- 14,890
- 36,059
Did you mean feedback loop?
If all you're gonna contribute here are word salads, the least you can do is getting the terminology right.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
If all you're gonna contribute here are word salads, the least you can do is getting the terminology right.
yobyellav
formerly cord15
- 12,905
- 9,787
- 64,966
- 196,172
- 14,890
- 36,059
That would require your average American to have an exceptional attention span/memory compared to Dory.
What are the polls saying? Are we looking at a midterms turnout on par with Nov 2020? Because that's the only thing that can make me hope that we have a way out of this quagmire.
- 9,595
- 20,646
- 6,921
- 16,912
Something I remember distinctly was the unctuous concern about Harry Reid making State specific incentives in order to get the votes for the ACA. One of the first things the Tea Party Congress did was ban earmarks. Late 2010 and early 2011, earmarks were considered an imminent threat to the Republic.
This time around, those State-specific option aren’t there as much.
It’s funny because in every other context, conservatives and centrists love to essentialize entire States and then use these supposed differences to justify doing absolutely nothing good. We are told that no politician from Texas or Louisiana or Oklahoma can do anything to regulate oil drilling since those States are “oil States.” and no politician from Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, or Tennessee can do anything about climate change since those are “coal States,” and no politician from any North Eastern State can be expected to reign in Wall Street or big Pharma because apparently everyone in the North East works on Wall Street or for big Pharma. This is all to say nothing of the conservative justification for the electoral college, as if no one in Nebraska could have thing in common with someone living in California.
Of course, conservatives know that even though the Senate gives equal representation to each State, each State, nowadays, is pretty generic. That is why they banned earmarks. They know that most Americans have the same problems: low wages, precarity, housing instability, and a government that ranges from indifferent to hostile to their existence. Meanwhile, the rich are similarly generic and they tend to live in luxury glass cubes in about six different metro areas, and this includes most of the adult children of a majority of Senators.
So by taking away State specific inducements, the elite have even further reduced the chances of the Senate doing anything good for anyone who isn't wealthy. They got what they want, every Republican and a couple of Democrats blocking the people’s will. And while these 52 Senators act as delegates for the 1%, they can claim it’s all in accordance with the supposed idiosyncrasies of the folks back in their home State.
D
Deleted member 42060
Guest
Mr. Powell's selfie. R.i.p.
- 20,641
- 10,696
Condo next to mine just hit the market. It's 1-bed/-bath. Asking price is the exact same as my 2-bed/2-bath unit I bought two years ago (I paid $20K over asking, and didn't even hit my escalator max). Curious to see what that unit goes for. I got lucky and bought during a brief dip in the market.
- 20,641
- 10,696
Too bad she is still a senator until 2025. Senators should be limited to two terms. I've always said the house should get three terms (six years), and senators two (twelve years). I'm not opposed to a house member being "promoted" to senator via election, but senators shouldn't be able to govern for decades upon decades with 6-year terms.
- 17,245
- 24,164
Did Manchin go to the same school as Lucille Bluth?
- 4,425
- 4,708
- 64,966
- 196,172
Another FB document leak incoming....
- 8,749
- 7,525
I mean, coastal elites always got something to say about income. 60k in household income is decent $ in most places in this country
- 8,749
- 7,525
I'm not in the market but my Mom is looking in Ft Meyers area in FL. It seems its even WORSE than last season smh.
- 64,966
- 196,172
Is this supposed to be a defense of Manchin's position?
This is well below the median household income for a household of three.
Below the median income for a household of two
Hell it is below the median household income for all households
It is a massive cut to what is currently in place now
It adds means-testing that will kick a ton of people off the program
Like the whole point of this program is to help families that are getting squeezed and put a massive dent in poverty, Manchin undermining both policy goals with this nonsense
Manchin is of an "elite". More of an elite than the vast majority of his critics
Last edited:
- 2,270
- 2,702
I was very pleasantly surprised that the Dems did not concede to the means-testing BS (at least too much) with respect to the child credit payments. The GOP was clearly pushing means testing to try to kill public support for the proposal. The Dems understood the play and didn’t bite, a move they correctly understood (for once!!) would be catastrophic for them.
