in the world,” Schwandt said. But this just doesn’t seem to be the case for longevity. White Americans living in the richest 5 percent of counties still die earlier than Europeans in similarly low-poverty areas; life spans for Black Americans were shorter still. (The study did not examine other American racial groups.) “It says something negative about the overall health system of the United States that even after we grouped counties by poverty and looked at the richest 10th percentile, and even the richest fifth percentile, we still saw this longevity gap between Americans and Europeans,” he added. In fact, Europeans in extremely impoverished areas seem to live longer than Black or white Americans in the richest 10 percent of counties.

Third, Americans have a lot to learn about a surprising success story in U.S. longevity. In the three decades before COVID-19, average life spans for Black Americans surged, in rich and poor areas and across all ages. As a result, the Black-white life-expectancy gap decreased by almost half, from seven years to 3.6 years. “This is a really important story that we ought to move to the forefront of public debate,” Schwandt said. “What happened here? And how do we continue this improvement and learn from it?”

One explanation begins with science and technology. Researchers found that nothing played bigger roles in reducing mortality than improvements in treating cardiovascular disease and cancer. New drugs and therapies for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and various treatable cancers are adding years or decades to the lives of millions of Americans of all ethnicities.

Policy also plays a starring role. Schwandt credits the Medicaid expansion in the 1990s, which covered pregnant women and children and likely improved Black Americans’ access to medical treatments. He cites the expansion of the earned-income tax credit and other financial assistance, which have gradually reduced poverty. He also points to reductions in air pollution. “Black Americans have been more likely than white Americans to live in more-polluted areas,” he said. But air pollution has declined more than 70 percent since the 1970s, according to the EPA, and most of that decline happened during the 30-year period of this mortality research.

Other factors that have reduced the Black-white life-expectancy gap include the increase in deaths of despair, which disproportionately kill white Americans, and—up until 2018—a decline in homicides, which disproportionately kill Black Americans. (The recent rise in homicides, along with the disproportionate number of nonwhite Americans who have died of COVID-19, will likely reduce Black life spans.)

Even then, Black infants in high-poverty U.S. counties are three times more likely to die before the age of 5 than white infants in low-poverty counties. But Schwandt insists that highlighting our progress is important in helping us solve the larger American death problem. “We are wired to care more about bad news than about good news,” he said. “When life expectancy rises slightly, nobody cares. But when life expectancy declines, suddenly we’re up in arms. I think that’s a tragedy, because to improve the health and well-being of our populations, and especially of our disadvantaged populations, we have to give attention to positive achievements so that we can learn from them.”

We’re a long way from a complete understanding of the American mortality penalty. But these three facts—the superior outcomes of European countries with lower poverty and universal insurance, the equality of European life spans between rich and poor areas, and the decline of the Black-white longevity gap in America coinciding with greater insurance protection and anti-poverty spending—all point to the same conclusion: Our lives and our life spans are more interconnected than you might think.

pete, your side opposes school choice ( forcing generations of blacks to live in modern day plantations we call cities), so spare us the BS that you want to eliminate income inequality. How are the bluest of states - CT, CA, NY - doing on income inequality? Not so good. The last thing the left wants is to end poverty, because if they all escaped poverty, many would
no longer need to view democrat.

Democrats have done a masterful
job over the last few decades of giving poor blacks enough to postpone death, but never ever enough to get ahead.

You can’t end poverty by spending money. 50 years of empirical results show us this. you end poverty by giving people what the tools they need to get ahead. strong families, dedicated parents, good work ethic, good schools ( not measured by how much teachers make, but by how effective they are at teaching and inspiring),

Not rocket science. But beyond the grasp of the left. The left needs, and has cunningly cultivated, a permanent underclass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As we know reading comprehension is not your strong point.

The wealthy and powerful over the past decades have systematically turned our political system into a machine that redistributed our money into their pockets, all while enacting cruel austerity and convincing us government could never possibly make our lives better.

Who owns the formerly small businesses and banks?

It doesn’t have to be like this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, when the economy grows, that helps everyone participating in the economy. But it helps the wealthy more, because they have more money to invest.

I own Apple, but not as much as Tim Cook. When Apple goes up by 20%, my shares and his shares improve by the same amount, but he has a million times
more, so he is helped
more. He gets richer relative to me, the income inequality has increased.

