Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[former player]

As a small aside, and apologies for being a dictionary nerd here, it would make me happy if there could be alignment on the notion that "tenet" and "tenant" are two different words with two very different meanings.

Thank you.

My apologies, and thanks for your attention to detail.

I should probably apologise to you because you were just the straw that broke the camel's back, there have been whole bales of it dished out on this forum over the years.

[nereo]

As a small aside, and apologies for being a dictionary nerd here, it would make me happy if there could be alignment on the notion that "tenet" and "tenant" are two different words with two very different meanings.

Thank you.

My apologies, and thanks for your attention to detail.

I should probably apologise to you because you were just the straw that broke the camel's back, there have been whole bales of it dished out on this forum over the years.

Oh I don’t mind being corrected so long as it’s done in a decent and constructive manner.

[nereo]

Congressional testimony yesterday by Gen Miley and Sec Defense Austin provided a lot more context into the final year+ of the war in Afghanistan and largely refute the narrative pushed by Biden’s critics that Biden’s actions precipitated the rapid collapse.

Miley in particular outlined the extent to which the Taliban had made gains in 2020 (under DJT) in ancipation of the withdraw Trump bartered. In short, the Taliban had expanded and entrenched their positions to such a degree that even a few thousand US troops would have been over-run had the US reneged on their agreement.  He also had an extremely frank synopsis of how three previous administrations (Trump, Obama and W) failed to accept the circumstances and acknowledge that a self-standing democratic Afghanistan was not possible. The corruption and inexperience among the chosen leadership was too extreme, divisions too entrenched and a shared purpose all but non-existent.

BOth Miley and Austin also sounded the alarm about the ability of the Taliban to foster terrorist groups going forward.

[Travis]

Congressional hearings:

"Okay everyone. We all know how we each feel about this subject and how we're going to vote, so let's get our reelection soundbites recorded and make it out of here in time for lunch."

[ncornilsen]

Congressional testimony yesterday by Gen Miley and Sec Defense Austin provided a lot more context into the final year+ of the war in Afghanistan and largely refute the narrative pushed by Biden’s critics that Biden’s actions precipitated the rapid collapse.

Miley in particular outlined the extent to which the Taliban had made gains in 2020 (under DJT) in ancipation of the withdraw Trump bartered. In short, the Taliban had expanded and entrenched their positions to such a degree that even a few thousand US troops would have been over-run had the US reneged on their agreement.  He also had an extremely frank synopsis of how three previous administrations (Trump, Obama and W) failed to accept the circumstances and acknowledge that a self-standing democratic Afghanistan was not possible. The corruption and inexperience among the chosen leadership was too extreme, divisions too entrenched and a shared purpose all but non-existent.

BOth Miley and Austin also sounded the alarm about the ability of the Taliban to foster terrorist groups going forward.

How do you figure?

The Biden critics aren't saying everything was perfect leading up to the withdrawal or that they wanted Forever war. Their stance has been that Biden ignored military intelligence (which Miley & Austin corroborate) and made a bad situation as bad as it possibly could be, even if you take as a given that the taliban would take over afganistan! Biden/Harris  99% own how terrible that withdrawal went.

[six-car-habit]

 When i think of how bad a situation could be when withdrawing from Afghanistan, I reflect way back into the 18th+19th centuries, when Britain was attempting to gain a foothold there after expanding out of India. Back then thousands of British empire troops/traders/ auxilliaries/ government staff,  were slaughtered in each of several various battles, causing the english to pull out of the entire country for years before attempting another invasion / subjugation / regime change

  So in comparison - A low % of US military and civilian deaths in the final month{s} there.  Having planes fly out of the capital repeatedly with evacuees/personnel, and from different airlines and countries, with a security cordon established around the airport. Taliban weren't shooting howitzers and rockets into the airport. Heat seeking missles weren't taking down western airplanes, and captured Afghan army helicopters weren't strafing the civilians while being flown by taliban piolts. Was it rushed and cobbled together, yes.  Did we expect they were going to throw us a going-away party with a band and a smorgasboard feast?

  Calling it- "made a bad situation as bad as possibly could be"- seems overhyped, when put alongside final events that precipitated or coincided with other military withdrawals throughout history.

[ncornilsen]

When i think of how bad a situation could be when withdrawing from Afghanistan, I reflect way back into the 18th+19th centuries, when Britain was attempting to gain a foothold there after expanding out of India. Back then thousands of British empire troops/traders/ auxilliaries/ government staff,  were slaughtered in each of several various battles, causing the english to pull out of the entire country for years before attempting another invasion / subjugation / regime change

  So in comparison - A low % of US military and civilian deaths in the final month{s} there.  Having planes fly out of the capital repeatedly with evacuees/personnel, and from different airlines and countries, with a security cordon established around the airport. Taliban weren't shooting howitzers and rockets into the airport. Heat seeking missles weren't taking down western airplanes, and captured Afghan army helicopters weren't strafing the civilians while being flown by taliban piolts. Was it rushed and cobbled together, yes.  Did we expect they were going to throw us a going-away party with a band and a smorgasboard feast?

  Calling it- "made a bad situation as bad as possibly could be"- seems overhyped, when put alongside final events that precipitated or coincided with other military withdrawals throughout history.

I think the fact you have to write all of that, and make those historical comparisons, speaks for itself. 

[gentmach]

Congressional testimony yesterday by Gen Miley and Sec Defense Austin provided a lot more context into the final year+ of the war in Afghanistan and largely refute the narrative pushed by Biden’s critics that Biden’s actions precipitated the rapid collapse.

Miley in particular outlined the extent to which the Taliban had made gains in 2020 (under DJT) in ancipation of the withdraw Trump bartered. In short, the Taliban had expanded and entrenched their positions to such a degree that even a few thousand US troops would have been over-run had the US reneged on their agreement.  He also had an extremely frank synopsis of how three previous administrations (Trump, Obama and W) failed to accept the circumstances and acknowledge that a self-standing democratic Afghanistan was not possible. The corruption and inexperience among the chosen leadership was too extreme, divisions too entrenched and a shared purpose all but non-existent.

BOth Miley and Austin also sounded the alarm about the ability of the Taliban to foster terrorist groups going forward.

How do you figure?

