Why yes, yes we need to increase taxes, if for no other reason, to start paying off the debt.
Minor problem.
The richest 20% of Americans already pay most of the taxes in this country, roughly 80%.


And corporations already pay about 20% of income as tax.
Shooter has a good friend who is starting a business, he bought land and built a 5,000 square foot building to employ, ultimately, 25 people.
His property taxes alone, before he's even opened his doors, is $2 MILLION. His last remark was that if the government taxed him much more, he'd be better off moving to Canada or Ireland or even Mexico.

So, tax away. But be careful. Taxing the rich too much will cause them to leave the country and take their wealth with them. Over taxing corporations will cause them to go away as well. You can easily gore the golden goose. If you want to fairly tax Americans, you have to ultimately start taxing the lowest 20%, then consider how to tax the richest 80% more.

And one other consideration; the Federal Government currently collects roughly 20% of GDP in taxes. That's roughly $3.5 TRILLION a year.
And we're spending over $4 TRILLION without including pandemic spending. Last year, the Feds spent over $5 TRILLION, almost $2 TRILLION they didn't have.
Biden/harris wants to increase the budget from $4 TRILLION to $6 TRILLION, so just to pay for that we're looking at doubling taxes to about 40% of GDP.

And that doesn't even begin to pay for biden/harris's almost $5 TRILLION pig bills, does it?
Or even begin to pay off the $28 TRILLION in debt we already have, does it?

Face it.
America cannot afford the government the politicians are foisting on us.

And for what it's worth, Shooter would cap Federal income at 15% of GDP and require a balanced budget. Always. No matter who is in charge. And he'd use the other 5% to start paying off the debt.

Then we can talk about pig bills and free shit for everyone.

 

This;
"If you want to fairly tax Americans, you have to ultimately start taxing the lowest 20%, then consider how to tax the richest 80% more."

Should read;
If you want to fairly tax Americans, you have to ultimately start taxing the lowest 80%, then consider how to tax the richest 20% more.

 

America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/23/ame...y-a-lower-tax-rate-than-average-taxpayer.html

Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans

Key Facts

• The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation’s wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation’s wealth.
• In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.
• The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.
• The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.
• Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
• 1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.
• CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker.
• 30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.
• The largest contributor to increasing income inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends.
  
  https://americansfortaxfairness.org...-booklet/fact-sheet-taxing-wealthy-americans/
  
  
  
  

Breaking|Jun 8, 2021,09:19am EDT|143,712 views
Richest Americans—Including Bezos, Musk And Buffett—Paid Federal Income Taxes Equaling Just 3.4% Of $401 Billion In New Wealth, Bombshell Report Shows

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahh...ealth-bombshell-report-shows/?sh=7d97250b7fe1


ProPublica: Many of the uber-rich pay next to no income tax
The richest 25 Americans pay less in tax — 15.8% of adjusted gross income — than many ordinary workers do, once you include taxes for Social Security and Medicare, the nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica found


https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/propublica-uber-rich-pay-income-tax-78149407

 

Perfect example of figures never lie, but liars figure.

Hey Stumbler, how much money did the rich take out of your pocket last year?
None?
How bout that!

 

The head of the IRS publicly stated/ admitted that the IRS is so underfunded and his term "Out gunned" that the wealthy Taxpayers with their complicated tax returns are cheating the Federal government out of Billions and Billions of dollars every year, by filing fraudulent tax returns, "not by using legal loop holes' but actual fraud.
The IRS cannot hire enough people to handle the workload due to underfunding.
The corporate tax return for large corporations can be the size of a set of encyclopedias in paper work.
Those stolen lost tax dollars by the wealthy have to be made up by the rest of us W2 people paying more.
If this is bad with the Federal Tax, you can imagine what goes on at the state level with the wealthy filing fraudulent state tax returns.

 

Now lets think about this for a moment.
The head of the IRS said ...................
And the bottom line is, they want more money.
You know, to catch those greedy rich fuckers.
Meanwhile, the head of the IRS approves of bonus payments to IRS employees suspended/fired for misconduct. The average annual bonus payment PER EMPLOYEE is $1,600 just now, and there are almost 78,000 employees. You can do the math.
The head of the IRS approves annual junkets to fun places like Las Vegas and Anaheim California that cost, according to latest figures, almost $5 MILLION a year. How many IRS auditors could be hired with $5 MILLION to audit those greedy fuckers tax returns?
How many IRS auditors could be hired with $100 MILLION?

