Government Spending

The Democratic Dividing Line: Big Government…Or Even Bigger Government? 

To spend a lot of money, or to spend a lot more money? That is the question.

|

There's a big intra-party squabble happening between moderate and progressive Democrats in Congress right now. 

On the moderate side, there's a faction that wants to agree to spend a lot of money right now, and then move on to working out how to spend a whole lot more money after that. On the progressive side, there's a faction that wants to work on figuring out how to spend a whole lot of money first, and then agree to spend a somewhat smaller but still very large amount of money after that. 

Either way, the goal is to spend an awful lot of money. The fight is about figuring out which order to agree to spend it in. 

Nominally, the debate is about political and policy priorities. The moderate faction wants to sign off on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, a $1.2 trillion package of spending mostly focused on roads, bridges, waterways, and broadband, about $550 billion of which is new spending. Their argument is that this is a popular bipartisan bill that reauthorizes a bunch of infrastructure spending due to expire at the end of September, so why wait?

The progressive faction wants to focus on a $3.5 trillion partisan spending package that is set to include most of the rest of President Joe Biden's domestic policy agenda. This spending package is built heavily around social spending: there are expansions of health care subsidies and the child tax credit, as well as new spending on climate policies, like the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps. The plan is to pass this package using reconciliation, a congressional budget maneuver that allows certain bills to pass with a simple majority of votes, dodging a likely Republican filibuster in the Senate. 

The progressives' argument is that the reconciliation plan could take weeks or even months to fully negotiate since the Senate version of the plan consists mainly of topline numbers for various spending areas. Democrats, they insist, can't afford to slow-walk the bulk of Biden's agenda, especially since the party is likely to lose congressional seats next year. 

But this argument is really about leverage. If the infrastructure bill passes first, then moderate Democrats whose votes are essential have more power to negotiate on the reconciliation package—perhaps forcing it to be a little bit smaller, or insisting that it include more pay-fors. Progressives, in turn, want to hold up the infrastructure bill in hopes of keeping moderates in line. 

Those with a preference for limited government will find no heroes here; the fight is between proponents of big government and proponents of even bigger government. 

It's not exactly surprising, but it is at least a little bit telling that the moderate position in the party right now is that everyone should agree to a $1 trillion spending bill before going to work on an even bigger spending bill that, even trimmed down, is still likely to come in with a price tag well into the multiple trillions. 

The outcome of this fight is likely to tell us something about where the Democratic Party's center of gravity is at the moment, and whether the progressive vision of nearly unlimited spending has actually taken hold in the party. Notably, Rep. John Yarmuth (D–Ky.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, could be found dismissing concerns about deficits and making statements that are essentially in line with the ideas of modern monetary theory

In any case, Biden, who serves as an avatar of the Democratic Party's current self-conception, has put his foot down: He made it clear yesterday that he really just wants to sign both bills in whatever order they come in. For Biden, in other words, the particulars don't matter—just so long as the end result is an agreement to spend an awful lot of money. 

NEXT: New York City Was Supposed To Have Congestion Pricing in January. Federally Mandated Environmental Review Pushed the Start Date to 2023.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Your choices are:

    Socialism
    Marxism

    Take your pick with the modern Democratic party.

    1. *it’s the same picture* meme goes here

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments xvf Learn More details Good luck…

        See……………VISIT HERE

        1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,…………… READ MORE

    2. Or feudalism. “You will own nothing and you will be happy”.

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

        GOOD LUCK………. VISIT HERE

      2. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes HDJk me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now…… …….JOBS APP

    3. Woke corporate fascism for the win!

    4. Except that the Democrats are arguing for an economy that has more safety nets like Denmark or Sweden. Whenever these two countries come up the commenters here always tells us that these are not socialist countries but rather more capitalistic than the United States right now. So what is it are we heading toward socialism or more capitalism than we have now?

      1. You left out the high tax rate, value added tax and that they are mostly a uniform group.
        Danish (includes Greenlandic (who are predominantly Inuit) and Faroese) 86.3%, Turkish 1.1%, other 12.6% (largest groups are Polish, Syrian, German, Iraqi, and Romanian) (2018 est.) note: data represent population by ancestry

        In other words, they don’t look for handouts and work. Can you say that here anymore?

        1. He’s from Madison. He’s a downright nazi round them parts.

          1. Perhaps he’s a nazi, but he’s also an econ-ignoramus; see below on M/W.
            He’s stupid enough to think the high M/W doesn’t push costs higher than the wage gain.
            Guessing the closest he ever came to business knowledge was running a lemonade stand.

        2. Well Denmark has a minimum wage of over $21 / hour, that might encourage working.

          1. Statements like that showcase your vast ignorance.

            1. And he’s PROUD of being so!

          2. Now do prices of common goods.

            1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments xvf Learn More details Good luck…

              See…………JOBS APP

          3. There is no law in Denmark that mandates minimum wage.

      2. There’s no safety net when the economy drops into freefall. The fact that Yarmuth is talking parallels to MMT should be the klaxon. And get your your facts straight, the tax rate in Denmark and Sweden is higher, the population is lower. Seems more like lack of facts 4 ever.

      3. Except that the Democrats are arguing for an economy that has more safety nets like Denmark or Sweden.

        No, they are not. Not even close. Denmark and Sweden finance their safety nets through high taxes on the people that safety net benefits. The US is trying to finance it through “taxes on the rich” and massive deficits.

        Whenever these two countries come up the commenters here always tells us that these are not socialist countries but rather more capitalistic than the United States right now. So what is it are we heading toward socialism or more capitalism than we have now?

        There is no inconsistency because Democrats are, in fact, not advocating the Danish or Swedish system and instead really are advocating for socialism.

        1. NOYB2 – Sweden and Denmark tax businesses, the middle class and rich much higher than the poor. Take Sweden: if we convert SEK to USD, then: every dollar below $2300 is not taxed. For every dollar between $2300 and $67,000, the government takes 32 cents. Every dollar over that, the government takes 52 cents.

          Additionally, employers pay an additional 31 cents to the government (out of their own pocket) for every dollar they pay an employee.

          All capital gains are taxed at 30 cents on the dollar.

          Corporations pay 22 cents tax for every dollar of profit they make.

          The one thing I will concede is that Sweden has a higher sales tax (25%) than any US state, although food is excepted from the tax … which helps the poor because poor people spend most of their money on food and rent.

          1. Yes, the poor don’t pay a lot of taxes in either place; that should be obvious.

            The question is what the middle class pays, and the middle class pays about 50% more in taxes in Sweden than in the US. Swedish income tax rates start at 20% above (roughly) a $2000 deductible and reach a top rate of 60% for incomes above $77000. Add to that the regressive 25% sales tax. US income tax rates start at 10% above a $12000 income and top out at around 55% for incomes above $500000 (state plus federal), with maybe 5-10% sales tax. Furthermore, the ultra-wealth don’t pay any taxes in Sweden since they simply leave the country, an option not available to Americans.

