Government Spending

Democrats Are Denying Basic Economics

Under Biden, Democrats have decided that their agenda has no costs and no tradeoffs.


The simplest way to understand economics is that it is a reckoning with unavoidable tradeoffs. If you spend money on something, you may obtain something in return—but you lose the ability to use those resources on something else. In the world of politics, economics helps us weigh the merits of those tradeoffs. It answers the question: Do the benefits of a policy outweigh the costs? Sometimes the benefits are larger. Sometimes they are meager or even nonexistent. But there are always costs. To acknowledge this is merely to acknowledge reality. 

Under President Joe Biden, however, Democrats in Washington have decided that they can simply wish those tradeoffs away by declaring that they do not exist. Over and over again, they have argued that their policies do not or should not have any costs whatsoever. 

Just this week, for example, White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question about the tax impact of the $3.5 trillion spending plan now working its way through Congress by declaring that "there are some…who argue that in the past companies have passed on these costs to consumers…we feel that that's unfair and absurd and the American people would not stand for that."  

When taxes are raised on corporations—the "companies" in Psaki's response—corporations often respond by passing that tax on to others. In some cases, they pass costs to consumers. In others, as the Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome wryly notes on Twitter, they reduce the amount they would have otherwise spent on wages. They have to pay more to do business, and so they make adjustments accordingly. Costs create consequences and tradeoffs. 

Empirical research has consistently shown that a large portion of corporate tax increases is actually paid by labor down the line. There are some reasonable academic debates about the precise percentage of the tax paid by labor, and how that might change under certain circumstances. But there is little real debate about whether or not some of the costs are passed on. The point is that it happens. Workers, not owners, pay at least some share of higher corporate taxes. 

Yet Psaki's position—the Biden White House's position—is that this sort of thing is "absurd and unfair." 

One may feel that the omnipresence of gravity is unfair and absurd. Nevertheless, few people plan their lives around the ability to leap into the air and fly whenever they would like. We accept reality and make plans around its constraints, however absurd or unfair they may seem. To do otherwise would be foolish. 

Yet that is essentially what Democrats are doing as they work to pass the Biden agenda. They are insisting that their plans, which are still in flux but amount to a call for some $4 trillion in spending over two bills, have no real costs at all—or that the costs should not be factored in, because they are "unfair and absurd." 

Just last week, Biden himself tweeted that the $3.5 trillion spending bill would not actually cost $3.5 trillion. Instead, its true price was more like nothing at all. "We talk about price tags. It is zero price tag on the debt," Biden said from a White House podium. "We are going to pay for everything we spend."

Biden's remarks came after a week in which congressional Democrats had run into something of an impasse over their spending plans. In response, they decided that the problem was not with the plans themselves, but with the messaging. Early messaging for the bigger of the bills, which is mostly focused on welfare state expansions and climate policy, had revolved around the $3.5 trillion figure, which Democrats had taken to as a sign of how much they wanted to commit to their agenda. But the size of the spending package became a point of contention with moderates, who worried, understandably, that $3.5 trillion was a lot of money—probably too much. 

Some Democrats admitted that the final legislation would likely end up trimmed down. But some backers of the spending bill, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have continued to insist that there is nothing that could reasonably be cut. After all, the $3.5 trillion figure was itself a compromise from their initial $6 trillion ask

So Democrats and their backers in the press focused most of their energy on altering the way they described the legislation. 

Hence we were treated to essays attempting to downplay the cost with headlines like: "$3.5 Trillion Is Not a Lot of Money" (New York magazine) and "It's Not Really a '$3.5 Trillion' Bill" (The New York Times). And then, of course, there were the official statements from Biden and White House communications functionaries making claims like "it's just a fact" that the plan "adds $0 to the debt."

It is not "just a fact." It is, at best, a dicey projection. And as Reason's Eric Boehm has noted, it may not even be that, partly because the legislation in its current form is structured via timing gimmicks intended to induce further spending down the road or begin spending late in order to hide the long-term, on-paper cost of the plans. 

But in some ways, this is all beside the point. It is a plan that, in its broadest form, calls for spending $3.5 trillion. Even in the unlikely event that such a plan turns out to be truly fully paid for, it would still spend $3.5 trillion. Those economic resources would be used to do some specific things, which in turn would reduce the ability to do other things. In other words, there would be costs and tradeoffs. 

Changing the description is just a way of wishing away those costs, of thinking that it is possible to make them disappear by saying that they aren't real or shouldn't matter. Under Biden, this has been the way for Democrats, especially the self-identified progressives, who have implied that large minimum wage hikes might not cost jobs (they would) and that debt and deficit-driven federal spending constraints are effectively not real (they are). The intent in every case is to downplay concerns that any significant tradeoffs actually exist. After all, costs and tradeoffs are absurd and unfair. Perhaps. But they are also real. And lawmakers ignore them at our peril. 

NEXT: Report: Facebook, Twitter Still Not Responsible for Radicalizing People

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. (Fuck Be Unto Him.)

      1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.Ktc I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now.

        Open this web…… Visit Here

        1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FQ And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

          Try it, you won’t regret it!………………..VISIT LINK

          1. Seriously 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 reguaelar income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

            Try now………………

          2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.CEf Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

            Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

      2. Fucketh thee Joe Biden.

        1. May flaming fucks on injustice plague his colostomy bags.

          1. Ooooh, that’s well-played! I never heard Carnac The Magnificent say anything like that on Johhny Carson’s show! 🙂

            1. I support diversity in my own ways.

              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…

                Click & Chang your Life style._________foxlineblog.Com

    2. Biden’s Economic Plan: “We’re going to throw ourselves at the ground… and miss “

    3. “Lawmakers ignore them (tradeoffs, costs) at their peril.”??? Are you kidding Peter? They have been destroying the country in every way possible for over a century, e.g., income tax/Federal Reserve Act (1913), WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Afghan War, Iraq War, dozens of smaller attacks not on MSM, the Asset Forfeiture Act (highway robbery), eminent domain for land grabs that go to private companies, unlimited spending/borrowing, inflation (a hidden tax caused by money creation). The public seem oblivious.

  2. Facts and logic can’t support what they want to do, so they don’t use them. The progressive leaders who are pushing these bills and programs understand that. The people who support these bills and programs without any facts or logic to support them are at best stupid are worse. There are terms for people who want to do things no matter the cost, and they’re words like “suicide bomber”, “kamikaze”, etc., etc. They’re basically religious fanatics.

    1. “They’re basically religious fanatics”

      Literally true, and they’ve adopted the fundamentalist violence that goes with the territory.

      1. And the “intelligent design” which they sneer at when religious fundamentalists mention it. On the whole, I’d rather have religious fundamentalists who hurt only themselves by not believing in evolution, than economic central planners who hurt everybody by refusing to believe in spontaneously ordered free markets.

        1. Christian fundamentalists think we should pay 10% tithe.

          Progressive fanatics want a hell of a lot more than that for their religion!

          1. Christian fundamentalists want members of the church to tithe. They’re not demanding that everyone in town give them money.

            As opposed to folks on the left who won’t pay a dime for what they believe in unless the government forces everyone else to chip in too.

            1. I hate admitting when I agree with a Sarc post, but alas. +1

              1. He occasionally gets something right. This is one of those times.

            2. Same here. Good point Sarcasmic.
              + 1

            3. Yep, they want more than God.

              1. Isn’t that a country song? If ten percent is good for Jesus isn’t good enough for Uncle Sam?

            4. Actually, no, it’s more than that.

              According to Dr. Gene Scott, the believer must give 10 Percent of all worldly goods (Leviticus 27:30,)plus “first fruits” (Deuteronomy 26:2; Ezekiel 22:29; Ezekiel 23:9; Ezekiel 44:30,) plus“first fruits” on one’s “increase” (Proverbs 3:9.)

              In modern terms, that mean 10 Percent of all worldly goods, plus your first paycheck, plus first dividends, plus first capital gains, plus first interest earnings, plus increase in value on that Topps Bubble Gum Joe Shlobotnik baseball card and any other collectibles…plus “rendering unto Caesar” (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 23:25.)

              Without the “rendering unto Caesar” part, that would amount to 18 percent to God in good times like in the Eighties or Late Nineties or, as Dr. Gene Scott rounds it upward, 20 percent!

              (Small wonder Dr. Gene Scott had hundreds of hats and haberdashery stock holdings and mansions and race horses and jacuzzis full of hot-and-cold running wimmins and a hawt Eighties mulletted wife Melissa!)

              And if you buy back your tithe, you owe 20 percent (Leviticus 27:30,) so tacked onto everything else, that is 30 percent plus “rendering unto Caesar.”

              And on top of that, you have to like every burden JHVH-1 and Government puts on you!! (2 Corinthians Walk Into A Bar 9:7; and Acts 23:5.)

              Now, add back on the “rendering unto Caesar” part, and I say:

              Fuck JHVH-1, fuck Caesar, Fuck Dr. Gene Scott, Fuck Melissa Scott Fuck their cuckquean harem, and fuck the horses and asses they all rode in on! Oh and Fuck Joe Biden! (Fuck Be Unto Them All!)

              Rest assured, folks, I didn’t come at my position on a lark. I came at it honest.

              1. Pardon for the spacing and spelling errors, Roberta. I was too busy Hulk-roaring to proofread. 🙂

              2. She is hot, I’d be doin’ that.

                1. Sorry, Gerbilmeister. God-talk makes my dick drop, no matter how good the person looks.

              3. Except they fuck that up as badly as the rest of their doctrines and philosophies of the Bible. Tithing was for/to the Levitical priesthood. And it became obsolete with the end of that line. Cheezus said preach for free. And while you have to read deeply into the meaning of words and the statements attributed to him regarding the laws and commands, don’t obtain young rape victims, either.

                1. So Big Papa and The Vatican, with at least more money than the 10 biggest U.S. Corporations (though no one really knows for sure,) and all the Protestant Mega-Churches with TV networks and satellites and theme parks…somehow missed out on the free-of-charge words of Cheezus Rice with Wine and Monogrammed Mini-Tortillas?

                  Funny, Big Papa justifies the Church’s wealth and State power by claiming he’s infallible on all matters ex cathedra and all the Prossies justify their goodies by citing an allegedly inerrant word of God that comes in multiple versions, though usually from King/Queen James. So who the Hell is right?

                  And, thank you very much, but I don’t need anyone’s real or imagined, worldly or divine words to not rape people of any age or otherwise to not coerce or defraud them.

              4. That’s all as may be, Cogs, but market forces work just as our fuzzy Lord intended. Any church round these here parts that insisted on a hard 10% (much less all the other rendering untos) would find itself with a real shortage of parishioners, real quick.

                Ultimately, what sincere study of Scripture and deep theological understanding reveals to most Pastors is that the Lord **AT MINIMUM** wants people to tithe enough to cover his salary; missions, staff and building fund aside.

                1. All of this, however, Trollificus, contradicts the Austrian, Hayekian idea that free markets are a product of spontaneous order, without a central planner.

                  Also, it contradicts The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-6, where JHVH-1 Jr. tells people to live like “the fowls of the air” and” the lillies of the field,” with “no thought for tomorrow.” (Matthew 6:25-34.)

                  Looks from my end like Ministers need a paying gig rendering actual worldly goods and services. If I were to tithe them, it woùld be enabling them in the moral hazard of sound-minded, able-bodied begging for alms. Then there might be more of it.

