Republicans press Biden to downsize $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan

[johnnybangkok]

29 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Well lets see, Trump has 22,450  employees and Trump organization $665 million in sales.  GW was president of a for profit Texas Rangers agree that was a 'birthright" position.   By contrast. Bill Clinton only job in private life if you can call it that was as a professor at the University of Arkansas.  Never worked for a for profit company, never hired an employee, never had to make a profit.  Barack Obama worked as a community organizer before entering politics.  Never started a company, ran a company, held a management position in a company never hired an employee and never had to make a profit. Joe Biden never worked a day outside of government.  Never had to do anything other than suckle the breast of the taxpayer.  

Yep pretty dismal business record compared to the stellar accomplishments in business compared to Clinton, Biden, and Obama.  

I'm not really sure what your point is here. All the individuals you mentioned did a much better job of running the country than the businessman Trump ever did.

To try and equate running the country to running a business is just plainly wrong as both Clinton and Obama (and Biden by association) did a hell of a lot better with the economy than Trump ever did.

Clinton was the last POTUS to bring down the national debt through higher taxation of the richest and lower costs and Obama/Biden did a fantastic job of bringing the US (and many would say the world) from the brink of financial collapse.

If Trump proves anything, businessmen should never be allowed to run a country. 

[bunnydrops]

8 hours ago, Thomas J said:

In terms of "need" that is a founding principal of Communism. Karl Marx  the Communist Manifesto.  Somehow being equal isn't good enough.  Those that produce, save, invest, and are thrifty don't need it.  Those that potentially that don't produce, save, invest or are foolish with their money "need it"  So you incentify  the behaviors that are bad and punish those that are prudent.  Try that with your own children and see how it works out. 

With respect to corporate tax breaks.  I don't know why people are of the opinion that they can shift the burden of taxes to corporations and it does not show up in the prices they pay.  If a business lets say a gasoline distributor gets a price increase of 5 cents per gallon, do you really believe they just absorb it and don't pass it on.  If the cost to truck their gasoline goes up, you think they don't have to pass that along.  Corporations don't pay taxes, they write the checks from the money they receive from their customers.  Additionally, whether the corporate tax is 15%, 25% or 50%  corporate income is taxed twice.  If I own 10% of a company's stock and that company is charged $1 million in taxes, I am in effect paying that $100,000 in taxes.  When the company distributes their earnings to me in the form of a dividend, THE SAME INCOME IS TAXED AGAIN.  I now pay tax on my dividend income.  You also have to remember, if you have two companies one based in the USA and one in Switzerland and they both make watches.  The company in the USA is taxed at 21% on its income, while the Swiss only 8.5%.  The Swiss company can undercut the USA company on prices taking jobs away from Americans.  High taxes are an incentive to leave the USA, not expand, or not locate in the USA to begin with.  If you don't believe that, just look at the flood of companies fleeing California.  They aren't heading to New York.  They are relocating in Texas.  Companies have to do that in order to match the cost structure of their competitors. 

Its off topic so I will give a short answer to where a lot of the tax savings goes, and the extra that the consumer pays for

 

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

[Thomas J]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

I'm not really sure what your point is here. All the individuals you mentioned did a much better job of running the country than the businessman Trump ever did.

To try and equate running the country to running a business is just plainly wrong as both Clinton and Obama (and Biden by association) did a hell of a lot better with the economy than Trump ever did.

That is your biased opinion.  The New York Times a truly liberal newspaper saw it differently.  Granted Covid kicked the <deleted> out of the US economy but it did the same world wide.  As for Obama.  He had the weakest recovery in history.  He is the ONLY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY to never have a meager 3% annual growth rate even once and his final quarter in office had the economy at a virtual stall at 1.9% GDP growth.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/upshot/we-ran-out-of-words-to-describe-how-good-the-jobs-numbers-are.html

[Thomas J]

3 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

Yes and your point being?  In capitalistic system those people who have skills get rewarded.  If it was that easy to be a CEO of a fortune 500 company then instead of complaining that typical worker should strive to become one of them.  I have no idea why liberals always pick on business people and the money they earn through using their brains, and the employment they bring to the economy but have no problem that George Clooney makes $275 million a year just by "looking good" and acting.  or Kayne West made $170 million dollars last year or worst yet Kayne's soon to be ex wife Kim Kardashian has zero talent but somehow parlayed that into a net worth of $900 million dollars.  How many people do these people employ, how many jobs in the USA are they responsible for, how does their success or failure impact the lives of others.  The answer is if companies fail lives are destroyed.  If George Clooney does not earn a dime it impacts only him. 

