Here are the massive tax increases coming your way in a second Biden term
- Thread starter Here_4_a_Day
- Start date
Because everyone else gets loans canceled so regular people should get that benefit too. You're right though, it certainly isn't going to help with budgets. Something those PPP people should have considered when they got their loans forgiven.
Second, most who have been paying on student loans for more than 10 years have already more than paid back what was borrowed so they aren't actually costing the government anything.
1940's-1980's. What happened in the 80's that would have cut funding so we can't do stuff like this anymore?
Probably the most retarded thing I've ever read online! ^ 🤡 You have ZERO phucking clue how loans work, do you, comrade? 🤣
I already knew you never read your own posts but this confirms it.
Second biggest lie, perhaps….
“Trickle down economics” is #1!
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen last week warned us that the GOP is about to use Jude Wanniski’s “Two Santa Clauses” fraud again to damage Biden’s economy and our standing in the world. And, sure enough, Mitch McConnell verified it when he said last week there would be “zero” Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling.
Yellen responded yesterday by telling The Wall Street Journal that if the Republicans force a shutdown of the U.S. government like they did to Obama in 2011, “We would emerge from this crisis a permanently weaker nation.” But the GOP is adamant: they have their strategy and they’re sticking to it.
Here’s how it works, laid it out in simple summary:
First, the Two Santas strategy dictates, when Republicans control the White House they must spend money like a drunken Santa and cut taxes to run up the U.S. debt as far and as fast as possible.
This produces three results: it stimulates the economy thus making people think that the GOP can produce a good economy; it raises the debt dramatically; and it makes people think that Republicans are the “tax-cut Santa Clauses.”
Second, when a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans must scream about the national debt as loudly and frantically as possible, freaking out about how “our children will have to pay for it!” and “we have to cut spending to solve the crisis!” Shut down the government, crash the stock market, and damage US credibility around the world if necessary to stop Democrats from spending money.
This will force the Democrats in power to cut their own social safety net programs and even Social Security, thus shooting their welfare-of-the-American-people Santa Claus right in the face.
And, sure enough, here we are now with a Democrat in the White House. Following their Two Santas strategy, Republicans are again squealing about the national debt and refusing to raise the debt ceiling, imperiling Biden’s economic recovery as well as his Build Back Better plans.
And, once again, the media is covering it as a “Biden Crisis!” rather than what it really is: a cynical political and media strategy devised by Republicans in the 1970s, fine-tuned in the 1980s and 1990s, and rolled out every time a Democrat is in the White House.
Jude Wanniski hatches the scheme that saves the GOP
Republican strategist Jude Wanniski first proposed his Two Santa Clauses strategy in The Wall Street Journal in 1974, after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace and the future of the Republican Party was so dim that books and articles were widely suggesting the GOP was about to go the way of the Whigs. There was genuine despair across the Republican Party, particularly when Jerry Ford couldn’t even beat an unknown peanut farmer from rural Georgia for the presidency.
Wanniski reasoned the reason the GOP was losing so many elections was not just because of Nixon’s corruption, but mostly because the Democrats had been viewed since the New Deal as the Santa Claus party.
On the other hand, the GOP, he said, was widely seen as the party of Scrooge because they publicly opposed everything from Social Security and Medicare to unemployment insurance and food stamps.
The Democrats, he noted, got to play Santa Claus for decades when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks — both programs of FDR’s Democratic New Deal — as well as their “big government” projects like roads, bridges, schools and highways that gave a healthy union paycheck to construction workers and made our country shine.
Even worse, Democrats kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for all this stuff — and those taxes on the rich didn’t have any effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up until the Reagan Revolution, in fact).
It all added, Wanniski theorized, to the perception that the Democrats were the true party of Santa Claus, using taxes from the morbidly rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class.
Americans loved the Democrats back then. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.
Therefore, Wanniski concluded, the GOP had to become a Santa Claus party, too. But because the Republicans hated the idea of helping out working people, they had to come up with a way to convince average voters that they, too, have the Santa spirit. But what?
“Tax cuts!” said Wanniski.
To make this work, the Republicans would first have to turn the classical world of economics — which had operated on a simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years — on its head. Everybody understood that demand — “working-class wages” — drove economies because working people spent most of their money in the marketplace, producing “demand” for factory output goods and services.
To lay the ground for Two Santa Clauses, in 1974 Wanniski invented a new phrase — “Supply-Side Economics” — and said the reason economies grew wasn’t because people had good union jobs and thus enough money to buy things but, instead, because business made things available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money.
