Pelosi on reason for shift to supporting smaller coronavirus relief: 'New president'

So you admit there was an issue?

 

Yes I do. Wisconsin GOP got caught red-handed telling PA residents to turn in their late and thus illegal ballots after election day.

 

Biden during debates stated twice that he plans to eliminate Trump’s tax cuts, which means a tax increase for pretty much everyone.

 

Our current President isn’t a Democrat.

 

Well that, at least, is a factual argument. There is no denying that those temporary, & modest, tax cuts (for the MIDDLE class, that is), will be ending sooner than they otherwise would have, if Biden & the Democratic leadership get their way. But what should not be lost is that those tax cuts were not, "free." They have resulted in lowered government receipts (contrary to their supporters' predictions), which have translated into greater national debt. This is all money that will, eventually, need to be repaid, with interest. And that will only be accomplished through a combination of cuts to services-- many of which will be felt by all citizens, and some especially by the middle-class-- and INCREASED TAXES! This is the undeniable LEGACY OF THOSE TAX CUTS, which benefitted the richest in our society far more than the middle class and, for those financial elites, were intended to be permanent!

While there is a fringe portion of society that believes all taxes are unwarranted, I believe most acknowledge that government performs certain necessary, important, & beneficial functions, and that citizens must, therefore fund it. What bothers most people is seeing government waste & fraud: two things that have been far from absent in the Trump Administration; they just rather spend your tax dollars jet-setting around the world, with their fiancees, on vacation (Mnuchin) or on extravagant, antique desks & furnishings for their offices (Carson), for example, than on job training, veteran services, food inspection, or some kid's dental work.

So these Trump tax cuts, you bring up as evidence that Republicans are better on taxes, for the middle-class, are nothing more than a shell-game. Trump was in favor of RAISING SPENDING in 2018 & 2019. Now he wants to start cutting spending as he heads out the door. But all his cuts begin relatively slowly & in his 2020 Budget extend a timeline into the future when, according to the plan, they would become more & more severe. So, a temporary bump in spending to make his own Administration look good, followed by a screwing-over of future Administrations, and a saddling of all of us, with the debt.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...-programs-in-president-trumps-2020-budget-are


Cuts to Non-Defense Discretionary Programs
FIGURE 1

NDD programs, whose funding is determined by annual appropriations, range from EDUCATION and VETERANS’ MEDICAL care to ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, low-income HOUSING ASSISTANCE, CHILD CARE, NATIONAL PARKS, and INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. The Trump budget proposes to set funding for NDD in 2020 at the very low sequestration level set by the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA). That would mean NDD funding in 2020 would be reduced by $54 billion (or 9 percent) below the 2019 funding level — or by $68 billion (11 percent) after adjusting for inflation. (See Figure 1.)

Funding levels for both defense and NDD programs are currently well above the BCA’s austere sequestration levels because CONGRESS and THE PRESIDENT reached an agreement to RAISE FUNDING SIGNIFICANTLY above those levels for 2018 and 2019. This agreement reflected a broad bipartisan consensus that the funding levels under the BCA’s sequestration caps were substantially too low to meet key national needs. In fact, Congress and the President have adjusted the BCA funding levels upward for every year since 2013, the first year that the sequestration cuts were slated to take effect.

In contrast to the funding levels the President ultimately agreed to for 2018 and 2019, however, his 2020 budget would cut NDD sharply relative to those levels, with THE CUTS THEN DEEPENING OVER TIME. In 2029, his budget would set overall NDD funding 40 percent below the 2019 funding level, adjusted for inflation.[1]

The budget lays out funding levels for individual NDD programs only for its first year, 2020 (as is typical for administrative budgets), and proposes to cut or eliminate a number of important low-income programs. For example, it calls for deeply cutting rental assistance through cuts in both Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing, eliminating several community development programs and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and sharply cutting Job Corps, a Department of Labor job training program for disadvantaged young people. These cuts and ones elsewhere in the budget would grow deeper and likely affect a still broader set of programs in years after 2020.

While the budget plan would substantially reduce a number of NDD programs that provide supports or can build skills or otherwise improve prospects for low- and moderate-income people, those programs are cut slightly less deeply than NDD as a whole, at least in the first year. But the cuts are significant and would grow over time.

