_Maxolotl t1_jaala0e wrote
if congress won't send us money, how about Biden sends the DOJ to investigate all the damn graft, so we don't have to spend as much money?
Awkward-Use-7229 t1_jab2sy0 wrote
Because he’d want his 10%
watupmynameisx t1_jac8um4 wrote
He is the big guy after all
what_mustache t1_jadnqd3 wrote
Yeah, Biden is def super rich despite not really owning much and living a modest life in public for 60 years.
watupmynameisx t1_jadu57y wrote
I know don't we all own BEACHFRONT COMPOUNDS and get 10% of our sons' bribes
what_mustache t1_jae0yyl wrote
Lol, the home was bought for 2.75 million in 2017. That's totally affordable for a PHD teacher and a former senator/VP. And also, we know he made money on the book because he shared his taxes.
And seriously bro, it's a compound? It's 0.34 acres. Where do you gullibles come up with this stuff? Do you just read junk on facebook and believe it? You can literally look it up on Zillow bro.
[deleted] t1_jae3ogk wrote
[removed]
what_mustache t1_jae9021 wrote
>The guys worth $10mm
Lol, do you know know how mortgages work, stupid? Let me teach you a "pro tip", you can get a mortgage to buy a home that is worth more than your current net worth.
>And no it isn't affordable for sone9ne on that salary
Biden and his wife made around 350k combined per year for decades. She's a PHD, makes around 100k per year. And again....MORTGAGES!
And they bought the beach home AFTER they made 16,596,979 on their book deal. So yeah, not only is that home affordable as a senator who isn't bad with money, it's easily affordable after his book earnings.
He also bought a place for 185,000 in the 70s and sold it in 1995 for 1.2 million after fixing it up.
His other home he bought for 350k, and then built on the land.
So serious question, are you stupid or just really, really gullible? How is it you think he's stealing billions? What is he spending it on? You literally called his 0.34 acre beach house a "compound" when I could walk the entire property in 30 seconds and look it up on Zillow. How did you get this gullible? Was it facebook?
ripstep1 t1_jac6l61 wrote
Why is this the federal taxpayers problem?
dekalbavenue t1_jacb3q5 wrote
Because NYC alone contributes 8% of the entire country's GDP, far higher than any other city and higher than every state except California and Texas. It's in the Fed's interest that NYC is up and running.
CactusBoyScout t1_jacsa14 wrote
I remember reading years ago that NYC transit actually gets relatively little of its funding from the federal government compared to other global cities.
Supposedly other global cities have national governments that recognize how much of a return on investment their largest cities generate economically and so they support their infrastructure more. And other countries are more likely to have their seat of government in their largest city so the lawmakers are more keenly aware of its infrastructure.
But our federal government is sharply skewed in favor of rural states who don’t want to support big cities while taking huge subsidies for themselves.
Endofunctor t1_jadd3ck wrote
You think any of that would stop if they couldn't make it to the office on time? Doubt it, especially in a post-covid world.
dekalbavenue t1_jadmo49 wrote
It's not about going from 1.6 trillion to zero. It's about going from 1.6 trillion to 1.3 trillion (a loss of $300 billion) because the government couldn't bother to invest $3 billion. That's plausible if the MTA is dysfunctional to the point where economic decisions are made to account for it. To put it in perspective, the MTA strike in 2005 cost the city economy about $400 million a day. In 2023 dollars, that number would be closer to $615 million. Imagine if you will, a non functioning MTA that lasted a year. Or, a sub par functional MTA over a few years, say, over a presidential cycle.
Do you think hyperpartisanship for the benefit of Fox News viewers is worth $300 billion in lost public revenue?
_Maxolotl t1_jaceqyp wrote
Why would it not be when the bridges and tunnels clearly are?
LittleKitty235 t1_jacfggr wrote
Federal tax dollars going toward infrastructure improvements in the MTA seems like something the federal government should be doing. The idea it shouldn't is just Republican conditioning and that rejecting federal money is some noble principle.
I'm going to guess the argument is that only interstate bridges and tunnels should we paid for by federal tax dollars, or some other Republican nonsense
ripstep1 t1_jacs9p7 wrote
Absolutely. Why is the federal taxpayer paying for roads in Brooklyn.
LittleKitty235 t1_jactynb wrote
https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/transportation-infrastructure/
Because the Federal government provides funding for that and it has bi-partisan support. Probably not the hill Republicans want to die on as that aid disproportionately goes to rural areas when you account for where the tax money comes from. Your question should really be why are your federal taxes paying for bridges and roads in rural Arkansas.
Neither political party wants the type of policy you seem to want.
ripstep1 t1_jacudtb wrote
Would be fine with less aid going to rural areas too.
LittleKitty235 t1_jacviuw wrote
Well neither political party does and I question the economic benefit and short sightedness of reducing spending on infrastructure as it has tremendous long term returns. Building roads and bridges has been a core part of successful governments that predates the Romans.
dekalbavenue t1_jaddaiz wrote
As I already explained, and which you ignored, the government gets way more money out of NYC in taxes than the money it invests into it. So it's in the government's interest to pay for roads in Brooklyn so that we can get around and be productive.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments