Pres. Biden's Build Back Better Plan Costs

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (30 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image90
    GA Andersonposted 11 months ago

    I heard an interview concerning the costs of the BBB plan that raised a question; "Is this true?" And since I am sure there are folks here that have checked out the details, I knew this was the place to ask.

    I think I know that the original plan was around $5 trillion, (unscored), but through the process of getting to the final bill, the cost was pared down to around $1.5 trillion. From the start of the plan, both costs, and funding, were based on the original 10-year projection.

    Of course there is debate about this part, but I think the score of the final bill ended up with a net cost of around $340(+/-) billion.

    Here is what I heard:

    In the compromise process, many of the programs were cut back from 10 years to as few as 1-3 years to get the total cost of the plan down to $1.5 number. The funding for the BBB is still based on 10 years.

    That first question is, "Is that true?"

    It is almost a rhetorical question because that is what I have been hearing all-along. However, that just raises more questions.

    I don't think politicians will ever eliminate a popular give-away program, (no need to argue the legitimacy of that word choice—whether valid or not, the end result is giving money to people), and the top one on this list is the Child Tax Credit—if what is claimed is true.

    I read that the CTC was only funded for one year, (for everyone, permanent for some), in the plan's cost estimates. Is this true? Am I the only one that doesn't believe that program will be canceled after the first year and that its cost will continue as originally projected?

    GA

    1. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Once the ball is rolling it as a rule does not stop. "I don't think politicians will ever eliminate a popular give-away program"  Agree

      This is a huge bill that contains over 2,000 pages, it's odd no one seems to be interested in what they hold. I hope it fails, I am not in agreement to spend this amount of money on giveaways.

      The framework gives hints. to some of what is in the bill.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image83
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Hopefully, this comment is not straying too far from your OP. However, this news should be a very important point in regard to Government spending on BBB. We can't really afford the first figure that was set forth for BBB let alone the projected 5 trillion.

        This is a poor time to spend money with rising inflation, which is predicted now to get worse. Just released this morning we had a good warning of what is on the horizon.  Wholesale prices rose 9.6% from a year ago, the highest level going back to November 2010. Wholesale prices increased at their quickest pace on record in November.

        It would be very much expected that inflation will skyrocket in the next few months. This is no time for a country to spend... Just to sum up -- What happens to spend during inflation?  Inflation will work to erode purchasing power or how much of something can be purchased with our currency.  Inflation erodes the value of the dollar, it encourages consumers to spend and stock up on items that are slower to lose value. Causing more of a supply problem and shortage problem.  It lowers the cost of borrowing. 

        This seems to be a perfect storm for economic disaster.
        Hopefully, Congress sees the danger in passing such a bill with such a precarious economy.  No matter the cost, we can't afford it.

        Source for stats ---  Dec 14 2021    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/14/wholesa … ecord.html

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Waiting until the second quarter of 2022 would not be a bad idea when some work can be done on supply chains.

          https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … increases/

          And it's also important to note that in November of 2020, energy prices were down 9.4%.  So when you compare them to today when demand is up, you're going to see a bigger percent gain than normal.

          https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/consu … r-2020.htm

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            That could help, but I feel the cat is out of the bag and running. I think the Fed will soon step in to try to slow down inflation. I also think more Congressmen and women will cool their jets on BBB. In my view, we are headed for trouble quicker than I would have thought. And yes many countries are having problems with inflation --- so goes America so goes the world...

            1. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I think there will be enough Manchin negotiating time to delay the passage well into 2022, as he is an economic conservative Democrat.  So he will need to be assured that BBB will not supercharge the economy, which it just might by helping many in need with a leg up.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Perhaps they could tweak the bill to barebones, keep in some that would truely help American's get back on their feet. There is a ton of unnecessary stuff in BBB.  I don't think it's time to spend.

        2. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I generally agree with most of your comment Sharlee, but the points you make are the 'weeds' of the political arguments that, I think, come after some consensus of the non-partisan questions I asked.

          I would find it worth the time to get into those weeds, (because I tend to agree with most of the Republican rebuttals to the Democrats' claims), once some common starting point can be found.

          Thinking of the political savvy found in these forums I find it difficult to accept the rationalization that the shortened programs will just die when their time is up. I can't recall any similar situations happening with other sunsetted programs. Conversely, I have the perception that most previous such arrangements were either extended or `grandfathered', (somehow), by both parties.

          If no agreement on the first two basic non-partisan questions can be found then I don't think there can be any profit from discussing the partisan weed points.

          For instance: the "we can't afford it" argument. Even though I agree with that, I also think it is a legitimately arguable point. The most simple argument is that ours is a fiat currency, so technically we can afford anything we want. I don't buy that, but it is technically true.

          I also think the projected "surpluses" are arguable because it is only opinions and projections that support either position. If one would believe a similar Republican surplus claim, (remember the Trump tax cut claims that they would pay for themselves?), then why shouldn't the Democrats' claim be believed? Of course, I don't believe either's claim, but that is also just an opinion.

          I think you can see how this goes if we proceeded without any common understanding of the basics, so let's settle those basics first.

          GA

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Got it... However, as of this morning, we are in the "weeds".  new information in regards to the economy will affect BBB directly.  Things move fast in Washington, and we are now in the weeds knee-deep.  BBB is soggy, and no longer a viable consideration as it stands. No matter the cost, it will be stalled, if not buried.   

            Truely Sorry, for expanding the subject. I will be on my way ( absolutely no sarcasm meant)

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              No worries, feel free to go with whatever depth or direction you want. I always do. ;-)

              It would be easy for me to jump right in those weeds with you because I hold similar thoughts on the BBB plan but without some starting point of at least talking about the same thing then everybody is just tossing around opinions and interpretations. And that would be fine if everybody is talking about the same thing.

              If there is no understanding on the point of whether the shortened programs are, realistically and historically, most likely to be extended, or not, then anything more will just be a battle of opposing talking points.

              GA

              1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I have watched them hashing this stuff out on Cspan.   It would seem the Democrats seem to feel the bill stipulates in one year the child tax credit would end. If the Den's hold congress they could well extend the child credit tax credit. The other side is not buying it.  I have not even tried to read the actual bill.

                In my view, It's very hard to stop free once the ball is rolling.

                1. Valeant profile image86
                  Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  With all the redistricting, the odds highly favor the GOP to retake at least one house.  This is just fearmongering because in a year, it's highly doubtful the Democrats could pass an extension even if they wanted to.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    How about a "what if"?

                    If the Democrats retained the current chambers alignment, do you think they would move to extend the program? I do.

                    GA

          2. Valeant profile image86
            Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            'Thinking of the political savvy found in these forums I find it difficult to accept the rationalization that the shortened programs will just die when their time is up. I can't recall any similar situations happening with other sunsetted programs.'

            I give you the ban on assault weapons:
            https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/75065617 … -it-expire

            And as a random point, during that 10-year period, there was just one mass shooting, Columbine.  Since the expiration was allowed in 2004, there have been 18.

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Come on bud . . . surely you don't really think that assault weapon ban compares with a give-away program—in the context of this discussion? I bet you sprained your wrist with that stretch.

              GA

              1. Valeant profile image86
                Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                It was more of a hamstring pull at my age.  One year versus ten, but did want to provide an example of Congress having and allowing a major program to sunset.

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  As a side note, I wonder if, (beyond the scope of this discussion), there have been `safety-net' programs that were allowed to sunset in the past. I am nearly tempted to use just that such phrase. But, Nah. ;-)

                  Ga

  2. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 11 months ago

    Question 1:
    The CBO scored the cost at $340 billion over ten years.  The Treasury Department, which has a better handle on the amount that can be raised on the IRS enforcement measures written into the bill, believe there will actually be a surplus instead of a cost.

    Question 2:
    Yes, the CTC is written into one year.  Many on the right doubt that it will go away and the Democrats will want to renew it.  But they also misstate that the Democrats won't find a method to pay for it if they did choose to renew it just as they did with this version of the bill, hence why they created a fabricated bill that doesn't exist that has the option with a renewed CTC, minus any payment methods. 

    Completely deceitful, just as liars like Rand Paul puts up to his Facebook page:  'CBO estimates Biden's trillion dollar tax-and-spend plan will add $3 trillion to the debt.'  It's not Biden's bill he was referring to, but some fictional bill that the GOP had scored that doesn't exist and the Democrats have not proposed.

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      As you show, the `final' cost is hotly debated. However, I think your answer to the second question might show why.

      It seems you agree, as I think most folks would, that the CTC would get extended. But, your rationalization; " But they also misstate that the Democrats won't find a method to pay for it if they did choose to renew it just as they did with this version of the bill", sounds like it boils down to `Trust me.' Do you disagree?

      I don't think either party has that much credibility, with any but their own. Even the most naive would wonder why that would be true a year from now if it isn't true now. What makes the difference?

      Relative to the cost estimates, I think a similar questioning of the `battle of budgeting offices' asks for another "trust me." I have the perception that the CBO has historically been accepted, (except by the party that wanted different results), as a fairly reliable non-partisan score. So why is their estimate wrong now? (don't answer that, I know the party has the talking points already laid out)

      After boiling down your response, (because I think it is representative of the generic of y'all, it seems your only support for such claims as a fabricated bill, fictional bill, liars, and deceitful is your trust. Just look at your disdain for any that don't have that same trust.

      I don't trust them, and I think there are a lot of similar non-partisan "me's" out there. I also think more than one of y'all are going to strain something trying to stretch your trust over those simple questions.

      *the "y'alls were just for fun bud. Trying to abstain from `labeling'   :-O

      GA

      1. Valeant profile image86
        Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        'It seems you agree, as I think most folks would, that the CTC would get extended. But, your rationalization; " But they also misstate that the Democrats won't find a method to pay for it if they did choose to renew it just as they did with this version of the bill", sounds like it boils down to `Trust me.' Do you disagree?'

