Backintheday544
-
Posts
1,788 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Backintheday544
-
-
33 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
If people in California are so stupid that they elect officials that issue continuous proclamations and regulations and pass laws banning all kinds of things and imposing one restriction or another on their choices and freedoms its their business. What will happen is people and business will migrate to other "free enterprise" friendly jurisdictions and states. And what's left of it, well I wish them good luck.
While I've got nothing against the fundamental idea of electrifying the US vehicle fleet I think the idea as currently presented is a fantasy based on wishful thinking. I don't see "the plan" for producing all the additional carbon free electricity that will be required to charge all those vehicles. For now its mostly fossil fuel consuming power plants which begs the question what's the point if all you're doing is moving the CO2 production from one step in the process to another while incurring all kinds of additional costs and inefficiencies? You can issue all the edicts you want but there's got to be some associated actions and I just don't think these geniuses running policy have any credible plan to put in place the physical infrastructure to support it all. Why its not obvious to more people I don't understand.
That’s an interesting what if that doesn’t seem to be an issue.CAs GDP is up 16.69 percent over 5 years. (https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/california/)
Compared to TX which is 12.32 (https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/texas/)
This while CA offers lower state and local taxes than TX:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CdgZ6KOOGww/?igshid=ZWQxOWIzNTU=
According to ITEP, Texans whose salaries fall into the lowest 20 percent of income earners (making less than $20,900 annually) pay about 13 percent of their income in state and local taxes. Meanwhile, Californians in the bottom 20 percent (making less than $23,200 annually) pay 10.5 percent. In Texas, the middle 20 percent of income earners ($35,800-$56,000) pay 9.7 percent in state and local taxes in contrast to middle income Californians ($39,100-$62,300), who only pay 8.9 percent. Most glaringly, the top 1 percent of earners in Texas ($617,900 or more) pay 3.1 percent of their income in contrast to top earnings in California ($714,400 or more) who pay 12.4 percent.
So I’d think people would want to go a lower taxes jurisdiction that has an actual electric grid that’s seeing higher economic growth.
-
15 hours ago, T master said:
So in another stroke of brilliance as can only be from the great state of California their illustrious leader/leaders have proposed a bill to ban ALL sales of new gas powered cars by the year 2035 . From now till then what will this do to the price of gas in the US not to mention the already ridiculous price of cars & trucks due to such a law ?
Plus what else will come from this ? Maybe they will put a extra tax on those coming into the state that drive gas powered cars, maybe those that decide or can't afford to buy electric cars & keep their old gas powered cars will be charged more in a higher registration fee, & we know there will be higher taxes on gas in general to pay for the infrastructure change over .
I could see if they would use just a little bit of common sense & maybe say in LA seeing as it has always had a smog problem for years making some kind of change there to cut back which i think would be good but this seems to go right along the same thoughts of giving out hypo's to drug addicts as long as they turn them back in after they use them .
How's that stroke of genius working out ?
I can see NYS & some others following along with this same kind of thing because of the big cities just because the brilliance in that & other government bodies are just about the same as that of California's !
I think in the long run the rush to put something like this into law will only do more harm than good because they as usual just rush into it with out much if any study on what it will exactly take to make this a success .
Success & ramifications be damned because this is our idea so make it so number one despite the consequences !!
Let's not start small study it & work up form there with the data gathered from it let's just do the hole enchilada and then when it does screw up we will deal with that by spending more money to fix that after it's implementation .
If all of this was only caused by fossil fuels they may be onto something but there is much more to this entire equation but that doesn't fit the narrative or agenda to what they are trying to accomplish so put ALL the blame on cars only & do away with fossil fueled cars to make this a perfect fossil fuel to produce electric car type world .
Your post ignores several things. First, the EU already put this law in place and CA is just following suit. ( If CA was a country it would have the fifth largest economy in the world too). Second the US govt also pledged to stop purchasing gas cars by 2035.With the above, especially in the EU the auto industry was part of those negotiations and did get some concessions in these plans. Also, with CA, US govt and the EU, it could be enough economic pressure to force the stopping of production on gas cars.
You’re looking at the US power grid as of today and are ignoring the bi-partisan infrastructure bill that is designed to update the US power grid to fix the problem of everyone having electric cars.
As for gas prices with more people using electric, if we’re looking at basic Econ, wouldn’t the decrease in demand decrease price (assume then OPEC et all would shift supply to maintain gas prices)
You rant about a whole bunch of what ifs without any justification or reasons to believe those will occur except for your feels.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I'm not sure what you think we disagree on. I didn't suggest there was a pure 'needs based' requirement for PPP, though I'd think when the government shuts the economy down and places restrictions on just about everything, then comes up with a relief plan to keep the economy afloat, it's pretty obvious a needs-based plan.
PPP is an acronym for Paycheck Protection Program. If you want to argue that point, that it's not a program designed to protect paychecks, have at it, but it's silly. It's interesting that you included "owners" like it's some sort of hidden, under the radar part of the program. Owners get paychecks, too, and things like "rent, mortgage etc" are part of the cost of running a business. When paychecks covered under the PPP program were issued to employees, the employees receiving the paycheck presumably used the funds for similar expenses.
PPP is a federal program, not a state program. "Florida" has nothing to do with it. That said, if you believe businesses in Florida were not impacted by COVID, you haven't been paying attention. As for Matt Gaetz qualifying, or not, what does that have to do with anything other than you not liking Matt Gaetz?
The original point was that comparing PPP rules and regs to Joe Biden's student loan debt scheme. It's a foolish comparison.
Just using your words here:Needs based: “If approved, a loan was offered based on need and payment disbursed.” Using the term based on need really sounds like it’s needs based.
Yes we know what PPP is an acronym for. So now we just trust the government naming of things? I guess we can all agree the Inflation Reduction Act reduces inflation.
Yes, PPP is a Federal program, but your point was “The most vital element of the program was keeping employees employed while the govt kept society and the economy locked down. Failure to do so resulted in repayment terms that might be considered predatory if offered by a private bank.” If Florida didn’t keep society and the economy locked down as you put. So why should a Florida person such as Gaetz get bailed out with over $400,000? We can use another Florida person Tom Brady, had $1,000,000 of PPP loans forgiven. His net worth is over $400,000,000.
If these Republicans don’t believe in the government forgiving loans, they could have just paid back the PPP loans. There is no requirement to ask the government for forgiveness.
PPP loans and the student loans are both loans made by the government to US persons. Both have forgiveness aspects built in. The business owners used the legislation to get their forgiveness. The President used his power to grant forgiveness on those loans.
If looking at policy, I’d much rather have the government give $300 billion to people making under $125,000 then the huge amounts of PPP money that went to people like Brady and Gaetz who could have used their personal assets to keep their company going (assuming there was even a going concern issue).
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
To reimagine the PPP program as similar to Student Loan forgiveness under the Biden proposal requires both a manipulator, and someone easily manipulated. It would be interesting to engage in dialogue with a manipulator, sadly all we have here are the dupes who are easily manipulated.
You hit key points about the government locking down the economy under threat of criminal and civil penalty, and the havoc that created for most businesses and employees not given special dispensation to thrive.
The PPP program was designed to keep people working, or at least keep paychecks moving to the masses.
To qualify, a business owner filled out an application and provided documentation to support the request. If approved, a loan was offered based on need and payment disbursed.
If, after meeting the terms and conditions of the program, the business owner met the requirements of PPP, the loan converted to a grant.
If terms and conditions were not met, the loan did not convert and as I recall, repayment was due within 12 months.
The most vital element of the program was keeping employees employed while the govt kept society and the economy locked down. Failure to do so resulted in repayment terms that might be considered predatory if offered by a private bank.
So, successful navigation of the PPP landscape required strict compliance with term and payments as dictated by the government.
Student loan forgiveness, for better or worse, approve of it or not, invalidates terms and conditions of the loan based on the political whims of the party in charge to the level the debt is discharged.
In what can only be described as a tragically ironic scenario, individuals who made their student loan payments during the COVID lockdown may not actually have benefited from the PPP program, and those benefiting from PPP may actually have allowed their student loan debt to grow in anticipation of the Biden buy out.
I disagree with several points you make on PPP.1. there were not need based requirements for PPP1. PPP2 did have a drop in gross receipts of 25 percent requirement.
2. PPP has a requirement that just 60 percent of the funds go to wages (including owner wages). The other 40 percent could go towards items such as rent, mortgage, etc. So the PPP did in fact pay mortgages and expressly allowed for them to be used for mortgage payments.
3. You bring in the shut downs but in states where there were no shut downs, people still received PPP loans. Florida for example brags about not being shut down, yet Matt Gaetz had $482,000 in PPP loans forgiven.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:
I wonder what the difference in population in Virginia or New Jersey and California is. I wonder if maybe that has anything to do with it?
Here is the per capita data:
-
TCJA was projected to add $1.889 trillion to the deficit per CBO: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/cbo-thinks-tcja-will-cost-433-billion-more-last-decembers-estimate-what-happened
This is projected to cost $330 billion.
Baes on the National Taxpayer Unions methodology, TCJA would cost an average American $11,900 each. Didn’t see outrage there. -
34 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Let's check with the CBO - a far more reputable authority and source and one I'm sure has given us the numbers:
Biden's student debt forgiveness plan may cost taxpayers an average of $2,000, some policy experts say
Based on a total of under 158 million taxpayers in 2019, that works out to $2,085.59 per taxpayer, the National Taxpayers Union found.
The Penn Wharton estimate is "definitely going to increase" based on the Pell Grant and income-based repayment features announced by Biden on Wednesday, Wharton professor Kent Smetters said.
The Congressional Budget Office has yet to evaluate the total cost of the policy.
is the point you’re trying to prove that you don’t have reading comprehension?CBO hasn’t score it. The thing you highlighted says that specific thing.
The $2,000 cost per taxpayer you highlighted is again, not from the CBO, but from a right leaning policy group The National Taxpayers Union.
If you read the National Taxpayers Union policy paper on how they got that number, they took the $330 cost from Wharbutons study and simply divided that by the number of individual tax returns filed in 2019.
That is not finding the average cost this will be to an average Joe you pick off the street.
-
8 minutes ago, OrangeBills said:
Yeah, that's not how this works, but that IS how Lefitsts gin themselves up to justify their inane proscriptions
Source? Data? -
5 minutes ago, OrangeBills said:
You are right. ACTUAL tax-payers will pay MUCH MORE for this idiocy.
But again, Leftists have achieved the long-term goal of "nothing matters", so nothing matters
yes the real taxpayers are left leaning since blue states pay the most Federal taxes:
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Looks like I'm being looted
It’s too bad you didn’t do more education in order to apply critical thinking before you post.1. That’s not a CNBC study, that’s a National Taxpayer Union Foundation study. A right wing group
2. to call it a study is laughable. Their study is to take the projected cost and divide it by the total number of people who filed a return in 2019. It doesn’t take into account that many Americans don’t pay $2,000 in taxes.
A better model to see what the average American will pay for this will take into account the disparity in the amount of taxes paid by each American. So if you were to look at what this will cost the average Joe American WalMart worker, it’s probably closer to a fraction of cent.
A couple pieces of advice:
1. read what you post
2. think to yourself who is writing this and why
3. understand math
If you can do this, then maybe you can join the rest of us as well informed taxpayers!
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Typically loan forgiveness = imputed income = tax liability. Not sure how this latest plan is going to treat that. $10,000 of extra "income" for someone earning $125,000 in 2022 means about $2200 extra coming back to Uncle Sam. And if you live in NY or CA ....
... so watch this one carefully, and see if they add an IRS special rule treating this forgiveness as a nontaxable event.
(Yes, I hate this plan)
Democrats included a provision that student loan forgiveness is tax free through 2025 in the last stimulus reconciliation bill. -
23 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
@Tiberius or @Backintheday544 I am truly hoping you can give me some thoughts on how we can fix schools that can be acceptable to your beliefs? As I stated in Orange County right now every failing school is in a blue section of town, how do we fix it?
Everyone should pull themselves up by the bootstrap and send their kids to private education like me? Don’t know what you’re looking for here.Public school has been broke for decades.
I’d start by watching the Revionaries as a start: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/revisionaries/
After that I’d look at a system that doesn’t have schools being paid for via real estate taxes.
-
6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I get the appeal of a Vanity Fair expose….hard hitting infotainment, the latest trends and styles out of Hollywood, and a very strong online bra and panty offering. At the same time—and I’m not knocking you here, this is about sourcing—I don’t trust a damn thing until it’s picked up by Entertainment Tonight.
It’s quoting the Times.The main gist from the Times:
Times notes:
- (1) Sussmann’s conversation with the CIA had already been reported last October
-(2) Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]”
-(3) the special counsel also never claimed the Clinton campaign had paid Joffe’s company and
-(4) perhaps most importantly, “the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era.” In fact, lawyers for the data scientist who helped develop the data analysis in question, say this happened during— wait for it—Barack Obama’s presidency.
Here’s the Times piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/us/politics/durham-sussmann-trump-russia.html
And Vanity Fair is much more legit than 99 percent of Bonnie’s spam.
-
8 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:
In other words, a Clinton supporting contractor (Joffe) obtained sensitive information (perhaps unlawfully) about the Office of the President of the United States (Trump), manipulated the information, passed it to a DNC/Clinton lawyer (Sussmann), who then delivered it to the CIA.
All on American soil.
In other other words:
Strangely, there wasn’t a lot of fact-checking going on down at Mar-a-Lago, but the actual reason that the “LameStream” media hadn’t covered the story was likely because, as the Times notes: (1) Sussmann’s conversation with the CIA had already been reported last October (2) Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]” (3) the special counsel also never claimed the Clinton campaign had paid Joffe’s company and (4) perhaps most importantly, “the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era.” In fact, lawyers for the data scientist who helped develop the data analysis in question, say this happened during— wait for it—Barack Obama’s presidency.What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” attorneys Jody Westby and Mark Rasch told the Times. “The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”
In other words, Trump and company got the whole thing hilariously, mortifyingly incorrect. But fear not: We’re sure they’ll issue a lengthy correction and heartfelt apology to the people whose reputations they impugned—and the ones Trump suggested should be put to death—in no time.“
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-white-house-spyingWill we get a defamation letter suit or will Fox hide behind that they’re an entertainment company and not a news company protect them again?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, B-Man said:
My, my, such hysteria.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that more than 324 thousand people in PENNSYLVANIA (the target audience) were watching the Super Bowl and saw the ad.
But you go ahead with your "I" rant, it's good.
And Im going to assume that more than just the 4 times amount of YouTube people saw the racist flag burn.Plus you get people like you posting the barely watched YouTube video so it’s not like it a message that’s spreading.
Just admit it’s pretty cool a video of a Senate candidate burning the racist flag has raised over $600,000, didn’t cost $70,000 to put on TV and has more YouTube videos than Republicans thinking something the equivalent of a 5 year olds joke is amazing.
1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:
And yet here we are from all parts of the country talking about him. $70k we’ll spent in my mind.
Im talking more about the awesome guy burning a racist symbol of the right. And how in comparison him burning that trash is just a huge trump card.You can’t deny views. You can’t deny funds raised.
-
11 minutes ago, Westside said:
Now you care about jobs and working people? When they shut the country down, we’re you complaining then?
How about the southern border and the invasion of illegal aliens, who by the way are taking jobs from Americans which you feel so strongly about.
You are a partisan hack and a hypocrite as well. Thank God the people are starting to see who you and your little pals really are.