And i ask you, so the f—k what? How can you stop that income inequality, and why on earth would you want to stop it?

You want to pass a law that says once your net worth is $25 million, you have to put all your money in a mattress and stop working?

Follow this if you can…wealth is not finite,?it’s not like a pizza. If Oprah earns another million today, that does t mean there’s a million less for you and i to scrounge for.

The existence of wealthy people
is a good thing. They pay a ton of taxes, they spend a lot, they invest a lot, they give a lot to charity. All of which eases the burden on the rest of us.

Democrats never tire of creating false monsters, and naturally the only way to deal with those monsters, is to give democrats more power. The solution to every single problem, is to give democrats more power.

I suggest you’d benefit mightily from taking an adult education course in economics.

Do you know which party Wall Street now gives most of its political
donations to? And the Big Tech behemoths?

In any event, this was all a desperate attempt by you to distract away from
the fact that. idea said something incredibly stupid and dishonest. You can’t just concede that, you aren’t capable of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You miss the point
Money in politics has made it more advantageous to be a large corporation than a small business and the larger businesses have and are using their financial power politically to make small business near impossible.
Small business was dependent on local customers, local services etc.
They also supported community organizations from volunteer fire departments to sports.
How many local banks are there?
Local anything?

But it’s “liberals” fault and if you think in another generation home ownership will be the American dream you’re fooling yourself

But it’s ok you got a boat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

agreed that massive corporations have too much power. I’d never say that was liberals fault, i’m not sure it’s anyone’s “fault”. People
like low prices more than they like supporting mom and pops.

Not sure what that has to do with Biden claiming his spending bill is free.

oh i have no doubt home
ownership will be more elusive ( not for my kids) and much is that is the fault of liberalism. states with the highest real estate prices, are they red states or blue states? liberalism isn’t conducive to middle class. Liberalism pushes people to either extreme. I’ve lived in CT my entire life, i know of what i speak.

No boat at present, 10 years out probably, when 3 college tuitions are funded then something along the lines of a 25 parker is on my horizon. worked my butt off at a job i don’t especially like for a few decades. the end is in sight thanks to this nice oil rebound.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People keep trying to frame the current legislative dysfunction as if Manchin and Sinema are budget-hawks, which is nonsense.

This is about the wealthy maintaining a stranglehold on government by buying and selling representatives.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim where the outrage over the GOP refusing to raise the debt ceiling… Senate Republicans blocked a measure to avert a federal default and fund the government. All 50 GOP senators voted against the House-approved legislation that funds the government through December 3 and suspends the debt ceiling until the end of next year,

Our have fallen in step with mitchs lie it’s about blocking the 3.5 trillion … dem spending?

When it’s clear we need to raise the ceiling for what TRUMP spent to include his Tax cut .. and you have the nerve to call other partisans hacks …

So one again Republicans are willing to tank the government the markets and the world economy so they can have something to blame the on the dems in the mid terms because their bases priorities are owning the libs .. while they take the hit also their all sheep who think there Lions. Who party lies constantly and Their leader Trump is still lying about the election and the lengths they went to try to overturn it…. But But Biden said it cost Zero I guess hyperbole is dead unless it’s spoke by Republican like Mitch just recently earlier this month it was a necessary step because "America must never default.".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The top-line figure is $3.5 trillion. That's a package of investments that could bring $2 trillion in new revenue and savings, yielding net cost of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Annualized, that amount is less than three Pentagon contractors got last year.
And remember, we are out of Afghanistan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mitch is a partisan hack, when they had the power and the debt ceiling needed raising no problem. The debt ceiling needs to go up to pay for things this country (Republicans included) has already bought or committed to funding. Manchin and Sinema are also political hacks just positioning themselves to appear to be the moderates in the party, which is ironic since the plan is being proposed by a moderate president.

so mitch is a partisan hack, manchin and sinema are hacks....and biden is just a moderate great guy trying to to the right stuff but being thwarted by hacks from every direction....

some great drugs you must be doing:spin:

I wouldn't call Mitch a hack, he's got a PhD is being a hypocritical a$$hole.

I don't like him either...wish he was gone a long time ago...along with biden

If you think Mitch gives a rats arse about the Americans from the middle class your kidding yourself, he is all about holding on to the power at all costs. Never implied he is stupid, far from it, but everything he has done since Biden took office is about making him and his administration look bad and winning back the power, term limits are needed to get both parties working for all Americans and not their party or their donors.

when did I say he does?.....you have this odd habit of creating arguments that don't exist and then arguing with yourself as though someone else has disagreed with you

there you go again...I never implied that you implied he is stupid

this is shocking and probably never done by the other side:bl:

this is original....

Scott what rained in bored, snarky to the rescue.

It is said that this worked to calm down Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mlllRdIfqw

when they can’t respond to what you actually said ( a position they find themselves in routinely), they respond to something that you never came close to saying. A classic liberal tactic.

And Biden is a moderate. That’s a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here you go - it’s obviously hypocritical for the gop to only care about debt when the president is a democrat. it’s pure partisan bullsh*t.

its also the same exact thing your side does whenever a republican is president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no it’s not. it’s about two democrat senators who (1) want to remain senators, and (2) know that they represent purple states, not blue
states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no strangling. Politicians don't have to take the money. They are not forced to take the money. They are not being strangled if they don't take the money. They are corrupt. They care more about themselves and their political and financial future than about you or the American People.

Whatever metaphorical strangling is going on, it is mutual. If big money interests want to maintain their advantage, they have to depend on big government to create the regulatory environment necessary to enable that advantage. If they want that advantage, they have to pay the political Mafia to get it and keep it.

In a so called Democracy, the government should have a symbiotic relationship with "the people." Not with special interests who buy elected officials and who depend on their corruption. Which is one of the reasons democracies basically fail in living up to what "democracy" is for.

And this system of a political mafia feeding off of the big money that it makes possible and which fills its greedy pockets exists on all sides of the political isle. Which is why some consider the U.S. government to be a fascistic oligarchy.

Right now the big money goes more to the Dems. Other times, to the Repubs. I suspect it goes on as well in Western Europe which you think so highly of.

These various trillions of dollars spending bills are full of bull$hit that goes to special interests in the name of "values." As Pelosi said, "let’s not talk about numbers and dollars. Let’s talk about values.” Yeah, well it doesn't take economic and political geniuses to see whose values, especially cash values, are being realized. Like the series of so called infrastructure bills in the past 10 years that had more ​BS pork than infrastructure. Everybody knows this is happening.

But it's not going to stop until some crisis forces it. I don't know if Mitch's ploy is purely political or what, but I would love to see it happen. I would love to see the idiotic, destructive wasting and overspending of the people's money come to a screeching halt. We've been forced into a year of social and financial austerity because of the pandemic, with more to come. If that can defeat the virus, we can get through the catastrophe of a well deserved government default, and we can, at least for another while, defeat government fiscal irresponsibility

Let’s not overcomplicate this:

$7.8 Trillion of debt added during the Trump administration.

Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut for billionaires and corporations.

And now they’re refusing to pay for it.

It’s really that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Top Five Debt Contributors by Percentage

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945): President Roosevelt had the largest percentage increase to the debt. Although he only added $236 billion, this was a nearly 1,050% increase from the $22.5 billion debt level left by President Herbert Hoover. The Great Depression and the New Deal contributed to FDR's yearly deficits, but the biggest cost was World War II: It added $186.3 billion to the debt between 1942 and 1945.4


Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921): President Wilson was the second-largest contributor to the debt, percentage-wise. He added $21 billion, which was a 724% increase over the $2.9 billion debt of his predecessor. World War I contributed to the deficits that raised the national debt.4

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989): President Reagan increased the debt by $1.85 trillion, or by 186%. Reagan's brand of supply-side economics didn't grow the economy enough to offset the lost revenue from its tax cuts. Reagan also increased the defense budget by 35%.5

George W. Bush (2001-2009): President Bush added $6.1 trillion, or a 101% increase, putting him in fourth. Bush launched the War on Terror in response to the 9/11 attacks, which led to multi-trillion-dollar spending on the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. Bush also dealt with the 2001 recession and the 2008 financial crisis.6

Barack Obama (2009-2017): Under President Obama, the national debt grew the most dollar-wise ($8.6 trillion) but was fifth in terms of percentage: 74%. Obama fought the Great Recession with an $831 billion economic stimulus package and added $858 billion through tax cuts.


10th place trump


I think Biden wants to be #1 :laugha:

No what about changes these facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device