d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Political Picture Thread
Prev1437043714372437343745001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Feb 26 2021 09:01pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 26 2021 06:12pm)
Biden, Pelosi and Schumer could easily make it happen - if they passed a lean bill which is focused on the covid checks and not much else. But instead, they loaded the covid relief bill with metric shittons of pork and non-covid related items from the liberal wishlist. Now, they are trying to use the misery of ordinary Americans to create political pressure which allows them to ram through non-covid related parts of their agenda under the pretense of "would somebody think of the children ailing Americans?"

For example, Sinema and Manchin being opposed to raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour is not what's causally standing between ordinary Americans and the $2000 $1400 checks - having put such an unrelated issue into the covid bill in the first place is the original sin in this saga.


Outside of the minimum wage demand, most of the bill is related to covid fallout such as reduced classroom sizes to encourage social distancing.
Member
Posts: 54,169
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Feb 26 2021 09:52pm
Quote (thundercock @ 27 Feb 2021 04:01)
Outside of the minimum wage demand, most of the bill is related to covid fallout such as reduced classroom sizes to encourage social distancing.


The editorial board of the WSJ disagrees big time:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-non-covid-spending-blowout-11613937485

Quote
[...] All told, this generous definition of Covid-related provisions tallies some $825 billion. The rest of the bill—more than $1 trillion—is a combination of bailouts for Democratic constituencies, expansions of progressive programs, pork, and unrelated policy changes. [...] It’s a progressive blowout for the ages that does little for the economy but will finance Democratic interest groups for years. Please don’t call it Covid relief.


They list a ton of pork that is in this bill. The biggest highlight: instead of distributing the federal money proportionately among all states, they try to reward hard-lockdown blue states and punish low-restriction red states:

Quote
Start with the $350 billion for state and local governments and cities and counties, even as state revenues have largely recovered since the spring. Democrats also changed the funding formula to ensure most of the dollars go to blue states that imposed strict economic lockdowns.

Last year’s Cares Act distributed money mainly by state population, but much of the $220 billion for states in the new bill will be allocated based on average unemployment over the three-month period ending in December. Andrew Cuomo’s New York (8.2% unemployment in December) and Gavin Newsom’s California (9%) get rewarded for crushing their businesses, while Kristi Noem’s South Dakota (3%) is penalized for staying open.


Quote
The bill increases the child tax credit to $3,000 from $2,000 ($99 billion) and temporarily expands the Earned Income Tax Credit to certain additional childless adults ($25 billion).

Childless adults are made up by various disproportionately Democratic-leaning constituencies, like college students or urban professionals.

Quote
This being Congress, Members are also slipping in pet causes. Our favorite is $1.5 million for the Seaway International Bridge, which connects New York to Canada and is a priority for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. And don’t overlook the nearly $500 million for, as the CBO puts it, “grants to fund activities related to the arts, humanities, libraries and museums, and Native American language preservation.

Very covid-related indeed.


Dems also try to push long-term liberal policy goals, like the aforementioned $15 minimum wage or tinkering with healthcare:
Quote
The bill also spends $15 billion to provide a temporary five percentage-point increase in the federal Medicaid match to states that expand eligibility to lower-income adults. This is bait for the dozen or so states that have resisted ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion, which enrolls working age, childless adults above the poverty line. The political goal overall is to chip away at private coverage on the way to Medicare for All.


This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 26 2021 09:55pm
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Feb 26 2021 10:54pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 26 2021 07:52pm)
The editorial board of the WSJ disagrees big time:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-non-covid-spending-blowout-11613937485

They list a ton of pork that is in this bill. The biggest highlight: instead of distributing the federal money proportionately among all states, they try to reward hard-lockdown blue states and punish low-restriction red states:

Childless adults are made up by various disproportionately Democratic-leaning constituencies, like college students or urban professionals.

Very covid-related indeed.

Dems also try to push long-term liberal policy goals, like the aforementioned $15 minimum wage or tinkering with healthcare:


You'll need to link the entire article because I don't have a subscription.

Wait, you're telling me that states whose economies were affected more by COVID are getting more relief?! What's next, states with more veterans are going to get more healthcare funding from the VA than states with less? That's not a punishment...that's an economic reality. Why would you want to give money to states with low unemployment? That seems like a ridiculously stupid idea but I could see Republicans supporting dumb fiscal policy.

As for EITC expansion, I like how you failed to highlight the word "temporarily." Lower income people were affected by COVID far more than the wealthy. People like me were able to work remotely and didn't have our incomes affected whereas a lot of lower/middle income people didn't have that option.

As for the arts and what not, let's take a look at the actual bill (page 42): https://budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/S%20Con%20Res%205%20Bill%20Final.pdf.
Museums were adversely affected by COVID so it makes sense that they'd receive some sort of funding. There will certainly be SOME pork but it's a pretty inconsequential amount. I'm actually surprised that the WSJ put something out like this because they usually do some really good research. Perhaps it's a disagreement on "related to COVID." IMO, if you were directly affected by shutdowns in any way, that's COVID related.
Member
Posts: 9,499
Joined: Feb 3 2005
Gold: 6,969.69
Warn: 20%
Feb 27 2021 12:04am
Quote (thundercock @ Feb 26 2021 06:54pm)
You'll need to link the entire article because I don't have a subscription.

