Reconciliation

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,634
Reaction score
3,593
Points
113
When the last stimulus/relief bill was lumped with the omnibus bill with a single vote Howie expressed displeasure with shoving (certain) pork along with that bill....
$%%^^ yeah! 2 billion for the Space Force! And stopping evil vaping equipment! A victory for fiscal conservatism and small government.
My favorite is the three martini lunch provision. Now fully deductible as a business expense! The GOP is for the little guy!
Now that it is all D pork getting shoved thru with the stimulus/relief bill Howie thinks it is all good and that you are an ignorant fool for not thinking so or complaining.

Meanwhile, I also complained about the practice back then - the same as I am now. According to Howie this makes me a hypocrite. Howie is not tho. He has it all figured out. DHB.
Separating the bills would make way too much sense to happen in Washington. Nothing like politicians using a global pandemic to forward unrelated crap that has no chance in its own. Ick.
Another good example of nonsense getting shoved along with the relief bill. How about we cut that extra deduction and apply the taxes we then collect to stimulus checks. The list goes on and on. Leave it to congress.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
2,142
Points
113
In the past year, a divided government worked together to pass multiple Covid-19 stimulus packages. Now, with all 3 branches under democratic control, Joey unity is going to go all out and get stimulus passed through reconciliation instead of the normal legislative channels.

Score one more for team #unity.

Biden Signals Support for Reconciliation as He Says COVID-19 Relief 'Has to Pass' (ijr.com)

President Joe Biden is seemingly willing to use budget reconciliation to pass a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill.

A reporter asked Biden on Friday if he supports passing relief using budget reconciliation.

“I support passing COVID relief with support from Republicans if we can get it. But, the COVID relief has to pass. There’s no ifs, ands, or buts,” Biden replied.


The budget reconciliation process would only require a simple majority in the Senate instead of 60 votes to pass the bill.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during her press briefing on Thursday, Republicans can still vote for the bill even if Democrats choose to use budget reconciliation, as IJR reported.

“The president wants this to be a bipartisan package, regardless of the mechanisms. Republicans can still vote for a package even it goes through reconciliation,” she said.

Psaki continued, “There’s no blood-oath anybody signs. They’re able to support it regardless. And he wants this to be a bipartisan package. He’s listening to Democrats and Republicans, we all are, to ensure that that’s what it looks like at the end of the day.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested Democrats will have to move ahead without Republicans if they decide to object to the bill, as IJR reported.

“Our preference is to make this important work bipartisan, to include input, ideas and revisions from our Republican colleagues,” he said.

Schumer continued, “But if our Republican colleagues decide to oppose this urgent and necessary legislation, we will have to move forward without them.”

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) slammed the bill and called it “a colossal waste and economically harmful.”

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told reporters “the whole package is a non-starter.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) argued Biden’s announcement of the proposal was “not well-timed.”
1614084436795.png
1614084511085.png
1614084602963.png
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,676
Reaction score
4,763
Points
113
Are these parts of the bill popular?
I'll take 6.5% of pork, to get a major bill passed, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Pork is necessary. It does the job of greasing the skids.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
586
Points
113
I'll take 6.5% of pork, to get a major bill passed, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Pork is necessary. It does the job of greasing the skids.
Some would view $86 billion towards pension bailouts as buying votes. Must be nice to handle a pension so terribly that the federal government will make up for all the misuse’s.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
586
Points
113
Some would view any dollars that helps some group as "buying" that group's votes.

I disagree, but I doubt I'll change your mind.
If this money is being used to prop up failing pensions of various public entities be they state or local that’s ridiculous. Maybe the people inside the pensions needs to invest more into the pension or take a cut in benefits or change the managers of the pension or maybe all 3 and then some.

You wanna send $1 billion over seas for food aid great the people they really need it and did nothing to serve the situation they are in except being born there. The people inside the pensions have a choice and there are several of them. Ain’t no one gonna come bail out my 401k or retirement accounts of the stock market all of a sudden loses 12,000 points. I’m shit out of luck because I’m not in a public union.

Where is the accountability for people to manage the money correctly inside the pension if everyone something happens Congress will just simply lump a bailout inside of a relief package. Heck the Wisconsin retirement system invested in the Peso in like 1995 and lost over 95 million dollars. Not only did they lose money transaction was against the policies of the system so it was illegal. Didn’t stop them from doing it.
Just look at the Duluth teachers retirement fund. They wanted to be on their own with nothing to do with the state system. Fine they set up their own fund and in 2014 that fund was losing money and not enough changes could be made to make it solvent again. They then had come back into the state retirement fund in order to keep their benefits. At one point and time they had just $.63 in the bank for every dollar they need to pay out. But the state was more than willing to accept them back into the program and keep funding the retirements of teachers.

you look lots of major cities or retirement programs and they are woefully underfunded. Eventually the rubber will need to hit the road as we can not continue to subsidize the failing of the fund managers who get rich whether the fund goes up or down.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
586
Points
113
I forgot the best part the head of the teachers retirement fund in Minnesota was the head of the Duluth teachers retirement fund which was under supported. Instead of being in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars he is now in charge of tens of billions of dollars, but what can go wrong.
Plus while 15% is contributed to the fund between the employee and the state, 6% of that is used to pay down the debt on the fund. So teachers are investing 7% roughly of their paycheck and getting a guaranteed pension that has been propped up by the state and federal funds.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,322
Reaction score
8,730
Points
113
And just like that: Howie no longer cares about the deficit. Poof. Magic.
I would like it to be smaller. But they'll just have to pay for it by undoing parts of the Trump tax cut. You know the one that added trillions to the deficit that you waved your pom poms for? Waiting to see...
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,676
Reaction score
4,763
Points
113
If this money is being used to prop up failing pensions of various public entities be they state or local that’s ridiculous.
Who says that the pensions would fail without this money? The Tweet calls it a bail out, but so what? That could just be the Rep saying that. Is this person actually on the pension board?

They're not going to turn down the money. But just because they've being given it, doesn't mean the pension management failed.

Also, the pension mangement team probably contracts out with firms to actually manage the investment of the assets, don't you think? Whether that be with a particular hedge fund, or whatever companies.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,322
Reaction score
8,730
Points
113
To complain about something Howie likes makes me an ignorant fool. That’s pretty rich after watching you bitch about pretty much everything for the past year. Also, you are correct that you are wasting your time if you think I give a rat’s ass about being called names by a dishonest hypocritical bigot.
It's one thing to disagree with items in the bill. Fine. It's another to whine and moan about the "unfairness" of the process.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
586
Points
113
Who says that the pensions would fail without this money? The Tweet calls it a bail out, but so what? That could just be the Rep saying that. Is this person actually on the pension board?

They're not going to turn down the money. But just because they've being given it, doesn't mean the pension management failed.

Also, the pension mangement team probably contracts out with firms to actually manage the investment of the assets, don't you think? Whether that be with a particular hedge fund, or whatever companies.
The people responsible for the fund are the board of directors as they are the ones that are pitched by the various managers and hedge funds to mage the accounts. Just because the board of directors is not directly managing the money doesn’t mean they are not responsible for what happens.
If I invest in a mutual fund that is managed by various people does that make me unreasonable for what happens to my money? No I am still responsible as I am a the one that picked out the mutual fund to invest in. Same thing applies here.

the city of Chicago has $46 billion in pension deb, that is more the 44 states. There is not enough free money in the world to fix that problem without reform for current and future pensioners.

state of California public pension is funded at 70% of what is needed and show debt of $160 billion.

the stock market on average is up 10% over the last 30 years so if it’s not mismanagement what’s the issue. These managers played fast and loose with the rules and their Prudent Person Rule.

A bailout is the provision of financial help to a corporation or country which otherwise would be on the brink of failure bankruptcy.

public pensions in the United States be they state or municipalities are under funded and failing. They need to make changes to current pensioners and future pensions in order to sure up the pension.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,676
Reaction score
4,763
Points
113
The people responsible for the fund are the board of directors as they are the ones that are pitched by the various managers and hedge funds to mage the accounts. Just because the board of directors is not directly managing the money doesn’t mean they are not responsible for what happens.
If I invest in a mutual fund that is managed by various people does that make me unreasonable for what happens to my money? No I am still responsible as I am a the one that picked out the mutual fund to invest in. Same thing applies here.

the city of Chicago has $46 billion in pension deb, that is more the 44 states. There is not enough free money in the world to fix that problem without reform for current and future pensioners.

state of California public pension is funded at 70% of what is needed and show debt of $160 billion.

the stock market on average is up 10% over the last 30 years so if it’s not mismanagement what’s the issue. These managers played fast and loose with the rules and their Prudent Person Rule.

A bailout is the provision of financial help to a corporation or country which otherwise would be on the brink of failure bankruptcy.

public pensions in the United States be they state or municipalities are under funded and failing. They need to make changes to current pensioners and future pensions in order to sure up the pension.
I didn't say they aren't responsible for what happens. Of course they are, that's where the buck stops.

I know what a bailout is. You, nor the person making the Tweet, actually proved that it is a bailout.


Your last statement is unproven, other than two specific examples you cite regarding underfunding (assuming those numbers are correct). Neither are failed, or else they wouldn't be in existence anymore. Seems to me you want that to be the case with all (public) pensions, merely because you don't like them.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
586
Points
113
I didn't say they aren't responsible for what happens. Of course they are, that's where the buck stops.

I know what a bailout is. You, nor the person making the Tweet, actually proved that it is a bailout.


Your last statement is unproven, other than two specific examples you cite regarding underfunding (assuming those numbers are correct). Neither are failed, or else they wouldn't be in existence anymore. Seems to me you want that to be the case with all (public) pensions, merely because you don't like them.


simply google public employee pension issues and see what comes up. You may be surprised at how poorly people handle other peoples money.

how is there accountability for pension managers when the federal government will simply sure up the fund and make sure the benefits are paid? This bill uses to have accountability reform in it for pensions. It also used to be a low interest loan that would be made but had to be paid back. Now it is simply $86 billion in free money with no reform to the system.

Yes I am against pensions especially when they are public pensions. That area is troubled with fraud and kick backs between the managers looking for business and the boards of the various retirement funds. Why should you retirement simply be based on how many years you worked there and have no impact on how much money you set aside personally. Pensions are basically dead in all parts of the US except public unions. I wonder why that is, maybe because that system is unsustainable in the long run.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
586
Points
113

It’s from 4 years ago but it’s a really good read. This is a problem that both sides of the aisle have created and don’t want to touch as retired people vote and if you cut their pension benefits they won’t vote for you. Yet another reason that public pensions are a bad idea. The people being voted into office are not representing everyone in this issue they are representing a minority of people.