The more products (supply) there were in the stores, he said, the faster the economy would grow. And the more money we gave rich people and their corporations (via tax cuts) the more stuff (supply) they’d generously produce for us to think about buying. At a glance, this move by the Republicans seems irrational, cynical and counterproductive. It certainly defies classic understandings of economics. But if you consider Jude Wanniski’s playbook, it makes complete sense.
To help, Arthur Laffer took that equation a step further with his famous napkin scribble. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up. Neither concept made any sense — and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies — but if Americans would buy into it all they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.
Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to fully embrace the Two Santa Clauses strategy. He said straight out that if he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, those “job creators” would use their extra money to build new factories so all that new stuff “supplying” the economy would produce faster economic growth.
George HW Bush — like most Republicans in 1980 who hadn’t read Wanniski’s piece in The Wall Street Journal — was horrified. Ronald Reagan was proposing “Voodoo Economics,” said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski’s supply-side and Laffer’s tax-cut theories would throw the nation into debt while producing nothing in growth.
But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell “voodoo” supply-side economics.
Democrats, Wanniski told the GOP, had been “Santa Clauses” since 1933 by giving people things. From union jobs to food stamps, new schools and Social Security, the American people loved the “toys” the Democratic Santas brought every year as well as the growing economy that increasing union wages and the money from social programs in middle class hands.
Republicans could stimulate the economy by throwing trillions at defense contractors, Jude’s theory went: spending could actually increase without negative repercussions and that money would trickle down to workers through the defense industry, which had reacted to Eisenhower’s warning by building factories in every single one of America’s 435 congressional districts.
Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people’s taxes!
For working people the tax cuts would only be a small token — a few hundred dollars a year at the most — but Republicans would heavily market them to the media and in political advertising. And the tax cuts for the rich, which weren’t to be discussed in public, would amount to hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, part of which would be recycled back to the GOP as campaign contributions.
There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They’d be forced into the role of Santa-killers if they acted responsibly by raising taxes, or, even better, anti-Santas by cutting spending on their own social programs. Either one would lose them elections.
Reagan, Greenspan, Wanniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in twelve years than every president in history up till that time, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined.
Surely this would both “starve the beast” of the American government and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks. And that was just how it turned out.
Bill Clinton, the first Democrat they blindsided with Two Santas, had run on an FDR-like platform of a “New Covenant” with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national single-payer health care system.
A few weeks before his inauguration, however, Wanniski-insider Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs co-chairman Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: Reagan and Bush had run up such a huge deficit that he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government.
Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an “end to welfare as we know it” and, in his second inaugural address, an “end to the era of big government.”
Clinton was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases.
State after state turned red, and the Republican Party rose to take over, ultimately, every single lever of power in the federal government, from the Supreme Court to the White House.
Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton in 1999, Wanniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part:
When Jude Wanniski died, George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush adoption of his Two Santas scheme in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:
Think back to Ronald Reagan, who more than tripled the U.S. debt from a mere $800 billion to $2.6 trillion in his 8 years. That spending produced a massive stimulus to the economy, and the biggest non-wartime increase in American national debt in all of our history. Nary a peep from Republicans about that 218% increase in our debt; they were just fine with it and to this day claim Reagan presided over a “great” economy.
When five rightwingers on the Supreme Court gave the White House to George W. Bush he reverted to Wanniski’s “Two Santa” strategy and again nearly doubled the national debt, adding over a trillion in borrowed money to pay for his tax cut for billionaires, and tossing in two unfunded wars for good measure, which also added at least (long term) another $5 trillion.
There was not a peep about that debt from any high-profile in-the-know Republicans; in fact, Dick Cheney famously said, amplifying Wanniski’s strategy: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. We won the midterms. This is our due.”
Bush and Cheney raised the debt by 86% to over $10 trillion (and additional trillions in war debt that wasn’t put on the books until Obama entered office, so it looks like its his).
Then came Democratic President Barack Obama, and suddenly the GOP was hysterical about the debt again. So much so that they convinced a sitting Democratic president to propose a cut to Social Security (the “chained CPI”). Obama nearly shot the Democrats’ biggest Santa Claus, just like Wanniski predicted, until outrage from the Democratic base stopped him.
Next, Donald Trump raised our national debt by almost $7 trillion, but the GOP raised the debt ceiling without a peep every year for the first three years of his administration, and then suspended it altogether for 2020 (so, if Biden won, he’d have to justify raising the ceiling for 2 years’ worth of deficits, making it even more politically painful).
And now Republicans are getting ready to use the debt ceiling debate to drop their Two Santas bomb right onto President Joe Biden’s head. After all, it worked against Clinton and Obama. Why wouldn’t they use it again? And if Republican debt-ceiling default threats could lower the stock market, as they did to both Clinton and Obama, all the better: Republicans could just blame the Democrats in power.