We’re nearing a million US deaths. Do you think none of them were workers? Do you think workers being forced to go into jobs aren’t concerned they could be added to that list? Maybe just people wearing a mask when you go into a place of business would help those workers fears.You want to talk about supporting the workers. If you want to support the workers wearing a mask from day 1 is supporting them.
People from the Northern border take jobs too. Why are you singling out the southern border?
Plus I don’t know if you’ve seen America lately but you can’t go a block without seeing a help wanted sign. No one’s jobs are being taken.
-
1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:
Yea but I just saw it.
And I bet everyone in PA has seen it by now
Everyone knows your 80 year old grand parents have cell phones now right? It isn't 1988 anymore and you have to be seen during your late local news
Lol best $70K ever spent. Knowing the Super Bowl will get it the attention some would think you need to spend 1 million on.
Whoever is running his campaign - smart
Is it? B-Man’s YouTube ad has 78k views. My ad of burning the racist flag has over 324k.My racist flag burning video has raised over $600k. Your dumb Brandon ad spent $70k just for people to see it.
My racist flag burning video spent no Super Bowl money for people to see it and more people have seen it than this guy who spent $70k to force people to see his.
-
1 minute ago, B-Man said:
LOL.
So the man running for senator of Pennsylvania ran in the market that covers all of western Pennsylvania, and this is somehow "proof" of being a failure.
😆
Well, get your "fainting couch" ready...........
Guy spent $70,000 in Pittsburgh. $70,000 in the Super Bowl. If the ad time was worth anything it wouldn’t cost $70,000.I warn you this may trigger you because they’re burning a traitors flag:
But the dude just burning a racist symbol raked in $600,000 (at the time of the article)
He could have aired his ad burning that racist filth 8.5 times in that market with the money he made just from from making that ad.
-
3 minutes ago, Westside said:
You’re such a hypocrite
And here is where you explain…….I take the same stance for anyone committing treason or affecting international relations.
You know the blockade of an international border is costing hard working Americans jobs and money right?
-
8 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
And Mexico?
Well Canada doesn’t have a border with Mexico, so I think it would be pretty dumb if Canada to try to make a law like that. -
On 2/13/2022 at 10:58 PM, B-Man said:
Lol if only the right had money.
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/david-mccormick-super-bowl-ad-lets-go-brandon-20220214.html
Left unmentioned (and probably un-leaked by the McCormick campaign) was that it ran in just a single market, Pittsburgh, with only $70,000 behind it. For comparison’s sake, you need $1 million to make a real statewide dent on TV.
—-
Dude couldn’t afford more than $70,000. In the words of our former one term President who lost by the most votes ever #sad.
-
3 hours ago, B-Man said:
Dear Elon, help Canada replace the less than 9percent of truckers that would leave the workforce: https://www.wired.com/story/what-does-teslas-truck-mean-for-truckers/
If they’re part of these
protests and leave the workforce willingly hopefully Canada takes away any benefits like unemployment they could get.
-
On 2/13/2022 at 1:16 PM, B-Man said:
They don’t. No one is stopping them from getting a job without a vaccine. They just can’t cross the US border.
If you don’t have the qualifications for a job, you don’t get it. No one is stopping them from getting another job.
Canada should protect their borders as they see fit.
-
2 hours ago, BillStime said:
This aged well
Seeing this post. Absolutely horrific what the OP thinks is appropriate.But you know what, this is just the modern day right, sick and disturbed. Everyone on the right here should be ashamed
-
1
-
1
-
So What's Your Thoughts On This Bit of Genius Coming Out of Cali ? Edit: Here's More Brilliance !!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
The infrastructure bill was a bi-partisan bill that included putting $73 billion into the electrical grid. Bi-partisan means it voted yes and supported by both Republicans and Democrats.
Until you learn basic US politics, you’re opinion is worthless and you’re just spitting out asinine points.
Not the best source but someone with rudimentary understanding of US politics should probably start their education here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States