The report also notes, BTW, that low-income programs only account for 29% of entitlement programs, included in the NDD (non-defense, discretionary) budget.

 

Why raise taxes? Why not cut spending? What do we need DEA for and how is it constitutionally warranted? Or welfare? Our constitution didn’t promise anyone free sh!t, so that fat got to be trimmed. And where in constitution does it say the federal government has the right to tell me what to do with my body, whether it’s smoking some weed or putting a mask on my face?
You want balanced budget? Get our federal government back to its constitutional basics - defense (including borders and immigration), justice, and foreign relations and trade. That’s it!

 

Again, I thank you for keeping your post trained on real-life expenses & programs, rather than just a repetition of some opinion, based on nothing but one's hollow, and now unrecallable, impressions.

I do quote your entire post in my reply, but I do so piecemeal because you touch on so many, & such vastly different, bases. The quote, above, is how your post ends, and I think it well sums up your opinion. Your ability, and willingness, to clearly communicate your ideas, raises a discussion with you above being an exercise in futility & a waste of time. To wit, I can immediately identify the REASON for our difference of opinion. It is, however, no dispute that is amenable to being dispelled with facts, or a even a gap that will likely be narrowed by a comparing of perspectives. Our difference is based in our philosophies, or world-views.

Even if I can point out some individual errors in your argument, it is doubtful that would change your outlook in any way. That is because, though you cite the Constitution, it seems pretty apparent that your ideology, while incorporating that document, does not use it as its basis; your beliefs seem to run more deeply, intrinsically. But let us move on, anyway, to the points you raise.

The Constitutional basics, you list as: "defense...justice,...foreign relations, & trade. That's it!"
I need to point out that this does not even cover the Constitution's Preamble. I'm going to cite from memory, so forgive any verbatim mistakes, but I do not believe there will be any alteration in meaning. (Elements you cited, underlined).We the people...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and insure domestic tranquility,*
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves & our posterity...

* Note that, although, "establish justice," has already been enumerated, the founders thought it necessary to include the phrase, "insure domestic tranquility." I submit that this goes beyond simply mandating a police-state. I think it speaks to the peoples' state of mind, going further even than, "promote the general welfare," which you, also, left off your list. If these items are listed in the Constitution's opening Preamble, it's a hard case to make that they're not part of our forefathers' idea of the, "basic," functions of the government they envisioned.

Now for the lightning-round:

It is not possible to balance our budget even if we ELIMINATED ALL NDD-- NON-DEFENSE, DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.

Most people, I would contend, do not see ALL discretionary spending worth eliminating. That would mean, for example, eliminating SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH from the budget (which is such a relatively tiny expenditure, but has yielded so many valuable proceeds to our society, that it would strike many beside myself as not just silly, but foolish). Also, it would eliminate funds for the CDC (Center for Disease Control)
inspectors for FOOD SAFETY, WORKER SAFETY, and compliance with the safe handling (by industry) of HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, as well as with AIR & WATER QUALITY, POLLUTION STANDARDS.

It would also eliminate all funding for EDUCATION, which, unfortunately for the hopes inspired by your view of government, the vast majority would see as having relevance to, "the general welfare," of our society, & so its citizenry. It would also mean the end of the maintenance of our NATIONAL PARKS & public lands (what the hell-- sell 'em all off, right?). I could go on, and on, but I think I've made my point.

I'm with you, in spirit, on drug legalization, but that's a much more involved topic, for another thread. But even if all drugs were legal (& I'm not advocating that), wouldn't we want some agency to insure that they were safe & not tainted, as well as that they were actually what they advertised themselves to be? That's the job of the FDA: more discretionary spending (& not covered by you under defense, justice, foreign relations, & trade-- not unless you EXPAND those categories to take over the functions currently performed by other agencies; but that doesn't really save money). Once more: GENERAL WELFARE (and a pattern begins to emerge).

Jumping from the DEA to, "Welfare," i.e., public assistance for the poorest in society...do I really have to say what that falls under? Not to say that there aren't a variety of opinions, in the mainstream of society, concerning the way it should be implemented, but having some social safety net is the predominant position, certainly in First-World Nations, & also falls within the general principles outlined in the Constitution.

Now you're getting off topic (we're talking about which party is better for middle-class TAX PAYERS).