The Biden critics aren't saying everything was perfect leading up to the withdrawal or that they wanted Forever war. Their stance has been that Biden ignored military intelligence (which Miley & Austin corroborate) and made a bad situation as bad as it possibly could be, even if you take as a given that the taliban would take over afganistan! Biden/Harris  99% own how terrible that withdrawal went.

I agree. Everyone keeps trying to say "the collapse was inevitable." The problem is that there is a difference between leaving your house in a three piece suit and fleeing your house with your pants around your ankles while your significant other throws plates at you.

Other news, infrastructure bill is stalling out.

[PeteD01]

When i think of how bad a situation could be when withdrawing from Afghanistan, I reflect way back into the 18th+19th centuries, when Britain was attempting to gain a foothold there after expanding out of India. Back then thousands of British empire troops/traders/ auxilliaries/ government staff,  were slaughtered in each of several various battles, causing the english to pull out of the entire country for years before attempting another invasion / subjugation / regime change

  So in comparison - A low % of US military and civilian deaths in the final month{s} there.  Having planes fly out of the capital repeatedly with evacuees/personnel, and from different airlines and countries, with a security cordon established around the airport. Taliban weren't shooting howitzers and rockets into the airport. Heat seeking missles weren't taking down western airplanes, and captured Afghan army helicopters weren't strafing the civilians while being flown by taliban piolts. Was it rushed and cobbled together, yes.  Did we expect they were going to throw us a going-away party with a band and a smorgasboard feast?

  Calling it- "made a bad situation as bad as possibly could be"- seems overhyped, when put alongside final events that precipitated or coincided with other military withdrawals throughout history.

I think the fact you have to write all of that, and make those historical comparisons, speaks for itself.

Yeah, too many words and historical comparisons on top of it - put him on the list as a confirmed Marxist!

[six-car-habit]

When i think of how bad a situation could be when withdrawing from Afghanistan, I reflect way back into the 18th+19th centuries, when Britain was attempting to gain a foothold there after expanding out of India. Back then thousands of British empire troops/traders/ auxilliaries/ government staff,  were slaughtered in each of several various battles, causing the english to pull out of the entire country for years before attempting another invasion / subjugation / regime change

  So in comparison - A low % of US military and civilian deaths in the final month{s} there.  Having planes fly out of the capital repeatedly with evacuees/personnel, and from different airlines and countries, with a security cordon established around the airport. Taliban weren't shooting howitzers and rockets into the airport. Heat seeking missles weren't taking down western airplanes, and captured Afghan army helicopters weren't strafing the civilians while being flown by taliban piolts. Was it rushed and cobbled together, yes.  Did we expect they were going to throw us a going-away party with a band and a smorgasboard feast?

  Calling it- "made a bad situation as bad as possibly could be"- seems overhyped, when put alongside final events that precipitated or coincided with other military withdrawals throughout history.

I think the fact you have to write all of that, and make those historical comparisons, speaks for itself.

 What speaks for itself,  is your dismissive response, coupled with zero attempt to refute anything i wrote.
 

[gentmach]

When i think of how bad a situation could be when withdrawing from Afghanistan, I reflect way back into the 18th+19th centuries, when Britain was attempting to gain a foothold there after expanding out of India. Back then thousands of British empire troops/traders/ auxilliaries/ government staff,  were slaughtered in each of several various battles, causing the english to pull out of the entire country for years before attempting another invasion / subjugation / regime change

  So in comparison - A low % of US military and civilian deaths in the final month{s} there.  Having planes fly out of the capital repeatedly with evacuees/personnel, and from different airlines and countries, with a security cordon established around the airport. Taliban weren't shooting howitzers and rockets into the airport. Heat seeking missles weren't taking down western airplanes, and captured Afghan army helicopters weren't strafing the civilians while being flown by taliban piolts. Was it rushed and cobbled together, yes.  Did we expect they were going to throw us a going-away party with a band and a smorgasboard feast?

  Calling it- "made a bad situation as bad as possibly could be"- seems overhyped, when put alongside final events that precipitated or coincided with other military withdrawals throughout history.

I think the fact you have to write all of that, and make those historical comparisons, speaks for itself.

 What speaks for itself,  is your dismissive response, coupled with zero attempt to refute anything i wrote.

It's more that this is the third attempt to spin Biden as "a helpless victim of fate" that has happened in this thread. At this point both CNN and NBC use Afghanistan to question Biden competency so it makes me wonder, what demographic are you guys trying to appeal to? The "lived under a rock" or "recently awoke coma patient" demos?

[FIPurpose]

When i think of how bad a situation could be when withdrawing from Afghanistan, I reflect way back into the 18th+19th centuries, when Britain was attempting to gain a foothold there after expanding out of India. Back then thousands of British empire troops/traders/ auxilliaries/ government staff,  were slaughtered in each of several various battles, causing the english to pull out of the entire country for years before attempting another invasion / subjugation / regime change

  So in comparison - A low % of US military and civilian deaths in the final month{s} there.  Having planes fly out of the capital repeatedly with evacuees/personnel, and from different airlines and countries, with a security cordon established around the airport. Taliban weren't shooting howitzers and rockets into the airport. Heat seeking missles weren't taking down western airplanes, and captured Afghan army helicopters weren't strafing the civilians while being flown by taliban piolts. Was it rushed and cobbled together, yes.  Did we expect they were going to throw us a going-away party with a band and a smorgasboard feast?

  Calling it- "made a bad situation as bad as possibly could be"- seems overhyped, when put alongside final events that precipitated or coincided with other military withdrawals throughout history.

I think the fact you have to write all of that, and make those historical comparisons, speaks for itself.

 What speaks for itself,  is your dismissive response, coupled with zero attempt to refute anything i wrote.

It's more that this is the third attempt to spin Biden as "a helpless victim of fate" that has happened in this thread. At this point both CNN and NBC use Afghanistan to question Biden competency so it makes me wonder, what demographic are you guys trying to appeal to? The "lived under a rock" or "recently awoke coma patient" demos?

That's because anyone that regularly tracks how CNN and NBC do their reporting could easily see that they are constantly pushing right-wing liberal talking points. They love putting out fluff pieces to protect Joe Manchin. They love to put out a lot of stuff that questions Biden's ability to do his job (and on the flip side, their articles on Trump were usually anticipating him to "become presidential" at some point). They would even be hesitant to call out Trump's lying quite frequently (opting for softer language) until the "Big Lie" which I guess the title allowed CNN and others to finally start posting articles that called it for what it is.

