Select Page

Why Manchin needs to stop Biden’s budget busting bill

Why Manchin needs to stop Biden’s budget busting bill

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin has expressed his reservations over President Biden’s humongous Social Welfare Reconciliation Bill.  He appears to have had some success in cutting the size of the Bill in half – to approximately $1.7 trillion from the opening bid of $3.5 trillion.  And even that was less than the $6 trillion fantastical proposal by such radical socialists as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  (Incidentally, calling them socialists is not a gratuitous insult.  They officially declare themselves to be Socialist Democrats.)

Let us assume, for a moment, that Biden’s budget busting Bill actually passes at $1.7 trillion.  That means he and his lockstep Democrats will have voted to spend more than $5.5 trillion in just the first 11 months of Biden’s presidency.

It was not until the late 1980s that the entire federal budget crossed the one trillion-dollar line – and that would double the $500 billion federal budget just six years earlier in 1979.  You can see the meteoric rise of federal spending starting at the end of the Twentieth Century. The graph at the top of this commentary – put out by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis — should scare the hell out of any person with a modicum of fiscal knowledge and responsibility.

There are two additional observations to be made in examining the graph.  You will notice President Clinton produced the only budget with a surplus – nothing added to the National Debt in modern times. That ended with the advent of President Bush II.

The second noteworthy period is the greatest gap between Federal income (revenues) and expenditures came during President Obama’s tenure – largely due to the stimulus money flowing into the economy during the recession.

Federal budget scenario extrapolating the actual budget data for 1940-2013 through 2025, by means of a non-linear function. Receipts rapidly slow down, while outlays climb steeply, the chasm between the two digging an abyssal deficit. The year of 1985 is a crucial milestone. The yearly growth of forecast outlays surpasses the growth of forecast receipts, producing, other things remaining equal, a structural deficit unstoppable by conventional means. The situation calls for actions directed at the root causes, not the symptoms of the imbalances, at the real culprits, not at the scapegoats.

This particular graph does not bring the numbers up to date, but we do know that the projected figures  (dotted lines) are wrong.   In the second graph (right) you can see that in more recent years there is again a widening gap between revenues and expenditures – largely due to again stimulating the economy with tons of cash.  This time it was the imposed shutdown (recession) due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

If you look at 2021, you will see that the gap between federal revenues and expenditures is the widest ever – with $4.5 trillion spent and only $2.7 trillion dollars in income.  That is a $1.8 trillion shortfall – meaning borrowed money to be paid back by future generations.  That is until we each the point succinctly described by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when she said, “The problem with socialism (and yes we are talking about socialism) is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” 

As bad as all that has been, the Biden plans to repeatedly pour money into the economy is on an unprecedented scale. It is not only scaring the economists and the business community – it is already having dire impacts on the economy.  One of those is called “inflation.”

Biden is using economy flimflams to sell the program.  It was said that the $3.5 trillion dollars would provide for the next ten years.  Much of the reduction in the cost that brought the price tag down to $1.7 trillion – if that is what it winds up at – is by shortening the length of the programs – some to just one year.  That means that the ANNUAL expenditure is about the same as the $3.5 trillion budget.

Democrats well understand that once a federal program is in place, it is damn near impossible to end it.  They are counting on Congress extending those programs when they come up for review.  That means that the programs – over the next ten years — will ACTUALLY cost the $3.5 trillion – or more – that was in the initial proposal.  And even worse, each of those programs will become more and more costly EXPONENTIALLY as the years go by – as has all other federal programs.

In addition, most of these programs will fall under what has become known and accepted as “entitlement programs” – meaning that they MUST be funded year-after-year.  They are what are known as “off-budget expenditures.” If you accept that the off-budget line items are truly untouchable, more than 20 percent – and growing — of annual federal expenditures are beyond the reach of Congress.  They simply must be paid.  That is why we have a Social Security crisis.  That is why we have a Medicare/Medicaid crisis.

It is important to understand that off-budget expenditures were not an original concept.  For the first 148 years from the 1789 Constitution that created the modern Republic, there were no off-budget items.  Furthermore, most of the social welfare was left to the states.  The first off-budget expenditures were the creature of President Roosevelt’s New Deal – the step onto the slippery slope of massive federal government spending and seizure of the responsibilities of the several states.