        I disagree that I agree with your premise that CTC will get extended.  I was simply saying that saying it would add $3 trillion to the deficit is a fabrication.  That if, and it's still just an if, the Democrats went that route, they have shown that they will develop ways to pay for it without adding trillions to the debt unlike their GOP counterparts who believe in trickle down as a future means of payment for their agenda despite 30 years of evidence to the contrary.

        Actually, Rand Paul saying Biden's BBB bill would add $3 trillion to the deficit, which as it is written would either add just one-tenth of that at most if the CBO projections are correct, or if Treasury saying CBO underestimates the tax revenues, save boatloads of money as the CTC goes away after a year, is not a trust issue.  It's Rand Paul being ridiculously dishonest about the bill on the table and openly lying about its cost.

        Scoring a bill that doesn't exist was bad enough.  Scoring a non-existent bill and negating any pay-fors, despite the Democrats insisting they were necessary for the current bill aiming to be passed, is just fabrication of content and then lying about how the Democrats operate.  Surprising you cannot see that and sort of jumped all over the bandwagon of falsities being narrated in this case.

        And what makes this even more deceitful is the assumption that Democrats will simply extend the CTC in a year.  Which should be in some alternate universe since in a year's time, the same people saying the Democrats will extend this program are the same people assuring everyone that they will easily take back control of at least one and maybe both houses of Congress.  That's pretty much when you should realize this is just propaganda since they are telling you two very different things.

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I appreciate your effort Valeant, but you are responding to stuff I am not interested in discussing. I am not talking about any of the Republicans' claims or charges and although I do not support the BBB, I am not jumping on any bandwagon of Republican falsities.

          Consider the points I spoke to:

          Was the plan cost reduced by early `sunsetting' of many programs in a year or three instead of the full 10-year projection?

          If these programs were important enough and needed so badly that they are in the plan to start, then why are they so unimportant now that they only are planned for 1 - 3 years?

          Do I understand your comment to mean you don't think these sunsetted programs will be renewed?

          There is no need to respond with Republican stuff. It shouldn't have any bearing on those questions. The first should have a factual answer and the second is simply asking an opinion.

          I do think, (because the bill's sponsors said so), that programs were early sunsetted in order to reduce the plan's cost to a politically acceptable level. That would seem to be a factually supported thought.

          I do not believe the sponsors intend to honor those sunsets. I wonder if there is a search query that would show, historically, other such welfare programs that were allowed to sunset—without any type of extension.

          I gotta tell ya, from my point of view it is the Democrats that are being deceitful and disingenuous in their claims that these are temporary programs. Next, they will probably want me to buy a bridge or some beachfront land in the Everglades.

          As mentioned, I think y'all's support and rationalizations can only be supported by your trust. I don't think historical reality is on the side of your "trust.

          And then a simple way of condensing my comment popped up. Would you support your rationalizations if we were discussing a similar Republican-sponsored bill?

          GA

  3. Sharlee01 profile image83
    Sharlee01posted 11 months ago

    So agree... She must have forgotten each and everyone that Musk employs pays taxes. Fun how she forgot that many American's would pretty much know that...  Typical politicians that need o to toss a bit of feed to a flock --- say it and they will rush to eat it up. 

    Funny she would even think she could stand her own with Musk.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image84
      Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      The very concerning part, is people with foolish ideas like this dominate the halls of our government.

      While the people revolutionizing and improving our world and our lives are the target of these people's ire and ill will... because people like Musk don't want to play the game of corruption and collusion... because He wants to move humanity forward while those in Congress bow to the wants of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Legacy Auto, etc. slanting all the laws and all the Agencies at their behest in their favor and against those wanting to change the system or the world for the better.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image83
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I so agree Ken. I am always pleased to see people like Musk set the record straight. So few that innovate in this country, we should be glad he settled here.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image84
          Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          You may enjoy this video, good watch, very accurate and informative.

          https://youtu.be/wcz-EqZ_spg

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            OMG -- loved this. So wonderful, so much common sense in one short video.

            However, I think if a liberal would happen to stumble into this video, it would leave them catatonic.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image84
              Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              How this Administration (and its primary accomplice Nancy Pelosi) has handled Musk, Space X and Tesla tells me all I need to know about them.

              Not once, ever has Biden mentioned Musk or Tesla or Space X.

              Biden has gone out of his way to sell the lie that GM is pioneering the transition to EVs and renewable energy.

              This encapsulates the reality they weave about ALL things.  The falsehoods they fabricate, the web of lies they weave, is it any wonder this is the Party that currently supports 76 different sexes?

              The disconnect from reality must always be pushed, the battering of people's senses and morals must always be challenged.

              It's not Tesla that revolutionized the auto industry by making affordable EVs that can go hundreds of miles on a charge and built a global recharge network with its own money that supports those EVs.

              No It was GM that is doing all that in Biden's Official reality.  And it will be Biden that bails out GM as it goes bankrupt... again.

              https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/19/pr … tion-what/

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)