            5. Sarc, you’ve been hacked. I’m taking the mute off to see what else this infiltrator is up to.

              1. Fret not (or not.)

                Sarcasmic’s identity (such as it is) is intact, and it is his and it belongs to him, and he owns it and what it is too! *Cough! Cough!*

                Monty Python–A Theory on Brontosaureses by Anne Elk (Mrs.)

                I am not an infiltrator (any more than any other of the Commentariat who joined the Hit & Run Comments.) I am just speaking The Void’s honest truth about what The Holy Bible said about tithing (though I admit I forgot to add the tithes and sacrifices during Holy Days.)

                There’s no faster way to get to Atheism than to actually read The Holy Bible, just like there’s no faster way to get to Libertarianism than to examine a paycheck stub or the text and back of the manual for your 1040.

                1. There’s no faster way to get to Atheism than to actually read The Holy Bible,


                  1. I dunno. Using The Holy Bible as a tool to mezmerize big dopes into supporting the re-criminalizing of medicinal marijuana would be further proof that an Omnibenevelent God does not exist.

                    Also, pro-pot activists usually cite Genesis 1:28: “I have given you all the seed-bearing plants and herbs to use…”

                    (Cypress Hill Bogarted the stuff heavy in the song “Legalize It” and accidentally cited Genesis 1:12 as the verse number. That latter verse says: “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Still, both verses seem pot-friendly. 🙂 )

                2. which Holy Bible? The original, translated from Greek or the King James version or the Scofield version, both of which are bastardized versions of the original.
                  The Scofield version being the worst,….reads more like Mad Magazine, or maybe a printed version of the Babylon Bee.

                  1. The version I cite, because I was raised in that tradition, is The King/Queen James Version. (Alas, he didst protest too much.)

                    However, an allegedly inerrant Word of an Omnific God wouldn’t come in different versions with brazen differences in content, spellings, grammar, and verbiage, with factual absurdities, contradictions, and moral atrocities throughout the text. This book is all-too-human.

                3. Are you the sock or is Sarc the sock?

                  1. I have no fist up my ass, so I know I’m not a sock. I can’t speak for anyone else.

                4. +1, Python deep cut

                  1. I do my best, but I’ve discovered from the streaming world that Python goes even deeper than I thought.

                    MTV never showed the episode of their TV show where space aliens had a ray that turned Englishmen into Scotsmen. And until I discovered TubiTV, I never knew about At Last It’s The 1948 Show with John Cleese and Graham Chapman playing alongside Marty Feldman and David Frost. Or that Terry Jones did a documentary on sex in the ancient world.

                    This rabbit hole is curiouser and curiouser…

            6. Jeesh, I hate to say this, but I’m stealing this from sarc.

        2. Lest anybody still think religion is any more harmless than Statism:

          Affidavit: Accused Serial Killer Jason Thornburg Says Slayings Were ‘Human Sacrifices’

          1. Yeah, it’s included prominently in every story of every murderer who’s got some scriptural fixation.

            People might form a different impression if, in the 99% of murders where no religious angle was found, it was noted in the first paragraph that “Skinner, who has spent 20 or his 42 years in prison, has no especial religious affiliation.”

            Of course, certain impressions are more desirable than others, amirite?

            1. It’s not that likely you’d find 99% of murders had no religious angle, or a majority of murderers having no religious affiliation, given the statistics on the religious affiliation of both prison inmates and of people on the outside.

              By contrast, the number of self-proclaimed atheists in the outside world is even greater than previously thought and the number of self-proclaimed Atheists in prisons is even lesser than previously thought:

              What Percentage of Prisoners Are Atheists? It’s A Lot Smaller Than We Ever Imagined
              by Hemant Menta

              While not all prisoners are murderers or even other offenders against the rights of others, many to most murderers do end up in prison, so looking at this and taking everything together, the numbers just wouldn’t support the idea of most murderers having no religious affiliation.

          2. Sure, let’s tally up the body count for the unhinged serial killers babbling incoherently about religion versus state ordered murders by atheist regimes.

            Here your contribution is 3.

            Only 999,999,997 to go, to equal the last century of vicious atheist regimes.

            You can do it! Believe in yourself! Oh wait, uh, scientificate in yourself!

            1. Mea cupla, too many 9s. They’re just such an attractive number to spam.


              1. Obviously, the number of religiously-motivated individual murderers is much greater than just the one I cited.

                Also, if you’re going to get into a dick-measuring contest between State mass murders done in the name of religion versus State mass murders done for other reasons, there are lots of things to consider:

                Most State mass murders in the name of religion were done at a time when the human species had not reached the 1 Billion mark in population. So, as proportions of their respective world populations, comparing State mass murders for religion and State mass murders for other causes is probably and arguably a wash.

                Also, State mass murders can have multiple motivations, multiple agitprops, and multiple consequences that overlap. The Ottoman Turkish Empire was an Islamic Theocracy that also mass murdered Armenians for religious differences, ethnic differences, and to accomplish feats by deadly slave labor.

                The genocide of Native Americans by Europeans had multiple motives (“For God, Gold, and the Glory of Spain”) as well as specifically religious motivation (“Manifest Destiny”) as well as racist motivation.

                The Nazi Holocaust was against Jews, Slavs, Romani, Sinti, Poles, and Russians as imputed “races” of people, yet also cited religious justification from Christianity and Norse Paganism, as weĺl as ideological motivation against both Capitalism and Communism. Also, although motivated by racism, Nazism’s crimes against the Jews obviously devastated practice of the Jewish religion.

                Twentieth Century Communist regimes were anti-religious, yet only Albania’s Communist regime totally outlawed religion, Stalin lightened up on religion and disbanded The League of Militant Atheists during WWII. Moreover, Communist mass murders were typically economic consequences of their deadly economics as well as acts directed against all opponents, whether religious, political, or economic classes.

                For bona fide libertarians, it’s all evil and ultimately it’s all a distinction without a difference.

      2. Just read the DollarStore is changing all indoor signs that were previously $1.00 to $1.50. Gee, I wonder what the dollar fifty signs will be before the midterms.

        1. They could keep the price of $1 the same and just give you 2/3rds of a cut-out book by Rod Dreher, Francis Fukuyama, Ibram X. Kindi or Robin DiAngelo.

          The price would remain, and whether complete or not, the books would still be gibberish. (Now that’s what I call a real cut-out book!)

    2. Like crack addicts who know it is bad, but just don’t give a shit.

      1. Will you guys quit bringing up Hunter Biden. It is not like he is president.

        1. Neither is his father.

          1. At least not 24/7.

            1. Takes frequent vacations back home to the great state of Unaware.

              1. Between slurpings of pudding, of course.

      2. Except crack addicts have to pay the price for their addiction. These politicians enrich themselves and put others, often those much worse of, on the hook.

        1. Not really, vote Dem, or let your dead aunty vote again, and you pay for the crack addicts too.

    3. I think Mr. Tyler put it best when he sang “sweet emotion.”

      1. I think Boz Scaggs put it best in the Unofficial U.S. National Anthem, “Lowdown”:

        “I swear she must believe it’s all Heaven sent!”

    4. This delusion which has swept the Democrats, goes much deeper than denying economic reality; it’s accepting reality!

      There are only two sexes; ‘identification’ is purely psychological. We don’t control the weather, nor the tides. Green energy is racket!

      1. I try to use that a bit with my wife. For example, I I have been known to have identified with having done my chores. Unfortunately, she isn’t a leftist. So isn’t convinced, and responds: “do it”.

        1. Alas, I have tried to do the same. Like you, my beloved wife is no leftist. Quite the opposite. I got: AYFKM? Just f’ing do it. 🙂

          1. She certianly doesn’t identify as an equal partner. She must do like Helen Reddy and identify as a lioness.

        2. So, she identifies you as either a hang-dog, henpecked husband or a subordinate, Marci-esque Lesbian wife?

      2. Why is it that one can dismiss biology and identify as some other gender and the world is supposed to simply accept the assertion, but one cannot dismiss biology and identify as a different race?

        Not apropos, per se, but why can’t California companies comply with the 50% female boardroom laws by having their male executive “identify” as female? As I understand their “rules”, once an identity has been asserted, no one may question it. No medical diagnosis or treatment is required, let alone surgery (see for example Obama administration’s Title IX “dear colleague” letter). According to various transsexual FAQ websites, it is not even required to change one’s style of clothing, etc. “Possible steps in a gender transition may or may not include changing your clothing, appearance, name, or the pronoun people use to refer to you…”

        1. It’s not supposed to be consistent. They are just fucking with us.

          1. In fact they explicitly declare “logic” to also be anathema.

        1. That was supposed to be a thumbs up emoji.
          Didn’t work.

      3. The Green New Deal is communism. Hyperinflation will be a side-effect of printing up all this money.

    5. Ken, the claim that they will not cost anything refers to the attempt to pay through tax increases and will not therefore increase the debt. That claim may or may not be accurate, but unlike the GOP, which spent and cut taxes without budgetary offsets demonstrates that only one party cares anymore about the debt and it’s not the supposed “conservative” ones. For a decade or more now Democrats in Congress have instituted PayGo budgeting while Republicans have removed it. Republicans as a matter of fact have instituted there tax cuts specifically to benefit their wealthy donors and to “starve the beast” so that there is nothing left for child care, dental insurance, or any other benefits for the unwashed blue collar voters Ken has claimed are no longer Democratic constituents.

      Ken, you are either ignorant of Congressional and party policies, or lying about them, and I’ll assume the former, but maybe try to catch up to speed.

      1. You’ll never make it as a detective, at least not as long as the goal is to solve crimes.

      2. “Ken, the claim that they will not cost anything refers to the attempt to pay through tax increases and will not therefore increase the debt”

        Then the claim that they “cost nothing” is a lie. It denies reality. Whether I can pay for a car with cash, or have to finance it, it still costs something.

        And the fact that the Democrats cannot admit that makes them liars or delusional. This isn’t about the GOP, as much as you would like it to be. This is about the DEMOCRATS right now lying or being delusional.

        And they are further lying because there is no way this is paid for. The only reason it is “Paid for” is that the tax hikes kick in right away, but many of the costs aren’t recognized for several years. Over the long term, they will still add to the deficit because the tax increases aren’t enough to cover the annual costs of their welfare increases.

        1. “Ken, the claim that they will not cost anything refers to the attempt to pay through tax increases and will not therefore increase the debt.”

          Where does the government get its money?

          Does anyone know?

          1. Ken, to repeat, the meaning of “It will cost nothing” in this context is that it will be paid for by tax cuts. That meaning is obvious and the attempt to pretend it belies ignorance of basic economics is ridiculous.

            I note you have no response for the sorry economics of the supposed “conservative” party in Congress or the more responsible economics of Democrats over the last 20 years.

            “The PAYGO statute expired at the end of 2002. After this, Congress enacted President George W. Bush’s proposed 2003 tax cuts (enacted as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[5] The White House acknowledged that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements…After the expiration of PAYGO, budget deficits returned. The federal surplus shrank from $236.2 billion in 2000 to $128.2 billion in 2001, then a $157.8 billion deficit in 2002—the last year statutory PAYGO was in effect. The budget deficit increased to $377.6 billion in 2003 and $412.7 billion in 2004.[3] The federal budget deficit excluding trust funds was $537.3 billion in FY2006.[7] In the first 6 years of President Bush’s term, with a Republican controlled Congress, the federal debt increased by $3 trillion…The PAYGO system was reestablished as a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress.”

            The financial crisis of 2008 effectively ended PayGo, though Obama tried to revive in 2010.