Americans deserve to know how we have been manipulated, and by whom, for the past 40 years. Hopefully Democratic politicians and our media will begin to call the GOP out on Wanniski’s and Reagan’s Two Santa Clauses scam.
Reagan, Greenspan, Wanniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in twelve years than every president in history up till that time, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined.
Surely this would both “starve the beast” of the American government and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks. And that was just how it turned out.
Bill Clinton, the first Democrat they blindsided with Two Santas, had run on an FDR-like platform of a “New Covenant” with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national single-payer health care system.
A few weeks before his inauguration, however, Wanniski-insider Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs co-chairman Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: Reagan and Bush had run up such a huge deficit that he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government.
Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an “end to welfare as we know it” and, in his second inaugural address, an “end to the era of big government.”
Clinton was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases.
State after state turned red, and the Republican Party rose to take over, ultimately, every single lever of power in the federal government, from the Supreme Court to the White House.
Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton in 1999, Wanniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part:
Ed Crane, then-president of the Koch-funded Libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year:
Two Santa Clauses had gone mainstream. Never again would Republicans worry about the debt or deficit when they were in office; and they knew well how to scream hysterically about it and hook in the economically naïve press as soon as Democrats again took power.
When Jude Wanniski died, George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush adoption of his Two Santas scheme in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:
The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski’s work. They held power for forty years, made their donors trillions of dollars, and cut organized labor’s representation in the workplace from around a third of workers when Reagan came into office to around 6 percent of the non-governmental workforce today.
Think back to Ronald Reagan, who more than tripled the U.S. debt from a mere $800 billion to $2.6 trillion in his 8 years. That spending produced a massive stimulus to the economy, and the biggest non-wartime increase in American national debt in all of our history. Nary a peep from Republicans about that 218% increase in our debt; they were just fine with it and to this day claim Reagan presided over a “great” economy.
When five rightwingers on the Supreme Court gave the White House to George W. Bush he reverted to Wanniski’s “Two Santa” strategy and again nearly doubled the national debt, adding over a trillion in borrowed money to pay for his tax cut for billionaires, and tossing in two unfunded wars for good measure, which also added at least (long term) another $5 trillion.
There was not a peep about that debt from any high-profile in-the-know Republicans; in fact, Dick Cheney famously said, amplifying Wanniski’s strategy: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. We won the midterms. This is our due.”
Bush and Cheney raised the debt by 86% to over $10 trillion (and additional trillions in war debt that wasn’t put on the books until Obama entered office, so it looks like its his).
Then came Democratic President Barack Obama, and suddenly the GOP was hysterical about the debt again. So much so that they convinced a sitting Democratic president to propose a cut to Social Security (the “chained CPI”). Obama nearly shot the Democrats’ biggest Santa Claus, just like Wanniski predicted, until outrage from the Democratic base stopped him.
Next, Donald Trump raised our national debt by almost $7 trillion, but the GOP raised the debt ceiling without a peep every year for the first three years of his administration, and then suspended it altogether for 2020 (so, if Biden won, he’d have to justify raising the ceiling for 2 years’ worth of deficits, making it even more politically painful).
And now Republicans are getting ready to use the debt ceiling debate to drop their Two Santas bomb right onto President Joe Biden’s head. After all, it worked against Clinton and Obama. Why wouldn’t they use it again? And if Republican debt-ceiling default threats could lower the stock market, as they did to both Clinton and Obama, all the better: Republicans could just blame the Democrats in power.
Americans deserve to know how we have been manipulated, and by whom, for the past 40 years. Hopefully Democratic politicians and our media will begin to call the GOP out on Wanniski’s and Reagan’s Two Santa Clauses scam.
Not costing the government anything except the billions of dollars to finish off paying their loans.
Some of my Republican farmers are the worst, haven’t sent a dime in decades yet will spew the Maga ideology, saying wouldn’t give money to democratic congress, I reply did you pay taxes when Trump was president LOL. The issue is they avoid taxes by racking up debt. I am worried about 5-10 of my farmers.
it has always made me laugh that everyone wants smooth roads, safe bridges, good police & fire protection, good schools, etc................but nobody wants to pay for it.
Here are the massive tax increases coming your way in a second Biden term
Donald Trump has made his direction for federal taxes clear. Lower. But so has President Biden, who wants to wallop Americans with a $5 trillion tax increase.www.foxnews.com
You are a complete moron, what in the world are you talking about claiming because someone paid on a loan for 10 years forgiving the loan isn't costing the government anything? You do understand how loans work right? Do you think when you make a payment on a loan every penny goes toward the principle and then after the principle is paid off, you begin paying the interest? Maybe open a book and stop listening to your anti American comrades to see how the work works.