The last four decades-plus have made it pretty clear that means testing social provisions is political suicide—it undermines public support, creates manufactured and counterproductive fault lines, puts measures at risk of future gutting, and plays into the GOP’s small government nonsense. Even if folks really only believe that poor or low-income people should be eligible for something (which I think is mistaken, but I digress), setting things up that way destroys the chances that it will actually happen.
Making social provisions as universal as possible clearly seems like the path forward for progressive politics. But this is gonna require the Dems to abandon four decades of telling people what the government can’t do for them. Things have certainly been shifting in that direction; we need much more of it.
The last four decades-plus have made it pretty clear that means testing social provisions is political suicide—it undermines public support, creates manufactured and counterproductive fault lines, puts measures at risk of future gutting, and plays into the GOP’s small government nonsense. Even if folks really only believe that poor or low-income people should be eligible for something (which I think is mistaken, but I digress), setting things up that way destroys the chances that it will actually happen.
Making social provisions as universal as possible clearly seems like the path forward for progressive politics. But this is gonna require the Dems to abandon four decades of telling people what the government can’t do for them. Things have certainly been shifting in that direction; we need much more of it.
- 8,749
- 7,525
Agreed, in the tweet I quoted it says he's worth 7ms? lol, sadly he seems broke for a Senator...... Just curious? So should it be upped to 70K? 80K? 90!? ~67K is the Median household income as you know is not equal to the poverty line .....almost 3x it to be exact for a family of 4......
Last edited:
- 8,749
- 7,525
I get what you're saying but I seem to recall income caps for stimulus less than two years ago....
- 64,966
- 196,172
Manchin is worth more than that.
His son runs his company, he put his shares into a blind trust. Mans reportedly collects half a million a year in dividends. The dude got way more money than 7 million
Where it right now seems find. It is not about upping anything, a program is already in place.
It is a powerful anti-poverty program but it was meant to be a middle-class tax subsidy, so it should be structured that way.
If someone wants to lower the price, then they should look to offset it with increasing taxes on the higher end of the bracket.
- 64,966
- 196,172
The benefit cut off is so ridiculous that it getting more the heat but the work requirement is equally as bad
I am ok with some means testing for practical reasons, but administrative burdens of any kind destroy our anti-poverty programs
If I had my way I would get rid of TANF (states mess with the program too much), get rid of the child deduction, just make everyone eligible for a fully refundable decent size monthly tax refund, even for nonfilers.
Increase taxes on the upper brackets to offset the cost
That way everyone gets the same thing, there is no stigma, no way for the state can thinker with it to prevent people from getting beenfits, no work requirement, it is progressive, and there are not the issues with a poverty trap that AFDC had.
I am ok with some means testing for practical reasons, but administrative burdens of any kind destroy our anti-poverty programs
If I had my way I would get rid of TANF (states mess with the program too much), get rid of the child deduction, just make everyone eligible for a fully refundable decent size monthly tax refund, even for nonfilers.
Increase taxes on the upper brackets to offset the cost
That way everyone gets the same thing, there is no stigma, no way for the state can thinker with it to prevent people from getting beenfits, no work requirement, it is progressive, and there are not the issues with a poverty trap that AFDC had.
Last edited:
- 1,373
- 2,960
This isn’t as good of an argument as you think it is.
- Why don’t people living in coastal cities deserve protection?
- Do you really think 60k is good money in Chicago? Houston? Denver?
- I challenge you to put together a budget for 2 working parent family with 2 children living in San Antonio that covers: child care, diapers, two cars, retirement saving, college savings. 60k after taxes is at most 52k… so get it done for under $1000 per week.
- 17,811
- 43,327
- 42,686
- 178,396
- 14,890
- 36,059
- 26,817
- 38,434
Classy
Similar threads