[Thomas J]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

But trump has so many failed businesses he cannot even do that right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/upshot/we-ran-out-of-words-to-describe-how-good-the-jobs-numbers-are.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/01/obama-wins-the-gold-for-worst-economic-recovery-ever/?sh=2ba57d423ca2

 

 

https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president

 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Thomas J said:

None of that has anything to do with the fact that Biden, Obama, and Clinton all have ZERO business experience. He still had far far far more financial success and business experience than the three of them combined. 

 

So better a massively incompetent businessman than someone who has never run a business?

[placeholder]

51 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/upshot/we-ran-out-of-words-to-describe-how-good-the-jobs-numbers-are.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/01/obama-wins-the-gold-for-worst-economic-recovery-ever/?sh=2ba57d423ca2

 

 

https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president

 

Such nonsense. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. The US economy was in freefall.When his stimulus bill passed, not one Republican in the Senate voted for it. And it was only 800 billion including 300 billion in tax cuts. A fraction of what Congress passed on 2020 with very strong Democratic support. 

 Out of all the major world economies in the West, the US was the first to regain it's former level of GDP after the 2008 collapse.In addition, after the midterms of 2010 the Republican Congress refused to pass any more stimulus. In fact, they pushed for austerity! Can you imagine what disastrous shape the economy would now be in had the Democrats done the same in 2020?

Of course if you include Obama's first 2 years, when the US economy was in freefall the average of his term was going to be low. Do you know what the average annual GDP growth for Trump's 4 years is? 2017: 2.3%  2018: 2.9% 2019: 2.3% 2020: -2.3%  If you do the math it's 1.3%. Lower than Obama's.

 

As for the nonsense from Louis Woodhill, I'm guessing he's not incompetent but just utterly dishonest. There are 2 kinds of recessions. The usual kind is a business recession, part of the business cycle Steep drops are followed by sharp recoveries. Then there is the other kind: A financial recession. Where the economic machinery seized up and utter collapse is threatened. Like the Great Depression. Thanks to Obama's stimulus and the Fed's smart, if tardy, management, that was avoided. Just.  But digging out from that hole is difficult. And when you've got one party invested in seeing that effort fail, and in a position to stymie recovery, a slow recovery is what you got. Still by Obama's 2nd term, the economy was humming along. If you're one of those people who think the stock market is an important economic indicator, I do remember Republicans predicting the collapse of the stock market were Obama to get a 2nd term. How did that work out?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president

 

 

Here is my homemade update of that chart altered to include Trump's 4 year average:

Edited February 4, 2021 by placeholder

[johnnybangkok]

15 hours ago, Thomas J said:

That is your biased opinion.  The New York Times a truly liberal newspaper saw it differently.  Granted Covid kicked the <deleted> out of the US economy but it did the same world wide.  As for Obama.  He had the weakest recovery in history.  He is the ONLY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY to never have a meager 3% annual growth rate even once and his final quarter in office had the economy at a virtual stall at 1.9% GDP growth.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/upshot/we-ran-out-of-words-to-describe-how-good-the-jobs-numbers-are.html

Utter nonsense.

As a general view, these are the comparison figures between the GOP (the party supposedly of business) and the Dems:-

 

Dems Vs Repubs by the numbers. *last 50 yrs  

Years held Presidency: -       Repub- 28yrs,                  Dem-22 yrs

Total jobs created:-              Repub-24 Million,             Dem-42 Million

Stock market return:-           Repub-109%,                     Dem-992% 

GDP:-                                       Repub-2.7%,                     Dem-4.1% 

Income growth:-                  Rep-0.6%                            Dem-2.2%

 (source politico, bloomberg, USDL)

 

Forbes magazine - 'It is simply a fact that since World War II, Democratic presidents have seen 24.4 million more jobs created on their watch—an average of 78.6% more jobs created per year of Democratic administrations—than have Republican presidents. Ditto real GDP growth, 44% higher under Democratic presidents. On the flip side, unemployment has been 18% higher under GOP presidents. 