serious changes will need to be made, but they will continue to kick the can down the road. It’s no different than social security. By the time I retire in 30 years social security won’t start until you’re 80 and will be so different I am not even counting on it.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
2,936
Points
113
By the time I retire in 30 years social security won’t start until you’re 80 and will be so different I am not even counting on it.
Maybe we will have another pandemic and you won't have to worry about retirement.
#Brightside #GlassHalfFull
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
586
Points
113
Maybe we will have another pandemic and you won't have to worry about retirement.
#Brightside #GlassHalfFull
That and global warming it should all be over by the year 2031 unless I walk to work each day which is 25 miles one way.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,634
Reaction score
3,593
Points
113
It's one thing to disagree with items in the bill. Fine. It's another to whine and moan about the "unfairness" of the process.
LOL. Obviously you have read post #181 and are now trying to position. I never used the word "unfair" or even implied it. I took issue with the pork this time - just like I did the last time. You defended the pork this time - the opposite of what you did last time. Then you called me a hypocrite. Good Stuff.
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,138
Reaction score
618
Points
113
LOL. Obviously you have read post #181 and are now trying to position. I never used the word "unfair" or even implied it. I took issue with the pork this time - just like I did the last time. You defended the pork this time - the opposite of what you did last time. Then you called me a hypocrite. Good Stuff.
I sense a goal post moving or re-framing coming in the very near future. Or perhaps at the very least a partial backpedal and redirection
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,924
Reaction score
2,706
Points
113
So there's 7%of the bill that you don't like and 93% of the bill that you do like. Very good, Melvin!
I don’t like 100% of it. But JTF argued that there are no unpopular parts of the bill. So I’m asking if he has polling to back up that assertion with respect to these items. Like that Howie.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,924
Reaction score
2,706
Points
113
I would like it to be smaller. But they'll just have to pay for it by undoing parts of the Trump tax cut. You know the one that added trillions to the deficit that you waved your pom poms for? Waiting to see...
Our deficit was over 3 trillion last year. Pay for it? There will be no paying for it. I’m not in favor of the tax cuts. I would personally favor a flat tax and raise the rate to whatever is projected to balance the budget. You’d get a lot of support for spending cuts in a big hurry.
I was waiting to see with Trump on spending. He failed.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,322
Reaction score
8,730
Points
113
LOL. Obviously you have read post #181 and are now trying to position. I never used the word "unfair" or even implied it. I took issue with the pork this time - just like I did the last time. You defended the pork this time - the opposite of what you did last time. Then you called me a hypocrite. Good Stuff.
The pork sucks. But there was pork in the bill Trump signed in December. And the one in May. It's not a partisan issue. Both sides do it. Complaining about it only when one side does it is stupid.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,634
Reaction score
3,593
Points
113
The pork sucks. But there was pork in the bill Trump signed in December. And the one in May. It's not a partisan issue. Both sides do it. Complaining about it only when one side does it is stupid.
Hey Ding Dong. Just today I posted proof of me complaining about both R and D pork and you complaining about only R pork (now you are here defending D pork). Yeah, I agree with the bolded - pretty stupid... and pretty hypocritical. This is fun.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
2,936
Points
113
I love pork, ham, bacon and steaks....mmm
You guys can have the chops.
 

golfing18now

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
736
Points
113
Our deficit was over 3 trillion last year. Pay for it? There will be no paying for it. I’m not in favor of the tax cuts. I would personally favor a flat tax and raise the rate to whatever is projected to balance the budget. You’d get a lot of support for spending cuts in a big hurry.
I was waiting to see with Trump on spending. He failed.
I couldn't agree more. Don't pay a dime for anything less than $X. Pay Y% for any income beyond $X. Set X and Y each year in line with the budget and see what accountability actually looks like at the federal level. Makes too much sense.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
2,936
Points
113
I couldn't agree more. Don't pay a dime for anything less than $X. Pay Y% for any income beyond $X. Set X and Y each year in line with the budget and see what accountability actually looks like at the federal level. Makes too much sense.
Actually makes zero sense. But when the economy is good we should be paying down the debt so that we can borrow and spend in times of crisis. This is how you use fiscal policy to keep the economy from a continuous cycle of boom and bust.
 

golfing18now

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
736
Points
113
Actually makes zero sense. But when the economy is good we should be paying down the debt so that we can borrow and spend in times of crisis. This is how you use fiscal policy to keep the economy from a continuous cycle of boom and bust.
I’m not an economist so I will stay in the kiddie pool on this one but I’m smart enough to realize we will never get to a “good enough” economy for either party to prioritize debt reduction without a balanced budget requirement. Your party will pass more entitlement programs and pay for things like student debt cancellation for people such as yourself who frankly don’t need it. My party will try to pass more tax cuts. Without requiring a balanced budget, the debt will never go in the opposite direction absent a fundamental shift such as proposed by S2.
 
Top Bottom