See, these "breaking news reports" from the head of the IRS is really "fluff news" aimed at laying a foundation for us so when the IRS gets it's budget increase, we won't be so upset about it.

What really needs to happen to fix this problem is;
1) Clean up the tax code so it doesn't take a fucking set of encyclopedias to report taxes.
2) Get the IRS to actually concentrate on their job instead of "employee conferences" and bonuses.
3) Stop drinking the Kool aid.

 

In 2020, top CEOs earned 351 times more than the typical worker

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/15/in-2020-top-ceos-earned-351-times-more-than-the-typical-worker.html

 

U.S. billionaires gained almost $1 trillion in wealth during the pandemic

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/billionaires-pandemic-1-trillion-wealth-gain/

 

A one year old article.
Attaboy.
How much of that $1 TRILLION came out of anyone's pocket did you say, stumbler?

 

The Pandora Papers are rocking the world exposing billionaires, politicians, and celebrates that are using the platform to hide hundreds of millions and valid paying taxes on their wealth But surprisingly there does not appear to be any US billion ares and politicians who use it. Why is that?

Here's why.

Why no Americans? Considering the vast wealth of America’s own oligarchs, it’s surprising on first blush to see no U.S. names mentioned. One simple explanation, put forward by the Washington Post, is that U.S. millionaires and billionaires have enough tools available within the U.S. tax code to shield most of their wealth already. (For a good example of this practice, see ProPublica’s June report on the exploitation of Roth IRA accounts to create “a Bermuda-style tax haven right here in the U.S.”)

Foreign Policy Morning Brief

In fact they way most thees wealthy tax cheats are hiding their wealth is secretly buying up US assets.

 

Recent White House study on taxes shows the wealthy pay a lower rate than everybody else

Pro Publica
October 06, 2021



Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, speaks at the Fortune's Most Powerful Women's Summit in Washington on Oct. 13, 2015. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)
A decade ago, in an essay for The New York Times, Warren Buffett disclosed that he had paid nearly $7 million in federal taxes in 2010. "That sounds like a lot of money," he wrote. "But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent."

The words "taxable income" are doing a lot of work in that sentence.

Buffett owns a substantial number of shares in Berkshire Hathaway, the fabulously successful holding company he founded decades ago. As the company's shares have soared nearly every year, his wealth has grown by billions. Under the U.S. tax code, none of that is taxed until he sells shares at a profit.

A little math shows that Buffett's 17.4% rate meant he reported roughly $40.2 million in income in a year where Forbes said his wealth grew by $3 billion. His revelation made it possible to compare how much he was paying the government to the increase in the size of his fortune.

No one did so, and Buffett became something of a folk hero for calling for any increase in taxes.

When we obtained access to a trove of tax data on the richest Americans, it quickly became clear to our reporters that Buffett's comparison of his own tax rate to his employees' vastly understates the inequity of our tax system. Buffett is far from unique; the documents showed that the amount of money people like Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk reported to the IRS as income was infinitesimal when measured against their annual gains in wealth.

And so the first story in our "Secret IRS Files" series set out a new concept that makes more sense in our 21st century Gilded Age; we called it "the true tax rate." We compared the annual taxes paid by the ultrarich to their wealth gains to give readers a sense of how the system really works.

From 2014 to 2018, we pointed out, Buffett paid $125 million in federal taxes. As he said, that sounds like a lot. But according to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 billion during that period, making his true tax rate 0.1%. In a detailed written response, Buffett defended his practices but did not directly address ProPublica's true tax rate calculation.

When we published this story, howls of rage rang out from the freewheeling corners of Twitter to the ornate offices on Wall Street. Some of the most irate critics wrote to me directly and demanded to know whether I was so @#$!@ stupid that I didn't understand the meaning of the word "income tax."

"This story, sadly, reeks with 'class envy,'" one angry reader wrote. "If this was intended to get clicks, you made your money." We're a nonprofit and our revenue from advertising adds almost nothing to our annual budget, but I understand this reader's larger point, which we noted in the story: The ultrarich are doing only what the current tax code invites them to do.

The debate intensified, and the White House-backed proposals on taxes advanced by congressional Democrats largely followed the traditional approach of raising rates on income. A separate bill introduced by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to impose a 3% tax on all wealth above $1 billion is seen as having little chance of passing.

The reluctance to embrace a wealth tax is deeply rooted. The biggest donors to both parties would be hit hard by such a law. And as we pointed out in our initial story, the complexities of taxing wealth are not trivial. Several countries have tried and struggled to figure out a fair way to tax stock gains. Does an entrepreneur whose stock skyrockets in one year, and pays a big tax, deserve a rebate if his company's shares plummet the next year?

All of that said, we took note when White House economists issued a study that used publicly available data to estimate "the average Federal individual income tax rate paid by the 400 wealthiest American families' in recent years, determined using a more comprehensive measure of income." Their methodology was similar to ours, and their findings — that those families gained $1.8 trillion from 2010 to 2018 and paid 8.2% in taxes — are in line with what we found in the tax data.

The authors say their findings are evidence in support of President Joe Biden's plan for tweaking the existing system; the words "wealth tax" are not mentioned. They point to the administration's proposal to impose higher tax rates on stock dividends and on capital gains, the profit an investor reaps when selling a stock whose value has risen.

(The Biden administration has proposed getting rid of a provision in the tax code that shields heirs who inherit stock from paying capital gains tax on the growth in value that occurred before the shares were transferred.)

None of the proposed changes come close to addressing the biggest hole in the system, which is that an ultrarich person can live comfortably off gains in wealth while never selling a single share. As our initial story pointed out, the Buffetts and Bezos of the world can borrow against the value of their considerable holdings and live comfortably without selling stock or receiving any income from dividends, which new companies like Tesla and Amazon don't pay.

The strategy, known as "buy, borrow and die," allows the wealthy to amass fast fortunes, pay no taxes on those gains and pass on much of the wealth to their descendants.

Herb and Marion Sandler, the founders of ProPublica, made it clear from the outset that they hoped our journalism would spur real-world change. They were not particularly interested in stories whose biggest effect was that they had "started a conversation."

[img alt="" src="data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,

We still measure our success by tangible effects. But over the years, we have seen that the road to impact on very complex issues can begin by changing the conversation.

Lawmakers have said that some of the most egregious tax loopholes we've exposed, notably multibillion-dollar Roth IRA accounts, [a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/house-bill-would-blow-up-the-massive-iras-of-the-superwealthy"]will be scrutinized
as Congress takes up tax legislation in coming months.

There's no telling where the larger conversation about taxing wealth will lead. As the White House paper suggests, a new way of thinking about equality and taxation has taken center stage. Whether that ultimately results in change remains very much an open question.



https://www.rawstory.com/recent-whi...wealthy-pay-a-lower-rate-than-everybody-else/

 

Here's the thing about demonizing rich people and the taxes they pay.

If one reads the garbage that the despicables pour out daily on the topic, and that stumbler so happily pastes here for our entertainment, the message is that those greedy rich bastards are defrauding the government by not paying more taxes, and in fact, they got rich on the backs of us poor hard working minions, and DAMIT!! DO SOMETHING!!

The thing is, even an idiot can see what's going on here; the despicables want to spend a shit load of money to, you know, make us more dependent on government and to get themselves reelected in 2024 cause they know, if history is any guide, they're gonna take an ass whipping in the 20224 elections.

Plus, they got biden/harris.

The thing is, they know spending $12 TRILLION in a year is simply not going to work, not unless they get more money coming in, and coming in damn fast. So, they crank up the propaganda and demonize those rich fat cats and tell the minions that those rich fuckers will be paying for all the free shit the despicables are working so hard to get for us. Never mind that damn near every Congressperson is, themselves, a rich fat cat. Only of course, they aren't suggesting that Congress people don't pay their fair share, are they? And we can be damn sure, one way or the other, those fuckers in Congress won't be increasing their own taxes. Just those other rich fat fuckers.