They push back on progressives with lots of questions (and some of them obviously in bad faith), and give moderate-to-right-wing democrats lots of soft balls.

You also quoted "a helpless victim of fate", as though you were quoting someone? No one has said Biden has no fault in that. It's simply misleading that he has all the fault. You can't talk about the withdraw of Afghanistan without understanding what happened with Trump's deal with the Taliban, and how Trump handled things up through his time in office. The Taliban were already pushing faster than expected, and Trump's timeline of events (or at least what he said he would do) wouldn't have ended any better as far as I can tell.

If the GOP and Trump felt that their deal with the Taliban had nothing to do with the complete collapse of the army, then they wouldn't have removed any and all trace of that information from their websites.

The truth here is that Trump handed Biden a steaming pile of crap, and I'm not going to pretend like somehow Biden should've been able to turn that into diamonds.

[gentmach]

When i think of how bad a situation could be when withdrawing from Afghanistan, I reflect way back into the 18th+19th centuries, when Britain was attempting to gain a foothold there after expanding out of India. Back then thousands of British empire troops/traders/ auxilliaries/ government staff,  were slaughtered in each of several various battles, causing the english to pull out of the entire country for years before attempting another invasion / subjugation / regime change

  So in comparison - A low % of US military and civilian deaths in the final month{s} there.  Having planes fly out of the capital repeatedly with evacuees/personnel, and from different airlines and countries, with a security cordon established around the airport. Taliban weren't shooting howitzers and rockets into the airport. Heat seeking missles weren't taking down western airplanes, and captured Afghan army helicopters weren't strafing the civilians while being flown by taliban piolts. Was it rushed and cobbled together, yes.  Did we expect they were going to throw us a going-away party with a band and a smorgasboard feast?

  Calling it- "made a bad situation as bad as possibly could be"- seems overhyped, when put alongside final events that precipitated or coincided with other military withdrawals throughout history.

I think the fact you have to write all of that, and make those historical comparisons, speaks for itself.

 What speaks for itself,  is your dismissive response, coupled with zero attempt to refute anything i wrote.

It's more that this is the third attempt to spin Biden as "a helpless victim of fate" that has happened in this thread. At this point both CNN and NBC use Afghanistan to question Biden competency so it makes me wonder, what demographic are you guys trying to appeal to? The "lived under a rock" or "recently awoke coma patient" demos?

That's because anyone that regularly tracks how CNN and NBC do their reporting could easily see that they are constantly pushing right-wing liberal talking points. They love putting out fluff pieces to protect Joe Manchin. They love to put out a lot of stuff that questions Biden's ability to do his job (and on the flip side, their articles on Trump were usually anticipating him to "become presidential" at some point). They would even be hesitant to call out Trump's lying quite frequently (opting for softer language) until the "Big Lie" which I guess the title allowed CNN and others to finally start posting articles that called it for what it is.

They push back on progressives with lots of questions (and some of them obviously in bad faith), and give moderate-to-right-wing democrats lots of soft balls.

You also quoted "a helpless victim of fate", as though you were quoting someone? No one has said Biden has no fault in that. It's simply misleading that he has all the fault. You can't talk about the withdraw of Afghanistan without understanding what happened with Trump's deal with the Taliban, and how Trump handled things up through his time in office. The Taliban were already pushing faster than expected, and Trump's timeline of events (or at least what he said he would do) wouldn't have ended any better as far as I can tell.

If the GOP and Trump felt that their deal with the Taliban had nothing to do with the complete collapse of the army, then they wouldn't have removed any and all trace of that information from their websites.

The truth here is that Trump handed Biden a steaming pile of crap, and I'm not going to pretend like somehow Biden should've been able to turn that into diamonds.

The pathetic state of the Afghan Army has been known for a decade. A friend of mine served over there a decade ago and described the Afghans as "Corrupt, Cowardly or corrupt cowards." And the Afghanistan Papers show this to be known to higher ups.

And you just did the "Biden is a helpless victim" because you ignored that Biden unilaterally broke a contract by not withdrawing by May 1st. That he was in the command chair for 7 months and didn't even make a phone call to our allies about the withdrawal.

I'm not saying make diamonds at least make dirt. He should have been able to do that.

[FIPurpose]

The pathetic state of the Afghan Army has been known for a decade. A friend of mine served over there a decade ago and described the Afghans as "Corrupt, Cowardly or corrupt cowards." And the Afghanistan Papers show this to be known to higher ups.

And you just did the "Biden is a helpless victim" because you ignored that Biden unilaterally broke a contract by not withdrawing by May 1st. That he was in the command chair for 7 months and didn't even make a phone call to our allies about the withdrawal.

I'm not saying make diamonds at least make dirt. He should have been able to do that.

It's also well-known that this was a point that Biden highly disagreed with Obama during their administration. Biden has always been against extending the war, even a decade ago. Obama was unwilling to do it, and I don't have complete confidence that Trump would've been willing to follow through either. (There's talk now from the pro-war camp, that we should've kept a permanent presence in Kabul as a check against China. An idea that I think would've been very tempting to Trump.)

So are you saying that our Allies knew about our withdraw or didn't? Or did Trump need to call everyone about setting a May 1st wihtdraw deadline? Biden announced a hard September deadline like 6 months in advance. Is that not enough time for our allies? If you're saying simply that deadline was breaking the contract, both Trump and the Taliban failed to keep parts of that contract, but to my knowledge neither side ever called the whole deal off. It was in both parties' interest to keep it going despite certain failures.

[FIPurpose]

This is also a strange talking point because the complaints about Biden's withdraw of Afghanistan would be counterproductive to an actual withdraw

For example, it's well known that Trump slowed the process on letting Afghan aids visas to come to the US. Almost to a grinding halt. Biden takes over in late January (without the standard acceptance and handing over the keys during the lame duck).

So now you're saying that it's Biden fault for missing the May deadline, but also it's Biden's fault that there was such a backlog of foreign military aids and translators. There's absolutely no way any president would've been able to make that deadline (even Trump) and actually get visa work done for the thousands of foreign aids. So your options are:

1. I wanted Biden to keep the May 1st deadline in order to keep the contract date, but understand that would've meant abandoning thousands of translators and aids.