            Republicans made no effort to offset their tax cut of 2017, or any other spending initiatives under Trump, and now won’t act to pay for budget busting items they signed off on last year. Now they’re bitching again that we can’t pay for benefits for the high productivity American workers because they gave it all away to the top 5% – again.

            1. Excuse me. “Ken, to repeat, the meaning of “It will cost nothing” in this context is that it will be paid for by tax cuts…” should read:

              “Ken, to repeat, the meaning of “It will cost nothing” in this context is that it will be paid for by tax increases…”

              1. Joe, stuff your head up your ass and breathe deeply.

              2. But increased taxes ARE a cost. To all of us. For a bunch of spending that will provide no benefit.

                The climate spending is likely to make things worse. Things meaning our quality of life.

                1. bevis, yes they are a cost to America, but as always the questions are if they are justified. The bill includes benefits to working Americans which arguably will increase production, which is already very high. Is it in the enlightened self interest of each of us, or all Americans that our workforce is healthy, able to provide for their families, and have extra cash which pumps the economy? This is a consumer driven economy after all. We could just keep enabling the top 10% to store away more and more of the national wealth, which is clearly the GOP plan. At present they own approximately 70% of it.

                  1. You have no clue what’s actually in that huge bill that nobody has read. Most (all?) of the people voting don’t know the entirety of em what’s in it.

                    You believe the government is going to make us more healthy? Our government can’t even deliver the fucking mail right, and it has the address on it and everything.

                    Wanna do something sensible and responsible? Break it down into reasonable consistent parts and vote on each one separately. They won’t because they don’t want us to know what’s in it or give anybody a chance to point out potential downsides.

                    And despite Biden’s bullshit, these things are never actually paid for. It has never happened and it never will, because current government officials won’t be around when the shit hits the fan, so no consequences to them.

                    1. “Wanna do something sensible and responsible? Break it down into reasonable consistent parts and vote on each one separately”
                      Ron Paul suggested once that Congress should earmark everything

                    2. I’ve been AWOL. Who is the new asshole? This motherfucker is dumber than toenail and that is well nigh impossible. Probably an aide to Mazie Hirono, she has a similar IQ.

                  2. And no, I don’t agree to pay more taxes when I’ve got no idea what I’m getting. All we’re told is arm waving over glittering generalities. Just simple bullshit.

                    The fact that they’re lying about who the taxes are going to hit is all you need to know.

                  3. Where is production very high?

                  4. You should keep up with OBL daily tracker of billionaire fortunes exploding under democrats.

                  5. Dang, your determination to believe in anything the Dems say is truly impressive. And I agree that the REAL target should be the 1% (or the .001%).

                    But you know as surely as the sun rises in the East that the money the Dems are pretending will become available to pay for their laundry list of handouts will never be taken from the super-rich. Don’t lie, you actually know this to be true.

                    Are you also arguing that taking money from companies will not a) decrease jobs, b) decrease wages, c) increase product prices or d) move jobs to where “a living wage” doesn’t include a car, TV, phone, internet and college indoctri…college education?

                    Do you also believe a man can become a woman with a wish upon a star and a ribbon in his/her hair? Do you think that all differences in life results are the result of “systemic racism”, the Patriarchy or homophobia? I dunno, you might be stupider than you appear.

              3. The rich will pay proportionately more, but it will still end up being a tax on everyone. The increased taxes are all intended to be accompanied by increased expenditures. The spending will all go into the hands of unproductive people with low time preferences. Every dollar they get will immediately go into consumption. This phenomenon will be experienced by everyone else as inflation. Inflation is a tax on everyone. Maybe the Democratic party client groups will come out ahead. For everyone else, including the middle class, it’s going to be painful.

                Do you consider yourself a libertarian? I’ll assume that you do. I refuse to call myself a libertarian because there are too many “libertarians” like you who I cannot easily distinguish from Marxists.

                1. Never saw Joe make any attempt to claim any sympathy to libertarian views.
                  He’s a steaming pile of lefty shit, either a sock, or newly here to ‘bring the word’ to those he sees as ‘not of the faith’.
                  several days ago, he accused me of not responding to his ‘arguments’; he has none other than what’s his is his and what’s yours is negotiable.
                  Pointed out that the proper ‘response’ to steaming piles of lefty shit such as JF is a torrent of insults; you do not train a 5 year old who still shits in his pants.

                  1. Yea libs just go after libertarians because they view us as “more Republican” than republicans because leftists are mostly ignorant retards unaware of the political spectrum.

            2. Ken, to repeat, the meaning of “It will cost nothing” in this context is that it will be paid for by tax cuts.

              In other words, it was a lie. You can’t square “will cost nothing” with “will be paid for by”.

            3. Hanna-Barbara’s Hillbilly Bear: “*Mumble!-Mumble!-Mumble!* PAYGO? Idn’t that the name of a sody-pop?”

        2. Overt, arguing over whether the expenditures are paid for or not is an intelligent and worthy exercise. Pretending that Biden means what the column author and Ken claim he does is not.

          1. Joe, you’re a pathetic, imbecilic pile of lefty shit.
            Fuck off and die.

            1. Will you still feel this way when we’re all in the internment camps and the elites have already disposed of the useful idiots like Joe Friday. Give the dickhead something that helps him come to the right conclusions. Maybe we can make the Globalists hesitate if there are enough naysayers.

              1. These are rational people. They’re leftists.

                1. Arent*. Goddamn autocorrect.

            2. Maybe Joe Friday is the Big Guy, who has just happened to forget his last name.

          2. Overt, arguing over whether the expenditures are paid for or not is an intelligent and worthy exercise.

            Um, it’s literally the whole basis of the administration’s argument.

            Shit, if you’re going to gaslight, at least use something that provides more heat like propane rather than your own farts.

        3. And they are further lying because there is no way this is paid for. The only reason it is “Paid for” is that the tax hikes kick in right away, but many of the costs aren’t recognized for several years. Over the long term, they will still add to the deficit because the tax increases aren’t enough to cover the annual costs of their welfare increases.

          Oh, they’ve done that before. They do it because it works on surface-focused retards like Joe Friday and media explainers.

          When tasked with giving the ACA a deficit-impact rating, the Congressional Budget Service did everything except make rude masturbatory motions as its analysts dutifully reported, “Sure, in the imaginary world in which this all goes according to plan, it will reduce the deficit.” In reality, everybody knew that measures such as the “Cadillac tax,” a levy on the expensive health-care benefits enjoyed by Democrats’ union allies, were never going to be implemented. As it turns out, many of the key features of the ACA were never implemented.

      3. I love how Ken triggers you meek cunts.

        Your entire premise is only true if you believe the govt is entitled to our taxes and that cutting taxes = more debt.

        Because you’re too stupid to consider the govt could cut its expenditures.

        1. or to look up federal government revenues and realize that tax cuts didn’t stop revenues from going up.

          1. CE, tax receipts would have been higher in 2018 absent the Trump give away as we were already in a period of economic growth of between 1.75 to 2%. That revenues went up by .1 of a trillion is nothing to brag about, and it is beyond ridiculous to give out tax cuts in a period of growth unless you have a surplus. Hellloooo!

            His comments are probably as close as Dizzle gets to female parts and he just can’t help himself.

            1. Stuff it up your ass, lefty pile of shit.

            2. Keeping some of your own hard earned money is now a “giveaway “.

              1. You didn’t earn that!

            3. the Trump give away

              Anyone who insists on parroting the lie that “not taking away” is the same as “giving” is not to be taken seriously.

              1. > Anyone who insists on parroting the lie that “not taking away” is the same as “giving”

                should drown in their own feces.


                1. You must have seen the story about Bill Gates making water out of human feces so your idea is literally doable.

            4. Wait so you admit that revenue still increased after the cuts right? The issue is spending has gone up to because of idiots Ike you

              I don’t believe the government is entitled to all my money. If you and your lefties what to supposed 800 pronouns studies why don’t you pay for it

              Same as roads, where does the gas tax go?

              It’s easy to spend other people’s money isn’t it

              1. Forget it jake, it’s liberaltarian town.

              2. You either understand and are being intentionally dishonest or you don’t understand. I’m going to assume the best.

                Whether or not revenues go up is not the question. The question is what the delta is. If revenue was supposed to rise 10 points and it rises 10 points, that’s baseline. If by acting (e.g. a tax cut) the growth becomes 5, that is a negative even though it is still a positive number. The actual change vs. projected change is the metric.

                Now, a lowered revenue growth would be a good thing if the budget was balanced. If there is a deficit, it is a bad thing because it makes the deficit worse than it would have been without action.

                Basic common sense: when you’re in a hole, STOP DIGGING. First balance the budget. Then start reeling the debt in, in a responsible way. And “a responsible way” means without running a deficit that works against the goal of reducing/eliminating the debt. Just the savings on servicing the debt will allow responsible tax cuts.

              3. Joe believes the Dems aren’t going to raise the deficit.

                Meanwhile, the whole giveaway is being held up by “progressives” who are demanding that before we really tax the rich, for real this time, we have to enact a bullshit “tax cut LITERALLY for the rich” by repealing the SALT limits.

                Does their behavior carry zero meaning in your true-believer world, Joe?

            5. Did you just assume my gender you stupid cunt? That’s high crime in your circles.

      4. JF’s
        Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.

      5. When you say something won’t cost anything, it ought to mean it won’t cost anything. It ought not mean “we’ll pay for it with taxes”. If you want to say it will be “deficit neutral” then say that. That’s not the same as saying “won’t cost anything”. If I say that the $5 cup of coffee barista is over there making for me won’t cost anything, one can rightly wonder if I’m going to steal it, or if I’ve got a coupon, or if I’ve gotten 10 punches on my frequent customer card. When I hand her $5, you’d be right to question my statement. If I said to you, I worked an extra 1/2 hour and earned this $5, so it didn’t cost me anything, you should consider me a loon who doesn’t understand what words mean.

        Or a leftist, who intentionally uses words to mean something completely different than what the words actually mean to virtually everyone else. Like arguing that “defund the police” doesn’t really mean taking away police funding, but a whole host of other things not actually taking money away from the police.

        “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
        Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
        “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
        “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
        “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
        “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

        1. Mercy, mpercy! No wonder somebody pushed Humpty Dumpty’s ass off the wall! They were sick of his conceited, psychopathic ass!

          And no wonder “All the King’s horses and all the King’s men, couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again!” They were too broke-assed for glue and had to sell off the horses to the glue factory just to get some!

          1. Lying pile of TDS-addles shit heard from: “Psychopathic”?
            Stuff it up your ass so your head has some company.

            1. Care to come up with some new copypasta?

              And would you mind directing your copypasta at actual Lefty-Shits who support Biden (Fuck Be Unto Him) and not me?

      6. the claim that they will not cost anything refers to the attempt to pay through tax increases and will not therefore increase the debt.
        The debt is red herring that neither party gives a shit about. The ‘no cost’ talking point is a lie. The tax increases will cost those who are forced to pay for them.

        The Dems gave the New Deal, Great Society and desperately want the Green New Deal. Your claim about fiscal rectitude is as false as Joe’s statement of this stuff costing nothing.

      7. Republicans running up debt is bad. That in no way excuses Democrats lying.

        1. So all governments are evil? Even ours? /sarc

      8. Just the facts, Joe Friday: The Democratic Party (that’s what they are, Democratic, as in unlimited Mob Rule) doesn’t care about the debt any more than the Re-puke-lickers (recall Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter (And Thus Debts Don’t Matter)” Cheney!)

        Neither one of them gives neither shit nor fuck whether we are in debt slavery or whether future generations are born into rightless debt slavery!

        Now you and Ken both get a heaping helping of Rice-A-Roni to nourish your brains, read the records of both parties, and then post.

        1. One more simplistic 5 year old heard from.
          Knock off the booze long enough to recognized there is a difference or fuck off and die.
          Tired of hearing TDS-addles pieces of shit ignore the appointments, the tax cut, no new wars, winding down the wars we had, and so forth.

          1. I didnn’t even mention your self-addled President, but since you have mentioned him, he was the one who OKed the first round of “get-paid-to-exist” Stimulus Checks, he sent 35,000 more troops to the bankroller of Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and nothing he did equalled cutting spending or reducing debt, and without those, any tax cuts will be eventually be followed by tax increases.

            Sooo…Donald J. Trump (Fuck Be Unto Him Too!)

            1. And yet the middle class wealth rose… Especially for minorities.

              And spending wasnt cut because…. *drumroll* Dems! Yes, the presidency is not a monarchy (sorry D voters, not yet) and Trump had a hostile house and senate for the latter half of his term.

              BadOrangeMan said mean things, buthe went about running the nation like (his personal) business, and it worked better than any R&D schmuck who’s plundered before him.

              If he runs again, I will actually vote for hin this time instead of a perpetual protest vote with the handicapped Lolbertarian candidates.

        2. Government debt doesn’t matter that much; worst case, the US default (soft or hard) and can’t borrow anymore.

          The harm from government spending comes immediately from the spending itself, no matter how it is paid for.

      9. That claim may or may not be accurate, but unlike the GOP, which spent and cut taxes without budgetary offsets demonstrates that only one party cares anymore about the debt and it’s not the supposed “conservative” ones.

        Democrats don’t care about the debt, since they are merrily increasing it and since “taxes on the rich” won’t come close to paying for their programs. Democrats want to spend and they want to use tax policy to hurt groups they hate: small businesses and successful professionals; Democrats want to pay off their primary constituents: the wealthy and welfare recipients.

        Republicans want to cut both spending and taxes; both are good policies, on their own or together.

        1. So where have Re-puke-lick-ans cut spending any better or more than The Democratic Party without offsetting that with more spending?

          1. It does not matter.

            One side blindly cuts, the other side blindly raises. Neither is great, but one’s a D-isaster.

            1. “Blindly cutting” is a good thing, whether it’s taxes or spending.

              1. Ouch. You and my dentist!

                85% agree, but always prefer a targeted approach to anything.

          2. Republicans have cut taxes.

            That’s a good thing. Period.

            Republicans have tried to make the tax system less progressive and to cut spending, and those are good things too, but Democrats have generally refused to go along with either.

      10. If you aren’t here to cut both spending and taxes, why are you posting on a libertarian site? We want to starve the beast lest it consumes us; you want to feed and strengthen it. The beast is already enslaving us. We neither want nor need these breadcrumbs you call “benefits” while Pelosi profits millions from her position and feasts and feasts. You speak the language of slavers. Fuck off.

        1. I think that point being made is that deficit spending and poor economic policy is a bipartisan effort. The only difference is what the manipulated figures are designed to do.

          An example of a good idea that was scaled back and focused by bipartisan efforts is the infrastructure bill. I was in Minneapolis a week before the I-35W bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River. For those who weren’t alive or don’t remember, yes that happened. During rush hour a major bridge on a major highway in a major city collapsed. Now imagine what a two-lane bridge in rural PA is like.

          An example of a bad idea is this $3.5 trillion monstrosity that the Democrats are trying to ram through. And if they fail to hold off their wing nuts like the GOP failed to hold off theirs, the good bill will fail as well.

          The only hope I have is that if the Dems end up caving to their fringe like the GOP did, there will be a massive gap in the middle for moderates to exploit. It would require rejection of tribal identity to work with moderates in the other party or the creation of a third party, but it would be a powerful position. A coalition that rejected both supply-side and nanny-state economics in favor of balanced budgets. That preferenced small businesses and the middle class over large businesses and the top 1%/bottom third. That placed moderate judges on the courts. That preferenced non-intervention in domestic social policy and foreign wars (and specifically rejected regime change). That gave citizens the largest chance to be left alone, if they so chose.

          Yeah, it’s probably a pipe dream. But a guy can dream, right?

          1. The pipe dream is that there IS a good bill.

            That 1.5T “infrastructure” bill is just a smaller hog. Still packed with pork and hardly anything to do with actual infrastructure.

            1. Anything the government touches will have pork. The people who write the bills have lobbyists that they are beholden to and who must be appeased with a seat at the trough. If you wait until there’s no pork before you do anything, nothing will happen. And telling a crumbling bridge, “Can you wait for a little bit? We’re going to get graft and corruption out of the legislative process, then we’ll fix you” has two unsurprising outcomes. The bridge still collapses and the graft doesn’t stop.

              So if you acknowledge that there are things the government has to address (like physical infrastructure) and there are things that can only be limited, not eliminated (like bought-and-paid-for politicians, regardless of party), this $1.5 trillion infrastructure is about the best you can hope for.

              The $3.5 trillion bill is a horrific mishmash of hopes, dreams, and pork. It is almost completely devoid of justification or effective policies.

    6. Dems wanting to spend more money is no surprise (Repubs do the same thing).
      The odd part is the supposed urgency.

      Why did “we” spend 2.1 trillion we didn’t have (on top of the now 6-trillion-dollar baseline budget) on economic stimulus we didn’t need? The economy was already recovering once most states ended the lockdowns.

      What’s the rush to spend 1.2 trillion we don’t have on “infrastructure”? Some of that may well be needed, but should already be in the 6-trillion-dollar baseline budget, shouldn’t it?

      What’s the rush to spend 3.5 trillion we don’t have on “addressing” climate change (do we get the trillions back if it doesn’t change the temperature at all? aksing for a friend) or providing new social benefits we managed to survive without for centuries?

      And why the wailing and gnashing of teeth about Repubs not readily agreeing to lift or suspend or double the debt ceiling? Isn’t 29 trillion in debt too much already?

      Seems like someone is worried about the 2022 election, and trying to cram everything through now.

      1. The urgency is that they stole the Presidency and probably at least three Senate seats in the recent election, through blatant election fraud. Biden is the most incompetent President of at least the last century. With reapportionment, as well as gross overreach, they are likely to be blown out in the 2022 election. Little gets done of substance election years, and that means that 2021 is likely the last time, in the next decade, for getting all of their wish list enacted. Speaker Pelosi telegraphed this being her last chance at power, when her husband was shown to have engaged in insider trading, on information most likely disclosed only in Congress, at least three times this year already.

        1. How many of us feel less free than a couple of years ago?
          Do you think that there is a possibility that it’s intentional?
          The globalists can’t succeed as long as the United States is still the dominant country. Doesn’t matter which stupid political party is in power, nothing changes. Biden just happens to be the current, convenient sock puppet.

      2. CE, economic analysis in 2020 showed the stimulus amount was much cheaper than the hit to the economy we would have taken – including digging out of it – without it. I have not seen analysis to verify that since it’s been spent, but the quick turn around is a testament to something.

        1. Get fucked with a rusty garden shovel, asshole.

        2. Actually lefties, the analysis done by neutral parties show the lockdown hurt everyone. The stimulus was used to buy other stuff.

          He’ll ask the small landlords how happy they are.

        3. And even cheaper would have been not to crash the economy at all.

        4. You’re ao full of shit you’re turning mult-racial.

          Fuck your lockdowns, slaver. Red states are recovering, faster now that Dems have run out of money to pay the bums not to work.

    7. Sadly, facts and logic also escape the authors at Reason.

      If the government spends $3.5 trillion on government programs, the resources dedicated to those government programs are unavailable to private companies and individuals; it doesn’t matter whether the $3.5 trillion come from taxes, from debt, or from a gift by the Saudis.

      That’s why the obsession of who to tax and how to tax in order to balance the spending is largely irrelevant. The spending is the problem, the taxation only adds even more injustice to an already injurious and destructive economic program.

      1. NOYB2, economic stimulus from the government is logically used when private businesses and consumers have pulled their heads into the shell and are not investing or spending. See 2009 and 2020. The federal government is the only entity in those times with the will and resources to “stimulate” the economy and keep it from completely crashing into deflation and 1930’s like depression.

        1. Except that’s not how it actually works, and you know it you vapid troglodyte.

          The government generates no money, it only takes.
          The government can give nothing it has not already taken from others.
          The government gives nothing to others unless they provide to those running the government.

        2. Please pay attention: we are talking about $4.7 trillion in government spending, in addition to the already ongoing Keynesian stimulus.

          Both are harmful, but in different ways. Government spending leads to inflation and crowding out of private investments and spending. A Keynesian stimulus, in contrast, leads to malinvestment. Taxes deprive private businesses and consumers of spending power.

          1. This is the point we’re at. The Keynesian stimulus has already been doled out. It has, as it usually does, given the necessary support at a macroeconomic level. But in order to have it work right, it has to be used only when necessary. As in “in an emergency, break glass”. It should never be used for a baseline economic policy or it will not be effective when it is needed.

            The $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill is addressing an actual need of the nation. If it has a stimulating effect on the economy that’s just a bonus. But the $3.5 trillion has almost no purpose except government investment in the economy and that isn’t needed right now.

            1. The Keynesian stimulus has already been doled out. It has, as it usually does, given the necessary support at a macroeconomic level.

              The Keynesian stimulus has led to anemic growth rates and stagnation of the middle class, as it usually does.

              There is no evidence that a Keynesian stimulus has ever resulted in a better outcome than government non-intervention.

              The $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill is addressing an actual need of the nation. If it has a stimulating effect on the economy that’s just a bonus. But the $3.5 trillion has almost no purpose except government investment in the economy and that isn’t needed right now.

              Both are a complete waste of money.

      2. This. Limit government spending to core interests, balance the budget each year, and get rid of unnecessary regulations. Is that so hard?

        1. “Limit government spending to core interests, balance the budget each year, and get rid of unnecessary regulations. Is that so hard?”

          Oh, sweet summer child, yes, it is that hard. Consider:
          A) Every penny the government spends/invests/wastes/doles out, is going into someone’s pocket. Each and every one of those persons has, as a primary moral and economic goal, the keeping of that money.

          B) Beyond the monetary motivation, those pennies add up to real political power (that can be used to direct other pennies into those same pockets), which is very very (very, very, very) attractive to persons possessed of certain unsavory personality types.

          C) There are other forces that solidify the status quo and mitigate against any efforts at reform or even responsible stewardship. Securing jobs and careers is a consideration. Someone who has become expert (Logistics Supply Dept.) at the acquisition and storage of tank drive train parts, for instance, will lobby for the continued use by our military of tanks. People (marketers, regulators, consultants, etc) who have been compensated from the Tobacco Settlement for 25 years, want to make it to retirement, even as smoking, and funds from the Master Settlement, decline. Suddenly they are convinced of the dire necessity to fight vaping, for the children. And on and on. Look at the Teacher’s Unions for examples of amoral policy decisions, with direct costs to the precious li’l chirrens.

          NOTHING in government can be gotten rid of by casual obvious common sense, because while millions of well-meaning people might clearly see the need to get rid of The Export–Import Bank of the United States (formed 1934), but their interest is casual, the interests of the staff and director of such entities is dedicated-bordering-on-rabid. And so, we still have an Export-Import Bank and we have anti-tobacco activists working against vaping which kind of *looks like” tobacco smoking.,

          Not easy to reform at all.

          1. Jeez, an edit function would be great for us compulsives.

            Not unappreciative of the “block” feature, its-a very nice. But still.