And biden’s tax hikes pay for absolutely none of those things you dummy moron! JFC! 🤡😂
Yes, I understand how loans work. Clearly Fox News isn't going into details about what is actually happening with student loans right now considering how ignorant you seem to be on this. See, normal people, when they take out a loan, start making payments to pay them off. However, because of interest, you end up paying more money than you originally borrowed. That's how loans work and that's how people make money off them. Many students have been making payments for years, have paid more money for the loan than they originally borrowed, but because of interest still actually owe more money than they did to start with.
Student loan borrowers could have up to $20,000 in interest forgiven as early as this fall—here's who qualifies
As part of President Biden's new sweeping student debt forgiveness proposal, borrowers with balances higher than where they started could see some relief.
And for the record, in principle I agree that if you borrow money, you pay it back. However, that's not the way our government has been working for my entire lifetime. For decades I've watched banks get bailed out, businesses get bailed out, and recently, individuals get bailed out. Many of whom are currently in government saying that student loans can't be forgiven despite having government loans they've taken out themselves forgiven. So, if they are going to forgive those loans then they need to forgive student loans debt. If they didn't want to forgive student loans debt then they shouldn't have had those other loans forgiven.
I know......why doesn't jo sign one of his famous EOs proclaiming EVERY single loan in this country cancelled?!! With all that eliminated debt, just think how our economy will roar and everyone will be able to buy nice things, a home and go on a great vacation!! Shit.......why not cancel the national too?! What's he waiting for?! lolYes, I understand how loans work. Clearly Fox News isn't going into details about what is actually happening with student loans right now considering how ignorant you seem to be on this. See, normal people, when they take out a loan, start making payments to pay them off. However, because of interest, you end up paying more money than you originally borrowed. That's how loans work and that's how people make money off them. Many students have been making payments for years, have paid more money for the loan than they originally borrowed, but because of interest still actually owe more money than they did to start with.
Student loan borrowers could have up to $20,000 in interest forgiven as early as this fall—here's who qualifies
As part of President Biden's new sweeping student debt forgiveness proposal, borrowers with balances higher than where they started could see some relief.www.cnbc.com
And for the record, in principle I agree that if you borrow money, you pay it back. However, that's not the way our government has been working for my entire lifetime. For decades I've watched banks get bailed out, businesses get bailed out, and recently, individuals get bailed out. Many of whom are currently in government saying that student loans can't be forgiven despite having government loans they've taken out themselves forgiven. So, if they are going to forgive those loans then they need to forgive student loans debt. If they didn't want to forgive student loans debt then they shouldn't have had those other loans forgiven.
What are you comparing PPP loans to student loans? They aren't remotely the same thing.
Many?,.. Seriously?,.. Individuals this stupid should be ashamed to call themselves students, let alone college graduates..
They are federally backed loans that were forgiven. Nothing else is important. These people borrowed money and were able to not have to pay it back. Now those same people are asking people who did the same thing, borrow money, that they have to pay their loans back.
This reasoning seems to work when Republicans want loans forgiven.
Are you ever going to make a serious argument or are you just going to call people names all the time? Speaking of clowns...
Or maybe it was a system that mislead them into what they were doing. God forbid that people trusted the people saying that taking out these loans didn't have any long term risks whatsoever.
What would be the point trying argue with someone that stupid? Do you even understand what I was driving at? A 4th grader knows federal taxes don't pay for police stations and schools!!
I'm still comfortable with stupid being the appropriate descriptor...
But those other people that do get loans forgiven aren't stupid? Again, you can call them whatever you want but it won't change the fact that it is an inconsistent policy to tell them to go F themselves.
Maybe if you ever went to college you'd understand that student loans are federally provided. At least some of them are. That's why you have to file your FASFA forms. But I get it, that's not something you would even have slight knowledge about. And, btw, those are the only ones being forgiven. Loans from other sources are not.
Are you actually allowed into a lab setting to do anything more than sweep the floor? lol
Yet Biden's reasoning for forgiving the student loans is actually trickle down economics, though he would never use that term.
They aren't federally provided. They are federally regulated and insured.
I'm surprised they allow you on the internet but I suppose you could be spending your whole day at the library.
Yeah, I'm not confirming or denying any questions from the current forum psycho.
This proves that those on the left are nothing more than lemmings. Before Biden decided to ignore the SCOTUS and illegally give money to student losers, most on this board were opposed to taxpayers paying off student loans. Now that Biden is doing just that, all of a sudden many on the left support it. This just proves the left has no core principles and simply waits to receive their marching orders from the dem party.