2. I wanted Biden to push out the deadline 6 months in order to better prepare and plan under the new administration giving additional time for evacuating translators, even if that risks a Taliban resurgence and Afghan army collapse.

3. I wanted Biden to delay withdraw indefinitely, even if that costs billions more, additional lives, and it's a broken campaign promise.

[gentmach]

This is also a strange talking point because the complaints about Biden's withdraw of Afghanistan would be counterproductive to an actual withdraw

For example, it's well known that Trump slowed the process on letting Afghan aids visas to come to the US. Almost to a grinding halt. Biden takes over in late January (without the standard acceptance and handing over the keys during the lame duck).

So now you're saying that it's Biden fault for missing the May deadline, but also it's Biden's fault that there was such a backlog of foreign military aids and translators. There's absolutely no way any president would've been able to make that deadline (even Trump) and actually get visa work done for the thousands of foreign aids. So your options are:

1. I wanted Biden to keep the May 1st deadline in order to keep the contract date, but understand that would've meant abandoning thousands of translators and aids.

2. I wanted Biden to push out the deadline 6 months in order to better prepare and plan under the new administration giving additional time for evacuating translators, even if that risks a Taliban resurgence and Afghan army collapse.

3. I wanted Biden to delay withdraw indefinitely, even if that costs billions more, additional lives, and it's a broken campaign promise.

Actually option 2. Biden took ownership of the situation when he decided ignore the deadline.

Biden campaigned on "listening to the adults in the room." He could have said "We are going to fulfill our obligations to our Afghan allies and stay another year to process the SIV's. We will do what is necessary to do this." No one could really stop him.

Or his touted "foreign policy experience." He stared down Putin surely he could have cowed the Taliban. Maybe even get a better deal than Trump did. Really show us his skills.

But he did neither of those things. He withdrew the troops and didn't really do anything else after that.

[Samuel]

This is also a strange talking point because the complaints about Biden's withdraw of Afghanistan would be counterproductive to an actual withdraw

For example, it's well known that Trump slowed the process on letting Afghan aids visas to come to the US. Almost to a grinding halt. Biden takes over in late January (without the standard acceptance and handing over the keys during the lame duck).

So now you're saying that it's Biden fault for missing the May deadline, but also it's Biden's fault that there was such a backlog of foreign military aids and translators. There's absolutely no way any president would've been able to make that deadline (even Trump) and actually get visa work done for the thousands of foreign aids. So your options are:

1. I wanted Biden to keep the May 1st deadline in order to keep the contract date, but understand that would've meant abandoning thousands of translators and aids.

2. I wanted Biden to push out the deadline 6 months in order to better prepare and plan under the new administration giving additional time for evacuating translators, even if that risks a Taliban resurgence and Afghan army collapse.

3. I wanted Biden to delay withdraw indefinitely, even if that costs billions more, additional lives, and it's a broken campaign promise.

Actually option 2. Biden took ownership of the situation when he decided ignore the deadline.

Biden campaigned on "listening to the adults in the room." He could have said "We are going to fulfill our obligations to our Afghan allies and stay another year to process the SIV's. We will do what is necessary to do this." No one could really stop him.

Or his touted "foreign policy experience." He stared down Putin surely he could have cowed the Taliban. Maybe even get a better deal than Trump did. Really show us his skills.

But he did neither of those things. He withdrew the troops and didn't really do anything else after that.

The Taliban grudgingly accepted extending the deadline from May to September as it was clear the US was truly in the process of withdrawing but they weren't going to do that again. General Milley testified that keeping any US troops past August 31st would mean we'd be in open war with the Taliban and that it would take 25,000 troops and "significant casualties" to keep any US military presence there. President Biden's choice was not about keeping 2500 troops there for another year, it was whether to resume open war between US troops and the Taliban.

Trump handed off Afghanistan to Biden with 2500 troops on the ground, not exactly a strong negotiating position even if Biden wanted to stay. Trump owns the strategic decision to leave, not Biden. And he does so publicly:

“I started the process,” Trump says. “All the troops are coming back home. They [the Biden administration] couldn’t stop the process. 21 years is enough. Don’t we think? 21 years. They couldn’t stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process when other things… It’s a shame. 21 years, by a government that wouldn’t last. The only way they last is if we’re there. What are we going to say? We’ll stay for another 21 years, then we’ll stay for another 50. The whole thing is ridiculous. … We’re bringing troops back home from Afghanistan.”
- Former President Trump, June 26, 2021.

Biden is answerable for mistakes made during the final draw down but as much as there is to criticize there I fail to see how anyone could deny it could have gone much, much worse.

[nereo]

I’ll admit, I’m very confused by the criticism off Biden “missing” (actually extending by three months) the withdrawal date, as it somehow seems to coincide with a critique of how rapidly the government fell once we did pull out. It seems to defy logic that pulling out earlier would somehow have gone better. The speed and strength of the taliban advancement suggests to me that further delay or leaving additional forces would have been met with substantial US casualties.

[PKFFW]

I’ll admit, I’m very confused by the criticism off Biden “missing” (actually extending by three months) the withdrawal date, as it somehow seems to coincide with a critique of how rapidly the government fell once we did pull out. It seems to defy logic that pulling out earlier would somehow have gone better. The speed and strength of the taliban advancement suggests to me that further delay or leaving additional forces would have been met with substantial US casualties.

Your confusion may stem from seemingly forgetting that old maxim......

"Never let the facts get in the way of spin."

;-)

[By the River]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts? 

[nereo]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is onerous on the banks or outrageous as a policy.
Earned income and investments are already reported to the IRS ... so what's your objection exactly?

[FIPurpose]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

You're saying this like people will actually be manually typing up these reports. They already send reports to the IRS on bank accounts. This sounds like it's just extending that. This kind of stuff will take at most 1 man month of work from each bank, and even then that's mostly just understanding the new process. I imagine the IRS will just be using it as a resource in helping them find shell accounts and the like.

In fact, that sounds like much less work, and this is probably making the IRS's job much easier to do when they are researching a audit.

The IRS needs a lot of help after Trump basically kneecapped them.

[JGS1980]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

I LOVE THIS!

The IRS is the enforcement arm of the the US Government when it comes to ensuring taxation is done according to the law. We all the know that their are loopholes up and down the tax code, and I have no problem expanding the IRS' data collection capacity so that they may better do their jobs.

[chemistk]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

I recognize and agree that privacy concerns are very real.

But absent an entire end-to-end overhaul of the tax code, what tools would you offer to the IRS to recoup any of the billions/trillions of unpaid taxes at all levels?

I'd argue that any proposal would burden folks at every tax bracket, present some serious privacy concerns, or both.

[JLee]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

I recognize and agree that privacy concerns are very real.

But absent an entire end-to-end overhaul of the tax code, what tools would you offer to the IRS to recoup any of the billions/trillions of unpaid taxes at all levels?

I'd argue that any proposal would burden folks at every tax bracket, present some serious privacy concerns, or both.

Funding the IRS would be a great place to start.

Rossotti and Goldberg estimate that their proposal, which would add roughly $65 billion to the IRS budget over ten years, including $12 billion for technology upgrades, along with important information reporting changes, would raise $1.4 trillion over ten years.[27]

[PDXTabs]

Funding the IRS sounds great. But $600 of transfers per year? Do you really need to report my minor children's accounts? Do you think that they are billionaires? I wish.

[Kris]

Funding the IRS sounds great. But $600 of transfers per year? Do you really need to report my minor children's accounts? Do you think that they are billionaires? I wish.

Yeah, that is a silly amount of money.

$25,000, maybe.

[JLee]

Funding the IRS sounds great. But $600 of transfers per year? Do you really need to report my minor children's accounts? Do you think that they are billionaires? I wish.

That's not the question I was responding to.

[PDXTabs]

Funding the IRS sounds great. But $600 of transfers per year? Do you really need to report my minor children's accounts? Do you think that they are billionaires? I wish.

That's not the question I was responding to.

And I was only responding to the thread in general, which is why I didn't have any quote blocks.

[FIPurpose]

Funding the IRS sounds great. But $600 of transfers per year? Do you really need to report my minor children's accounts? Do you think that they are billionaires? I wish.

I imagine this is for Billionaires who are purposefully dividing their assets into lots of bank accounts and making only small transactions to avoid detection.

Not the billionaires themselves, but obviously their accountants with some level of automation.

[nereo]

I, too, wondered if the low limit was to prevent someone holding hundreds of accounts across dozens of banks (not terribly difficult to do nowadays)

From a more philosophical point of view, bank accounts are FDIC insured against loss, backed by the full faith of the US government.  It seems hypocritical that people would want the government to protect their assets but object to sharing basic information about their wealth.

[By the River]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

You're saying this like people will actually be manually typing up these reports. They already send reports to the IRS on bank accounts. This sounds like it's just extending that. This kind of stuff will take at most 1 man month of work from each bank, and even then that's mostly just understanding the new process. I imagine the IRS will just be using it as a resource in helping them find shell accounts and the like.

In fact, that sounds like much less work, and this is probably making the IRS's job much easier to do when they are researching a audit.

The IRS needs a lot of help after Trump basically kneecapped them.

Of course the reports will not be manually typed. But they will need to be set up originally by the banks and then maintained and updated with any future system updates and patches.  Then on the receiving end, programs and macros will need to created and run and updated over time and somehow the exceptions to those reports will be reviewed by someone (if no one looks at the reports, then its just been a waste of the original time).  And for what? because I gave my kid $800 for the deposit on his apartment at college? And then 3 years later, he will return that $800 to me when he moves out of that apartment?   What good is that?  How does that make sure that Elon Musk is paying his taxes?   

The bank accounts are insured against the bank losing the money.  It has nothing to do with how the people got the money and put it in the banks.  The statement that  "It seems hypocritical that people would want the government to protect their assets but object to sharing basic information about their wealth." is similar to insuring my home from property damage but having to tell the insurance company what TV shows I watch inside the house. 

[former player]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

You're saying this like people will actually be manually typing up these reports. They already send reports to the IRS on bank accounts. This sounds like it's just extending that. This kind of stuff will take at most 1 man month of work from each bank, and even then that's mostly just understanding the new process. I imagine the IRS will just be using it as a resource in helping them find shell accounts and the like.

In fact, that sounds like much less work, and this is probably making the IRS's job much easier to do when they are researching a audit.

The IRS needs a lot of help after Trump basically kneecapped them.

Of course the reports will not be manually typed. But they will need to be set up originally by the banks and then maintained and updated with any future system updates and patches.  Then on the receiving end, programs and macros will need to created and run and updated over time and somehow the exceptions to those reports will be reviewed by someone (if no one looks at the reports, then its just been a waste of the original time).  And for what? because I gave my kid $800 for the deposit on his apartment at college? And then 3 years later, he will return that $800 to me when he moves out of that apartment?   What good is that?  How does that make sure that Elon Musk is paying his taxes?   

The bank accounts are insured against the bank losing the money.  It has nothing to do with how the people got the money and put it in the banks.  The statement that  "It seems hypocritical that people would want the government to protect their assets but object to sharing basic information about their wealth." is similar to insuring my home from property damage but having to tell the insurance company what TV shows I watch inside the house.

OK, just a minute.

It was your own previous post on the thread that mentioned the $600 dollar limit and then said it had been raised to $10,000.  So why are you still going on about $600?

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

Can you quote your sources?  Preferably original ones, rather than secondary ones?

I'm all in favour of finding billionaires (and other criminals) who avoid paying taxes.  But I can think of better ways of doing it than looking at every account that has more than $10k going through it in a year: the signal would be lost in the chaff at that level.  Better to control who can open an account with what information and then just look at the really big and/or linked ones.   

[FIPurpose]

My goodness. The first article I read on this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/biden-administration-revises-controversial-irs-rules-for-bank-account-reporting-heres-how-they-will-work-11634675119

The proposal would exclude “wage and salary earners and federal-program beneficiaries, such that only those accruing other forms of income in opaque ways are a part of the reporting regime.”

The proposed monitoring never called for reporting on specific transactions.

“Today’s new proposal reflects the administration’s strong belief that we should zero in on those at the top of the income scale who don’t pay the taxes they owe, while protecting American workers by setting the bank-account threshold at $10,000 and providing an exemption for wage earners like teachers and firefighters,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement.