            The Swedish system is not what Democrats advocate. Democrats advocate a system under which more than 2/3 of all Americans pay effectively no income tax while the nation bankrupts itself through borrowing and massive government spending. And Democrats force Americans to submit to the IRS no matter where they live in the world, one of the most draconian and ridiculous tax systems in the world.

            You want to adopt the Swedish system in the US? I’d be all for it. Our budget would be balanced and the middle class would be forced to pay for what they consume.

    5. And yet the overwhelming majority of mooching states in our country are repueklicon controlled; these states can not function without the extra handouts to prop them up.
      I’ll bet you earn less than congress’s $174k/yr +, part of the 98.3% of Americans & business owners who support these giant giveaways to corporate America at the nation’s expense.
      If you believe that #WEaretheGOVERNMENT, it is ours-it belongs to US because it is US, maybe you should stop crying and start focusing on solutions to what ails our nation.

      If you want to see total economic turmoil, eliminate individuals Federal income tax filing for every American & business earning less than Congress’s $250K/yr salary & benefit package and see how the richest among cry how unfair the PEOPLE’s Government is being.

      1. Kinda picture you foaming at the mouth here

      2. You’ve said this before. Now prove it.

      3. Wait… retards still quote that graduate course thesis? Lol. Remove SS and Medicaid and get back to us. Retired people move to lower cost of living states dumbass.

        1. “…retards still quote that graduate course thesis?..”

          Yes. Yes, they do, along with claims that M/W increases don’t lead to more U/E claims, women only make 80% of men, and other bullshit debunked many years ago.
          In fact we have one asshole here who proudly claims to be a Marxist-Lenninist! Supporter of mass murder!

    6. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable rtyh but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. Learn more about it here… Visit Here

    7. There are alternatives. If there were no democrats, there would be no democrat tyranny. So it’s really just an arithmetic problem.

      Think about that, and how much your freedom is worth to you.

      1. And what about Democrats’ freedom to not be killed by you? Pretty sure getting killed by “patriots” such as yourself is tyranny.

        1. Who said anything about killing them? Democrats have many options not involving violence at all. They are certainly free to abandon all their beliefs and leave government and the media. If they absolutely must cling to their evil Marxist beliefs, they are also welcome to leave America never to return.

          If they continue to attack America, they will be destroyed, in self defense. No one has a right to be a Marxist slaver, and democrats are the tyrants.

          1. Patriotic Guy – ah so you are a right wing extremist calling for the mass murder of Democrats. Got it … yeah… you are what is wrong with American politics right now. Absolutely insane.

            Yes Mr. FBI, this comment right here.

            1. UR Nazi-Regime isn’t “American Politics” and “If they continue to attack America, they will be destroyed, in self defense”

              Spman, “I got shot for raping your wife, stealing your TV, and pointing a gun at you while doing it. Isn’t that such B.S.!”

              70% of Prisoners are registered Democrats; no further explanation is needed than Spman’s comment here.

        2. Without weighing in on whether democrats are actually tyrants (and I wouldn’t want to pass judgement on an entire group of people like that anyway, but still withholding any claims about any particular democrats)….

          Killing tyrants is not tyranny. In fact, it’s essential for liberty.

          “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants” – Jefferson

          (The defining feature of a tyrant is use of the government to rampantly violate the rights of the citizenry. Killing them is self-defense).

        3. See you got your jump to conclusions mat.

          1. Matches his “I’m Stupid” head wrap.

            1. Uh, no, the guy literally is advocating to mass murder Democrats you stupid cunt.

        4. Pretty sure getting killed by “patriots” such as yourself is tyranny.

          You’re wrong. When regular citizens kill other regular citizens, we call that “murder”.

          Tyranny is when government violates basic freedoms of citizens.

      2. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable rteh but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. Learn more about it here… JOBS APP

    8. It’s not the “Democratic” party, but the Democrat party, because if there’s anything that party believes in, is isn’t democracy.
      Or as I call it, the LieCheatSteal party.

      1. Nice of her to give Joe a cover story so he could put off talking about that icky Afghanistan thingy

  2. It was just yesterday that we read how over half of the electorate has $0.00 tax liability. So why not vote for politicians who promise endless care taking and milk the rest of the cows who do have to pay taxes? It’s not like it’s going to cost them anything.

  3. Am hoping we get the Civilian Climate Corps so they can be the ones that visit animal shelters and shoot the rescue dogs during the upcoming lockdowns.

    1. No doubt there will be funding to send the CCC recruits to Australia for training.

      1. Australia has reverted to a prison colony.

        1. In which the citizens are virtuous prisoners.

        2. Australia is run by right wing religious conservatives who claim they want small government, but are actually authoritarians who raid the media, do secret trials, spy on citizens, take people’s citizenship away (even if they are born in Australia!), force companies to retain everyone’s data for government use, and give billions of taxpayer dollars away to fossil fuel billionaires. We are still a democracy, but sliding towards authoritarianism every day.

          1. The leftists here say the same about the government and press, which they are, and of which have largely been in control, for decades. Oddly, looking at Australian politics and news, your claim simply doesn’t hold water.

            1. Hank Ferrous – Unsurprisingly, you are talking rubbish and have zero clue.

              The Australian Federal Government has been controlled by the Liberal Party and National Parties (right wing conservative parties) for the last 8 years straight, and also for two-thirds of the last century.

              The two biggest media companies in Australia are Newscorp (Murdoch, who also owns Fox News) and Network Nine, which usually endorses the Liberals and their chairman is a Liberal Party politician. The third biggest is Network Seven, which leans right and is owned by a conservative mining billionaire.

              1. Edit: Former Liberal Party politician* (former deputy leader of the Liberal Party when they were in government in 2007, and former treasurer) who used Network Nine offices to host a Liberal Party fundraiser.

                1. Edit:
                  Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.

                  1. When children have lost an argument with an adult, they resort to childish insults. Don’t be a cunt.

    2. As long as they all wear snazzy brown green shirts designed by Hugo Boss.

      1. Sadly, the iNazis don’t have their forerunners sense of style and high standards.
        They’re more into the aesthetic of the communist side of their philosophy.

      2. A bad haircut dyed green, does that count?

    3. The Civilian Climate Corps is looking for a few good men women folks to help shovel this money into a furnace. And we will not be generating electricity from the flames either, thank you.

      1. It’s folx now, bigot

  4. Well you can go ahead and cut the fucking defense and intelligence budgets because that was a goddamn waste of taxpayer money.