  3. The White House playing hackey psaki with the truth again. This is becoming a dog bites man story.

    1. Didn’t they banish the offending mutt and send him back to Delaware?

      1. No, she still does the daily pressers.

    2. Little Red Lying Hood gets more brazenly mendacious by the day. Wait til Kamalatoe gets her crack, every time I catch a Biden media op it’s clear his end will be in days or months. He’s pretty far gone down a rabbit hole.

  4. We might consider that the Democrats are telling the truth and they really believe these things. Which means they are idiots or insane to such an extent that should be barred from holding any kind of authority.

    1. They are idiots, whether they believe them, or not.

  5. Vote for fascists, get fascism.

  6. They have been denying reality for a long time, why stop now.

  7. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

    ― Thomas Sowell

      1. Professor Sowell is just speaking, in stainless, un-Cockneyed Queen’s English, on behalf of Mick Jagger (Student of The London School of Economics), so Mick won’t catch any shit over it:

        “You cah-n’t always get what you waaaant!
        You cah-n’t always get what you waaaant!
        You cah-n’t always get what you waaaant!
        But if you try sometimes, (and Government leaves you the fuck alone!*) you’ll find,
        You get what you need!

        * (That’s in the Libertarian backwards-masked version.)

        1. haha.
          I tried to draw an ascii thumbs up but it came out looking like an erect penis, either way, good one.

    1. The fundamental basis of worth is scarcity. You make money ubiquitous by printing it to buy the things .gov thinks they need and we the people are left holding the bag.

      1. I don’t know what that means.

        1. Things that are so abundant that you don’t need to go looking for them to find them have no value. Think of the things we have with this sort of abundance. What are they worth?

          Air, ocean water, idiots . . .

          1. Air doesn’t have value? Ocean water doesn’t have value? Sevo doesn’t have value? Well, the last one is no. But what about scuba? Air certainly has value when you’re under water. Or places with crazy pollution where people carry cans of air? Ever tried to find a gallon of seawater in Arizona?

            1. Yes.

              It only has value when it becomes scarce. Air is scarce on Everest. Air is scarce underwater. Air is scarce in outer space, too. In those situations, it suddenly has value.

              “places with crazy pollution where people carry cans of air?”

              Planet Spaceball?

            2. Adolescent pile of lefty shit sarc is beyond worthless; the world would be smarter and wealthier if the son of a bitch fucked off and dies.

              1. I like the way you’re starting to mix it up, makes for a better read. There’s a grammatical error in this one, though.
                It should be “fucks off and dies” or “fucked off and died”.

                1. It’s fine, “fucked off” being a paste tense and “dies” being a future, it leaves Sarc wandering alone to a miserable, pending (and likely alcohol mediated) demise.

            3. You have mentioned, there, examples of scarcity that support his claim.
              Compressed air while under water? Scarce.
              Clean air in a polluted city? Scarce.
              Seawater in Tucson? Scarce.

              The scarcity creates the value. Note that “scarcity” is here a comparative function, not an arithmetic measurement.

              Presented with a situation where someone in Tucson is drowning in a tank of seawater and dons scuba gear to survive, but dies because the tanks were filled with Beijing air, I could only conclude, fuck the Dems.

          2. Hike Everest and tell me air doesn’t have value. Know anyone who has saltwater fish who got the water for free?

            1. Right, beacuse air is scarce, it has more worth on Everest then it does at sea level where it is abundant. Also, do not conflate value with worth. Value is a ratio between worth and cost.

        2. We’ll add that to a very long list.

        3. We’re left holding the bag because the money doesn’t retain purchasing power after it is printed more and there are fewer goods for the money to chase.

          Without meaning to speak for Spiritus Mundi, that’s, in economic terms, what that really means.

          As Sammy Hagar observed when he was lead singer of Montrose:

          “Paper Money Don’t Hold”

  8. And one of the Volokh Conspirators said he would vote for Biden because Trump spent too much. I do not remember which one, don’t have any interest in poring over back posts, and it’s pointless; far more people hated Trump for his Tweets, as justification for voting for Biden.

    There are a lot of stupid short-sighted people in the world, and way too many like government which lets them spend other people’s money.

    1. It was one of the Ilyas, probably Somin, but don’t worry they’re mostly the same anyway.

    2. words speak louder than actions to far too many these days

    3. Trump spent more compared to Obama.
      And Biden wants to double what Trump was spending.

    4. “…far more people hated Trump for his Tweets, as justification for voting for Biden…”

      They hated him for not being the daddy-figure they want in their rulers, adolescent pieces of TDS-addled shits.
      I wouldn’t care if the guy gave pressers in his skivvies so long as we got no new wars, lower taxes and appointments which at least slowed down the rush to full-blown socialism.
      Now, every one of the assholes drags out the “both sides!!!” claim as an attempt to justify their TDS; see, oh, Brandyshit and the newest asshole MVP near the bottom.

      1. The Trump administration stumbled into the correct decision, at best 50% of the time. Obama & Biden whiffed nearly 100% of the time.
        But again, they are all convenient sock puppets. Focus on the true enemy.

        1. So you’d agree Trump was twice as good?

          Because our choices are shitty and limited.

  9. Good thing this isn’t science. I know the party of science would never do this with something scientific. Tradeoffs and bullshit like that are for the peons.

  10. Know how many times Trump has been accused of pushing “The Big Lie”? What would you call this flat-out denial of reality? It’s always projection with the Democrats, whatever they accuse their opponents of doing or planning on doing is exactly what they’re doing or planning on doing. That’s how you know exactly what the Democrats have planned, it’s whatever they accuse the other side of planning.

    And as I’ve said, it scares the shit out of me when I think about the fact that they were accusing Trump of wanting to start a war with China just so he could declare an emergency and cancel the election. Now you know why the Democrats aren’t worried about the 2024 election, there’s not going to be one.

    1. Well that’s a terrifying thought. Thanks a lot Jerry.

    2. By jove, I think he’s got it!

    3. Very true about Donk projection. Hadn’t heard the China angle, the good thing is those clowns couldn’t even get their shit together to pick a fight with Win-Xi the Pooh.

  11. “Democrats Are Denying Basic Economics”

    You don’t say?

    1. “So, Tuesday?”


  12. OT I’d like to dedicate the following to Madalyn Murray O’Hair on this auspicious anniversary.

    1. You know what, Fats? No Theist would ever get Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s fate from me or, for that matter, from her either, or from a Hell of a lot of other peace-loving, freedom-loving Atheists in the U.S.A. and the World.

      A thoughtless HR mistake should not be a death sentence for the hiring CEO, and judging from the horrible and deliberate HR records and “old boy networks” of religions, they have no room to speak against Madalyn Murray O’Hair in this respect.

      I say all this and I’m not even a member of any formal Atheist organization, nor did I totally agree with Madalyn Murray O’Hair. I like my Atheism disorganized so that Theocrats have nothing to work on and don’t know from which direction their opposition comes.

      1. I’m more of an Apatheist (if God is real, so what?).
        I met God and he’s kind of a dick.

  13. This is all such a load of bullshit.

    “We” are going to pay for it. Aside from the fact that “we” never ever have done so – not once – they’re lying through their teeth about who “we” is. If you’ve got $600 of activity in any of your accounts in a given year, you’re part of “we”.

    And the media covers their lies. This is so fucking aggravating. Bernie and Joe don’t give a shit because they’ll be dead when the bill comes due, and Warren and AOC are dumber that dirt and dishonest to boot.

  14. How can anyone expect Jen Psaki to concentrate when Pete Doocy is right there in front of her?

      1. It’s remarkable how unattractive she manages to be. On paper she should have some potential.

        1. The Raggedy Anne haircut look doesn’t help her, either.

        2. She looks like Meredith from The Office but not as attractive.

        3. Not on paper, cover her with the papers.

          Mostly it’s when she talks.

        4. I dunno, depends on how MILF-y one’s perversions track.
          And how much drugs you’ve got.

  15. Basic economics? Boring!

    Who cares about that when Democrats have fully embraced Koch / Reason economics — IOW, the idea that the most desirable outcome is for billionaires to get even richer?


      1. Not as much as Dems like your money.

  16. we feel that that’s unfair and absurd and the American people would not stand for that.”

    Would someone please tell this dim cunt that every penny in taxes that is not passed on to consumers will come out of corporate earnings. I’m no economist but that just might impact dividends and share prices. All those union and public sector pension promises already depend on unrealistic investment returns, maybe this will finally destroy them.

    1. Oh it will. Most of those pension funds are barely held over the 50% required funding threshold by those gimmicks. When they tank below that the state is forced to take the funds over and either bail them out with billions of non existent revenue/treasury holdings, or bankrupt them and pay pennies on the dollar.

      I know in Pittsburgh our city employees pension has been near (or probably in) default for over a decade, and they’re up to claiming somet absurd projection like 17% roi on investments annually just to maintain near 50%

  17. People didn’t hate Trump. They got tired of hearing the “Hate Trump” message 24-7-365 since Nov. 2016. Then you had the “peaceful protests” in 2020. People figured that if trump was re-elected those “protests” would increase.
    That’s all if you believe that Biden actually got that many votes. Personally I don’t and I believe that the Courts didn’t want to even look at it because they didn’t want to be responsible for more “protests”. Yes Fuck Biden.

    1. Trump’s approval rating never broke 45%. So yes, people didn’t like him. And he passed a godawful tax cut that sent the benefits to the wrong folks (the wealthy and corporations) instead of the ones that tax cuts should target to get the beat return (low- and middle-class working families), so his grasp of economics is faulty in the way that most supply-side idiots are.

      The budget tricks that both parties use to hide the consequences of bad economic policies are an abomination (dynamic scoring, anyone?). Neither the Dems nor the GOP care about deficits. They don’t even care about helping the economy, since both of their approaches are less effective than more laissez-faire approaches.

      That said, Biden is just as bad, but in a different way, than the GOP is. The idea that inflation is unconnected to spending is first-order idiocy. The idea that we can run massive (or whatever the word is for when you pile massive debt on top of massive debt) deficits and have it somehow turn out OL is just plain delusional. Sure, it gives a spike to GDP, as all demand-side efforts will do, but it is short-lived and the chickens will come home to roost.

      Where are the fiscally responsible deficit hawks? Manchin and Sinema seem to be willing to stand up, but we all know that it is more about the special interests that fund them (coal for Manchin and Pharma for Sinema) than actual concern about deficits. If the elements that negatively impacted the coal industry were removed, Manchin would suddenly find it acceptable. If Medicare/Medicaid being able to negotiate drug prices were to disappear, Sinema would belly up to the pork trough like everyone else.

      We get the government that we pay for. Or, at least, the people who can pay get the government they want.

      1. “…And he passed a godawful tax cut that sent the benefits to the wrong folks (the wealthy and corporations) instead of the ones that tax cuts should target to get the beat return (low- and middle-class working families), so his grasp of economics is faulty in the way that most supply-side idiots are…”

        Either you’re too stupid to know what happened or you’re a lying piece of shit.
        Regardless, you ARE a slaver: Fuck off and die.

        1. I have noticed your intelligent, well-reasoned posts throughout these comments. You are a credit to your family and teachers.

          1. Sorry, but the tax cuts made it down to middle middle class.

            1. Not in the real world. Trickle-down has never worked.

              1. And how did middle class and minority wealth rise markedly after those cuts…? More magical unicorn glitter?

                1. Google “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. One thing happening after the other doesn’t mean that one caused the other. You need to, you know, prove that corporate tax breaks didn’t go to stock buybacks that helped the investor class and instead went to workers (except, of course, they did go to buybacks). Or that the rise in wealth wasn’t tied to an increase in wages that historically happens at full employment (which, of course, it was).