Here's the problem with that.
First, "the rich" and corporations already pay over 80% of the taxes in this country.
Second, the way those rich fuckers avoid paying taxes is to follow the law congress makes. You know, the rich fuckers who don't pay enough taxes now.
Third, anyone who thinks once congress starts spending $12 TRILLION on ............. "social infrastructure" we can stop it anytime, is living in a dream world. See, once they get an increase in a budget, they don't ever cut it back. Oh, they'll move money around, and call a lower budget increase a "cut", but the reality is, the budget so far will continue to go up from wherever it was last time. Shooter saw it with the FUTA tax in the mid 1980's. A "temporary" FUTA tax increase was supposed to expire. A staffer from Mark Hatfields office explained it best; "once government gets a tax started, or gets a budget increase, no elected or government official will ever give it back. Ever. We'll cut off our hand first.
Fourth, the "rich" and corporations cannot fund a $12 TRILLION, or even a $6 TRILLION government expense. So that leaves two choices; we can continue adding to the debt, until inflation hits (it will, sure as the sun will rise tomorrow) and then we can be like Venezuela. You know, paying $15 for a loaf of bread, assuming we can find a loaf of bread to buy.

Or, we can start taxing the "not rich" Americans. You know, us. You, and me and your neighbor. And mark this spot. If that comes to pass we're gonna get a whole bunch of propaganda demonizing those "hard working Americans" who take and take and take from the government but don't even begin to pay for all the free shit government gives them.

That's not what Shooter wants. He's pretty sure that's not what anyone wants, if they think it through.

 

Just for the record I am in all favor of having my taxes raised. Its just another lie of conservationism as it is preached and practiced in this nation that we can live in the richest and most powerful nation on earth and not have to pay taxes. I just want rich corporations and individuals to do the same thing.

 

Oh stumbler, you can fully count on taxes being raised.

We're $28 TRILLION in debt, and on the way to $35 TRILLION in debt before the 2024 election.
You can mark this spot.

There is no way "the rich" or corporations are going to pay that off. Can't.

So yeah, you and Shooter and the rest of the minions are gonna end up paying more in taxes.
A lot more.

What Shooter hopes is, we can reign in those fat cats in Congress with some demands that budget increases be funded. You know.
You want that bridge in Alaska? Great. Show us how it will be paid for, you know, exactly, and then you can build it.
You want free college? Excellent. Where's your funding for it?
And none of that "well, general revenues will cover that" bullshit. Nope. You want it, point to the new tax or whatever, or you can forget it.

Like that.

 

Amazon paid zero taxes which must be what qualifies them for corporate welfare.

Amazon has raked in a record $4.1 billion in government subsidies -- and counting

Ray Hartmann
October 06, 2021



Image: Screen capture of Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos (Binary Option Evolution)


Corporate giant Amazon has amassed a record amount of corporate welfare in 2021 to bring its total to an astounding $4,148,000,000, according to the economic development watchdog Good Jobs First.

In 2021 alone, Amazon has netted $650 million in grants, tax exemptions, and other incentives from states and municipalities in 2021 — "its most lucrative year of perks yet," notes this commentary at Nasdaq.com, citing Good Jobs First data. And that's with three months left in the year.

"Amazon is famously great at delivering — but, it turns out, the e-tail giant is pretty good at receiving, too," the commentary notes. "States and municipalities have bent over backwards to entice the incredibly profitable firm to open up warehouses in their backyards. But it remains unclear how much good that will do for anyone but Amazon."

It added this:

"Amazon says it's worthy of subsidies because it created more than 400,000 jobs last year alone. But a 2018 study by the Economic Policy Institute found that, while new Amazon fulfilment centres increased warehouse jobs by 30% in an area, they attracted staff from other employers and thus led to no net job gains.

"There's also the matter of pay. Take New Jersey: a UPS driver there makes an average of $38.35 an hour, according to recent congressional testimony. An Amazon driver? Just $19.25, the Financial Times notes. The company recently raised its average starting wage from $17 to $18 — and is increasingly touting perks like signing bonuses and college tuition help — as it aims to fill 125,000 warehouse and delivery jobs."