    1. I doubt that they’ll do that. There are a lot of party donors who have to get paid! Besides, they’ll need a big internal security apparatus to suppress dissent.

      1. Piece of cake; it’s already been done:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD

        1. Stasi – pioneers in crowdsourced totalitarianism

    2. Not in my district!

      – said every politician.

    3. But then where would the other useless Yale graduates earn 10X the national average income? Health policy can only absorb so many.

    1. But Trump was mean

      1. Trump ignored and downplayed the pandemic saying it would just go away. Later, he promoted fake cures for it. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans died.

        Trump also refused to concede the election, and incited a seditious riot against the US legislature – like a TYRANT.

        Just because Democrats aren’t perfect, doesn’t mean Trump was good. He was an awful, awful President.

        1. Hundred of thousands of Americans died!!!

          Let’s see 630K present – all due to Trump right? Who said in Feb last year it was racist to band travel? Who marched in New York in March? Who got the vaccine done? Hummmm.

          I’ll talk the loud mouth man that has good policies in general over this Democrat party that is a bunch of liars and only care about themselves. Masks for you but not them. Ok for them not to pay taxes. I’m Bernie Sanders and I can have 3 houses.

          No mean tweets though. How is that inflation feeling? Are you tired of them saying the same lines they said in the 70s?

        2. And you are an awful, awful liar. And not smart enough to be an effective troll here. Have you considered Vox or the Daily Beast? You’d get your shill-bucks worth there.

        3. “Trump ignored and downplayed the pandemic saying it would just go away. Later, he promoted fake cures for it. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans died.”

          Guessing this isn’t sarc, but simply lies borne of abysmal stupidity; just a new pile of lefty shit posting.

    2. They miss their mean orange scape goat man. It may have been a dysfunctional bromance, but a bromance none the less.

  5. Oh, and NPR appears to have stumbled backwards into journalism.

    Long-Term Studies Of COVID-19 Vaccines Hurt By Placebo Recipients Getting Immunized

    Dr. Steven Goodman, a clinical trials specialist at Stanford University, says losing those control groups makes it more difficult to answer some important questions about COVID-19 vaccines.

    “We don’t know how long protections lasts,” he says. “We don’t know efficacy against variants — for which we definitely need a good control arm — and we also don’t know if there are any differences in any of these parameters by age or race or infirmity.”

    1. Exhibit #2,146a on how this is not being driven by science.

  6. “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

    ― Benjamin Franklin

    We are there.

    1. We are now just biden our time until the actual collapse.

      1. ^ (in double dribble voice) he’s on fire! I liked the ‘g’day in-mate’ one above too!

        1. That’s NBA Jams, not double dripple and Chumby would get the “He’s heating up” line with only two in a row. Damn old people, or am I the old guy here because I know video games from the 80-90s.

          1. I didn’t figure you for a Legend of Zelda type.

            1. ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

              1. Wasn’t that one for unlimited fighters in Contra?

                1. 99, and all of the Konami games pretty much.

                  1. 30 lives in Contra for NES. Same for Super C. Bonus powers in Gradius, I think. Unfortunately, the Konami Code has mostly fallen by the wayside, but you can still use it to unlock the higher difficulties in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance.

      1. The New Deal was in 1968?

    2. If people could vote themselves money, they would have voted themselves universal healthcare like other (functional) countries have.

      1. Stupid, dishonest and proud of it!
        Folks, meet the newest steaming pile of lefty shit!

        1. Look at the hatred and bile that Sevo spews, just because I supported a sensible policy that results in good healthcare accessible to all.

      2. If people could vote themselves money, they would have voted themselves universal healthcare like other (functional) countries have.

        Maybe Americans are smart enough not to want waiting times of many months, shoddy medical care, and dirty hospitals like those other “functional” countries?

        1. NOYB2 – you’ve been sorely misinformed about universal healthcare systems lol. While not perfect, they generally ensure affordable care for all. Some countries systems even still allow people to optionally purchase private insurance if they want, while still providing free/affordable healthcare to all.

          Meanwhile, Americans go bankrupt (or just die in some cases of uninsured people, particularly in Republican-run states that refused to expand Medicaid) trying to afford care. Horrendous.

          There’s a reason every other developed country has switched to universal healthcare of some sort.

          Meanwhile America is stuck in a weird limbo where only the very poor (Medicaid) or the very old (Medicare) have government healthcare.

          1. NOYB2 – you’ve been sorely misinformed about universal healthcare systems lol.

            I’m an immigrant from Europe. I know exactly what I am talking about.

            You are either stupid or lying.

            There’s a reason every other developed country has switched to universal healthcare of some sort.

            That is another lie.

            Meanwhile America is stuck in a weird limbo where only the very poor (Medicaid) or the very old (Medicare) have government healthcare.

            If Democrats wanted to institute a European-style single payer healthcare system, the existing Medicare/Medicaid budget would be sufficient to provide that for all Americans.

            America is in a “weird limbo” because Democrats are using healthcare to pay off their donors and supporters in the medical, pharmaceutical, and legal professions. And destroying the few remaining free market components of the US healthcare system lets them rob US tax payers just a bit more.

      3. If people could vote themselves slaves, they would have voted themselves slaves like other (functional) countries have.

        And to think; I always thought the USA was land of the free exceptional. These are the kinds of ‘attacks’ on the USA you support.

        The question is WHY? It’d be so much easier for you to just pack up and MOVE to your dream-land utopia. You talk about them all the time; the “functional” ones.. MOVE THERE!!!

        That’s right; push comes to shove you know d*mn well your stinky B.S. is nothing but an attempt to *STEAL* what USA has created.

  7. The $1.2 trillion is bad enough. The $3.5 Trillion is a Bernie Sanders wet dream come true. It is so full of unnecessary spending that is not needed when the economy is recovering and items that have nothing to do with the budget. I guess Biden is planning another series of “recovery summer(s)” like in 2009-2011 and wants to fund more Solyndra style donors.

    1. What’s the point of being in control if you can rain trillions of newly printed dollars on your friends?

    2. The baseline budget is already 6 trillion dollars, which is probably twice as high as necessary. The federal budget was under 2 trillion dollars just 20 years ago, when Bill Clinton was President. It was more than enough then. Checking the inflation calculator, 2 trillion in 2000 would be 3.2 trillion now.

    3. I love how AS SOON as a Democrat gets elected, conservatives SUDDENLY become concerned with spending.

      The whole Trump administration they were quiet about the trillions he spent (admittedly there was other stuff to worry about, like Trump ignoring the pandemic and refuse to concede the election like a tyrant).

      But as soon as a Democrat is elected, only now is spending suddenly a crisis.