Wait, you're telling me that states whose economies were affected more by COVID are getting more relief?! What's next, states with more veterans are going to get more healthcare funding from the VA than states with less? That's not a punishment...that's an economic reality. Why would you want to give money to states with low unemployment? That seems like a ridiculously stupid idea but I could see Republicans supporting dumb fiscal policy.

As for EITC expansion, I like how you failed to highlight the word "temporarily." Lower income people were affected by COVID far more than the wealthy. People like me were able to work remotely and didn't have our incomes affected whereas a lot of lower/middle income people didn't have that option.

As for the arts and what not, let's take a look at the actual bill (page 42): https://budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/S%20Con%20Res%205%20Bill%20Final.pdf.
Museums were adversely affected by COVID so it makes sense that they'd receive some sort of funding. There will certainly be SOME pork but it's a pretty inconsequential amount. I'm actually surprised that the WSJ put something out like this because they usually do some really good research. Perhaps it's a disagreement on "related to COVID." IMO, if you were directly affected by shutdowns in any way, that's COVID related.



Cock thunder
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
Feb 27 2021 01:39am
Member
Posts: 54,169
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Feb 27 2021 07:51am
Quote (thundercock @ 27 Feb 2021 05:54)
You'll need to link the entire article because I don't have a subscription.

Get yourself a bypass paywall add-on. :P

Here you go:



Quote
Wait, you're telling me that states whose economies were affected more by COVID are getting more relief?! What's next, states with more veterans are going to get more healthcare funding from the VA than states with less? That's not a punishment...that's an economic reality. Why would you want to give money to states with low unemployment? That seems like a ridiculously stupid idea but I could see Republicans supporting dumb fiscal policy.

Being badly affected by covid != wrecked economy. There is no one-to-one relationship between these two. Like the article said: blue states which imposed very harsh lockdowns suffered more economic damage than red states which tried to keep their economies open as much as possible.

At the end of the day, the scope of lockdowns was a political decision. State governments chose between a higher death toll and more economic devastation. This bill rewards those states which chose the "leftist" approach to this tradeoff.

Quote
As for EITC expansion, I like how you failed to highlight the word "temporarily." Lower income people were affected by COVID far more than the wealthy. People like me were able to work remotely and didn't have our incomes affected whereas a lot of lower/middle income people didn't have that option.

Yeah, right, because ""temporary"" government programs never ever get extended ad infinitum. Guantanamo was supposed to be a temporary solution. The Patriot Act was not supposed to be a permanent power grab by the executive either. The Bush tax cuts were extended time and time again until Obama made them permanent for almost everyone in 2012.

Did I already tell the anecdote of the German champagne tax? It was introduced as a temporary measure in 1902 to finance the construction of an imperial war fleet for Emperor Wilhem II (fender's great-great-grandfather). The emperor abdicated over 100 years ago, monarchy was abolished, there have been two world wars, 3 different states, 3 currency reforms, yet 119 years later, we're still paying this tax...

Quote
As for the arts and what not, let's take a look at the actual bill (page 42):
Museums were adversely affected by COVID so it makes sense that they'd receive some sort of funding.

Ok, that's fair.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 27 2021 07:52am
Member
Posts: 33,927
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Feb 27 2021 08:04am
Quote (thundercock @ Feb 26 2021 11:54pm)
You'll need to link the entire article because I don't have a subscription.

Wait, you're telling me that states whose economies were affected more by COVID are getting more relief?! What's next, states with more veterans are going to get more healthcare funding from the VA than states with less? That's not a punishment...that's an economic reality. Why would you want to give money to states with low unemployment? That seems like a ridiculously stupid idea but I could see Republicans supporting dumb fiscal policy.

As for EITC expansion, I like how you failed to highlight the word "temporarily." Lower income people were affected by COVID far more than the wealthy. People like me were able to work remotely and didn't have our incomes affected whereas a lot of lower/middle income people didn't have that option.

As for the arts and what not, let's take a look at the actual bill (page 42): https://budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/S%20Con%20Res%205%20Bill%20Final.pdf.
Museums were adversely affected by COVID so it makes sense that they'd receive some sort of funding. There will certainly be SOME pork but it's a pretty inconsequential amount. I'm actually surprised that the WSJ put something out like this because they usually do some really good research. Perhaps it's a disagreement on "related to COVID." IMO, if you were directly affected by shutdowns in any way, that's COVID related.


Blue States were affected more because their politicians are shittier.

They deserve to have higher unemployment rates.

Giving them more money is a moral hazard and immoral.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 27 2021 08:51am)
Get yourself a bypass paywall add-on. :P


Live free die yung

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Feb 27 2021 08:10am
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Feb 27 2021 10:51am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 26 Feb 2021 22:52)
The editorial board of the WSJ disagrees big time:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-non-covid-spending-blowout-11613937485



They list a ton of pork that is in this bill. The biggest highlight: instead of distributing the federal money proportionately among all states, they try to reward hard-lockdown blue states and punish low-restriction red states:




Childless adults are made up by various disproportionately Democratic-leaning constituencies, like college students or urban professionals.


Very covid-related indeed.


Dems also try to push long-term liberal policy goals, like the aforementioned $15 minimum wage or tinkering with healthcare:

at best $1.1 Trillion in pork barrel spending and $2000$1400 checks coming just in time to be available for tax season

yippie!
Member
Posts: 33,927
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Feb 27 2021 11:13am
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
Feb 27 2021 12:59pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1437043714372437343745001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll