Poll: Thoughts on $1.2T and $3.5T spending bills

[scotchtiger]

Saw the WSJ notification pop up this morning that senate democrats passed a $3.5T spending blueprint at 4am this morning, just after the $1.2T bipartisan infrastructure bill was passed. Interested to get everyone's disposition on this.

I kept the choices narrow intentionally. I personally have nuance to my position, but wanted to keep the choices focused.

EDIT: If you vote for the $4.7T combo, please include how you want to pay for it and if you are personally willing to contribute a meaningful amount in new taxes.

Senate Passes Democrats’ $3.5 Trillion Budget Blueprint

The budget blueprint’s passage is the first step in an arduous process designed to allow Democrats to push through a sweeping package of education, healthcare, climate and other provisions.

www.wsj.com

 

[clemsontiger02]

Poll choices too narrow for me, though I understand that was your intent.

I support both bills in principle, but would like to see lower pricetags, and a more comprehensive plan for how to pay for them.

I've heard that money doesn't grow on trees.

 

[SconnyTiger25]

We all want better roads and bridges, but there is way too much green new deal spending programs also

I personally do not think they will have the votes to raise the debt ceiling which will be necessary to reaching the 3.5T spending package.

 

[scotchtiger]

Poll choices too narrow for me, though I understand that was your intent.

I support both bills in principle, but would like to see lower pricetags, and a more comprehensive plan for how to pay for them.

I've heard that money doesn't grow on trees.

Yea I was trying to keep it narrow as I'm sure everyone has a little nuance to their position. For example, I support a bipartisan infrastructure bill, but don't trust whatever excess is in the 2700 page $1.2T bill.

 

[scotchtiger]

I wish all democrats were this reasonable:

 

[scotchtiger]

a more comprehensive plan for how to pay for them.

How do you think we should pay for them?

 

[clemsontiger02]

How do you think we should pay for them?

Not by sinking further into debt, especially to China, IMO. Raising taxes will probably be part of it, as much as I hate that. We should also cut/trim existing programs, and increase our overall GDP to find dollars (trillions of them).

I just hate the "spend now, figure it out later" mentality. Let's not forget that those massive - yet needed - Covid relief bills have to be covered, too.

 

[scotchtiger]

Not by sinking further into debt, especially to China, IMO. Raising taxes will probably be part of it, as much as I hate that. We should also cut/trim existing programs, and increase our overall GDP to find dollars (trillions of them).

I just hate the "spend now, figure it out later" mentality. Let's not forget that those massive - yet needed - Covid relief bills have to be covered, too.

Agree with all of that, sans perhaps the raising taxes part. I would get on board with closing loopholes, including overseas corporate taxes. Vehemently opposed to raising taxes on families earning $400K or taxing cap gains >$1M at ordinary income rates. Neither of those actually address the groups "not paying their fair share."

 

[T.A. Fulmer]

Change the first one to …..

”don’t support any new infrastructure spending because we spent 145 BILLION last year alone and that number has been increasing for decades”.

And I’ll vote

2024 Current State of the Union: US Transportation & Infrastructure

Did you know 19% of roads were rated as unsatisfactory in 2020? What did the US spend on infrastructure in 2024? Get more nonpartisan data about America's air, road, and train infrastructure with the State of the Union in Numbers.

usafacts.org

 

[PawsFan_]

Infrastructure Spending.....let's all be real. Bills like this are given name like this because who wouldn't support infrastructure spending? I do. Infrastructure spending improves all our communities and creates jobs.

The issue isn't the content. The issue is the amount.

 

[nytigerfan]

Saw the WSJ notification pop up this morning that senate democrats passed a $3.5T spending blueprint at 4am this morning, just after the $1.2T bipartisan infrastructure bill was passed. Interested to get everyone's disposition on this.

I kept the choices narrow intentionally. I personally have nuance to my position, but wanted to keep the choices focused.

Senate Passes Democrats’ $3.5 Trillion Budget Blueprint

The budget blueprint’s passage is the first step in an arduous process designed to allow Democrats to push through a sweeping package of education, healthcare, climate and other provisions.

www.wsj.com

Pretty sure the $3.5 T is a budget, not a bill. That said it is hard to vote in your poll without really knowing what is included. The passed budget is top line and will be hammered out in committee.

 

[T.A. Fulmer]

Infrastructure Spending.....let's all be real. Bills like this are given name like this because who wouldn't support infrastructure spending? I do. Infrastructure spending improves all our communities and creates jobs.

The issue isn't the content. The issue is the amount.

Well its both. The ”content” has a ridiculous “amount” of garbage that will not make any of our ”infrastructure“ better.

 

[scotchtiger]

Pretty sure the $3.5 T is a budget, not a bill. That said it is hard to vote in your poll without really knowing what is included. The passed budget is top line and will be hammered out in committee.

They are describing it as a "blueprint." Here are some of the items included, keeping in mind it's 3.5 TRILLION dollars.

"Human" Infrastructure:

• universal pre-kindergarten
• expanded Medicare access
• two free years of community college
• subsidized child care
• extending the enhanced child tax credit
• legalizing undocumented immigrants
• green climate initiatives

 

[scotchtiger]

@TigerGrowls I think it’s pretty funny that you’ve posted in several election fraud conspiracy threads, a Biden touching thread, a Twitter collusion thread, a thread about a guilty rioter being shot and probably a few others, but haven’t joined a thread about massive government spending - you know, the stuff real republicans care about.

@nytigerfan and others are right - you are a RINO.

 

[Woody1405]

We are going to pay for it the same way we paid for Trump's 3 billion dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and for Trumps billion dollar PPP deal. We are going to borrow it. I think it is hilarious the only time most Republicans are concerned with the deficit is when Democrats hold power. I am fine with either infrastructure plan if we would raise the revenue to pay for it. Unfortunately that idea would not get a single Republican vote in Congress.

 

[scotchtiger]

We are going to pay for it the same way we paid for Trump's 3 billion dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and for Trumps billion dollar PPP deal. We are going to borrow it. I think it is hilarious the only time most Republicans are concerned with the deficit is when Democrats hold power. I am fine with either infrastructure plan if we would raise the revenue to pay for it. Unfortunately that idea would not get a single Republican vote in Congress.

I’m concerned regardless of who is in power.

Are you personally willing to pay a meaningful amount more in taxes to pay for this stuff?

 

[yoshi121374]

@TigerGrowls I think it’s pretty funny that you’ve posted in several election fraud conspiracy threads, a Biden touching thread, a Twitter collusion thread, a thread about a guilty rioter being shot and probably a few others, but haven’t joined a thread about massive government spending - you know, the stuff real republicans care about.

@nytigerfan and others are right - you are a RINO.

I wish I could like this ten times. @TigerGrowls doesn't know anymore about Republican policies than his lord and savior Donald Trump. He just wants to do whatever Donald says we should do.

 

[TigerGrowls]

@TigerGrowls I think it’s pretty funny that you’ve posted in several election fraud conspiracy threads, a Biden touching thread, a Twitter collusion thread, a thread about a guilty rioter being shot and probably a few others, but haven’t joined a thread about massive government spending - you know, the stuff real republicans care about.

@nytigerfan and others are right - you are a RINO.

I answered your poll. I am against the infrastructure bill totally in it's current form due to the waste pork barrel spending authorizations in it.

 

[scotchtiger]

I wish I could like this ten times. @TigerGrowls doesn't know anymore about Republican policies than his lord and savior Donald Trump. He just wants to do whatever Donald says we should do.

I've said it a bunch on here. Republicans have a big glaring hole in the policy department. It's all Biden sucks, don't take muh liberty, election was rigged, stop socialism, look at these crazy freaks like Cory Bush, yada yada. It's speaks to the Growls-level voter, but does nothing for moderates.

I will say that simple obstruction is a policy I agree with, because I don't think we need to grow the scope of the federal government, particularly as rapidly as the dems wan to. So I guess unintentionally, obstructionism is a worthwhile policy position for the pubs. But what else are they proposing?

 

[yoshi121374]

I answered your poll. I am against the infrastructure bill totally in it's current form due to the waste pork barrel spending authorizations in it.

What are some examples of what you don't like? Funny how your response was almost exactly what that moron Trump said in his email to his followers such as you. He always was a fan of the yelling in the wind with zero substance.

 

[yoshi121374]

I've said it a bunch on here. Republicans have a big glaring hole in the policy department. It's all Biden sucks, don't take muh liberty, election was rigged, stop socialism, look at these crazy freaks like Cory Bush, yada yada. It's speaks to the Growls-level voter, but does nothing for moderates.

I will say that simple obstruction is a policy I agree with, because I don't think we need to grow the scope of the federal government, particularly as rapidly as the dems wan to. So I guess unintentionally, obstructionism is a worthwhile policy position for the pubs. But what else are they proposing?

And I agree with you and could echo this on the left. I get so tired of the idiotic gotcha politics. I also agree that we need to be more moderate and realize that stuff costs money.

 

[scotchtiger]

And I agree with you and could echo this on the left. I get so tired of the idiotic gotcha politics. I also agree that we need to be more moderate and realize that stuff costs money.

When it boils down to it, dems want a bigger federal government with more influence in your daily life. Pubs generally want the opposite. Look at the items in the "human" infrastructure proposal:

• universal pre-kindergarten - federal control over preschool
• expanded Medicare access - more federal control over healthcare
• two free years of community college - federal control over post-graduate education
• legalizing undocumented immigrants - more people to get federal benefits
• green climate initiatives - federal control over your personal transportation

Most of this other stuff is just noise. You either support a sprawling federal government and the spending that comes with it, or you support individual responsibility and limited centralized government.

The republicans need to do a much better job of explaining how we can address deficiencies in our system without simply asking the federal government to do it. My mention of public/private partnerships to bring affordable healthy food options into underserved communities is an example. Another would be preferred student loan treatment for STEM or other degrees in needed fields to strengthen our workforce. I mean, how much more logical is that than blanket student loan forgiveness?

Our politicians suck.

 

[yoshi121374]

When it boils down to it, dems want a bigger federal government with more influence in your daily life. Pubs generally want the opposite. Look at the items in the "human" infrastructure proposal:

• universal pre-kindergarten - federal control over preschool
• expanded Medicare access - more federal control over healthcare
• two free years of community college - federal control over post-graduate education
• legalizing undocumented immigrants - more people to get federal benefits
• green climate initiatives - federal control over your personal transportation

Most of this other stuff is just noise. You either support a sprawling federal government and the spending that comes with it, or you support individual responsibility and limited centralized government.

The republicans need to do a much better job of explaining how we can address deficiencies in our system without simply asking the federal government to do it. My mention of public/private partnerships to bring affordable healthy food options into underserved communities is an example. Another would be preferred student loan treatment for STEM or other degrees in needed fields to strengthen our workforce. I mean, how much more logical is that than blanket student loan forgiveness?

Our politicians suck.

Again, while I may disagree with you on some things, I agree with you on much if what you propose. The challenge for Republicans is to actually present ideas instead of just being against Dems. I don't agree with a lot of the Green New Deal, I don't love the idea of paying off student loans, etc. But, at least they have ideas. At least the have policies.

As you have said,the challenge for Republicans is to actually present a plan. Trump spent 4+ years telling everyone why Obamacare sucked, but he never had an actual plan

 

[scotchtiger]

As you have said,the challenge for Republicans is to actually present a plan. Trump spent 4+ years telling everyone why Obamacare sucked, but he never had an actual plan

Spending the better part of a decade bitching about Obamacare, then having control of the house, senate and executive branch and absolutely no plan whatsoever for healthcare, is one of the great fails of modern politics. It was like a dog chasing a car and then having no clue what to do when it caught it.

 

[nytigerfan]

When it boils down to it, dems want a bigger federal government with more influence in your daily life. Pubs generally want the opposite. Look at the items in the "human" infrastructure proposal:

• universal pre-kindergarten - federal control over preschool
• expanded Medicare access - more federal control over healthcare
• two free years of community college - federal control over post-graduate education
• legalizing undocumented immigrants - more people to get federal benefits
• green climate initiatives - federal control over your personal transportation

Most of this other stuff is just noise. You either support a sprawling federal government and the spending that comes with it, or you support individual responsibility and limited centralized government.

The republicans need to do a much better job of explaining how we can address deficiencies in our system without simply asking the federal government to do it. My mention of public/private partnerships to bring affordable healthy food options into underserved communities is an example. Another would be preferred student loan treatment for STEM or other degrees in needed fields to strengthen our workforce. I mean, how much more logical is that than blanket student loan forgiveness?

Our politicians suck.

I think if there is negotiation, then there is benefit in some of these policies.

• universal pre-kindergarten - federal control over preschool - benefit: more people able to join the workforce, more consumption, more tax revenue. This will pay for itself.
• expanded Medicare access - more federal control over healthcare - no real macro economic benefit that I can see, but it would give people life saving health coverage.
• two free years of community college - federal control over post-graduate education - benefit: we need more people trained in trades to fill open jobs. More consumption, more tax revenue, more people out of poverty. This will pay for itself.
• legalizing undocumented immigrants - more people to get federal benefits - I would need to learn more about what it covers. But most of the immigrants that I have some across are extremely hard working people. If we give them a path to citizenship, they could become earners who pay taxes and fill those jobs that need to be filled. With the number of unfilled jobs we have right now, the whole "they took our jobs!" argument goes out the window. The negative impact here will be the current people choosing to stay unemployed will continue to be unemployed. The real concern for repubs here is the fear that these folks will end up voting dem, but they could do more to appeal to these folks.
• green climate initiatives - federal control over your personal transportation - I personally think this is a crisis that we need to start addressing, so I am all for this. Most car companies are already putting out low emission vehicles, so mandating it will just level the playing field. The repubs have offered ZERO to address climate change. Probably b/c most of the their voters and their politicians think it is a hoax, just like covid.

 

[nytigerfan]

And I agree with you and could echo this on the left. I get so tired of the idiotic gotcha politics. I also agree that we need to be more moderate and realize that stuff costs money.

I think the actual infrastructure bill is a great start, a real step in the right direction for bipartisanship. And I give the republicans who voted for it despite trump doing everything he could to undermine it a lot of credit.

 

[nytigerfan]

What are some examples of what you don't like? Funny how your response was almost exactly what that moron Trump said in his email to his followers such as you. He always was a fan of the yelling in the wind with zero substance.

This. Trump and his sheep are against a bipartisan infrastructure bill because he himself failed miserably to get it passed in his four years. His ego cant handle it. And to traitorous scum like @TigerGrowls , Dear Leader's feelings are more important than our country.

 

[scotchtiger]

I think if there is negotiation, then there is benefit in some of these policies.

• universal pre-kindergarten - federal control over preschool - benefit: more people able to join the workforce, more consumption, more tax revenue. This will pay for itself.
• expanded Medicare access - more federal control over healthcare - no real macro economic benefit that I can see, but it would give people life saving health coverage.
• two free years of community college - federal control over post-graduate education - benefit: we need more people trained in trades to fill open jobs. More consumption, more tax revenue, more people out of poverty. This will pay for itself.
• legalizing undocumented immigrants - more people to get federal benefits - I would need to learn more about what it covers. But most of the immigrants that I have some across are extremely hard working people. If we give them a path to citizenship, they could become earners who pay taxes and fill those jobs that need to be filled. With the number of unfilled jobs we have right now, the whole "they took our jobs!" argument goes out the window. The negative impact here will be the current people choosing to stay unemployed will continue to be unemployed. The real concern for repubs here is the fear that these folks will end up voting dem, but they could do more to appeal to these folks.
• green climate initiatives - federal control over your personal transportation - I personally think this is a crisis that we need to start addressing, so I am all for this. Most car companies are already putting out low emission vehicles, so mandating it will just level the playing field. The repubs have offered ZERO to address climate change. Probably b/c most of the their voters and their politicians think it is a hoax, just like covid.

If these things pay for themselves, I assume no new taxes?

I could support enhanced tax deductions for child care and pre-K. My $5K DCFSA certainly didn't go very far to cover private preschool and a nanny. Would have been nice to deduct all of that. But federal daycares?

We should be increasing the Medicare age, not reducing it. The life expectancy when Medicare was passed was 70 years. Now it's 79. So we have added an average of 9 years of coverage per person (180% increase). Of course entitlements like these are blowing the federal budget.

I could see some financial incentive for low-cost degrees that strengthen and modernize the workforce. Blanket free tuition isn't the answer though. Maybe reduced tuition or preferred loan treatment for in-demand trades, STEM pre-reqs, etc.

Path to citizenship is complex and warrants a broader discussion, but I don't know why this needs to be in a $3.5T spending blueprint. Financial self-sufficiency should be a prerequisite to citizenship.

I actually don't mind some investment in electric vehicle charging or something similar. Not sure it should be net-new federal spending, but it's needed. I kinda want a Rivian, but not sure where I would charge it in SC. I don't know all of the details here, but I imagine there is a ton of spending on a bunch of other green BS that likely won't make much of an impact though.

 

[jakefest]

If these things pay for themselves, I assume no new taxes?

I could support enhanced tax deductions for child care and pre-K. My $5K DCFSA certainly didn't go very far to cover private preschool and a nanny. Would have been nice to deduct all of that. But federal daycares?

We should be increasing the Medicare age, not reducing it. The life expectancy when Medicare was passed was 70 years. Now it's 79. So we have added an average of 9 years of coverage per person (180% increase). Of course entitlements like these are blowing the federal budget.

I could see some financial incentive for low-cost degrees that strengthen and modernize the workforce. Blanket free tuition isn't the answer though. Maybe reduced tuition or preferred loan treatment for in-demand trades, STEM pre-reqs, etc.

Path to citizenship is complex and warrants a broader discussion, but I don't know why this needs to be in a $3.5T spending blueprint. Financial self-sufficiency should be a prerequisite to citizenship.

I actually don't mind some investment in electric vehicle charging or something similar. Not sure it should be net-new federal spending, but it's needed. I kinda want a Rivian, but not sure where I would charge it in SC. I don't know all of the details here, but I imagine there is a ton of spending on a bunch of other green BS that likely won't make much of an impact though.

There is just no possible way forward without a tax increase and not just for the 1%. Just as an example, part of the budget calls for a "research initiative" to create an EV related tax much like the gas tax as they fear if all of America bought an EV tomorrow, the country will lose billions/trillions in gas tax income. That alone tells me that they are already trying to find creative tax related ways to find revenue before they shock the lower and middle classes with increases.

The reality is, the gas tax generated by each state is meant to pay for "infrastructure" but it gets allocated out to other things as the states see fit. This is just another example of why the government isn't fit to manage budgets or money. I'm not even suggesting that's a red vs blue issue, it's just a government issue.

The only other option to avoid tax increases is copious amounts of debt and I'd be overly worried about the countries buying up the debt positions. China for example.

Also, tons of fine print in the bill that articulates who can win the outsourced contractor bids for the work to "build back better" stating that they will give preference to minority owned businesses much like the farmer loan/debt thing. That means that the government will be happy to spend more money to drive racially "equitable" outcomes vs running a tight budget and taking the best product at an economical price. Just food for thought when they actually exceed the estimated numbers in the bill, which they seem to do almost everything they take on any major project.

 

[scotchtiger]

There is just no possible way forward without a tax increase and not just for the 1%.

The dirty little secret in all of this is that it’s not the 1% not paying their fair share. There’s something simply dishonest or ignorant in a person paying a single digit effective tax rate claiming someone paying a 25% effective tax rate isn’t “paying their fair share.” I would personally be embarrassed asking someone else to pay for my ideas.

 

[jakefest]

The dirty little secret in all of this is that it’s not the 1% not paying their fair share. There’s something simply dishonest or ignorant in a person paying a single digit effective tax rate claiming someone paying a 25% effective tax rate isn’t “paying their fair share.” I would personally be embarrassed asking someone else to pay for my ideas.

Amen

 

[PawsFan_]

Well its both. The ”content” has a ridiculous “amount” of garbage that will not make any of our ”infrastructure“ better.

Look at the content in this bill. It's all infrastructure related: roads, ports, air, bridges etc. Now this second $3T abortion they are trying to pass, that's a whole another issue. There's so much fat there, it makes me look like I have washboard abs by comparison.

 

[PawsFan_]

This. Trump and his sheep are against a bipartisan infrastructure bill because he himself failed miserably to get it passed in his four years. His ego cant handle it. And to traitorous scum like @TigerGrowls , Dear Leader's feelings are more important than our country.

View embedded media

Turn off the MSNBC. Your obsession with Trump is starting to make me think you have a man crush on him.

 

[nytigerfan]

The dirty little secret in all of this is that it’s not the 1% not paying their fair share. There’s something simply dishonest or ignorant in a person paying a single digit effective tax rate claiming someone paying a 25% effective tax rate isn’t “paying their fair share.” I would personally be embarrassed asking someone else to pay for my ideas.

I know plenty of 1%ers who are not paying more than 10% effective tax rate. An aggressive (and expensive) accountant can get you there if you own your own business.

A recent study on housing found that:

There is no state, county or city in the country where a full-time, minimum-wage worker working 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom rental, a report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition showed.
A full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a one-bedroom rental in only 7% of all US counties — 218 counties out of more than 3,000 nationwide.

Yet you want to tax these people more and refuse to raise the minimum wage?

 

[nytigerfan]

Turn off the MSNBC. Your obsession with Trump is starting to make me think you have a man crush on him.

a. I was replying to a poster who brought up Trump.
b. I dont watch MSNBC.
c. your response was quite possibly the lamest fuggin shit I have ever seen on TI, and that is saying a lot consider the tools that post on here regularly.

 

[scotchtiger]

I know plenty of 1%ers who are not paying more than 10% effective tax rate. An aggressive (and expensive) accountant can get you there if you own your own business.

A recent study on housing found that:

There is no state, county or city in the country where a full-time, minimum-wage worker working 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom rental, a report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition showed.
A full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a one-bedroom rental in only 7% of all US counties — 218 counties out of more than 3,000 nationwide.

Yet you want to tax these people more and refuse to raise the minimum wage?

• I'm just a boring W2 employee, so I don't have that tax treatment unfortunately. Yet Biden's tax proposals would affect me.
• A 1%er paying a single digit tax rate might be a good example of someone not paying their fair share. Perhaps that's where we should focus tax policy...
• I didn't suggest raising taxes on people making minimum wage.
• If you are making minimum wage, you probably should be living at home or have roommates. If your market value is the lowest an employer can legally pay you - that's a personal problem. The dudes cutting my lawn are making $15-20/hr these days.

 

[WapPride]

my lawn dudes are ****ing awesome

3 guys come twice a month and take about an hour to knock everything out for $160/month

 

[Willence]

I chose don't support infrastructure spending but only because that was the best option. I don't support either bill and would prefer another option. I can get behind investment in our infrastructure but I'm not interested in pork projects to get votes. The way we do business (and have for a long, long time) is just not something I am interested in seeing continue because of the scale its risen to and the fact we have such a significant debt now. In times of low debt I can understand this. But now, we need to economize as much as possible to try and find a way to get a handle on our debt and at least cut it in half.

 

[Willence]

I know plenty of 1%ers who are not paying more than 10% effective tax rate. An aggressive (and expensive) accountant can get you there if you own your own business.

A recent study on housing found that:

There is no state, county or city in the country where a full-time, minimum-wage worker working 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom rental, a report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition showed.
A full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a one-bedroom rental in only 7% of all US counties — 218 counties out of more than 3,000 nationwide.

Yet you want to tax these people more and refuse to raise the minimum wage?

The best way to raise wages it to have no minimum wage.

If you own a business, you're producing a service to the economy. The best way to handle what you're talking about is to do the right thing and completely do away with all business taxes. That would be a great way to increase the buying power of lower earners and also see wages rise overall.

 

[Willence]

The dirty little secret in all of this is that it’s not the 1% not paying their fair share. There’s something simply dishonest or ignorant in a person paying a single digit effective tax rate claiming someone paying a 25% effective tax rate isn’t “paying their fair share.” I would personally be embarrassed asking someone else to pay for my ideas.

The top 1%, top 5% and top 10% all pay MORE than their fair share of the taxes in this country. The numbers bear that out. They pay an outsized portion of their total earnings compared to other groups. The class warfare needs to stop. We don't have a revenue problem in the US. We have a spending problem and we have a serious corruption problem that is ultimately going to bring down our Republic (what's left of it which isn't much). It's so frustrating to see people on the left preying on the ignorance of those they claim to serve to increase their power over the people. The GOP isn't tons better but at least they don't seek to control everyone. They are just stupid.