                2. Never mind that the way that the property tax deduction was capped screwed people in states with high-value real estate. That hit middle-class homeowners hard.

              2. Ahem.


                The bottom two quintiles are “n/​a” because those folks, on net, do not pay any individual income taxes. Those two groups will receive larger refundable credits (subsidies) under the GOP law.

                Looking at column 5, by far the largest percentage tax cuts go to the middle class. The middle quintile received a huge 31.6 percent income tax cut, which is three times the 10.6 percent cut received by the top quintile. The top 1 percent received a much smaller cut of 6 percent.

                These results mean that the GOP’s individual income tax cuts made the income tax system more “progressive,” with higher earners paying a larger share of the overall burden. At the same time, households with lower incomes will receive larger spending subsidies (refundable credits) from the government. That was the wrong direction to go, but it is a reality that is still being underreported in the media.

                1. Also, following the corp tax cuts real wages started rising for the first time in forever. Something, something, that’s not fair, something, something.

                  It’s impossible to target tax cuts at the poor and working class – they don’t pay anything. So you have to either increase targeted subsidies or tinker with FICA, but either only makes the structural issues even worse than they already are.

                  1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is a common logical fallacy used by people to create false cause-effect claims.

                  2. It’s easy to target low- and middle-income taxpayers. You use values rather than percentages. That way it loses relative value as the taxpayer has more income.

      2. “The idea that we can run massive (or whatever the word is for when you pile massive debt on top of massive debt) deficits and have it somehow turn out OL is just plain delusional.”

        I think the term, in financial circles, is “massive af”. Or, as Geo Bush would say “The debt could reach the vermillions.”

  18. In others, as the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome wryly notes on Twitter, they reduce the amount they would have otherwise spent on wages.

    No do what happens when the supply of labor goes up in the form of open boarders.

    1. Nothing because the vast majority of those at the border now aren’t hard working Mexicans. They’re uneducated, lazy, socialist indoctrinated retards, from central America and the Caribbean that just want the free life their socialist ngo advertised to them on Facebook.

      1. Dude, even the new Mexicans aren’t workers.

        I’ll hire thwir grandpa or maybe their daddy to work without a though, but the new ones jumping the border are definitely more Mexican’t than Mexican.

        1. *without a thought

          Fucking autocucumber.

    2. “what happens when the supply of labor goes up in the form of open boarders.
      more plane crashes?

  19. “which in turn would reduce the ability to do other thing”

    Like starting wars in the middle east? We apparently need to spend even more because even now Republicans want us back in Afghanistan.

    1. Since this comment is way off topic for this article, I’ll respond off topic.

      Your comment on the inflation article as it related to energy was terminally stupid. Everything that Biden has done related to energy is designed to reduce supply and availability of hydrocarbons. Their stated purpose is to reduce the usage of hydrocarbons and higher prices does that, at least at the margin.

      I’m an engineer, retired after 35 years in the e&p biz, including having been a VP at a couple of places. Tell me I don’t understand energy.

    2. Shit lord attempted to make some point or other, but is seems his moonshine delivery arrived early today and the sumbitch is too drunk to make a lick of sense.
      Fuck off and die, lefty shit.

    3. You support Joe’s sloppy pullout and the creation of a terrorist state?

      Because I sure as shit prefer to glass the whole region, but failing making Islam extinct I’ll pick the option of suppressing it offshore, rather than funding it at home.

  20. “Democrats Are Denying Basic Economics”

    Just had a conversation with a coworker who told me that the reason businesses were unable to get workers was that capitalism wasn’t working. When I pointed out that even before the covid relief checks ended, even before covid began, every business had “help wanted” signs in the windows. The fact that at that point the giveaway programs were already discouraging work was something he wouldn’t hear because “the system is broken”. Yup, it is…. we need to stop paying people to sit at home, and stop telling them that they can have a mansion and a yacht just by making more indigent kids.

    1. I would have told him we aren’t a capitalist society anymore, ever since the start of the Progressive era we have been growing more and more into a Fascist economy. Then explain what fascist economic principles are, i.e. government control of privately owned businesses. We achieved that long ago unfortunately.

      1. Fascism is different than communism/socialism. Both are authoritarian, but the elements of fascism are politically right and the elements of communism (or socialism) are politically left.

        1. Youre a tard

          1. You are giving the simpleton too much credit. Looks like DU is having trouble hiring for their troll patrol. Chikens coming home to roost, perhaps?

        2. “…but the elements of fascism are politically right and the elements of communism (or socialism) are politically left.”

          Yep, that’s what they taught in the 4th grade. Hint: you don’t know what you are talking about.

          1. Actually, that’s taught through college. While it’s simplistic and lacks nuance, it is a good jumping-off point for conversations about the interplay between economic and political systems. However, you seem to be more comfortable in the shallow end of the intellectual pool, so feel free to stick to tossing out insults.

            1. You’re not worth actual conversation, go choke on syphilitic donkey dick.

              You come loaded with lies and lefty talking points every day, get spanked by the privately literate and run off to your college indoctrination to grab some notes and come back on a different Red Herring without recognizing what a tool you are.

              Of course nobody respects you and Sevo talk to you in the language you deserve, you festering wart on Biden’s sagging scrotum.

              1. I noticed all of the rational arguments you just made in that post. If you think that’s “spanking” someone, you don’t understand how debates work. Here’s a hint: a post full of insults and unsupported nonsense doesn’t carry the day.

        3. No. That’s shit. Wikipedia has never been a valid source.

          “Fascism: a political philosophy, movement ore regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forceful suppression of the opposition.”

          Merriam-Webster took the long way of saying “Democrats.”

      2. I think we’re hampered by the use of terms that are inappropriate or ill-defined for the discussion they are used in

        Better to visualize a grid with axis X being “Authoritarian/Free” (political) and Y being “collectivist”/market (economic). This visualization avoids using such flabbergastering terms as “capitalism”, “lefties”, “conservatives”, “fucking commies”, socialism, fascists, etc.

        When I hear comments like “Thanks, late-stage capitalism!” or, “they’re a bunch of liberals”, I realize we very likely have widely variant definitions of some important words and I didn’t agree to just accept whateverthefuck they mean by “capitalism” or “liberal”. It’s usually a waste of time to sort it out.

  21. This is going to be painfully costly to ordinary people, no matter whether they actually collect $3.5 trillion in taxes or just inflate the currency some more. And ordinary people won’t get the benefits, no matter what those jackoffs promise you.

    1. For 3.5 trillion (if they actually had 3.5 trillion), Congress could give every American 10,000 dollars. Ask yourself how much of that 10K you expect to receive, other than the debt to pay back?

  22. It’s cute how millennials question whether communist s are literally communists. The lefty boomers don’t have much time left, why would they care.

    I’ll quote the hodgetwins message to Joe Rogan, after Rogan announced his vote for Bernie Sanders.
    “He’s a fucking communist , Joe”.

    I don’t care if you’re a safety net libertarian, an anarchist, have a sweet union pension or paycheck so vote Democrat, if you’re LGBTQ or an atheist pescatarian…
    Democrats, in 2021 are fucking communists. That’s all you need to know.

  23. I wish google and Facebook would ban economic gobbly-gook. There are way too many marxists running around misinforming people about the effectiveness of economic policies that were disastrous in the 20th century: much worse than someone not wearing a mask.

    1. They think themselves the new aristocracy – buying indulgences.

      But they will not be quite so smug in their tumbrels, even if they are EV ones.

    2. They were disastrous before the 20th century, too. Communist/collectivist economies have failed before profit-based systems throughout history.

    3. No. Quit banning shit and let honest comparisons and conversations occur.

      Even Dems have good ideas and Reps occasionally discover a heart. Odds are low, but it happens.

      1. “No. Quit banning shit and let honest comparisons and conversations occur.”

        This. The First Amendment is the solution, not the problem.

  24. Democrats are Math deniers.

  25. The sad reality is that much of politics today is the denial of basic economics. While this bill is 3.5T dollars the spending is spread over 10 years and 350B per year is much more palatable and could of course be reversed if Republicans got control in 2024. That said it is clear than many things in the bill are popular and like the ACA there is likely no going back once people have what is provided in the bill. I also have no desire to go back to spending on border walls, farm subsidies and tax cuts.

    What I would like, and have said before, is a taxes more in line with the budgeting to allow people a real look at the cost of programs. What we have now is one party saying the other is deficit spending so why can’t we do the same.

    1. Tax cuts are not spending.

      1. If you borrow money for them they are spending.

        1. “If you borrow money for them they are spending.”

          Droolin’ Joe isn’t the only pathetic pile of shit suffering from dementia.

        2. “If you borrow money for them they are spending.”

          Ok, that’s just anoxic levels of stupid.

          The borrowing is to cover spending. Stop the spending and there is no need for borrowing anything.

          1. Except that neither party does stop spending. And until you stop spending you should not be cutting taxes.

            1. Droolin’ Joe isn’t the only pathetic pile of shit suffering from dementia.

        3. Except they’re not.

          They’re borrowing NO MATTER WHAT happens.

          The tax cuts aren’t making it worse. Revenues tend to go up into the federal coffers after them.

          1. Then how come the deficit goes up after every tax cut? Because of the spending which includes the tax cut.

            1. Droolin’ Joe isn’t the only pathetic pile of shit suffering from dementia.

            2. We haven’t paid down the national debt since 1957, you moron.

              1. I’ll also add that the government’s average revenue since World War II has been around 17.5% in a very narrow range. Regardless of the tax levels, they’ve only exceeded 19% five times in that span, once during the early 1980s recession.

                Of course, you wander over the real problem without taking the time to smell it–because these spending programs are “popular,” they never get cut. Medicare and Medicaid Services now cost nearly $1.8 trillion–with a T–a year, and they keep going up. DoD, with all the money it wastes, didn’t even manage half that.

            3. Goddamn you’re stupid.

            4. “Because of the spending which includes the tax cut.”

              I am shocked that you can even balance your check book. I certainly hope you never find yourself doing books for a company because you seem to lack basic accounting skills. Not taking in revenue is not the same as spending, no matter how much you repeat it.

              To be clear, after almost EVERY SINGLE tax cut, save for a couple times, revenues go up after the tax cut. It is just that the revenue increase is not enough to catch up with

              1. (cont’d) not enough to catch up with the spending.

            5. Because spending goes up far above the rate of inflation, in large part due to entitlement cost increases. And morons like Sanders want to hook more of the middle class on gubmint cheese. It’s fucking insidious and will result in my grandkids’ standard of living tanking. Though the Green giveaway in that monstrosity of a bill might break them first.

            6. The tax cut IS NOT SPENDING. Good lord. It’s only spending if you argue all money is really the governments and any you keep is them spending it on you.

        4. No, they are not.

          Also, fuck you, cut spending.

          Also also, fuck off, slaver.

          1. Thank you for saying “Fuck you, cut spendingm” and “Fuck off, slaver” both in the same post! It has been years since I’ve read both together on the Comments. Good times!

            1. We noticed you struggling with reading comprehension, yes.

      2. They are in liberaltarian world.

    2. 100% tax on income will not cover current spending.

      1. SSSSHHH, don’t piss in their cheerios.

      2. “I’ll tax it at 200%, then. Or $600, whichever comes first.
        Which we promised, or you’re not black!”
        ~Joe Biden “You Know the Thing: A Life in Not-Crime” (autobiographical, 2024)

    3. You want… “Taxes more in line with the budgeting…”

      How about a budget in line with taxes? You know, cart AFTER the horse.