Roosevelt created the run-away economic train that has been coming closer and closer to economic disaster for a future generation.  

Instead of slowing down – or even reversing the direction – Biden is placing Uncle Sam’s foot on the accelerator.  The inevitable crash will come a bit sooner.   But no matter.  Those who have engineered the programs – and who have benefited from that while pushing the cost on future generations – will all be dead when the disaster they created comes to pass.

In short, the federal budgeting, taxing and spending method is a huge Ponzi Scheme – in which more and more money is extracted from fewer and fewer people – with today’s payoff dependent on confiscating more and more income from folks who are not even born yet.  The tyranny of taxation without representation on steroids.

That is why Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kristen Sinema and others must vote DOWN Biden’s Build Back BIGGER legislation.  It does not need to be reduced or tweaked.  It needs to be defeated … period.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Lowell

    How can we have “On budget” and “Off budget” items when we have not had a budget for decades?

    • larry Horist

      Good point. But we do keep on taxing and spending. The lack of the budget is another example of the failure of Congress to do its job — especially the House from which the budget is to arise. Most people are not aware of that fact … and that is what keeps the left’s tax and spend policies going.

      • frank stetson

        It’s been happening for decades but that is what Larry says keeps the left’s tax and spend policies going. Decades of problems, only one political party culprit?

        Larry, your party wrote the book on spending; they just lower taxes on the rich to make the deficits even worse.

        Sorry bud, think your side of the aisle holds the record here but I do feel that a top priority for Congress is to budget, to authorize spending and to monitor both. Both sides of the aisle fail on this. And the fact that we are uber polarized makes for an untenable situation, fiscal process speaking.

    • Lyudmila

      The scoundrels steal, they steal! Well, what can we do with these thieving Democrats if there is only one honest man among them – Senator Manchin!

      • frank stetson

        That’s just a stupid generalization. Gotta any real factual examples? Or are you just saying that all spending is stealing?

  2. Ben

    Larry, just months ago you made a case for indefinitely continuing the War in Afghanistan. We have “officially” spent roughly 2.1 trillion dollars on The Afghanistan War in the last 20 yrs. with nothing but death, heartache, and broken young men to show for it.

    Now, when roughly the same amount of money can be used to positively impact American lives you are suddenly concerned about spending 2 trillion dollars?

    Get the fuck out of here.

    • Theodore Sueck

      Ben, you apparently are a bigger moron that I first thought if you actually believe that this “pie in the sky” deal will actually benefit regular people like you think. It’s all a smoke screen for the government becoming even bigger and more intrusive than it already is.

      • Ben

        The point being, and one that you don’t address, is that Larry doesn’t seem to mind spending 2 trillion dollars to destroy a Country, but spend that amount investing in America and its people ( regardless of helping regular people or the ultra rich… remember St Ronnie’s trickle down theory ) and all of the sudden Larry is concerned about the deficit.

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        And how much did Trump’s tax cuts for the rich help regular people?

        • Billy legg

          It helped me a lot and I’m not close to being rich. But I also say don’t live like a doctor or lawyer unless you are one. And socialist doesn’t understand that the personal paychecks of ceo’s didn’t get tax relief. Just the corporations to grow their businesses and hire people. And be competitive. But liberal democrats don’t understand that. But stupid people are pathetic

      • Ben

        So you’re not really upset with the price tag? Or the programs contained within… just a hypothetical Government creep?

        I never really understood the idea of anti government conservatives.. you guys are the same ones that lick the boots of the thin blue line.

      • frank stetson

        Stop the ad hominem attacks, they just diminish your points and show you for the weak fool who can’t muster a decent argument without personally demeaning those you are attempting to convince. Then you too generalize basically that all spending is bad and somehow creates a bigger and more intrusive government. A poor mother of four kids on snap does not feel a bigger and more intrusive government but probably feels your misplaced personal attacks.

    • Buck daniel

      So uncouth. But that’s what lefties do.

      • frank stetson

        Which lefties are uncouth, got examples? Of course not, all you got is weak-assed name calling, your only refuge.

