Quote (thundercock @ Oct 1 2021 01:43pm)
Well yea....isn't that the point of politics? When Republicans fight for tax cuts and the middle class benefits, isn't that effectively the same thing?
As for the definition of pork, it really hasn't changed in the realm of people who follow politics closely. It's often misused by people in order to classify something they don't like because it's a derogatory term. Perhaps if it's misused enough, the definition will change but I don't think we're there yet. Anyway, it's a pedantic discussion and we should focus on the actual things in the bill that are problems as opposed to just calling it a name.
So, here are some of the things proposed in the bill:
1. Medicare expansion to cover dental, vision, and hearing. To me, this definitely isn't pork (even in the loosest sense of the word) and is merely an expansion of an existing program. IMO, this MUST be paid for by an increase in the Medicare tax because this is something where everyone benefits. Adding to the debt to fund this is unacceptable.
2. Medicare prescription drug price negotiation. This is a no brainer and will actually save tax payers money at the expense of Pharmaceutical profits.
3. Universal pre-K. In theory I support this but there's actually mixed evidence that this will have tangible benefits given
4. Tuition free community college. IMO, it's already cheap enough compared to universities
5. Making the COVID childcare tax credit permanent. I don't support this at all and it seems way too expensive. This is a massive expansion of the welfare state and I'm not convinced we should be giving parents $300 per month for every child no matter what.
There's more to it than the above such as some climate change initiatives (which will undoubtedly include pork in the strictest sense of the word), expanded elder care, etc.
From the above, which do you support/not support? To me, even the strictest of conservatives should support 2 under the assumption that Medicare will continue to exist.
None of those things are bad and probably needed. The problem is, as smart people like Manchin and many republicans recognize is that we can't continue to use funny money to pay for seemingly endless and constantly spawning needs.
I'm not sure what you do for a living, but do you follow the CPI or any other inflation gages? Have you seen what's happening to home prices, auto prices, etc? Do you understand the relationship between expanding the money supply by tens of trillions of dollars and the impact that's having?
Most normal people don't understand and will vote for things that benefit them on the personal level. We all want 1200 checks, free health care, shit I appreciate the 300 bucks I get for my daughter, and most will vote for the people that give that to us. Problem is on a macro level that's not good, it's wiping out savings, it's devaluing our currency, it's forcing many businesses to close shop because they can't absorb rising input costs, and so on.
Republicans as the party that wants to spend less is and has been at a disadvantage here, because there's an implicit bias for more free shit, but it's pretty shitty macro policy making if you can look beyond a few years.
We can't continue to swipe the proverbial credit card for years and pretend that it has no negative impact on our future.