      1. We know Spman is a brand new steaming pile of lefty shit, so it goes without saying that he’s a dishonest piece of shit besides.

        1. Sevo – Looks like you got triggered by facts and logic, buddy. Take a chill pill.

      2. Plenty of conservatives didn’t like his spending retard. It was probably the primary complaint from the right.

        1. JesseAz oh are we doing insults now cunt?

      3. The whole Trump administration they were quiet about the trillions he spent

        Congress passes the budget, not the president. And the president is forced by law to spend the money Congress budgets. Trump tried to fight it and lost.

        But as soon as a Democrat is elected, only now is spending suddenly a crisis.

        Nothing sudden about it.

        And it is objectively a crisis, no matter what political party you come from.

  8. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, isn’t it about time for us Koch / Reason libertarians to admit we never really cared about government spending?

    Our philosophy has one main objective — make the richest people on the planet (especially our benefactor Charles Koch) even richer. Well, in terms of creating a billionaire-friendly economy Biden and the Democratic Congress have succeeded beyond our wildest expectations. They can spend quadrillions of dollars for all I care as long as wealth keeps concentrating at the very top.

    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

  9. Either way, we get the “socialist worker’s utopia”. Lucky for me that I’m old, I won’t have to put up with it for too long before I kick the bucket.

    1. How old are you? I just turned 65 and can figure I might as well go down swing’n:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2d76kt/self_how_fast_do_you_have_to_swing_your_dick_for/

    2. There isn’t a single socialist in US Congress or any Presidential Administration ever. America is so far right it’s impossible for a socialist to get elected, even in the most progressive congressional districts.

      On the other hand, there is more than a few fascist sympathisers in the GOP.

      You Americans don’t even know the meaning of socialism, it’s just a boogeyman and a word you throw around to mean “anything I don’t like”

      1. “There isn’t a single socialist in US Congress or any Presidential Administration ever…”

        We know Spman is a brand new steaming pile of lefty shit, so it goes without saying that he’s a dishonest piece of shit besides.

      2. Are you always this boring?

        1. The left’s fifty centers are really stretched to the breaking point with all that’s going on right now

          1. I do this for free baby!

      3. Fascism from the left has been on a meteoric rise. Somehow they’ve outpaced religious right-wing zealots in record time.

      4. America is so far right it’s impossible for a socialist to get elected, even in the most progressive congressional districts.

        Oh, so true. After all, the Democratic party, including its self-proclaimed socialists, are actually fascists through and through.

        So are you.

        1. “the Democratic party are fascists” … and yet you have GOP members saying that America should be a white country, and refusing to concede the election, trying to hold onto power via a putsch on Jan 6.

          If you actually studied history at all, you’d realise how ridiculous your mental gymnastics are.

          You’re a shoe-in for the next olympics.

          1. De-Regulation was the “trying to hold onto power”??
            The power to cut tax theft from it’s citizens?
            The power to allow states to be sovereign?
            The power to ‘stop’ the Power-Mad National Socialists (def; Nazi’s)?

            And in case your ignorance has completely consumed your bipartisan [WE] mob rules mentality – There are at LEAST 6 Democratic Politics RIGHT NOW that self-identify as supporters of National Socialism (i.e. Nazism) and just about ALL policies the left pitches and supports are UN-Constitutional (Treasonous to the USA) and favors Nazi Politics.

          2. “the Democratic party are fascists” … and yet you have GOP members saying that America should be a white country

            I have not seen any elected GOP official say that America should be a “white country”.

            What the GOP rejects is multiculturalism, and for good reason. It is only fascists and racists who think that ethnicity and skin color determines one’s culture.

            If you actually studied history at all, you’d realise how ridiculous your mental gymnastics are.

            My parents were nearly killed by the Nazis and my family suffered for decade under socialism. That’s why I speak out when a–holes like you tell lies.

  10. He made it clear yesterday that he really just wants to sign both bills in whatever order they come in. For Biden, in other words, the particulars don’t matter—just so long as the end result is an agreement to spend an awful lot of money.

    Makes sense. He won’t what he’s signing or why, so what does it matter to him what order the bills are passed in?

    1. They’ll have to pass it to find out what’s in it.

  11. Sarkariresult info Provides you Sarkari Job, Sarkari Result , sarkari exam, Rojgar Result.

    1. Sarkari only pawn in game of life

  12. This is what you campaigned for.

    1. We had have to destroy America to save it.

    2. I thought about sarcastically putting a comment like “Stupid Reason voted for Democrats! This is what you wanted! Hurrr durrrr!” but I you beat me to it. Difference of course is that you’re dead serious while I’m making fun if people like you.

      1. You only embarass yourself

      2. sarcasmic
        August.23.2021 at 1:21 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        Except that I’m not supporting or ignoring the other. People like you just glaze over posts where I’m critical of Dems because it doesn’t fit your cognitive biases.

  13. To spend a lot of money, or to spend a lot more money?

    This isn’t the issue at all. Dems who supposedly want to spend only “a lot of money” will still support the total spend of those who want to spend “a lot more money”. They just want it broken into 10 bills and increased incrementally so as not to alert reasonable voters as to their intent.

    The dividing line among Dems is whether government claims taxes and spends them directly (Tax and spend liberalism) or whether government controls business spending though regulation, law, and bureaucratic fiat (Corporatism / Fascism).

    For Biden, in other words, the particulars don’t matter

    As non-deluded people knew all along. Note what this shows however. Left wingers have always claimed Biden was on the right of Dems. But it turns out he’s for every nickel of spending he can achieve politically, just as Clinton and Obama were before him and every Dem successor will also be. The supposed “moderate” Dems are only moderate in their branding. They have the exact same goals as the rest. The difference is they believe it’s more effective to lie about them.

    The outcome of this fight is likely to tell us something about where the Democratic Party’s center of gravity is at the moment,

    This is nonsense and a big part of why Suderman is so consistently wrong. There are 2 of 50 Dem Senators and maybe 5 of 220 Dem Reps who could possibly oppose the everything-now plan. That’s hardly the “Democratic Party’s center of gravity”. And as Biden showed us these people disagree only in branding and tactics. The resolution of this will tell us abut which tactical path they’ve chosen, but nothing about their underlying goals.

    Which honestly isn’t a big deal since we already know their goals.

  14. When has Team D ever failed to dramatically increase spending once they’re in office? I mean, since Andrew Jackson, the first of the big Team D spenders, that has been their tune: Spend, spend, spend….without an end.

    1. Has any Republican president ever reduced spending in the last century? Any? Any?

      1. When spending increases with a Republican president it’s because of Democrats in Congress When spending increases with a Republican Congress it’s because of the Democrat in the White House. If Republicans hold both Congress and the White House then spending increases are the fault of the previous administration.

        There has never ever ever ever been increases in government spending that could be blamed on Republicans. It’s always, I repeat ALL-FUCKING-WAYS the fault of Democrats.

        1. sarcasmic
          August.23.2021 at 1:21 pm
          Flag Comment Mute User
          Except that I’m not supporting or ignoring the other. People like you just glaze over posts where I’m critical of Dems because it doesn’t fit your cognitive biases.

          1. The painful thing about stupid people is that they don’t know that they’re stupid. My post was a joke to Merry. If you took it as support for Democrats then you’re dishonest or retarded. If you’re not dishonest, then I’m afraid you’re too stupid to know that you’re stupid.

        2. What matters is debt by House majority party, because they set the budget. Since 1980, Democrats have been responsible for massive debt increases.

          Not that I want to defend the Republicans: since the 1980’s until Trump, the Republican party was dominated by neocons like McCain and Bush that were every bit as vile and corrupt as the Democrats.

        3. Total rubbish.

          When a Republican increases spending, it’s because they wanted to increase spending. Simple. As. That.

          They have no morals. They have no consistency. The GOP say they’re for smaller government but they spend big, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, they violate your rights.

          1. They have no morals.

            You have no morals. You’re a lying propagandist.

      2. Clinton didn’t really reduce spending because he’s a Democrat, and if he did then Republicans in Congress get the credit.

        1. sarcasmic
          August.23.2021 at 1:21 pm
          Flag Comment Mute User
          Except that I’m not supporting or ignoring the other. People like you just glaze over posts where I’m critical of Dems because it doesn’t fit your cognitive biases.

        2. “Clinton didn’t really reduce spending because he’s a Democrat, and if he did then Republicans in Congress get the credit.”

          Clinton did not reduce any spending except the defense budget. He could do that because 20 years of Republican Presidents in the previous 24 years had driven the Soviet Union to collapse. But he overdid it and left us with a DOD too weak to fight two small third world countries at a time.

          As soon as Democrats regained control of the House, he spent most of what was saved on defense on social programs, etc. The only reason he reached a point where the budget was about to balance was that a booming economy greatly increased revenues – and such booms _never_ last.

      3. Here’s a good chart (spoiler alert: spending always goes up).

        https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays

        But it’s not as if there’s no constituency to avoid crippling our offspring with tens of trillions in new federal government debt.

        Rand Paul was proposing to balance the budget in 8 years just by putting the brakes on spending increases. If spending had been capped at 4 trillion dollars, revenues would match spending this year and the budget would be balanced. All people had to do was vote for him in the primaries.

        Gary Johnson also proposed balancing the budget, in his first term. It sounds like a pipe dream but it would have required only modest spending cuts. And only 3% voted for him.

        Either Paul or Johnson probably would have been saddled with some type of COVID bailout to counter the ill effects of the governor-imposed lockdowns, but maybe they would have been limited to 1 trillion or so with more rational leadership and an electorate that demonstrated a fondness for balanced budgets.

        1. I’m always a minority when I vote.

        2. The actual chart you want is this:

          https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_House_Majority_Party_(1940_to_2009).png

          It’s the House majority party that ultimately matters.

      4. Calvin Coolidge, my friend. Calvin Coolidge. He reduced the federal budget every year of his presidency.

        1. We need me now more than ever.

      5. Brandyshit, quit grasping at straws to justify your father-figure vote, asshole.
        Has any R ever outspent a D? Have you ever gown up enough to understand that whining infants like you don’t get a pony anyhow.
        Fuck off and die, pathetic piece of shit.

        1. Over 2 3rds of entitlement spending is from democrat programs. So blame the GOP.

          1. Pretty sure Brandyshit is embarrassed at getting what he deserves; Biden has turned out as badly as most of us predicted, and since Brandyshit was voting the ‘I want a good father-figure’ ticket, it has come as a complete surprise to this asshole that we got what he deserves.
            Now, he’s grabbing at anything in the hopes of not being blamed for being the fucking ignoramus he is, honesty be damned.
            Hey, Brandyshit! Stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has some company!

      6. Why YES! YES they have.
        See Obama’s Second Term.

        1. Oh excuse me; You asked for ‘President’… Instead of congress of which rightfully holds the taxation and spending powers.

  15. All of the Afghanistan press conferences scheduled for today have been pushed back or canceled. Not a good sign.

    1. He needs a nap.

    2. They’re trying to find who’s got the key to Ft. Knox so they can confirm we have enough gold to cover the ransom for droolin’ Joe’s hostages.

  16. Meanwhile the Republicans are arguing that we spend a figure with twelve zeros after it as opposed to the eebil Democrats who want to spend a different figure with twelve zeros after it. Meanwhile my desktop calculator can only handle ten zeros. Sigh.

    The problem is not the Democrats, the problem is that the Republicans have joined the big spending caucus. There is literally no difference between them on the fiscal and economic side of things. The only point of contention is whether we tax to pay for it, or borrow to pay for it, or crank the printing presses faster to pay for it. NO ONE IS IN OPPOSITION TO MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SPENDING OF DOLLARS THAT DO NOT EXIST.

    The Republicans have given up. No one is there in D.C. to represent sanity.

    1. There is literally no difference between them on the fiscal and economic side of things.

      Stupidly wrong. Republicans are useless because they fold, but the impetus for more spending always comes from Dems. But people who want government to control all spending pretend there is no difference to confuse the issue.

      1. ^CORRECT…
        87% of the “Cares Act” was written by Democrats.

      2. Republicans bad. Democrats worse.

    2. No difference?
      Last I checked, both 6 trillion and 12 trillion are big numbers,
      but 12 trillion is twice as big as 6 trillion.

    3. All democrats want a budget with multi trillion dollar deficits. Most republicans do not.

      All democrat congress creatures want multi trillion dollar deficits, many republicans Congress creatures do not.

      Eliminate the democrat threat, and the republicans problem can be dealt with.

    4. Brandyshit is still trying to justify his little-boy vote for a father-figure, and if an outright lie is required, he’s all in.

    5. 19 Republicans. Every Democrat for that first number you raging dumbass.

  17. “The moderate faction wants to sign off on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, a $1.2 trillion package of spending mostly focused on roads, bridges, waterways, and broadband, about $550 billion of which is new spending.

    The progressive faction wants to focus on a $3.5 trillion partisan spending package that is set to include most of the rest of President Joe Biden’s domestic policy agenda. This spending package is built heavily around social spending: there are expansions of health care subsidies and the child tax credit, as well as new spending on climate policies, like the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps.

    —-Peter Suderman

    Reason staff seem eager to notice the difference between some Democrats and other Democrats but reluctant to notice the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

    Just for the record, 31 out of 50 Republican senators voted against the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, and of those that voted for it, several are retiring–so they won’t be facing reelection this year. In contrast, all 50 Democratic senators voted for the infrastructure bill.

    Meanwhile in the House, 211 out of 220 Democrats support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. It’s being held up by nine Democrats. 212 out of 212 Republicans are expected to vote against the budget reconciliation bill in the House, and NONE of the 19 Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill in the senate are expected to vote for the budget reconciliation bill.

    And so, one of the important differences between the Democrats and the Republicans is that if the Republicans were in control of the House or the Senate, we wouldn’t even be considering the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill with its Green New Deal and socialist entitlement spending–and, yes, that is a big difference. If we want to avoid the progressives spending the other $6.5 trillion they want to spend on the Green New Deal in the future, we would do well to support the Republicans taking the House and/or the Senate come November of 2022.

    1. Why don’t you apply for a fucking job at Reason? Get into the office and set them straight! Seriously. Your comments end up being the size of articles anyway. You never cease to bitch about what Reason should really be writing about. So go work for them!

      1. Facts and logic would seem out of place on Reason, and Ken doesn’t do “both sides bad” enough for them to hire him.

        1. Perhaps Reason don’t want to hire people that throw around the word “socialist” as a totally meaningless buzzword, applying to to literally any person they disagree with or any policy they don’t like (or rather, any policy that Fox News, Sinclair and such tell them not to like). Though to be fair, half of America fits that description – they wouldn’t know a socialist if she stared them in the face.

      2. Is this really what you want? You’d be forced to criticize a Reason writer and we all know how you feel about that.

        1. You kidding? I’d skip his articles. Tl;dr.

        2. Also, it’s kinda sad seeing you sucking up to the conservative trolls.

          1. What did I say that came off as sucking up to anyone? I critiqued your schtick, that’s all.

            And I’m not sure where you get the idea that Ken in particular is a troll. You clearly don’t like what he has to say, which is fine, but he’s most definitely not trolling.

            1. sarc has nothing of substance with which to reply to Ken, so calling Ken a troll is sarc’s way of admitting that.

            2. I never called Ken a troll.

              1. sarcasmic
                August.24.2021 at 3:39 pm
                Flag Comment Mute User
                Also, it’s kinda sad seeing you sucking up to the conservative trolls

                Mike was responding to Ken. So who was he sucking up to you retarded shit?

                1. sarc and honesty are only distantly acquainted.

            3. Without music, life would be a mistake.”
              ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

              Today it was announced that a great musical talent has passed. Always a drum fan, Charlie Watts was like an indestructible rock solid foundation for one of the greatest bands of all time. That left hand on the snare always there. That right foot on the kick. He kept them together.

              So he was the heart of a great musical talented group. Here is one. My favorite with the awesome Lisa Fisher in the duet with Mick. Watch what happens when Charlie shows up behind his kit. The rest flows from there.

              https://youtu.be/wy3RdCd9zAM

          2. Lol. So fucking broken.

      3. Why would reason hire a libritarian?

      4. This is perhaps the only reasonable proposal I’ve ever seen you post.

      5. You never cease to attack anyone who criticizes your precious democrats and their supporters at Reason.

      6. “Why don’t you apply for a fucking job at Reason?..”

        Why don’t you apply for a brain transplant. One from a Beagle would likely be a great improvement.

    2. And it bears repeating:

      3.5 trillion dollars is a lot money.

      Raising taxes by 3.5 trillion dollars is not a popular position.
      Borrowing another 3.5 trillion dollars is decidedly more popular, but has real and significantly bad economic effects.

    3. “…we would do well to support the Republicans taking the House and/or the Senate come November of 2022.”

      Or just go for all out broke; I mean really really broke. They aren’t about to give up their dreams based [if at all] and specious notions of modern monetary theory; these feckless politicians do not give a rat’s ass about the future of this country, only their own immediate future which is just around the next election cycle 2-4-6 years down the road.

      The only way it will stop will be for it all to come crashing down; and no I do not underestimate the degree of misery that would entail; the only possible choice is do we endear it now or possibly put it off one more generation, at the most? The inmates are running the asylum and they are all fucking fools.

      1. endure, and “endear” Jesus H

    4. And have you guys restrict abortion and torture poor kids on the southern border?!! Fuck that slaver. Team Red is over at Breitbart.com where you belong, shill.

      1. Can’t tell if sarcasm.

        1. No, it’s actually stupid and ignorant, in my observation.

        2. Nope. Commie-shit is both stupid and dishonest. And proud – ask about him bailing on his mortgage. Like infantile commie-shits everywhere, leaving a mess for decent people to clean up

    5. “Meanwhile in the House, 211 out of 220 Democrats support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. It’s being held up by nine Democrats”

      Not anymore.
      https://www.zerohedge.com/political/pelosi-and-moderate-dems-strike-deal-over-41-trillion-economic-plan

      1. “The vote allows Democrats to adopt a rule allowing them to immediately begin work on the legislation, and will require the lower chamber to take up the Senate-passed $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill no later than Sept. 27.”

        —-Zero Hedge

        I addressed this in other threads today, but because those nine Democrats were able to force a concession from Pelosi, doesn’t mean they support the budget reconciliation bill. Pelosi capitulated to the possibility that if the progressives don’t have the budget reconciliation bill ready to vote on by September 27, she’ll bring the infrastructure bill up for a vote first.

        She’s been swearing for months that she won’t bring the infrastructure bill up first–because those nine Democrats will vote against the reconciliation bill if the infrastructure bill is passed first. It’s the same thing with Manchin in the Senate. If the infrastructure bill passes on September 27 with no budget reconciliation bill in sight, the reconciliation bill will probably fail in both the House and the Senate.

        The only reason the moderates want the infrastructure bill brought up first is so they can get it passed and then vote against the reconciliation bill. If the moderates have to vote for the reconciliation bill to get the infrastructure bill passed, they’ll do that, but if they can pass the infrastructure bill first, they won’t vote for the reconciliation bill.

        The reconciliation bill will probably be passed, but it’s less likely now than it was the week before last week. IF IF IF, the budget reconciliation bill drags out past September 27 and the infrastructure bill is passed on September 27, the reconciliation bill will probably fail.

        And . . . um . . . it’s important to remember that the primary objective is to see the budget reconciliation bill fail. The secondary objective is to see the infrastructure bill fail. And in terms of seeing the Republicans take control of the House, the reason that’s desirable is because with them in control of the House, bills like the budget reconciliation bill are more likely to fail.

        Wanting the Democrats to pass the reconciliation bill so that the Republicans take the House is like letting the other team score a touchdown to prevent them from scoring a field goal.

        1. There remains the possibility that droolin’ Joe will be hung with the actual results of his colossal fuck-up, and this issue will be painted with the fall-out stench from that.
          Hey, I can hope!

  18. Something else is going on. Just 6 months ago, Cuomo was the second coming of the Democrat savior. He fell fast. No one in the Democrat machine falls that fast, without a coordinated effort to take him down. Now, the media is turning on Biden. It almost seems like a major political party should not allow self declared socialists to be part of the agenda. Sanders should have had push back from Democrat taxpayers decades ago. I think the significant federal taxpayers (10-20 percent) of the population are setting up an epic failure of the commies and both of these bills will tank. I hope I’m right. If they took out Cuomo, they can take out jacobins from the Bronx.

    1. Have to say I like the way you think, m’finger; because right now I am convinced no one running this asylum has the first clue, or doesn’t care if they do, to the disaster that awaits us; what you suggest is that there just may be some powerful actors who know the ropes and can pull some strings.

    2. ” Now, the media is turning on Biden.”

      Not turning at all. But there are limits to their ability to choose sides, especially when so much of what is happening is affecting other countries.

      Pretty soon they will “move on.”

      1. That they played along with pre-selected questions and pre-prepared answer says there is no “turning.”

        And the ABC interview was a lifeline. But it almost blew up in their face, so don’t expect repeats.

        1. Except now he isn’t even taking prescreened questions. He is shuffling away from the podium as fast as he can and ignoring any questions.

          1. That might just be due to needing a diaper change.

          2. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/red-line-catch-22-taliban-warns-biden-not-keep-us-troops-airport-past-aug31-pullout

            Just four and a half hours after the press conference was initially scheduled for, President Biden stumbled out to a podium, read a teleprompter(barely), and then rushed for the door, taking no questions. He began by discussing the House vote then shifted to Afghanistan.

            He spoke on Afghanistan for 6 minutes.

            What was of note is the number of times he reiterated “full support, or “full cooperation” or “shoulder to shoulder” with US allies – which is questionable given his decision to stick with the Aug 31 deadline while his G-7 allies are pushing to extend it.

      2. There’s also the Team Biden (Clinton?) vs Team Harris (Obama) battle going on behind the scenes.

        Totalitarian governments descending into factional strife is by no means unprecedented.

  19. Here’s an update from just minutes ago:

    “House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) on Tuesday changed the procedural motion, known as a rule, to specify that the House would consider the infrastructure bill on Sept. 27, if it hadn’t already done so. Democrats on Monday beefed up the rule so that it actually passes the $3.5 trillion budget framework at the same time.”

    That commitment marks a shift from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who had previously said the House wouldn’t vote on the infrastructure bill until after the Senate had passed the $3.5 trillion budget package, an effort to tie the two bills together to keep the party’s centrist and liberal wings invested in the passage of both bills.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-democratic-leaders-move-to-get-centrists-on-board-ahead-of-key-vote-11629820709?

    It appears that this will get the nine Democrat centrists on board with the procedural motion.

    There’s good news and bad news, here, for people who oppose the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill.

    On the downside, the Democrats can move forward with a vote on the budget reconciliation bill.

    On the upside, if there is a delay in the vote on the budget reconciliation bill past September 27th, the moderate Democrats can vote on the infrastructure bill before they vote on the budget reconciliation bill.

    I remain persuaded that the budget reconciliation bill will PROBABLY pass, but the nine moderates didn’t make Pelosi concede to this because they want to vote for the budget reconciliation bill, and Pelosi was reluctant to make the concession for fear that the nine moderates would vote against the budget reconciliation bill.

    The bill will probably pass, but there is still hope. With this procedural hurdle cleared, I’m not sure what could happen that would delay the budget reconciliation deal past September 27, but whatever the hope is of that happening, that’s the bill’s chances of failing to pass the House.

    1. So Ken.

      Your girlfriend and her sister. Bad cooking and all. How are they doing with your complaints on the web about that.

      Did you share that with her? Girlfriend is an intimate relationship.

      I guess not.

      1. Forgot to change your sock, did you?

      2. Really sorry you don’t have any intelligent comment, so you just decided to make a public ass of yourself.
        Not uncommon.

      3. So just wondering if she knows about your kvetching about her on the internets. Tell us more about the recital you hated.

        1. “So just wondering if she knows about your kvetching about her on the internets. Tell us more about the recital you hated.”

          Are you proud of your whining and inability to address any points? Or just a dishonest piece of shit?

  20. Well… we won’t be spending that money occupying Afghanistan. Maybe we can actually work on taking care of poor people here instead of bombing them over there.

    1. The fact that you may actually believe your own statement is the problem.

    2. Commie-shit seems to think the billions we’ll have to use as ransom for droolin’ Joe’s hostages is free.
      Commie-shit is dumb that way and many others

    3. Maybe the poor can actually work.

      1. Why do libertarians insist on telling other people what to do so much?

    4. You are a useful idiot; heavy on the idiot, but useful to enact state fascism nonetheless.

  21. Immediate rage from the right wingers running this site, that we see WAY less against right-wing vagina patrol, mass incarceration, the police/surveillance state etc

    1. Wow. Did you hurt yourself stretching so far with that whataboutism?

      1. You can tell he’s full of shit from the brown eyes

      2. You don’t think ostentatious right-wing support of cops puts any kind of dent in their libertarian credentials?

  22. Problem is that we have only one effective party right now. The Republicans gave up on small government after President Clinton. After the last Republican President all the party has left is grievance, and concerns that schools are teaching CRT and Yoga.
    The party did not even have a platform in 2020.

    1. The idiot M4e is lying and whining that the Rs oppose some lefty shit. I guess that’s about the mental limit for M4e – don’t hope for more than he’s capable of delivering.

  23. I have it on good authority that it is not the fault of Democrats for this spending, but rather it is the fault of the Republicans for not stopping them.

    1. You don’t even know why you care about “spending.” It’s just autonomic at this point.

      If you let a country’s infrastructure crumble into chunks based on the theory that the magical market fairies will make it all better by magic, it’s going to cost some money to clean up the debris.

      This is very much Republicans’ doing, and they’ve spent more actual money when they’re in power anyway.

      You keep giving Republicans credit for something they keep saying but have never, ever achieved, even relative to Democrats.

  24. Well,it passed the moderates caved. And we know this because the President spent the first half of his teleprompter speech today about it. Then he talked about his so called voting rights act and climate change. This all before he addressed the fact that he caved to the Taliban, stranding American citizens in Afghanistan. Then he ran away once more without taking questions. My fucking God, I thought I’d never say I want the orange man back, but I do now. He at least answered questions. Fuck Biden. Fuck the Democrats who passed this instead of holding hearings on how we fucked up Afghanistan over 20 years and especially how we fucked up this withdrawal.