        Why Larry does not push back on this crap on his posts is beyond me.


  3. AC

    Doom and gloom are you bread and butter. Pounding out this pile pontificating on and on prophetically propagating unprecedented ills for our progeny’s population, had to have been quite a scene. Envision the white haired Caucasian man manically attach a poor defenseless mechanism purposed for transcribing mere thoughts into words. The man red faced with eyes’ veins bulging while fingers flail away and heard saying repeatedly something about Biden and ruination.
    Again, Larry, getting so worked up and sweaty like boxer imagining his opponent as he furiously punches an old leather bag filled with sand and hung on a beam behind the condo’s carport.
    It’s all about facts in proper context, all the facts. Not having all the dots and figures that finish a picture and complete an equation, then imagine where the missing dots land and what numbers factor in. Any picture surely ends up cartoonish. Calculus attempted missing true factors , yet inputting random values assuming wild will be catastrophically. Will certainly result in one conjuring an equation appearing more beginning algebra so very far off the mark
    ‘Tis true, your prophecy you will not see. So, never comes tje coveted “ told you so” and there ‘tis.
    Current state of affairs showed unrestrained bickering chaos in the Republican ranks. You, Larry, identify as one with membership in that motley tribe. To your own should be directed such wit and wisdom as advertised in bio. But misdirected are those potshots you take at low hanging fruit every commentator’s prey. The GOP field is wide open and ripe for your brand of inquisition.
    Fox News is as it long had been, soft on taking the GOP to task for its inequities and failures not speaking the truth.
    The party in power at the moment is your assumed opponent. Those on your side, GOP leadership and down party would be leaders in media scuffles. These faux Republican anti-democracy and non- constitution abiding officials must become your targets.
    Fear of the yellow strawman should not restrain those who come bearing the truth. Ultimately, it is acceptance of the whole truth that will free this country from it’s divisions. Truth is justice. Justice not always fair, but it must be blind. Politics, religious faith, race, gender, and social status have no place in determining justice.
    More crucial to the Union than financial expenditure is the Supreme Court and politics’ ugly head rising diabolically and distorting justice. The people’s voice should not influence the Court’s findings. No segment of society is with out political influence. This fact confuses the truth that we the people need to accept for freedom’s sake
    would better serve

  4. Joseph S. Bruder

    Larry, you’re using outdated graphs (which stop before the Trump years) and presenting a scary exponential curve to imply that Biden’s policies will cause … something… runaway inflation, or high deficits, or a bigger debt, or something… It’s a LIE. The numbers and graphs that you show have nothing to do with Biden. They are not proof of anything. They don’t predict anything based on Biden’s stimulus bills.

    Both graphs stop showing data well before Biden came into office. The second graph shows some projections into the future, but based on past results. All that tells you is that if Trump had been re-elected and continued his failed policies, that’s where the economy would likely be headed.

    Why don’t you publish a graph that shows how much the deficit grew after Trump’s tax cut? That’s real data. In fact, instead of stealing a graph from Forbes or wherever you got these (uncredited) graphs, why don’t you go to one of the government websites that publish this data EVERY MONTH and print your own graphs? You claim to be an economist, you should be able to take a set of numbers off the OMB website and pop it into Excel and show a decent graph.

    Except it’s historical data that you’re using to predict Biden’s results, which proves nothing except that spending rises exponentially, as it has for as long as the country has been around (population increases, new technologies increase efficiency, multiple other factors increase – GDP is guaranteed to rise exponentially over a long period of time). If you really did update the graphs, you’d see the disaster of the Trump administration – his loss of jobs, his increase in deficit spending, the increase in the national debt, and the slowing of the growth of the GDP.

    If you really want to try to predict the consequences of Biden’s policies, go back and look at similar policies by other administrations. Clinton and Obama both had solid economic results. Trump’s economy started out OK as it followed Obama’s growth, then the curves started to wobble, showing instability, until COVID came along and Trump’s reaction to that drove everything to shit. So far, at least, Biden’s managed to stop the wobble and bring the economy back to steady solid growth.

    But, hey, you’re not in Conservative mode, you’re in Democrat-bashing mode… no sense showing the mistakes of the Trump Administration… Really, you should be embarassed to put out such utter nonsense. For an economist, you’re clearly not a numbers guy.

    • Larry Horist

      Joe. I am shocked at your lack of comprehension (?) awareness(?) or reason(?). You accuse me of showing outdated graphs. The most recent I found in once case was up to 2018 as an example of the extraordinary rise in recent years … the other graph was to 2024, which covers the current period in case you were not aware of what year we live in. They both supported the commentary. Did you not comprehend that or was this another of your mindless cheap shots using my commentary as the foil to carry out jealousy-based sibling rivalry with your brother — the owner of this cite.

  5. Ben

    Dang Larry,
    It seems you have more readers from our side of the aisle commenting than your base. You really are out of touch with the common man. I mean it’s totally understandable that it’s hard to relate from your Ivory Tower.

    Maybe it’s because the projects of the BBB plan are very popular with people of all walks of life? Kinda like Obama Care, call it Affordable Care Act and everyone ( including republicans) loved it. Call it Obama Care and suddenly faux viewers hated it.

  6. frank stetson

    After this article, I am having issues with Larry’s resume “with an extensive background in economics.” While I agree with the sentiment of not running up the deficit, I neither like his numerical approach and most certainly, his conclusions. In this tome, I will focus on his conclusion: just say no.

    I doubt not Larry’s “travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms” for I have travelled the world pitching that for which I actually knew very little, actually made it up a bit, and yet —- helped create an industry that is the bedrock of our communications today. Just a cog in the wheel I was, and like I said, knew very little about the technology underpinnings. My economics background is homeschooling by my Dad, with his Masters, and my own curiosity. So I am not trained or experienced. But enough to wonder why Larry has shorted his own assessment leading to perhaps an erroneous outcome.

    First, like many on both sides of the aisle, Larry likes it simple. Big numbers. It’s 1.7T, OMG the sky is falling, yuge number. Horist is it? That’s 170B a year. Still huge? We spend 700B on defense and war each year so we can’t spend 170B on people? But yes, it’s a big number and probably front-end loaded, if Democrats want Democrats in office in 2024…. Feel free to double by adding in the Infrastructure Bill.
    Some more perspective on size from the OP ED page of WSJ: “It’s past time that Americans heard more about what’s inside President Biden’s Build Back Better plan than about the sticker price. For starters, the budget numbers cover 10 years, a decade in which the Congressional Budget Office projects $288 trillion worth of economic output. So a BBB plan of $1.75 trillion or so would amount to roughly 0.6% of gross domestic product—slightly more than the 0.5% Americans spent last year on tobacco.”

    Larry’s root cause is we are spending too much, to which I agree. That answer has been true for each year of this country’s existence, even during Clinton’s glory years. Larry’s conclusion is “just say no” to which I say: “that’s just not economically smart to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” To be honest, let’s say he says: “we have already spent enough, or too much, let’s pause,” that would be more acceptable to me. Matter of fact, I am gung-ho for a balanced budget, not amendment, but multi-year law where we set metrics qualifying the needs for or against a balanced budget, as metrics such as one stating “if recession, unbalance the budget, otherwise balance” and perhaps others for entry. PLUS, metrics explaining when we can end it like: after xx months of xx gdp expansion, tax receipts, etc. so we don’t lock ourselves in IF it exceeds expectations. Then put the whole thing on a timer so we don’t get locked in forever, just to clean up this mess. Clintonian Democrats tend to look like Republicans of old, financially at least.

    However, the correct answer to today’s question, IMO, is: let’s review each program, and if we can afford the profitable ones, let’s invest. And if we can get a reasonable loan to cover, still do it. That’s the economics that I know. If it pays, and you can, you should invest. And if Congress would focus on one of their primary missions: spending, they would review everything and start pruning NOW. Everything, including defense. IF you can’t tell me we can’t squeeze $70B a year out of that budget, you’re smoking something.

    My bottom line is I agree we spend to much: but everywhere, not just this plan. I don’t agree that means just say no; Congress must do it’s job and spend wisely, not like a drunk sailor on leave in a whorehouse as we appear to be doing, across the board, now. Next I will look at some of Larry’s assumptions, which while correct, I am not sure they are the best way to view this, economically speaking. Nor do I think he has a fair and balanced historical view, seems somewhat partisan for some reason.

    • frank stetson

      Larry focuses on how much we spend, how much we take in, leading to how much we owe. But does it matter how much we spend if someone loans us the money and we still profit from the investment?

      If we invest in welfare, for example, can we profit? Less crime, that’s one possible way. Increasing gdp and gdp growth, that would be another possibility. Better returns from future generations, another possibility. The question is the business case for each program. Better yet, let’s monitor progress and actually look at results. Everything in government can be financially viewed that way, if we choose to be business-like about it.

      Larry’s charts always rise, perfectly natural. I would be more afraid for years it didn’t. It literally has to get bigger due to the cost of money alone. But wild peaks and valleys, spikes, are never good. For example, if you use Larry’s data, and look at the deep past, you can see Hoover growing expenditures by 80% in 4 years, that’s a big disruption. Roosevelt by over 14 times in a bunch of years, that’s freakin crazy but IMO, we profited. Even Reagan grew expenditures by 53% in eight years, no wonder Bush I had to raise taxes. Obama by 15% in eight years — Larry, was that your guess because I didn’t see it in your review :>) Clinton 17%. The other side of the aisle: Bush I: 12%, Bush II: 75%, and Trump by 76%! Bush II and Trump not only spent like a drunken sailors on shore leave, they basically held tax fire sales with the largest receipts reduction in US history. These Republican fiscal mavens burned the fiscal policy candle at both ends, lit the middle, and then fooled the kids to think it was in their favor. And then when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, Republicans ran to his defense so they could piss all over him and the tax cuts. Amazing times. If you think we economically benefitted from these tax sales to the rich, think again. According to the numbers. Funny we didn’t see that in Larry’s review, seems a hole in analysis.

      Current Biden budget growth estimated at 12% over his first four year term, if you take the experts by their words. IOW, compared to Trump’s realized 76% budget increase; Biden is at 12%, about the average cost of inflation over the four years, pre this latest inflation spike. FYI: I think the 2021 massive budget is Trump’s as most economists track these things.

      Based on this, I would trust Biden over any Republican in budget focus except perhaps Bush I. Bush I would be thrown in the Trumpian penalty box with Mitt, Liz, and the other real Republicans; the ones who don’t hold their noses. Larry’s analysis is spin-able because it doesn’t paint a full picture of what spending and tax totals really mean. It tells you very little about debt-level risk. For those who say the sky is falling, it’s good fodder since it easily augments that opinion – the numbers are always going up.

      Unfortunately, the line between receipts and spending continues to diverge more each year as Larry’s vantage point also show. IMO, there are better ways that economists usually show that. Deficits are bad, IMO, especially when they lead to unsupportable debt levels. You note: “If you look at 2021, you will see that the gap between federal revenues and expenditures is the widest ever – with $4.5 trillion spent and only $2.7 trillion dollars in income. That is a $1.8 trillion shortfall – meaning borrowed money to be paid back by future generations.” As an economist, you ask yourself for any budgetary item: 1) is it a profitable expenditure 2) can i afford the money to fund. 3) what’s my risk, 4) what’s my payback, and when. Your charts, or merely pointing to the deficit do not get at that.

      Most economists ultimately use the Debt/GDP ratio as the best metric to guide whether we can handle more or less debt. Why? Like your mortgage, US debt is linked to gbp. How much you make tells the bank how big your mortgage can be. But it’s a made up number by the bank based on years of history. For US debt, we are in new territory when it comes to how much debt does our current gdp support. We are testing as we speak.

      This ratio number is currently too high IMO. I think that’s THE number that proves or disproves Larry’s case. Our ratio in 2020, the year of our Trump, surpassed the past record set after WII and the recession therein. It hit 119% after WWII borrowing followed by recession. It hit 129% under Trump spending, it has fallen to 125% under Biden. ( there’s no fiscal policy causing Biden’s improvement…).

      Debt is a funny thing. As long as we have investors, interest is low, we can run it up the flag pole as high as we want. There is really no scientific or fiscal benchmark. Its floating interest which buffers a lot of Trump excesses as we paid less % interest per $ borrowed. However, we can’t tell investors when or if to buy or sell and we don’t have a clue what debt/gdp ratio number would force a run on our investment bank. Conventional thinking was the WWII number of around 100% only because we never tested higher. Thanks to Trump and the Republicans, we have blown through that and so we live on the outer edge of the cutting edge of the invest-in-America knife. And IMO, that’s the main reason to curtail future spending, all types, not just these new programs, to get a handle on our debt/gdp issues. By curtail, I don’t mean stop, I don’t even mean balanced budget —- just noticeably closer to. We need to continue what Obama started and the method Reagan taught us: we need to lower the rate of debt increase first as our highest priority. If our economy is doing well, that should be easy.

      So, I have no problem with spending, no problem with BBB or infrastructure in general, but huge problems with spending unwisely and can imagine that a line item review of ANY budget item could uncover that, big time. We need to focus, target, prune, trim, spend, monitor, control, and correct all at the same time. We just don’t know what debt/gdp ratio is the magic metric, the ceiling. But we do know we have never tested a higher number than that established by Trump/Bush II and the Republican party.

      Larry, I think you need the debt/gdp ratio which actually adds credence to your conclusion, although does not help your: the left spends like drunken sailors in whorehouse theory which just does not look valid, historically. According to economists. Biden’s bottom line is better than any Republican administration at this point. Trump’s was record breaking, in a bad way. My bottom line is our debt/gdp ratio is too high, needs to start trending downward, which does not mean no borrowing, it just means less. Programs need to be scrutinized in light of that, but I find it hard to believe, that when it comes to social programs, that just say no is the most profitable choice. Matter of fact, I find it impossible to believe.

      Next, I will take a shot at Larry’s “entitlement” discussion. Again, seems a little out of the mainstream of economic thinking, but aligned with Republican bullet points in this current uber partisan environment.

      • Harlow ewing

        America should be ran like a business. And people who try to destroy our country and burn our cities should be sent out to sea on rubber rafts. With bloody pork chops hanging off the bottom

        • Joseph S. Bruder

          The government is NOT a business. It has no profit motive. It can’t decide that some people whose economic output is bigger are worth more than those with smaller economic outputs. Is an artist worth less than a lawyer? Who is worth more, the scientists and engineers who come up with new products, or the businessman that makes money off of their work?

          In some ways, government has functions similar to businesses. It often functions like an insurance business – for example, as a backstop for states when there is a natural disaster – the federal can provide funds that might be too big for states to handle, even if it’s a bit of deficit spending, most natural disasters are peanuts compared to the national budget. Global warming is another example – granted a few percent of people don’t believe it’s real (despite the overwhelming science and evidence). The amount of money that we spend to mitigate global warming is a small insurance payment against a very much bigger human-extinction level risk. And the money spent has other benefits – it’s investment in R&D, and driving the country forward to energy systems that will meet the needs of the future. The government needs to be big enough to pay for things that are necessary, but individual people or businesses or states can’t afford.

          The government also acts as a board of directors to the national economy. A business needs workers that are trained – the government makes sure that everyone has an education sufficient to provide for themselves and to provide business with people who can do the jobs. We need doctors, scientists, engineers – government needs to plan 20 or 30 years in advance to keel that pipeline filled. Businesses need infrastructure, R&D, investment in industries that are not yet profitable but will be future cornerstones of the economy, and government provides that.

          A business is also dependent on employees. The have to have well-trained employees, pay them enough to live, treat them fairly, keep them healthy – or employees leave and the company is less profitable. The government has an interest in making companies more profitable, but also keeping the playing field level. It provides education, sets minimum standards for compensation, sets rules for business regarding employees. Regulation of industries keeps employees safe and healthy, keeps the environment clean, sets minimum standards for health care, and at the same time puts small corporations on the same footing as large corporations. Regulation should also keep businesses from getting big enough that they can dictate how government works to their own benefit but against the interests of everyone else.

