Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 5 2021 09:43pm)

Community colleges make for dope TV series, but are pretty useless when it comes to helping careers. This money should go into actual vocational training rather than a watered down degree whose academic level stands barely above that of high school... at a time when even BSc's are increasingly not cutting it anymore in many fields. What the spending on community colleges would do, however, is subsidize their teachers and personnel, which - like all teachers and professors - are an incredibly Dem-leaning demographic.


My gripe is not just with general programs into which Dems want to pour money, it's also with the scope and indiscriminate nature of the spending. Rich parents (say those with a family income above $120k) don't need child tax credits or state-funded pre-K. Entitlements for paid days off would be enough, no need to introduce generous paid family leave.

Dems are trying to hook not just the working- and lower-middle class but everyone onto these programs. This is wrong on economic justice grounds (dito for the proposed repeal of the SALT deduction cap), but also carries the risk of backfiring. Indiscriminately showering everyone in money will only exacerbate the already alarming inflation. You know who suffers the most from surging inflation? It's not the rich. By being too reckless with their spending, Dems risk triggering an inflation which eats up the benefits of their bill for the poor and working-class, flipping the net impact of the bill on its head.

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 6 2021 01:01am)

I can't speak to the effectiveness of community colleges but, from what I've read, there will be subsidies for trade/vocational schools as well.

I agree that if we're going to have these programs, they should be means tested. Once you hit a certain income level, the benefits should begin to phase out. Some forms of means testing will be in the bill. In addition, I would want them to be paid for with tax dollars (no debt). There is a philosophical divide in the Democratic party about what it means to be a "public benefit." On one hand, it's cheaper if it's not available to everyone. On the other hand, should we force people above a certain income limit to pay for public schooling? Should they be banned from taking any form of unemployment insurance? Where do we draw that line?

Why would a less than 10% increase in budget cause "surging inflation?" Even if the progressive caucus got EVERYTHING in their wish list, the benefits would be less than your country. Does your country suffer from surging inflation? Does the Netherlands? What about the UK? Norway?

Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 5 2021 10:27pm)

For one, the bill will likely cost significantly more than the $3.5 trillion quoted, not least because there are accounting maneuvers which are obscuring the true costs (e.g. child tax credits ending in 2025 with room to renew, thus cutting the 10 year budget impact in half). In addition, the spending is on top of the $5 trillion spent previously, and needs to be considered in tandem with the extraordinary amount that has already been spent. And on that point, virtually none of this will be paid for, which is in contrast to many European nations which tax at an extraordinarily high percentage of GDP. It is one thing to take 50-60% of the salary from your average Frenchman, and then reallocate it, it's another to inject $500-600 billion per year as additional debt, to be paid later, that buys goods and services to be consumed now, as well as over the next ten years. The interest of the debt is presently very low, in large part because the federal reserve has been actively keeping rates low in terms of monetary policy. If they continue to do so in perpetuity, the United States could effectively manage this additional spending forever, but that is in effect monetizing the debt, which you would expect to show up as inflation.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 5 2021 06:45pm)

We can debate this if they really end up passing noteworthy legislation which helps a clear majority of Americans, not commit huge blunders on other policy areas in the meantime and still get punished at the ballot box.
Actually getting legislation passed, this legislation actually being good and not committing huge blunders on other fields which offset this win - all of those things look questionable right now if you ask me.




To be fair, covid only hit the West in the spring of 2020 when it was already at the tail end of flu season, which helped minimize the death toll of the first wave. The winter wave of 2020 didn't take off until November and given the delay of around 4 weeks between infection and death, most of the deaths related to December infections weren't registered before the start of the new year.


Biden/Harris of course did flub the messaging surrounding vaccines, but the impact this had on minority vaccination rates in particular will only be felt in the coming months when the northern/coastal states get hit. The bulk of the summer-and-beyond death toll of covid in 2021 came from Southern states in which the antivaxxers tend to be hardcore Republicans who were never gonna listen to Biden anyway.

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 6 2021 01:54am)

I don't think the bill will be that expensive for a number of reasons:
1) 3.5 T can't pass the Senate. We'll probably see something along the lines of 2 T
2) Whatever does pass the Senate, you can't compel states to engage in the programs (i.e. Texas won't implement universal pre-K because they don't believe in education)
3) We don't have the final details yet, but this is primarily funded through taxes as opposed to debt. Where did you hear otherwise?

As for inflation, the spending bill, even with programs ending early (so fine, double it for a 10 year period) is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than COVID relief spending. The total cost over 10 years is roughly on par with what we spent in a single year. I think you'd have an argument if we spent the same amount on an annual basis but the numbers just don't add up....especially since the primary funding mechanism isn't through debt.

Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 5 2021 11:49pm)

As the price tag goes down, so will raised revenue. And much of the revenue is offset in the first place by new and expanded deductions. We are talking about a proposed increase of $500 bn, where do you get close to that in terms of revenue? I've seen claims of $200 bn, which includes dubious "increased compliance" figures that often never pan out.

Keep in mind that the infrastructure bill is partly paid for by reallocating approved funding that hasn't actually been spent, hence "paid for" without being paid for. That's all net new money into the economy.

And the increases to corporate rates will have downstream impacts on prices and wages in addition to lower shareholder profit. I'm not sure if we call this "inflation", per say, but American consumers will see higher prices, as Europe itself is living proof.

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 6 2021 03:03am)

That's not necessarily the case because in order for these programs to survive, they need to be somewhat self-sufficient. Basically, if the programs are front loaded (exist for 5 years but paid for over 10 years), then additional revenue will need to be raised once they are proven to work. If the programs suck, then it's likely that the GOP will terminate them because I can't imagine the Democrats in power with failed programs.

Increasing corporate rates alone will yield roughly 100 bn annually. The Medicare tax is absurdly low (~1.5%) and brings in about 80 bn per year. There is absolutely no reason why Medicare expansion needs to be funded with debt so they can crank that up accordingly. Increased taxes on the wealthy should yield another 150 bn annually. Some of the climate change infrastructure (i.e. building more charging stations) should probably be funded by debt given the low interest rates but I'd be okay using tax revenue for it. If you remove the child tax credit all together (which we should), you're in really good shape. Unlike Obama's plans, these seem to be going back to the "old school liberal" mentality which is good IMO. If Americans want programs, they need to pay for them. We shouldn't be borrowing unless you can show that the net economic impact is positive.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 5 2021 09:45pm)

We can debate this if they really end up passing noteworthy legislation which helps a clear majority of Americans, not commit huge blunders on other policy areas in the meantime and still get punished at the ballot box.
Actually getting legislation passed, this legislation actually being good and not committing huge blunders on other fields which offset this win - all of those things look questionable right now if you ask me.

Quote (IceMage @ 6 Oct 2021 21:34)

Biden signed a bill to give 90% of American households relief checks, and expand child tax credits. It was his first legislative priority. The bill didn't get a single Republican vote.

Politics is entertainment for many Americans... and Biden's agenda of helping middle America isn't an interesting plot to follow.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 6 2021 03:40pm)

Another round of relief checks in early 2021 was inevitable due to the economic fallout from the pandemic and the lockdowns, a very similar bill would have happened under Trump too.
From a liberal perspective, Biden does deserve praise for the child tax credits which he sneaked in there, but this singular legislative win obviously isn't enough to outweigh all the blunders he committed or the bad things which happened under his watch without him being fully responsible.