Oh and whilst we are on the subject of facts:- 10 of the last 11 recessions have been under Republicans.

 

You have got to stop measuring the economy by how well the wealthy are doing. You cannot also say that the economy is better off under Trump when you are quoting Obama figures from his first couple of years (as Placeholder above pointed out) after the world nearly went into financial meltdown thanks again to another GOP government. Yet despite Bush's tax cuts, less federal income (Great Recession etc), The 'War on Terror', Obama eventually got the budget deficit down to $485 Billion in 2014 and $666 Billion in 2017. The budget deficit under Trump was $779 Billion in 2018, rising to over a $Trillion in 2019 and $3.1 trillion in 2020. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/trump-budget-deficits-growing-big-spending-fiscal-irresponsibility/ 

 

You mention Covid for Trump but some would say Obama had even worse to cope with (financially that is) but the major difference was once he had steadied the ship, Obama didn't think it was a great idea to give all the money to corporations and rich people. Trump inherited a booming economy and then gleefully went about handing a trillion dollars to big business and the rich at a time when the deficit and debt could have been lowered (like fiscally responsible Dems had done in the past).

Oh and wait to you now hear the new mantra from the GOP about deficits and debt. Absolute silence for 4 years but I gaurantee you will hear nothing else from them for the next 4 years. 

[Thomas J]

On 2/5/2021 at 12:24 PM, johnnybangkok said:

financial meltdown thanks again to another GOP government.

The world went into a financial meltdown because of the disaster in housing.  Specifically people were given mortgage loans despite not having the credit worthiness to support them.  It was a DEMOCRAT not a Republican agenda.  The Democrats headed by Maxine Waters and Christopher Dodd pressured the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government underwriters to lower their underwriting standards so THAT EVERYONE COULD OWN A HOME.  

Those lousy loans were then repackaged and sold as Mortgage Back Securities with the "implicit" backing of the agency.  Banks, insurance companies, and governmental units bought those "investments" which then the value of plummeted when those borrowers could not repay.  The mortgages were foreclosed on putting distressed properties on the market further depressing values and causing more people who owed more than their houses to be worth stopped paying.  Mortgage lenders do not hold on to the mortgages they make.  The package them and sell them in the secondary market.  I am a former bank executive.  Banks, and mortgage companies serve only as an intermediary.  They make mortgages based on the underwriting standards of the eventual underwriter who they sell the mortgage to.  The banks and mortgage companies were held to be the villains however they were given standards by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  for which mortgages they would buy.  The banks and mortgage companies responded.  Since the government would buy any piece of junk mortgage they were making they had no risk and the number of Sub Prime mortgages exploded.  Those standards for buying a mortgage are set by the government agencies and they were pressured to make mortgages available to everyone.  17 times Republican called for tighter control but were rebuffed by Democrats.   See Youtube of defense by Maxine Waters and Barney Frank.  The final segment shows Bill Clinton even saying that Democrats blocked Republican efforts to tighten regulation. 

 

 

 https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/faults-community-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults/

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/11_origins_crisis_baily_litan.pdf

Edited February 6, 2021 by Thomas J

[Sujo]

Clinton grew it.

gwb threw it all away.

obama grew it.

trump stole it all.

US now in a worse place since trump took over. As usual, a dem will walk in and fix it.

 

Govt cannot be run like a business, that has been proven over and over. Then again, trump isnt really a businessman, he us a borrower and debt runner.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Thomas J said:

The world went into a financial meltdown because of the disaster in housing.  Specifically people were given mortgage loans despite not having the credit worthiness to support them.  It was a DEMOCRAT not a Republican agenda.  The Democrats headed by Maxine Waters and Christopher Dodd pressured the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government underwriters to lower their underwriting standards so THAT EVERYONE COULD OWN A HOME.  

