3.5 trillion?

[ElishaElijah]

If people only knew what 3.5 trillion physically looks like.

This is what the next generation will have to pay for in addition to all the new problems that are created.

Wonder how many people have actually looked at what’s in this bill? My view of government and it’s purpose is to protect US citizens with a strong Military, Secure borders, uphold the Constitution, take care of Federal buildings, roads, property, uphold the laws passed by Congress. Congress should have balanced budgets and shouldn’t be involved in the social issues and leave those to the individual States and Counties. Federal Government has proven to be wasteful, corrupt and inefficient. Bigger government means more power and control over citizens, not a good thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wonder how many people have actually looked at what’s in this bill? My view of government and it’s purpose is to protect US citizens with a strong Military, Secure borders, uphold the Constitution, take care of Federal buildings, roads, property, uphold the laws passed by Congress. Congress should have balanced budgets and shouldn’t be involved in the social issues and leave those to the individual States and Counties. Federal Government has proven to be wasteful, corrupt and inefficient. Bigger government means more power and control over citizens, not a good thing.

Then the solution is to make it better, not tear it down. There is substantial Constitutional power the People have to do this. But the People will not wield it.
And like it or not a single, unified approach is more efficient than 50 individuals running in their own direction. Lots of things don't have a one sized fits all approach, but the military is one such example where a unified approach is superior. Air traffic as well, to know who's all up there and where everyone is going to help keep flight paths safe. And the evidence we have strongly suggests a federal approach to a pandemic is very likely to work better than all states for themselves.
And, like it or not, as the Constitution guarantees various rights and liberties this does mean that by default the federal is involved with some "social issues" to ensure all citizens have access to Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wonder how many people have actually looked at what’s in this bill? My view of government and it’s purpose is to protect US citizens with a strong Military, Secure borders, uphold the Constitution, take care of Federal buildings, roads, property, uphold the laws passed by Congress. Congress should have balanced budgets and shouldn’t be involved in the social issues and leave those to the individual States and Counties. Federal Government has proven to be wasteful, corrupt and inefficient. Bigger government means more power and control over citizens, not a good thing.

Infrastructure is just that. Infrastructure. Roads, bridges, etc.

Not activism.

Not social issues.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Is 3.5 trillion dollars a lot to spend to take care of many many many national needs in one massive comprehensive program?

Let’s compare that to what is spent on the military?
The most recent “defense” budget is around $753 billion.
The 3.5 trillion reconciliation bill would move the US a single baby step closer to providing for the country’s citizens similar to most advanced societies. A baby step. And it’s a 10 year plan.
Therefore, 3.5 trillion over 10 years is, I suppose, $350 billion a year.
That’s LESS THAN HALF the existing budget for one item. The “defense” budget.
And instead of all that money used to bully the world and bomb and kill people in MUCH weaker countries, we could spend a little for the benefit of the nation.
Maybe it’s time to take care of the US workers, the sick, the poor, the homeless, the elderly; and stop trying to control the planet for selfish reasons.

Does the 3.5 trillion dollar bill still look too big?

This is an article in 2000:
The United States on Track to Pay Off the Debt by End of the Decade
When our current debt is approaching 30 Trillion, I can tell you there is no way the 3.5T is going to be paid off in 10 years. Politicians can say that but by their actions and deceit portray a different story. They cannot be trusted when they call a bill “Infrastructure” or “Covid” and then have all kinds of other spending in those bills that have nothing to do with those. The way I see it is if you’re faithful in little you will be faithful in much, unfaithful in little, unfaithful in much. Our government has been unfaithful and poor stewards of our money and resources.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Crickets…
Who pays the most taxes? The wealthy do
Breakdown of Who Pays the Most—and Least—in Taxes

Hard to defend in light of this....


Richest Americans pay almost no income taxes, report finds



How the wealthiest Americans get away with paying no tax

 

[Revoltingest]

Neither of those statements are factual.
Government money can indeed drive up employment...but spending it on infrastructure is more effective than defence spending.

US military spending outstrips the spending of the next ten countries combined.

This indicates how much of "defense spending"
isn't really spend on defense. Rather, much of
it is about policing the world. There was a nice
docudrama about this..."Team America" something.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This indicates how much of "defense spending"
isn't really spend on defense. Rather, much of
it is about policing the world. There was a nice
docudrama about this..."Team America" something.

Heh...yup.

Definitely there is a legitimate reason for America to have high defence spending, and depending on foreign policy this can be even further exacerbated.

But there is little cause for US defence spending to be properly controlled right now. It's not so much the direct spending on troops that is the issue (I mean...you could certainly argue it's an issue, but not where the unintended blowouts are occurring). Rather, its military contracting.

https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involve...nd-fraud-business-makes-world’s-greatest-army

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Crickets…
Who pays the most taxes? The wealthy do
Breakdown of Who Pays the Most—and Least—in Taxes

Sure...if you're using maths to support your argument, as that article does, the wealthy pay the most tax, and the middle class also contribute heavily.

As a member of said middle class I'm all too aware of the government's hand in my pocket.

But it's worth also considering the increasing discrepancy in low vs high income, and the relative reduction in middle class earnings. Taxation may not be the best way to redistribute wealth, but I don't see increasing wealth inequality as 'good' at a societal level, in any way, shape or form.


Trends in U.S. income and wealth inequality

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sure...if you're using maths to support your argument, as that article does, the wealthy pay the most tax, and the middle class also contribute heavily.

As a member of said middle class I'm all too aware of the government's hand in my pocket.

But it's worth also considering the increasing discrepancy in low vs high income, and the relative reduction in middle class earnings. Taxation may not be the best way to redistribute wealth, but I don't see increasing wealth inequality as 'good' at a societal level, in any way, shape or form.


Trends in U.S. income and wealth inequality

I guess what I’m saying is there is a problem with some people having a gross amount of money and others with barely anything. The answer isn’t increased taxes and divisive speech pitting the wealthy against the poor with government acting like it’s their money.
The federal government creates taxes to offset their wasteful, irresponsible spending. The increased prices for everything is hurting everyone but the rich, but it isn’t their fault it’s our governments fault for the reckless policies. How many politicians have to worry about spending for their households or have to budget monthly? Not many probably. They talk like they care but by the way they live and govern says different. Vote them all out for some real servants who aren’t greedy for gain.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I guess what I’m saying is there is a problem with some people having a gross amount of money and others with barely anything. The answer isn’t increased taxes and divisive speech pitting the wealthy against the poor with government acting like it’s their money.
The federal government creates taxes to offset their wasteful, irresponsible spending. The increased prices for everything is hurting everyone but the rich, but it isn’t their fault it’s our governments fault for the reckless policies. How many politicians have to worry about spending for their households or have to budget monthly? Not many probably. They talk like they care but by the way they live and govern says different. Vote them all out for some real servants who aren’t greedy for gain.

I was with you up until that last sentence. Not that I disagree, I'm just getting past the point where I see that as a solution. Individual politicians can be okay, I still believe. But the system is designed to promote party-candidates, and the parties seem to be part of the problem.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I was with you up until that last sentence. Not that I disagree, I'm just getting past the point where I see that as a solution. Individual politicians can be okay, I still believe. But the system is designed to promote party-candidates, and the parties seem to be part of the problem.

Agree and when I say vote them all out I mean all those who are in politics for selfish gain, not literally everyone because their are some good people who should be there, no politician should be able to get wealthy while serving their term. Term limits would be a good start in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rather, its military contracting.
https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involved/harvard-political-review/waste-greed-and-fraud-business-makes-world’s-greatest-army

Your linked article doesn't really offer problems with contracting.
Nay, the problem is how government allocates money & materiel,
eg, abandoning much of it overseas.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your linked article doesn't really offer problems with contracting.
Nay, the problem is how government allocates money & materiel,
eg, abandoning much of it overseas.

By 'contracting', I mean 'the contracting process', not the use of contractors in and of itself.

There are several issues highlighted with how the contracting process is managed, including the general structuring of contracts as expense plus margin without clear capping or change management processes.

I'm a contractor myself (state manager for a large professional services company), and deal with a lot of government contracts (mostly federal and local, only occasionally state).

But also my area of speciality when I was consulting (rather than managing) was in project controls and contracting processes. So I tend to think of the area almost exclusively in terms of process. Contractors themselves will run the full gamut in terms of size, quality, professionalism, etc, and I know there are outstanding contractors around in most fields well worth the money.

Crappy processes lead to waste, inefficient execution, and sometimes erroneously blaming or rewarding the 'wrong' contractors, which is frustrating as hell to those contractors trying to both properly service their clients and turn a profit.

I don't suspect I'm telling you anything here you don't already know though...

 

[Revoltingest]

By 'contracting', I mean 'the contracting process', not the use of contractors in and of itself.

I see the problem as the major goals, ie, policing the world.
Whether using contractors or keeping everything in house,
the waste stems from leaders.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I see the problem as the major goals, ie, policing the world.
Whether using contractors or keeping everything in house,
the waste stems from leaders.

I think policing the world is a problem.
But there are also more general procurement and contract issues. They plague many business and institutions, of course,but not many business count their number of contracts in the millions...

 

[Revoltingest]

But there are also more general procurement and contract issues. They plague many business and institutions, of course,but not many business count their number of contracts in the millions...

Think government is bad at managing many contracts, eh.
Imagine how bad it would be if instead of contracting, they
expanded military & government employees & facilities to
do it all themselves. Remember...this is the bunch who
invented "fubar" & "snafu" to describe their operations.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

. The increased prices for everything is hurting everyone but the rich, but it isn’t their fault it’s our governments fault for the reckless policies.

Unless those rich folks lobby for, vote in these politicians, and profit from the increased spending.

 

[sayak83]

Is 3.5 trillion dollars a lot to spend to take care of many many many national needs in one massive comprehensive program?

Let’s compare that to what is spent on the military?
The most recent “defense” budget is around $753 billion.
The 3.5 trillion reconciliation bill would move the US a single baby step closer to providing for the country’s citizens similar to most advanced societies. A baby step. And it’s a 10 year plan.
Therefore, 3.5 trillion over 10 years is, I suppose, $350 billion a year.
That’s LESS THAN HALF the existing budget for one item. The “defense” budget.
And instead of all that money used to bully the world and bomb and kill people in MUCH weaker countries, we could spend a little for the benefit of the nation.
Maybe it’s time to take care of the US workers, the sick, the poor, the homeless, the elderly; and stop trying to control the planet for selfish reasons.

Does the 3.5 trillion dollar bill still look too big?

Let us assume that Republicans take over the senate in the next midterm. Will that mean that they can block the next annual payment installment of the bill? If 4 years later, a Republican president comes in, can he scrap the bill?
Can the government enact and implement any long term project where its almost certain that the opposition party, when they come to power will be sure to scrap it or block it?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Unless those rich folks lobby for, vote in these politicians, and profit from the increased spending.

I would say the rich aren’t enough in number to vote politicians in office, it’s the normal citizens that end up voting for and putting people in office. Look who is in charge right now. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. These have been in the government for so long now. Have a big part of how we got almost 30 trillion in debt now, because of the policies and being involved the last 20 years since Bush started down this road to huge debt. They aren’t doing anything to balance a budget but the opposite. So the rich didn’t vote these 3 in office by themselves, a lot of other average people did.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I would say the rich aren’t enough in number to vote politicians in office, it’s the normal citizens that end up voting for and putting people in office. Look who is in charge right now. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. These have been in the government for so long now. Have a big part of how we got almost 30 trillion in debt now, because of the policies and being involved the last 20 years since Bush started down this road to huge debt. They aren’t doing anything to balance a budget but the opposite. So the rich didn’t vote these 3 in office by themselves, a lot of other average people did.

They also play a part in swaying the average voter through paying for media presence. Consider also the role that lobbying plays in politics. A lot of popular legislation like healthcare reform becomes politically difficult to pass due to the influence of profit-driven lobbying.