The "Amazon Tracker" page at Good Job First weighed in as well:

"Since we began collecting and exposing subsidies the company has received, we have encountered greater secrecy surrounding the packages awarded to Amazon. This sometimes makes calculating such costs difficult. Secret project names, non-disclosure agreements, and a reluctance by public officials to fully disclose costs -- even after a deal has been awarded -- suggests Amazon and public officials know these deals have become controversial."

https://www.rawstory.com/amazon-corporate-welfare/

 

So Stumbler, you gonna petition your despicable Congressional delegates to change the tax laws?

 

'Isolationism, McCarthyism and segregation': How Trump exposed NeoCon hypocrisy

Matthew Chapman
December 14, 2021



Donald Trump and George W. Bush
On Tuesday, writing for New York Magazine's Intelligencer, columnist Jonathan Chait explored how former President Donald Trump got many in the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party to expose the hypocrisy of their demands for foreign adventurism.

"One of the most contentious questions in American political thought over the past half-dozen years has been whether Donald Trump represents a departure from the ideals of American conservatism or, alternatively, its apotheosis," wrote Chait. "The departure interpretation is put forth mainly by conservatives, who see Trump’s bigotry and authoritarianism as a betrayal of their noble creed. The apotheosis interpretation is largely advocated by conservatism’s critics, who see those traits as mainly consistent with its traditional embrace of isolationism, McCarthyism, and segregation."

The answer, argued Chait, lies in a Wall Street Journal interview with Norman Podhoretz, a longtime right-wing editor and neoconservative thinker who describes himself as having gone from "anti-anti-Trump" to "pro-Trump."

"Podhoretz explains that his central reason for leaving the left for the right was the left’s failure to appreciate America’s goodness: 'I broke with the left mainly because of its anti-Americanism' … He pauses, leans back in his sofa chair, and restates the formulation. 'A force for good in the world — or not?'" wrote Chait. "Amazingly, the Journal’s interviewer does not point out how utterly diametrical this sentiment is with Trump’s stated foreign-policy views. Neocons like Podhoretz have spent decades accusing Democrats of advocating 'moral relativism' between the United States and dictatorial regimes, but Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to actually espouse it. When asked to defend his admiration of a Russian regime that murders journalists, Trump shot back, 'There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?'"

READ MORE: Trump's public statements match up with coup plot laid out in PowerPoint

"His main foreign-policy belief is that the United States should act purely out of self-interest, including by committing war crimes (as defined by the U.S. military) and using military power to plunder weaker countries,'" continued Chait. "This is the opposite of serving as 'a force for good in the world.' But it reveals that goodness was never the standard Podhoretz had used to judge American foreign policy at all. He merely resented any criticism of American military power and believed the country should not have to meet any ethical standard in its dealings with other countries."

A number of key people in the neoconservative movement, notably, did not latch onto Trumpism, like Liz Cheney, who is currently investigating the January 6 Capitol rioters, and former President George W. Bush himself. But many more, like Podhoretz, have — and this fact is telling, Chait argued.

"Podhoretz is making clear in his advanced age that his elegant-sounding arguments for abandoning the left were largely a cover for a deeper collection of ugly resentments," concluded Chait. "Trump is a perfect moral X-ray, and Podhoretz is one of many figures this era has revealed for what they always were."

You can read more here.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-neoconservatives/

 

President Eisenhower was a conservative in the best sense of the word. He recognized that the reforms of the New Deal had broad popular support, so he did not try to repeal those reforms, as many Republican leaders wanted him to do. He tried to administer New Deal programs more efficiently and less expensively.

Barry Goldwater was a reactionary. He did not like the reforms of the New Deal and openly ran against them. As a result in 1964 he suffered a well deserved defeat, and the Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress.

Richard Nixon was a conservative in the Eisenhower tradition. Nixon accepted most of the reforms of the Kennedy-Johnson years, and moved forward on environmental regulations. Nixon would look better in history if he had not tried to win the War in Vietnam.

Gerald Ford was also a conservative in the Eisenhower tradition.