      Oh, and cut taxes, slaver. Then get the budget in line behind that.

  26. Democrats are hardly the only group of politicians to “deny basic economics.” Semi-libertarian Megan McCardle once wrote an article explaining she tried to get a conservative publication to run an article conceding that tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and everyone she approached 1) agreed that she was right and 2) refused to run the article. During the first Obama administration, Reason magazine ran virtually daily articles claiming that Obama’s anti-recession programs would lead to wild inflation. That never happened, and Reason never admitted that its grasp of “basic economics” proved to be, you know, TOTALLY WRONG!

    1. Well this time we already have the inflation so I guess this time they’re right, huh?

    2. Quite right, there was no wild inflation, there was it’s stillborn twin: extended recession. Not as sexy to write about, being the thing that didn’t happen, but still a result of Oh-Bumma’s policies.

    3. yeah, like totally. Everyone knows that healthcare and insurance prices have gone down since Obamacare. Its almost like wages don’t go up because of greedy white men or corporations, not healthcare inflation since Obamacare.

    4. “Democrats are hardly the only group of politicians to “deny basic economics.””

      This pathetic excuse for humanity tries the simplistic “both sides” argument in the hopes no one will recognize it an argument embarrassing to 13 year-olds.
      Alan is not smart enough to be embarrassed.

      1. It’s almost like there aren’t only two sides. But the idea that there are economic systems besides the two terrible ones embraced by the major parties couldn’t possibly be true. That would require people to reject tribal identity and actually engage in nuanced thought. And we can’t have that, can we?

    5. Which article in Reason said there would be “wild inflation”?

      1. Is it free-range organic?

        1. Inflation, when it goes long enough and high enough, is MSG-free, GMO-free, cholesterol-free, fat-free, trans-fat-free, gluten-free, sugar-free, calorie-free, food-free…

          1. But it is an excellent way to lose weight. Pushing around wheelbarrows full of cash to buy a loaf of bread really burns the calories!

  27. $3.5 Trillion is a lot but it would be nice if Reason could provide context – it is over 10 years for example. And where does it fit into the overall budget? Heck, what do we spend on the military over a 10 year period (hint, somewhere north of $3.5 trillion)?

    Argue with the contents of the bill but making the argument that it is out-of-control spending without providing context is just lazy. I agree that from a budget standpoint it would be nice to guarantee that every dollar spent would be paid for through taxes or something but the Republicans quit that policy by using their dynamic scoring trick years ago.

    1. I love comparing this ONE BILL to the military. Add in all of the other bills…and that this new spending becomes the damned baseline for future spending, so “ten years” can safely be described as “forever”

      Because the non-military part of the budget isn’t the one growing exponentially and bleeding money.

    2. BTW, steaming pile of lefty shit, the 2020 defense budget was $738Bn; ~1/5 of that single pile of pork.

      1. Here’s a quick math lesson. $3.5 trillion over 10 years averages $350 billion per year for 10 years. If the military budget was $738 billion in 2020, and we assume that it doesn’t rise over the decade (ha!), what would the 10 year cost for the military be?

        Hint: it would be more than double.

        That doesn’t make $3.5 trillion any better, nor does it justify it. But it does provide context. And highlights how much we spend when we *don’t* have a disastrous foreign war happening. Which, since the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, has been “never”.

    3. Heck, what do we spend on the military over a 10 year period (hint, somewhere north of $3.5 trillion)?

      News flash, Medicare/Medicaid Services cost a LOT more over the same period.


    A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that
    consumers pay for the products the company produces. Understanding the mechanisms through which those tax burdens are transferred is crucial in determining the economic effects of the corporate income tax.

    Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly
    who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO’s review of the studies
    yields the following conclusions:

    o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on
    stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.

    o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.

    o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.

    o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the
    corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.

    o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to
    labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.

    1. Isn’t there an old saying about economics being the dismal science?
      I think I nodded off in the middle that .
      Simpler to describe the policies as “FYTW” and the response should be “Fuck you, cut spending!”

      1. When the administration says “there are some…who argue that in the past companies have passed on these costs to consumers…we feel that that’s unfair and absurd ” when it the Government itself that has said “A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere”.

        It just exposes their idiocy and hypocrisy.

    2. This analysis seems to be missing that the tax falls on all competitors, so prices will also be raised to cover the costs of the tax (consumer pays some of the tax).

      The tax extracts some of the surplus of trade, so some of the impact will be felt by labor in lower production and less employment.

      Long term downward pressure on production will hurt wages, also.

      Corporations do not pay tax, they collect tax from consumer, labor, and capital.

  29. Liars, Cheaters, Law Breakers (U.S. Constitution) and Armed Robbers who compulsively Projects their own mentality and policy faults onto anyone else they can find.

    I’m surprised it wasn’t Trumps fault they’re committing armed robbery to to the tune of $3.5T. You can’t make this stuff up; Gov-Guns do not make wealth. Citizens make wealth so the Government is committing armed robbery of it’s citizens.

  30. “Democrats Are Denying Basic Economics
    Under Biden, Democrats have decided that their agenda has no costs and no tradeoffs.”

    … also in the News tonite: WATER IS WET.

  31. Oh, and you Trumpistas on here rightly complaining about this garbage bill, well, this is a direct result of him throwing a post election fit and throwing the Georgia senate races in the process. Your boy cost two seats that would have put an end to this.

    1. Yep, Reason sure devoted a lot of time and effort telling us about the choices available in those runoffs and the consequences that would likely follow.

      Oh, wait…

    2. I voted for the guy only because I figured Biden would be a disaster (he’s not been disappointing in that regard), but watching Trump fuck over those R’s from Ga is something very few have called him on. Would have kept that vile cunt Pelosi in check. I really hope he doesn’t run. I’m ok with his ideas but he’s too inarticulate to flesh them out so the Media can’t spin them.

  32. “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.”

    ~ Democrat Party rising star with an Economics degree from Boston University

    1. Yeah, she’s an idiot. But what does that have to do with the Senate?

      1. Someone asked AOC about Roe v. Wade. Her reply was those Mexicans have to get across the river one way or the other.

  33. Its not fair to judge Biden, Psaki, or Democratic economics with oppressive, racist numerical finance. We might think that work and commerce derive from exchanges of dollar-denominated value, and we might recognize concepts like scarcity and lost opportunities, but they clearly do not. To help understand progressive economics, here is a primer (feel free to add):
    Job: a position that provides money to the job holder
    Wages: an arbitrary amount of money that comes with a job
    Work: unpleasant (and therefore unfair) demands made of job holders
    Business: an entity that provides jobs; also, an entity that may provide goods or services to customers
    Cost of doing business: huh?
    Profit: immoral and unfair gains from oppressing job holders and/or customers
    Prices: arbitrary demands for money from customers (see profit)
    Tax: righteous transfer of undeserved wealth to government, with no connections to any of the above

  34. Democrats can’t do basic math.

    And republicans only pretend they can when a democrat is in office.

    1. One more simplistic TDS-addled shit.

      1. Didn’t even mention your man crush in my post.

        1. Simplistic piece of shit seems to think others care about his homoerotic fantasies.
          Hit: No one does. Now try thinking a bit above the 5th grade level, asshole.

    2. Good comment.

      1. One more simplistic TDS-addled shit.

        1. Take your head out of your ass you faggot.

          1. Simplistic piece of shit seems to think others care about his homoerotic fantasies.
            Hit: No one does. Now try thinking a bit above the 5th grade level, asshole.

  35. All this year I have been asking “How can they spend trillions of dollars without a second thought?” and this is the answer: Spending does not matter. You just don’t care about basic economics. You convince yourself the desired result justifies the means, even if you never get close to accomplishing your goal.

  36. And Suderman have just realized that… now?

  37. Dems and Republicans both ignore and deny basic economics. They lie to raise money, they lie to get elected. They both deny and ignore reality and most people let them get away with it – reward them, actually. Government steals and government regulates and government destroys. How much government do you want?

  38. This whole year, I’ve gotten the feeling that they are overreaching because their majority is so slim. It’s weird.

  39. The article is correct that there is a trade off. But it failed completely in not addressing the value of public investments. These range from education and job training to efficient transportation and port systems. Successful economies make significant public investments. The most obvious example is China which has moved from an annual income of less than $200/person to more than $10,000 in the past 45 years. A very important component in China’s success was the tremendous investments in education, electricity, ports, roads, airports, subways and rails. The Biden administration is poised to make these kind of investments for our future. It is worth noting that virtually every other 1st world country invests more in public spending than the US, and that every country with appreciably less public spending (about 100 such countries) is a 2nd or 3rd world country. This author has no clue what he is talking about.

    1. not addressing the value of public SLAVERY…
      Only lazy self-entitled self-centered *ssholes find value in public SLAVERY…

    2. “…But it failed completely in not addressing the value of public investments…”
      Put your hands together for our newest comedian! He’ll be here all week, folks!

    3. The rolling power outages in China are nice.

    4. Did Xi allow you to post this? How about Uyghyr incomes? Life expectancy?

      Really gotta Han it to China for pushing the frontiers of eugenics and commercial espionage.

  40. Democrats are denying basic economics?
    Say it ain’t so, Joe!

    In other breaking news stories, there are rumors the sun may just rise in the east tomorrow, a new scientific study may indicate water is wet, and Nancy Pelosi is batshit crazy.

  41. The Democrats want economics banned. Unfortunately, we use terms like the Law of Supply and Demand, and in their view laws can be repealed. They might also want to repeal the law of gravity.

    1. Pi = 3! (or whatever your lived experiences tell you it should be)

      1. Don’t set pi=3. That will make the distance around tires smaller. Thus tires revolve faster, and wear out quicker.

  42. The idea that total government revenues could be doubled or tripled if only the 1 in 20 people who already provide half of the total were made to pay their “fair share” has been central to the Dem Party agenda for 20 years already.

    The fact that doing so would require people who currently pay at least 30 percent of their income having that burden quadrupled, and they’d happily continue to work at their current level (or harder) in order to provide 120-150% of their total to the government.

    Someone somewhere should really explain what the policies of the “scandanavian” countries are to the people in the US who think they want to emulate what those countries do. The idea of explaining the cultures in those places (especially the work ethic in particular) to those same people is probably too great an ask…

  43. Literally every facet of libertarian economics is magical thinking.

    1. There is no “libertarian economics”; libertarianism is about inalienable rights, such as not being enslaved by the state for half of one’s labor. The economic consequences of taxation/non-taxation are irrelevant to actual libertarians.

      Democrats and progressives, of course, throughout their history, like to impose slavery through the power of the state.

      1. Yes there is such a thing as “libertarian economics.” It’s private property rights in one’s mind, body, the products of the labor of both, and the earnings of exchanging those products and investing the medium of exchange used for those exchanges. The sum total of all individuals exercising those rights is what makes an economy.

        1. Yes there is such a thing as “libertarian economics.” It’s private property rights in one’s mind, body, the products of the labor of both, and the earnings of exchanging those products and investing the medium of exchange used for those exchanges.

          You’re describing a legal framework that forms the basis of an economy, not the economy itself.

          Talking about “libertarian economics” turns an ideological stance (“people have a right to the fruits of their labors”) into a utilitarian/progressive one (“granting people the right to the fruits of their labors maximizes prosperity”).

          Once you do that, you have already lost the argument to progressives.

      2. There hasn’t been slavery in this country since 1865.

        Congratulations on your victory.

    2. In which shitstain once again proves he lives in a fantasy world.

    3. Tony, I voted for Biden just as enthusiastically as you, but you’re wrong here.

      Probably the most important principle of Koch / Reason libertarian economics is that unlimited, unrestricted immigration is good because it lets billionaires import cost-effective foreign-born labor. Far from “magical thinking,” this idea can literally be tested by real-world observation. And what have we seen in the 8 or 9 months since Biden reversed Drumpf’s draconian anti-immigration policies? That’s right — billionaires have gotten substantially richer!


      1. Do you believe that’s due to excessive illegal immigration?

      2. Obviously, the libertarian position is “Immigration? What’s that?”

        Freedom means free to move wherever the fuck you want to move. A libertarian world can have no borders. It would artificially distort the market.

        Libertarians these days, of course, feel entitled to make broad exceptions to their principles whenever the implications are something they don’t like.

  44. Democrats Are Denying Basic Economics

    So are the “libertarians” at Reason when they argue that it’s better that spending ought to be paid for by taxes, that illegal migrants are a net benefit, and that no-tariff trade with hostile regimes is a good idea.

  45. The end of every day is the perfect time to let your imagination run wild and declare yourself to that special someone. A simple goodnight message can bring a smile, but a very passionate and romantic phrase is even better!

  46. The headline fits just as well with Republicans. Details differ, but the disinterest in basic economics is universal when operating and expanding, as they all do, a national government.

  47. Biden stated the infrastructure bill would “fundemenatally change the economy”. They understand what they are doing. They are making the economy a top down, government mandanted, high tax, sociaist economy, The expections will be the countries richest billionaires, which will be able to rob the rest of us to get richer, as long as they keep contributing to the Democrats causes.

  48. In 2017, the latest year for which I could find figures, government tax revenue amounted to slightly more than $1.6 trillion. My math is a little rusty but that’s less than half of the projected cost of this boondoggle of a bill. Most of which is, in a rational world, patently unconstitutional.

    1. AltheDago, the projected cost is for 10 years, i.e., $350 billion a year. Democrats claim is that increased taxes on the wealthiest and corporations will pay for it.

  49. I don’t think we need to raise corporate taxes, but the idea that you’d be funneling money away from labor in doing so is laughable. What you’d really be doing is funneling money away from what corporations today all would use the extra savings for, which is stock buybacks.

    Acting like this is a crime against labor is disingenuous. We live in the era of ‘shareholder capitalism’, not ‘labor capitalism’. (or, more accurately, ‘industrial capitalism’). If you’re going to shed tears over this, shed it for the shareholders. Labor will get screwed either way.

    1. Sssshhhhh, Minsky. I’m retired and living on my investments. Those stock buybacks have made me a shit-ton of money. And the plebes are too ignorant to understand how they are getting screwed. Next you’ll want to talk about the carried interest loophole or the capital gains tax rate. Let’s just keep all these things on the down low, shall we? Otherwise I’ll have to actually work for a living.

  50. While the cost and debt impacts are very, very significant, can we address the other elephant in the room? Inflation. Dumping $3.5 trillion into an already inflationary economy will be a disaster. Even more money chasing even fewer goods (we have chip shortages and supply chain issues, remember?) will add fuel to that fire. More inflation is effectively a tax increase on everyone through greatly reduced purchasing power – especially those who can afford it least. What will follow will be high interest rates, assuming the Federal Reserve does its job to rein in inflation. That will trillions to our national debt payments which will result in greatly curtailed government spending (if we’re lucky) or huge tax increases or even more borrowing (if we aren’t). This bill is a disaster no matter how you look at it.

    1. Wait, overheated spending by the government results in inflation? Who knew? I mean, you’d think that if it was a thing it would be in every Econ 101 textbook … *Nelson checks Econ 101 textbook* … Aaaannnnndddd there it is. Imagine my shock.

  51. The only thing I can think of is someone must have put LSD in the Democrats supply of liquor. Somehow they have left this reality and created a new one of their own. Seen it happen dozens of times when people use the stuff. The next thing you know the Democrats, at least some of them, will believe they can actually fly and begin leaping off the Congressional building flapping their arms. Except when they hit the concrete, they’ll blame Trump.
    The democrats have created their own Twilight Zone, however it’s a pity Rod Serling isn’t around to warn you of the proceeding story so that you could prepare yourself for the shock at the end.
    Unfortunately far too many Americans are unprepared for the shock that’s coming at the end.

  52. Is this headline a choke? You could just rephrase it as “Democrats Exist”

  53. Since we’re talking about dealing with reality, I think everyone should spend a lot more time critiquing the “that’s not fair” argument about taxes being passed on to consumers.

    Taxes are a cost. They are a price-tag on doing business. When the govt increases taxes, the headlines should read “Govt increases cost of doing business.”

    Taxes also exist in a vacuum. Prior to becoming law, they are not a part of market dynamics. The status quo costs and benefits of doing business did not account for the govt increasing the cost.

    These costs and benefits affect business projects, returns to shareholders, corporate finance, and compensation.

    If the market determines that a job is worth x, its worth doesn’t become x-1 just because the govt increased the cost. The tax does not change the valuation either. The compensation you expect to receive is based on the work done and competing rates. Every job works this way, from the janitor to the CEO.

    Since taxes are nothing more than govt imposed costs, businesses must find a way to pay the cost. They can’t profit less, or else they will be uncompetitive and provide a disservice to their shareholders. They can’t risk essential employees leaving for greener pastures. That applies to the top and the bottom of the totem pole.

    With that in mind, how are the costs of taxation paid? It depends on how they affect the formula. If they increase costs too much and the business can’t cut enough, they close business. Business cuts where it can, which is usually in the middle. If you support increased taxation, you are a capitalist who supports reducing socioeconomic mobility and career development for the proletariat. You’re also a racist for enabling intergenerational poverty. We need to call out anyone that supports increased taxation in this manner. They won’t respond to “muh free market” any longer. They are ideological Marxists and must be addressed with Marxist terminology and incentives.

    Marxists have dominated the narrative for far too long. They want you to believe that when the govt increases taxes, the reason you’re paying more for products, losing your job, not getting promoted, etc. is because the CEO wants a tenth yacht. In reality, the market is telling you that the CEO’s job is worth that much and must be duly compensated.

    When you attack the CEO, you’re shooting the messenger. Criticize Congress instead for interfering with market dynamics.

    1. A totally free market is one in which labor is extremely cheap because children can be put to work in exchange for candies.

      Child labor laws are, if you like, a tax on businesses that employ children. If you can’t run your business without child labor, you go out of business, and, if you like, that was the precise intention of the restriction.

      It’s government’s job to incentivize things. It can use cages or it can use taxes.

      And whether the cost gets passed on to the consumer may very well be incidental. But take cigarettes. Taxes on cigarettes might not cost cigarette companies a dime. Why? Because customers are willing to pay the higher cost because their product is extremely addictive.

      At first blush it seems more civilized to tax them enough to motivate smoking cessation for individuals, which in turn may motivate cigarette companies investing in something else or going out of business. More civilized than throwing cigarette company CEOs in cages, I mean.

      But in general you should tax incomes marginally to disincentivize the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. It’s all just means and ends.

      If it makes you feel better, your policy preferences are not free of this formula. You wishing to pretend that they are suggests that you’d be ashamed of admitting that your policy goal is wealth concentration and wage slavery.

      1. “A totally free market is one in which labor is extremely cheap because children can be put to work in exchange for candies”

        Really? So much labor being done by kids to have a huge impact on labor costs?

        Because, if it’s so easy fun a kid will do it for candies, how hard can it be? I doubt the kid is digging a ditch in July, or repairing an engine, or driving a bus, or cooking a dinner, or putting out a fire, etc. And where are his parents, who are letting him skip school to work because, gee, he wants candy?

        The idea that child labor laws are all that’s preventing that on a massive scale such that it affects the aggregate price of labor is pseudo economic absurdity.

        There are lots of people with better sounding reasons to regulate markets. Why don’t you borrow one of theirs?

        1. I don’t know of any inherent market principle that compels them to advance beyond using cheap labor for basic tasks. The United States fought a whole war to keep an outmoded form of cheap labor around, one they might have fought even harder for if not for the cotton gin.

          Business interests continue to this day to fight against any social advancement for workers, and if you can make money doing something easy for cheap as you can doing something hard with a lot of investment, if anything the rational market actor will go on being lazy and parasitic.

          But I’ll put you down as a libertarian who thinks child labor laws are all superfluous. Presumably they would have been superfluous when children were working in factories too. Presumably the only permissible time to end child labor is when extant market actors decide that they can make money using adult workers, if they must.

      2. “ But in general you should tax incomes marginally to disincentivize the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. It’s all just means and ends.”

        That’s a funny way to say “get even with successful people.”

        1. You need to believe it’s some sort of monkey-like emotional motivation like that so you don’t have to contend with the horror of your philosophy or the logic of mine.

          I am making the case that too much wealth concentration is, in and of itself, a bad thing for societies. It doesn’t matter if the uber-rich got that way by inventing perpetual motion or universal blowjobs. Nobody should have so much power that they are beyond the reach of democratic will.

      3. A totally free market is one in which labor is extremely cheap because children can be put to work in exchange for candies.

        Child labor ended because free markets made people wealthy enough so that parents had the option of sending their kids to school instead of working. That is the free maarket.

        It’s government’s job to incentivize things. It can use cages or it can use taxes.

        Yeah, in a progressive/fascist/socialist state that’s the job of government. In a free society, it is not.

        But in general you should tax incomes marginally to disincentivize the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. It’s all just means and ends.

        Capital accumulation isn’t the result of income, it’s the result of capital gains. So, if you want to stop “capital accumulation”, you need to tax wealth. Democrats don’t want to do that for two reasons: (1) it would destroy the economy, (2) their wealthy donors hate it.

        You wishing to pretend that they are suggests that you’d be ashamed of admitting that your policy goal is wealth concentration and wage slavery.

        Wealth concentration and wage slavery are what YOU are advocating; they are the direct outcome of progressive policies.

        The reason for the massive wealth inequality, racial inequality, and stagnation of the middle class in the US is people like you, Tony, people who advocate killing small businesses, killing independent workers, and turning us all into wage slaves for multinational corporations in bed with the government. That’s YOU, Tony.

        1. In a consistent world, progressives wouldn’t stop laughing at the mention of “wage slavery.”

          It sounds like a crazy Ben Carson-esque false equivalence. It would be considered racially insensitive by the white progressives in charge of such pronouncements, except for their complete lack of consistency.

          1. It’s a bit of an oxymoron, but that doesn’t mean nonsensical, necessarily.

            Most people (not the very wealthy whose mere existence is evidence of virtue to you) have to wake up and go do crap work in order to pay for some small measure of life they can squeeze into evenings and weekends.

            Future people, should they exist, will look back on this time, when people had to do unfulfilling labor for dubious ends and worse justifications, and horror at the waste of life it all was.

            Your problem isn’t just your lack of imagination for a better type of society, it’s that your entire political worldview is to tell wage slaves that they should be grateful for the peanuts they’re thrown and that we don’t cut their tongues out and force them to make widgets at the point of a gun.

            Forget about explaining to them why they should find this a fulfilling way to spend their brief existence. You don’t even care if it is, as long as the market churns according to the whims of those who happen to be atop it.

        2. Don’t bother, he’ll never realize that he is the problem.

        3. You’re just saying “progressivism bad” like a trained seal. You don’t even know why you believe anything.

Please to post comments