          The government was created for the welfare of the PEOPLE. People and businesses both benefit from government policies, and should be expected to pay a small share of their gains to pay for it. The biggest problem is that some businesses and industries have gotten big enough to game the government – compensating government leaders to gain an unfair advantage for themselves. That’s when we get tax cuts for the rich that do nothing for the economy but benefit only those who have paid for the votes. Or laws that benefit one industry but harm other industries, put smaller competitors out of business, or go against the best interests of people.

          In the end, the government represents ALL of the people. It is NOT a business trying to make a profit. There are always competing interests, but the rich should not be the determining how the government is spending the people’s resources.

      • Harold blankenship

        You post a lot of shit and try to appear intelligent but your statement of Biden having a better economic plan shows that you’re extremely stupid. He’s a joke and the entire world countries know it. And your support for him and his party is as funny as a screen door ta submarine. It’s funny how you show your stupidity while his and Kampala’s poll numbers are 199% below shit level.

  7. frank stetson

    HB says: “You post a lot of shit and try to appear intelligent but your statement of Biden having a better economic plan shows that you’re extremely stupid. He’s a joke and the entire world countries know it. And your support for him and his party is as funny as a screen door ta submarine. It’s funny how you show your stupidity while his and Kampala’s poll numbers are 199% below shit level.”

    OK, now I understand exactly why I am “stupid” for my statement. Because you said so, you said he’s a joke, you said the entire world know it. No facts, no concept, just your opinion. I think you can do better.

    I agree, Biden poll numbers too low and dropping. Luckily, we can still feel hope: from 12.6.2021 Ballotpedia:
    “President Biden’s overall approval average at this point in his term is 50.1%, 9.3 percentage points higher than President Trump’s average of 40.7% at this point in his term.

    Congress’ overall approval average under President Biden is 23.7%, 7.2 percentage points higher than its average of 16.5% at this point in President Trump’s term.

    Since President Biden took office, an average of 36.7% of Americans have felt the country is going in the right direction, 2.7 percentage points higher than the average of 34% who felt that way at this point in President Trump’s term.


    • Eric morris

      The three stooges on this site often bitch about tax cuts for the rich. But I’ve never had a poor man sign my paycheck

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        If the owner signs your paycheck, the company is small enough that he’s probably taking less of a salary than you are. He gets whatever is leftover at the end of the month, and it is sometimes zero or negative (he puts money from his savings, or increases his bank loan). If a company officer signed your paycheck, then he’s a paid employee just like you are, probably making a little more than you but not rich, and the money is going to a group of investors.

        The point is, giving “help” to the rich is pointless. They don’t need it. Why should the government give money to them? And it doesn’t help the economy, it just causes decreased revenue, and the spending is the same, so it increases the deficit, which leads to inflation. If you look at historical data for the last 50 years, Democrats reduce the deficit, Republicans increase it.

        Do you think it’s fair if you pay 20% of your salary to taxes, and Ritchie Rich pays only 10%? And in reality, he’s probably taking advantage of high priced accountants that you can’t afford, and might even be paying less. As a percentage, things like Social Security, sales tax, tolls or even gasoline taxes are a much higher percentage of your salary than his, so your tax burden is probably closer to 30% while his is barely affected. Shouldn’t the rich pay a little more, since they get the benefit of government paid infrastructure, economic forecasting, government programs targeted at their industries, subsidies and government contracts?

      • Ben

        Eric, sure you have, you just don’t realize it.
        If your a musician, poor people buy your music.
        If you’re in manufacturing ( except for ultra luxury products), it’s mostly supported by the little people .
        A civil servant ? Unwealthy people pay your salary.
        Transportation? Retail, entertainment, hospitality sectors? Mostly blue color workers buy the products and services, to support your paycheck.
        With very few exceptions, the poor, working poor, and middle class support almost all products and services. They spend the money that you get paid with.
        So YES, us regular Joe’s sign your check.

    • Ron mills

      You sure post a lot of shit and say nothing. I detect an empty head on the shoulders of someone who knows nothing. You three stooges throw out stats that have no substance. But I’ll give you credit. You boys are well versed in communism

  8. Frank stetson

    “Stats that gave no substance.” Well, that’s a discussion provoker fer sure. Brilliant retort. Great conversation starter.