During his administration Ronald Reagan ran a stealth campaign against the reforms of the New Deal and the Great Society. He knew that increases in domestic spending like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation were popular with most of the voters, including a large percentage of Republican voters. He claimed that tax cuts - going mainly to the rich - would generate more tax revenue, so it would not be necessary to cut popular middle class entitlements.

Reagan may have been stupid enough to believe the fantasy of supply side economics. His more intelligent advisers knew better, and hoped that rising deficits would make it possible to scale back popular middle class entitlements.

Since Reagan, Republicans have continued to pretend that tax cuts pay for themselves. Those Republicans are not conservatives. They are not even reactionaries. They are right wing radicals who continue to assert an economic theory that has been decisively disproved.

----------

DL you obviously haven't been in the workforce for many years . or watched your father work.

- Truthful 1

----------

What have I said that is not true? When Jimmy Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x416274

Under President Carter there was a brief, six month recession. Unemployment reached 7.8%. Under President Reagan there was a deep, sixteen month recession. Unemployment reached 10.8%. I remember the Reagan Recession well. I had completed my computer studies and I was looking for a job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

 

Shooter came across an interesting blurb from CBS NEWS about the whole corporations don't pay tax agenda item from dispicables.
How much income tax does Amazon pay? 1.2% on $13 billion for 2019 - CBS News

Its always made Shooter chuckle, reading about these mega corporations that supposedly pay no Federal tax. The way the pundits can arrive at that conclusion is by ignoring payroll taxes, which include unemployment taxes only they pay (employees do not pay anything towards unemployment insurance) of about $432 per employee per year plus about $7,500 per employee per year for the company share of Social Security and Medicare.

At last count, amazon had 950,000 US employees, so at $8,000 in payroll tax per employee that would mean Amazon would pay $7.6 BILLION in Federal taxes.

Now, Shooter has always taken the position that Social Security and Medicare are government programs forced on us by Government, and because they are dedicated taxes (meaning the money collected can't be used for anything but unemployment Medicare and social security) they should not be included in the typical Federal budget.

But, since most of the debt comes from these programs and their tag along program of Obama Care, we have to take them into account when looking at what corporations pay in taxes.

Which leads us back to the original point; Congress has passed the tax laws that dictate exactly how much in Federal tax each company and each of us pays. If you think Amazon owes more than the $7-$8 BILLION they paid in taxes then you should be raising hell with your congress people. Just don't demonize Amazon for following the laws Congress has passed.

 

Just like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "Vote no. But take the dough." And then brag about all the great things they are doing for their state.

Paul Gosar and other Republicans trounced for celebrating local funding after calling it 'Democratic socialism'





Paul Gosar (AFP)


CNN host Brianna Keilar recalled group projects in school where some do all the work and someone who doesn't do anything takes all of the credit. That's what she thinks Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and other Republicans are doing now that funding from the COVID-19 relief bill is being distributed to states.

In a CNN segment, John Avlon recalled that no Republicans voted for the American Rescue Plan, the bill President Joe Biden and Democrats passed in the early days of 2021. Those funds paid for significant investments in a local airport.

"I am pleased to announce that the City of Kingman will receive this critical funding for economic relief related to operational costs for cleaning and sanitizing the Kingman Airport to combat the spread of COVID-19. This funding is essential to maintaining safe and reliable air service to the community," said Rep. Gosar in a release Tuesday.

The phrase "continued support" is curious as Avlon explained. Gosar not only voted against it, but he also called the plan a Trojan horse for socialism."





Gosar isn't the only person to take credit for something he voted against.

Avlon name-checked Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) when he celebrated the American Rescue Plan's "targeted relief" for restaurants on March 10 after he voted against the bill.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) also celebrated one of her "achievements" just weeks after voting against the American Rescue Plan. She claimed she prided herself on “bringing federal funding to the district and back into the pockets of taxpayers." But the reality is she said it "pained her to vote against" the bill.

GOP Reps. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) and Alex Mooney (R-WV) did the same thing, as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reported in early May. They promoted funds for the community health centers in their districts that came from the American Rescue Plan, which they both voted against.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said during a March briefing, "It’s typical that they will vote no and take the dough."

See Avlon's report below:




https://www.rawstory.com/gosar-takes-funding-voted-against/