Those lousy loans were then repackaged and sold as Mortgage Back Securities with the "implicit" backing of the agency.  Banks, insurance companies, and governmental units bought those "investments" which then the value of plummeted when those borrowers could not repay.  The mortgages were foreclosed on putting distressed properties on the market further depressing values and causing more people who owed more than their houses to be worth stopped paying.  Mortgage lenders do not hold on to the mortgages they make.  The package them and sell them in the secondary market.  I am a former bank executive.  Banks, and mortgage companies serve only as an intermediary.  They make mortgages based on the underwriting standards of the eventual underwriter who they sell the mortgage to.  The banks and mortgage companies were held to be the villains however they were given standards by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  for which mortgages they would buy.  The banks and mortgage companies responded.  Since the government would buy any piece of junk mortgage they were making they had no risk and the number of Sub Prime mortgages exploded.  Those standards for buying a mortgage are set by the government agencies and they were pressured to make mortgages available to everyone.  17 times Republican called for tighter control but were rebuffed by Democrats.   See Youtube of defense by Maxine Waters and Barney Frank.  The final segment shows Bill Clinton even saying that Democrats blocked Republican efforts to tighten regulation. 

 

 

 https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/faults-community-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults/

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/11_origins_crisis_baily_litan.pdf

Nonsense. Blaming  the Community Reinvestment Act for the bad loans has been a consistently disproven lie of the right.

 Most subprime lenders weren’t subject to federal lending law

"A Register analysis of more than 12 million subprime mortgages worth nearly $2 trillion shows that most of the lenders who made risky subprime loans were exempt from the Community Reinvestment Act.And many of the lenders covered by the law that did make subprime loans came late to that market – after smaller, unregulated players showed there was money to be made.

Among our conclusions:

Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law.
State-regulated mortgage companies such as Irvine-based New Century Financial made just over half of all subprime loans. These companies, which CRA does not cover, controlled more than 60 percent of the market before 2006, when banks jumped in."

https://www.ocregister.com/2008/11/16/most-subprime-lenders-werent-subject-to-federal-lending-law/#:~:text=A Register analysis of more,from the Community Reinvestment Act.&text=Nearly %243 of every %244,were exempt from the law.

 

[pedro01]

On 2/1/2021 at 4:53 PM, johnnybangkok said:

There's validity to the GOP's stance that the $1400 dollar check should be means tested and only the most needy get it. By ruling out those that don't need it, you could slash this $1.9 trillion by a considerable amount but the main issue is the time it would take to work out the deserving from the not-so-deserving.
Biden wants things moving now and understands timing is of the essence. 
And yes it is hypocritical of the GOP to question the money when they backed so much tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. 

 

Means testing in this case, is interesting. 

 

It is possible that setting up a mechanism of means testing & allowing appeals to rejections might cost a lot in facilities, manpower & software. 

 

It might be cheaper to give to everyone, although the means testing jobs would help local economies on a temporary basis.

[johnnybangkok]

7 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Means testing in this case, is interesting. 

 

It is possible that setting up a mechanism of means testing & allowing appeals to rejections might cost a lot in facilities, manpower & software. 

 

It might be cheaper to give to everyone, although the means testing jobs would help local economies on a temporary basis.

Perhaps, but has been mentioned here in a few threads, I think the money is primarily an opportunity to kick-start a lacklustre economy and provide immediate relief to many struggling individuals. Timing is therefore of the essence so any delay to this will have almost the opposite effect to what is required now.

Interesting though is the GOP's stance on all this as they (again) try to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. Hopefully the electorate has a longer memory than the last 2 weeks (I won't hold my breath though) and remember it was a sycophantic GOP that added a completely unneccessary $2 trillion just to keep the corporates and the rich happy.   

[jcsmith]

Adding to what JohnnyBangkok said another fact on the economy is that every republican president in the past century caused a recession. Every single one. There have been 17 recessions in that time, 12 of them were with the GOP in charge. It's time to end the fallacy that the GOP is the fiscally responsible party. They are the opposite.