The Treasury Department said “much more detailed information reporting exists on wage, salary, and investment income” for average workers. What would likely go away is the “existing disparity between American workers, whose income is already reported on the IRS; and disproportionately wealthy individuals who earn income in ways not visible to the IRS, and thus, are easily able to evade.”

I receive a regular paycheck and receive regular child credit payments, so I would be excluded. Soo this was all a big stink over not much. The GOP seem to be against it for "getting the little guy", but don't seem to explain how the little guy is still wrapped up in this or how this increases their workload at all.

[PDXTabs]

I receive a regular paycheck and receive regular child credit payments, so I would be excluded. Soo this was all a big stink over not much. The GOP seem to be against it for "getting the little guy", but don't seem to explain how the little guy is still wrapped up in this or how this increases their workload at all.

You don't have an online savings account that you transfer money to? I do. That account is going to report you. Same with the accounts for my kids (but not at the new $10k limit). Same thing for spouses that transfer money back and forth.

[EvenSteven]

I receive a regular paycheck and receive regular child credit payments, so I would be excluded. Soo this was all a big stink over not much. The GOP seem to be against it for "getting the little guy", but don't seem to explain how the little guy is still wrapped up in this or how this increases their workload at all.

You don't have an online savings account that you transfer money to? I do. That account is going to report you. Same with the accounts for my kids (but not at the new $10k limit). Same thing for spouses that transfer money back and forth.

I suppose it depends on what exactly it means by: "The proposal would exclude “wage and salary earners and federal-program beneficiaries, such that only those accruing other forms of income in opaque ways are a part of the reporting regime.”"

I have an account that I transfer money to, but I am also a salary earner.

[JLee]

Funding the IRS sounds great. But $600 of transfers per year? Do you really need to report my minor children's accounts? Do you think that they are billionaires? I wish.

That's not the question I was responding to.

And I was only responding to the thread in general, which is why I didn't have any quote blocks.

My apologies. No one else in this thread has used the word "funding" within the last month, so I imagine you can understand my confusion. ;)

[PDXTabs]

I receive a regular paycheck and receive regular child credit payments, so I would be excluded. Soo this was all a big stink over not much. The GOP seem to be against it for "getting the little guy", but don't seem to explain how the little guy is still wrapped up in this or how this increases their workload at all.

You don't have an online savings account that you transfer money to? I do. That account is going to report you. Same with the accounts for my kids (but not at the new $10k limit). Same thing for spouses that transfer money back and forth.

I suppose it depends on what exactly it means by: "The proposal would exclude “wage and salary earners and federal-program beneficiaries, such that only those accruing other forms of income in opaque ways are a part of the reporting regime.”"

I have an account that I transfer money to, but I am also a salary earner.

To the second account it's just going to be some random ACH. Money is fungible so even the first account might have to report it.

[EvenSteven]

I receive a regular paycheck and receive regular child credit payments, so I would be excluded. Soo this was all a big stink over not much. The GOP seem to be against it for "getting the little guy", but don't seem to explain how the little guy is still wrapped up in this or how this increases their workload at all.

You don't have an online savings account that you transfer money to? I do. That account is going to report you. Same with the accounts for my kids (but not at the new $10k limit). Same thing for spouses that transfer money back and forth.

I suppose it depends on what exactly it means by: "The proposal would exclude “wage and salary earners and federal-program beneficiaries, such that only those accruing other forms of income in opaque ways are a part of the reporting regime.”"

I have an account that I transfer money to, but I am also a salary earner.

To the second account it's just going to be some random ACH. Money is fungible so even the first account might have to report it.

So is the reporting mentioned by FIPurpose just straight up wrong, then? You are saying that the proposal requires that individual transactions are reported, and it applies to wage and salary workers. Is there a primary source where we can read what the proposal actually is?

[PDXTabs]

I receive a regular paycheck and receive regular child credit payments, so I would be excluded. Soo this was all a big stink over not much. The GOP seem to be against it for "getting the little guy", but don't seem to explain how the little guy is still wrapped up in this or how this increases their workload at all.

You don't have an online savings account that you transfer money to? I do. That account is going to report you. Same with the accounts for my kids (but not at the new $10k limit). Same thing for spouses that transfer money back and forth.

I suppose it depends on what exactly it means by: "The proposal would exclude “wage and salary earners and federal-program beneficiaries, such that only those accruing other forms of income in opaque ways are a part of the reporting regime.”"

I have an account that I transfer money to, but I am also a salary earner.

To the second account it's just going to be some random ACH. Money is fungible so even the first account might have to report it.

So is the reporting mentioned by FIPurpose just straight up wrong, then? You are saying that the proposal requires that individual transactions are reported, and it applies to wage and salary workers. Is there a primary source where we can read what the proposal actually is?

FIPurpose is not wrong if you only have accounts that you get payroll deposits to and then spend money out of. But here is the original language:

Code: [Select]

SEC. 138402. APPLICATION OF BACKUP WITHHOLDING WITH RESPECT TO THIRD
              PARTY NETWORK TRANSACTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3406(b) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
            ``(8) Other reportable payments include payments in
        settlement of third party network transactions only where
        aggregate for calendar year is $600 or more.--Any payment in
        settlement of a third party network transaction required to be
        shown on a return required under section 6050W which is made
        during any calendar year shall be treated as a reportable
        payment only if--
                    ``(A) the aggregate amount of such payment and all
                previous such payments made by the third party
                settlement organization to the participating payee
                during such calendar year equals or exceeds $600, or
                    ``(B) the third party settlement organization was
                required under section 6050W to file a return for the
                preceding calendar year with respect to payments to the
                participating payee.''.Source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376/text

More reporting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/us/politics/irs-bank-account-reporting-requirement.html
https://www.whsv.com/2021/09/24/valley-banks-have-questions-about-bidens-proposal-more-bank-reporting-irs/

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

You're saying this like people will actually be manually typing up these reports. They already send reports to the IRS on bank accounts. This sounds like it's just extending that. This kind of stuff will take at most 1 man month of work from each bank, and even then that's mostly just understanding the new process. I imagine the IRS will just be using it as a resource in helping them find shell accounts and the like.

In fact, that sounds like much less work, and this is probably making the IRS's job much easier to do when they are researching a audit.

The IRS needs a lot of help after Trump basically kneecapped them.

I don't know the details you're referring to, but I have no doubt that Trump has kneecapped the IRS in terms of being able to pursue billionaires. However, it would take 1.67 million transactions at the $600 limit to get to $1 billion. It seems like this is a token effort that doesn't actually help with the problems that Trump likely caused but that does "something." If you're going to help the IRS close loopholes for billionaires, do it. Instead, like most things, this will likely hit small business side hustle people who don't report some of their money that they get via smaller transactions. Is it illegal? Sure. Is it the biggest problem? I sincerely doubt it. Like normal, there's a big problem with billionaires getting by paying nothing in taxes, solution - lower the threshold for monetary transactions to less than what most people pay on their mortgage.

[FIPurpose]

So in order to find billionaires who understate their income, Biden's regime proposed to have banks report additional information to the IRS for any bank account with more than $600 in annual transactions.  Yeah, much more reporting and documenting and additional hours and additional expenses that do crap for the problem they identified.

However, yesterday, the limit was apparently raised to $10,000 annually.  So what are you 10 favorite bank recommendations so I can start adding accounts?

You're saying this like people will actually be manually typing up these reports. They already send reports to the IRS on bank accounts. This sounds like it's just extending that. This kind of stuff will take at most 1 man month of work from each bank, and even then that's mostly just understanding the new process. I imagine the IRS will just be using it as a resource in helping them find shell accounts and the like.

In fact, that sounds like much less work, and this is probably making the IRS's job much easier to do when they are researching a audit.

The IRS needs a lot of help after Trump basically kneecapped them.

I don't know the details you're referring to, but I have no doubt that Trump has kneecapped the IRS in terms of being able to pursue billionaires. However, it would take 1.67 million transactions at the $600 limit to get to $1 billion. It seems like this is a token effort that doesn't actually help with the problems that Trump likely caused but that does "something." If you're going to help the IRS close loopholes for billionaires, do it. Instead, like most things, this will likely hit small business side hustle people who don't report some of their money that they get via smaller transactions. Is it illegal? Sure. Is it the biggest problem? I sincerely doubt it. Like normal, there's a big problem with billionaires getting by paying nothing in taxes, solution - lower the threshold for monetary transactions to less than what most people pay on their mortgage.

I've seen estimates that say that tax cheats are costing the US anywhere from 150B to 1T per year.

Basically for the past decade the IRS has lost close to 17,000 auditors. Which is crazy because those auditors every year return far more money than they cost. Biden earlier this year proposed a 80B increase to the IRS which estimated a return of 120-360B depending on which office is scoring the proposal. Right now, this funding is in the reconciliation bill that is currently in limbo and is used to offset certain proposals. So it looks like Biden will be able to successfully restore IRS funding and catch more tax cheats.

This isn't only to catch Billionaires though. I'm guessing that this would help the IRS catch fraud and other illegal maneuvers. That's why I think they wanted the $600 limit at first. But they've already said that they'll raise it to $10,000.

[pecunia]

I made a mistake when I did my 2019 taxes.  It wasn't a big mistake, but I paid penalties and interest.  When did I get a letter bout it?  Two years later after Trump left office.  Yeh - I'm thinking they did kneecap the IRS.

The big mystery to me right now is this Kyrsten Sinema character.  She apparently doesn't talk to reporters, her constituents or other politicians.  She only talks to corporate donors.  It is said that she is against raising taxes on rich people.  It looks like she is a roadblock to making laws that can help good people.  Is my perception wrong?

The other guy doing the same thing is Joe Manchin.  I can understand him.  He is just a rich guy hoarding all the money he can.  Lots of us are kind of like that.  Still, he appears to be the other road block to allowing some of Biden's hoped for policies to be enacted.

[sui generis]

I made a mistake when I did my 2019 taxes.  It wasn't a big mistake, but I paid penalties and interest.  When did I get a letter bout it?  Two years later after Trump left office.  Yeh - I'm thinking they did kneecap the IRS.

The big mystery to me right now is this Kyrsten Sinema character.  She apparently doesn't talk to reporters, her constituents or other politicians.  She only talks to corporate donors.  It is said that she is against raising taxes on rich people.  It looks like she is a roadblock to making laws that can help good people.  Is my perception wrong?

The other guy doing the same thing is Joe Manchin.  I can understand him.  He is just a rich guy hoarding all the money he can.  Lots of us are kind of like that.  Still, he appears to be the other road block to allowing some of Biden's hoped for policies to be enacted.

Manchin is a total roadblock, but his position at least seems to make more sense.  He got mega rich off of dirty energy, so of course his interests lie with getting rid of anything that would undermine that industry (and not just for the benefit of his bank account, of course, but just in the way that being in any space gets you friends, networks, social capital, etc and you would defend that space to the end).  And of course, his state his super red, so he presumably has to be a certain degree of hostile to his own party.  And it's not inconsistent with who he has been during his political career.  I wish he would take the freedom the 6 year senate term allows him to do the right thing, but it doesn't not make sense.

Sinema either doesn't make sense or is just completely craven.  AZ is no WV, it's a fairly swingy state now, so she shouldn't really be voting like she's voting, especially as a former member of the Green Party.  Does she have any policy convictions at all? She's sure not making them known if so, and not even attempting to make it *look* like she is interested in what the people of AZ want.  I can imagine how awesome it feels to be able to force an entire elite establishment like the US Senate to kneel and kiss your feet.  But the fact that she doesn't even appear to be bothering with covering that up with some excuse about why her obstructionism is "the right thing to do" is just bizarre. 

[American GenX]

I made a mistake when I did my 2019 taxes.  It wasn't a big mistake, but I paid penalties and interest.  When did I get a letter bout it?  Two years later after Trump left office.  Yeh - I'm thinking they did kneecap the IRS.

The big mystery to me right now is this Kyrsten Sinema character.  She apparently doesn't talk to reporters, her constituents or other politicians.  She only talks to corporate donors.  It is said that she is against raising taxes on rich people.  It looks like she is a roadblock to making laws that can help good people.  Is my perception wrong?

The other guy doing the same thing is Joe Manchin.  I can understand him.  He is just a rich guy hoarding all the money he can.  Lots of us are kind of like that.  Still, he appears to be the other road block to allowing some of Biden's hoped for policies to be enacted.

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

But I'm disappointed that it now looks like they are going to CAVE and still vote for TRILLIONS of dollars in spending with some changes to the bill, while one of the few good things (improvements to Medicare) will be stripped, although Bernie said that's not coming out, so who knows.

I would like to see them just pass the $1.2 Trillion infrastructure bill where there's bipartisan agreement.  That would be a win for Biden.  I wouldn't have voted for Biden if he campaigned on this - he was supposed to be the moderate, but the socialist wing of the party seems to be running the show.  It's very disappointing.

[FIPurpose]

I made a mistake when I did my 2019 taxes.  It wasn't a big mistake, but I paid penalties and interest.  When did I get a letter bout it?  Two years later after Trump left office.  Yeh - I'm thinking they did kneecap the IRS.

The big mystery to me right now is this Kyrsten Sinema character.  She apparently doesn't talk to reporters, her constituents or other politicians.  She only talks to corporate donors.  It is said that she is against raising taxes on rich people.  It looks like she is a roadblock to making laws that can help good people.  Is my perception wrong?

The other guy doing the same thing is Joe Manchin.  I can understand him.  He is just a rich guy hoarding all the money he can.  Lots of us are kind of like that.  Still, he appears to be the other road block to allowing some of Biden's hoped for policies to be enacted.

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

But I'm disappointed that it now looks like they are going to CAVE and still vote for TRILLIONS of dollars in spending with some changes to the bill, while one of the few good things (improvements to Medicare) will be stripped, although Bernie said that's not coming out, so who knows.

I would like to see them just pass the $1.2 Trillion infrastructure bill where there's bipartisan agreement.  That would be a win for Biden.  I wouldn't have voted for Biden if he campaigned on this - he was supposed to be the moderate, but the socialist wing of the party seems to be running the show.  It's very disappointing.

Wow, this is probably the worst take yet.

[PDXTabs]

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

The Fed can turn off the money printer any time now. Perhaps we don't need QE31 right now. But more fundamentally, $1.2T over 10 years is, get this, $120B/yr. In terms of the US economy that's approximately nothing. I know libertarians that want to spend more. Also, what $5T?

[FIPurpose]

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

The Fed can turn off the money printer any time now. Perhaps we don't need QE31 right now. But more fundamentally, $1.2T over 10 years is, get this, $120B/yr. In terms of the US economy that's approximately nothing. I know libertarians that want to spend more. Also, what $5T?

Even the 1.2T is only actually 1/2 new spending. It's actually only about $600B of new spending over 10 years. So approx. cut that number in half. So add that to the reconciliation bill that looks like it will probably be 1-2T itself. And the "socialist" D's are now only looking to spend 150-250B per year.

We could completely fund both packages by simply enforcing the tax code we already have. And multiple sources have already scored this to have almost no effect on inflation. The scare mongering coming out of the GOP is 100% complete poppycock.

[nereo]

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

The Fed can turn off the money printer any time now. Perhaps we don't need QE31 right now. But more fundamentally, $1.2T over 10 years is, get this, $120B/yr. In terms of the US economy that's approximately nothing. I know libertarians that want to spend more. Also, what $5T?

THis is what bothers me about the current public conversation about these bills.  Just a few weeks ago Congress passed its annual Defense Authorization bill for $768B.  That’s for one year’s funding, and the lion’s share is the Pentagon budget.  It’s actually a $24B increase over the previous year (authorized by Trump).  It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: 316-113, and included over 400 amendments over the previous year.  It’s remarkable in that it’s passage was completely unremarkable.

By most estimates we’ll spend over $9T on Defense Authorization over the next 10 years.  This won’t include ‘special funding’ for future conflicts or ‘emergency defense measures’. Yet somehow that funding is unremarkable but spending a small fraction of that (about 1/3 by the latest numbers) is riotously debated about being unaffordable.

The federal government currently has annual revenue of about $3,800B. Congress could vote to increase (or decrease) that amount, as it has hundreds of times. Because of rules set by the CBO all spending bills must list the cost (or revenue generated) over a 10 year time frame, but that’s almost always glossed over, and winds up being a very squishy number as future congresses almost always alter bills (e.g. making the W tax cuts permanent, thereby wildly inflating their final cost).

I just wish the numbers were discussed and reported as annual current and projected costs, but that’s asking too much of our populace, i suppose.

[pecunia]

I was proud of both Sinema and Machin for opposing the $5 Trillion in government spending on top of the $1.2 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.  All of this "free" government money is just making inflation even worse on top of the other problems.

The Fed can turn off the money printer any time now. Perhaps we don't need QE31 right now. But more fundamentally, $1.2T over 10 years is, get this, $120B/yr. In terms of the US economy that's approximately nothing. I know libertarians that want to spend more. Also, what $5T?

THis is what bothers me about the current public conversation about these bills.  Just a few weeks ago Congress passed its annual Defense Authorization bill for $768B.  That’s for one year’s funding, and the lion’s share is the Pentagon budget.  It’s actually a $24B increase over the previous year (authorized by Trump).  It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: 316-113, and included over 400 amendments over the previous year.  It’s remarkable in that it’s passage was completely unremarkable.

By most estimates we’ll spend over $9T on Defense Authorization over the next 10 years.  This won’t include ‘special funding’ for future conflicts or ‘emergency defense measures’. Yet somehow that funding is unremarkable but spending a small fraction of that (about 1/3 by the latest numbers) is riotously debated about being unaffordable.

The federal government currently has annual revenue of about $3,800B. Congress could vote to increase (or decrease) that amount, as it has hundreds of times. Because of rules set by the CBO all spending bills must list the cost (or revenue generated) over a 10 year time frame, but that’s almost always glossed over, and winds up being a very squishy number as future congresses almost always alter bills (e.g. making the W tax cuts permanent, thereby wildly inflating their final cost).

I just wish the numbers were discussed and reported as annual current and projected costs, but that’s asking too much of our populace, i suppose.

Could be that the way it's reported is intentional?  I don't imagine doing anything about climate change, for example, would be met with a smile by the oil companies.  So, maybe there are back room deals as the way it will be presented to the public.  The same sound bytes will be repeated again and again.  Most of us just have it in the background and do not question the full details.

I notice the media does this on many topics.  They just repeat the same stuff over and over.  Sometimes what is said is untrue and there will be a silent correction.  However, the initial information will be repeated by other outlets for months.