    1. From the zero hedge link above:

      “Ahead of the press conference, Bloomberg reported that Biden told the G-7 that US “won’t be able to get everyone out of Afghanistan”, presumably by the deadline. However, Reuters reports that, despite that admission, Biden will stick to the August 31st deadline for Afghanistan withdrawal that the Taliban reiterated this morning.

      It will be interesting to see how he explains that little dichotomy… and if anyone will be ‘stranded’…”

      1. Can you link the Bloomberg story, I haven’t seen it yet and would like to read it.

        1. Found a Telegraph article but it’s behind a fucking paywall.

      2. What’s your Afghanistan policy? Defy Trump’s peace deal with the Taliban, who have vowed attacks if it’s broken?

        1. Going with the “it’s actually Trump’s fault” angle, nice.

          1. Biden clearly wants to end the occupation of Afghanistan. If Trump set that in motion, at least Biden will get the credit.

            1. Yep. He has the credit. -14 percentage points, 41% approval 55% disapproval worth of credit.

    2. Seen in current the political climate, this, the attention to ‘voting rights’ and ‘climate’ are all diversions to avoid focus on droolin’ Joe’s colossal fuck up. Regardless of the CNNCBSNPRABCMSNBC black-out, the fuck-up is as yet only beginning. And it will become more difficult to hide.
      Biden is stupid enough to claim *he’ll* set a final date for the evacuation; no one has yet told him that 5 un-matched cards ain’t a winning hand. Or they have and no one has yet gotten his attention with that 2X4.
      The Taliban holds the only cards that matter; thousands of US citizens and allies lives. When the US lives are on the line, by a date dictated by the Taliban, Joe (or whatever handlers he has who are sentient) are going to have to put the money in the pot.
      Further, the Taliban (like the Saudis in ’73) are likely not gonna take US paper, being rapidly debased by droolin’ Joe; they are going to want gold.
      You can hide E-transfers, since it only takes a kid at a terminal, much as HRC hid her server. Trucks leaving Ft. Knox, heading for the nearest intern’l airport are harder to hide.

      1. Al Gore invented climate change to be a distraction from a weeklong news cycle 30 years later?

  25. https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1430171300862087180?t=ah-uglySEiT2lOVghStlGA&s=19

    There has been a concerted effort to demoralise the general population for well over a year now, so that people will accept and tolerate things they previously never would have accepted nor tolerated.

    Ranging from mundane to outright evil.

    Stay strong. Hold your principles.

    1. You are not Braveheart because you are a science denier. You’re just another common redneck.

  26. Wow, Great information. Thank you for sharing this information with us. Keep sharing these types of information with us.
    Patient Home Care Service in Chandigarh

  27. And the 39% of households that actually pay any Federal Income Tax get to fund this.

  28. They proposed 3.5 trillion, so when it is only 3 trillion they will claim they cut 1/2 trillion from the budget.
    Government accounting is fraud.

  29. The Nazi-Regime will use Gov-Gun Forces to make EVERYONE an employee of the Nazi-Regime. Take our funny-money and do what we “legislate”.. Tyranny in the making.

    And that is the plan to conquer and consume the USA as it was so very successful during the 12-years of the FDR Administration and it’s ‘New Deal’ of Nazism for the USA……….. Also termed the Great Depression.

  30. Is Reason ready to admit they backed the worst Presidential candidate and party? No, not yet. Maybe the catastrophe in Afghanistan will wake Reason up, but they sure seem to be ignoring it.

  31. So this website has gone to a Democrat vs Republican debate forum. Lost is the concept of another way. An entirely new way to look at the individual and our relationship to government.

    So some here just use this forum to promote the concept that the effort failed. Better to surrender. They have used it to promote whichever Republican or Democrat is in power.

    Well that small hill. I would prefer to stand there. Nobody knows the fool on the hill. Who was he.

    Sad to see it.

  32. So this website has gone to a Democrat vs Republican debate forum. Lost is the concept of another way.

    As it turns out, most of the Reason staff and most of the self-declared “libertarians” are really just progressives with some minor policy differences on drugs, sex, and taxes. In other words, there has never been a “concept of another way” among most of the people here.

    I suspect that’s also the hill you have died on yourself.

  33. Big or bigger? I think the correct term is unlimited. “They” want more. Always more. I was asked once (in a sort of mocking tone by a communist type who likes to call themselves Socialist because they think it sounds better somehow) if I was one of those people who “believed” in limited government. Like only police, courts and basic administrative services. I asked when they thought the government would be doing enough. No answer. Just a dismissive chuckle and a walk away. There is no limit. It’s never enough. Always MORE. When it comes to the Constitution, they may play along with most of the procedural details it lays out (for now), but they just hate the limits to Power it tries to place on them. They always and forever want MORE.

    1. It’s just that you want to limit government to providing only the services you think you need while ignoring everyone else’s interests. It’s all a bit much, considering your foundational principle is that government power is inherently bad.

      So why do you need it for cops? Why is government violence only good when it’s actually just violence?

      1. Dammit Tony; I’ve told you a million times…
        Gov-Gun-Force DOES NOT provide consumable services.
        It only STEALS it by threats of killing those who create the service.
        … or … it instills Justice by threats of killing those who try to steal it.

        You’re nothing but a fan of ‘SLAVE’ ownership.
        As-is almost all the Democratic Party of slave-owning fans.
        What’s the old saying about a leopard can’t change it’s spots.
        You idiots are going to start another civil war and kill thousands I swear.

      2. It’s just that you want to limit government to providing only the services you think you need while ignoring everyone else’s interests.

        You got it backwards: the government has monopolized policing and the judicial system, therefore as citizens, we don’t have a choice other than to buy those services from the government. Ideally, we could get rid of that monopoly.

        Your interests don’t matter to me, nor should they.

      3. Government is based on a false premise, that only organized violence and theft and centralized control can protect our inherent human rights.

        But you can’t protect human rights if you start by violating those rights. The government steals far more from me every two weeks than any criminal ever did. When I turned 18 I had to sign up to possibly be conscripted into the government’s army. No gang ever theatened to draft me.

        Courts can be done on a voluntary basis. Civil disagreements don’t need a government judge to resolve them. Law enforcement could be funded by charity instead of taxation, and security could be provided by private companies, much more cheaply and effectively. If someone constitutes a threat to society and refuses to respect the rights of others, a respected volunteer community judge could issue a warrant for his arrest, and private bounty hunters could track him down, being held liable if they committed any crimes while bringing him in.

        National defense is a bit tougher, but community militias would be an effective defense against invasion, and a truly defensive military (air force, navy, etc.) would cost much less than we now spend. Large businesses in a geographic area could band together to fund it voluntarily.

Please to post comments