Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Maji

Biden Policy Agenda Thread

Recommended Posts

I'm not a fan of the filibuster anymore. In theory, it's a great idea. Neither side can pass their priorities with only 50 votes (+ VP). In practice, it doesn't encourage bipartisanship anymore. There are also multiple layers of protection from passing radical or unconstitutional legislation. The House, Senate, and Presidency must be on the same page (trifecta likely needed). Then it has to survive the judiciary. Will the legislation survive all three branches?

I'm sure y'all will be stunned by my position ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Actually it doesn’t force compromise.  Name the last piece of bi-partisan legislation.  
 

The $900 billion Covid relief bill  last month that passed 92-8. Before that The Great Outdoors act in August, 73-25. A lot of stuff passes bipartisan not even counting omnibus spending bills.

10 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

What it does do is increase the power of special interests to buy off the Senator they need to stop legislation.   
 

If you think the swamp exists then realize the filibuster in its current form is a huge contributor to it.   

I’m not a drain the swamp guy. Special interests are just competing interests in democratic systems. It doesn’t bother me.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

They don't.  They don't need a financial advisor to know that 1 kid helps, 2 kids helps more and 3 kids means you don't have to work and can live in poverty while feeding addiction.  

No middle class woman will look at kids as a means to make more money.  Lots and lots of poverty class will and do.

I’m not arguing your point.  Not sure why you feel the need to argue the point they don’t have a financial advisor other than the desire to be argumentative.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I’m not arguing your point.  Not sure why you feel the need to argue the point they don’t have a financial advisor other than the desire to be argumentative.  

The lower class  (of which I have spent most my life) don't need financial advisors to know it is in their financial interest to have kids due to these subsidies.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The lower class  (of which I have spent most my life) don't need financial advisors to know it is in their financial interest to have kids due to these subsidies.  

 

The current system is limited because the CTC isn't fully refundable. It helps out poor families, but it doesn't help the very poorest (bottom 10%) enough. Biden's proposal would change that, ofc. Some flaws in Biden's CTC plan, but it's an improvement... at least from my communist perspective

 

20210115_035823.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Maji said:

The current system is limited because the CTC isn't fully refundable. It helps out poor families, but it doesn't help the very poorest (bottom 10%) enough. Biden's proposal would change that, ofc. Some flaws in Biden's CTC plan, but it's an improvement... at least from my communist perspective

@sactowndog Bruh, I have been in and out of the lowest 10%.  I was raised by a single mom making $7 an hour.  I became part of a community where the average income was 300 bucks a month, made illegally.  

The poorest of the poor absolutely use making babies as a way to raise themselves from starvation to being able to barely make it.  To suggest otherwise is ignorant of the plight of severe poverty.  Your privilege is showing.

I've seen it first hand.  I have seen single mothers addicted to drugs get pregnant for the extra money, and pawn their kids off on their relatives while illegally keeping the money.  I've seen the $600 in food stamps being traded for $400.

Extra credits for kids helps and hurts but would be far less helpful than just a UBI.

UBI is by far the best way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The poorest of the poor absolutely use making babies as a way to raise themselves from starvation to being able to barely make it.  To suggest otherwise is ignorant of the plight of severe poverty.  Your privilege is showing.

My point is that the bottom 10% don't receive the full potential of the CTC since it isn't fully refundable. I'm not saying that the CTC doesn't help or that some people don't view babies as a way of "making it."

21 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Your privilege is showing.

I'm not exactly rich. By global standards, perhaps :shrug:

21 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

UBI is by far the best way forward.

UBI is an intriguing proposal. I currently lean towards a NIT. If the UBI taxes the payments out from wealthy individuals, both policies can achieve similar outcomes. I'm definitely open to UBI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maji said:

My point is that the bottom 10% don't receive the full potential of the CTC since it isn't fully refundable. I'm not saying that the CTC doesn't help or that some people don't view babies as a way of "making it."

I'm not exactly rich. I'm privileged by global standards :shrug:

 

UBI is an intriguing proposal. I currently lean towards a NIT. If the UBI taxes the payments out from wealthy individuals, both policies can achieve similar outcomes. I'm definitely open to UBI

Biden's proposal does nothing to address the underlying societal issues.   Nothing at all.

That is the point.  Giving more incentive to the poorest of the poor to make babies, which this absolutely would do, only those who have never lived in poverty would say otherwise, is not a winning plan.

UBI.  That's it.  That is the way forward.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Biden's proposal does nothing to address the underlying societal issues.   Nothing at all.

That is the point.  Giving more incentive to the poorest of the poor to make babies, which this absolutely would do, only those who have never lived in poverty would say otherwise, is not a winning plan.

UBI.  That's it.  That is the way forward.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I'd even prefer sending out monthly checks over tax rebates at the end of the year. 

I'm curious why it's an either-or proposition for you. Is it that UBI with additional welfare is too expensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Maji said:

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I'd even prefer sending out monthly checks over tax rebates at the end of the year. 

I'm curious why it's an either-or proposition for you. Is it that UBI with additional welfare is too expensive?

Incentivizing thoughtless choices is not a win.  UBI provides community building.  More subsidies that encourage bad choices, is a bad thing.  It's not that it is either or.  We need a social net.  We just need to revamp ours.  

The argument presented on here that "no financial planners would recommend having a kid to make money" is ignorant and coming from a place of extreme privilege.  

I mean it is better than doing nothing but it is far inferior to a UBI.  End all social programs, give everybody 1k a month.  No more food stamps, no welfare, no child tax credits if under a certain income.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The argument presented on here that "no financial planners would recommend having a kid to make money" is ignorant and coming from a place of extreme privilege.  

If child benefits alleviate poverty, I'm willing to accept extra births -- even if they're for the "wrong reasons." The populace is aging; birth rates & immigration are plummeting. That's a big problem.

Would some parents abuse a child allowance via the situation you described earlier (having kid, giving to relative)? Sure, but not enough to stop the policy from being a net positive. And while that scenario isn't ideal, at least the child is given to a family capable of supporting them.

Child poverty often carries lifelong consequences. Tackling the issue is important

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

When I was younger and running with a bad crowd, I saw women who viewed children as income.  They usually kept the income and peddled the kids off.

Not sure that is pertinent here, but in lower socioeconomic groups kids are certainly viewed as income, and this will just make it worse.  

UBI is the answer.  Same amount for everybody.  Period.

 

The thing I find amazing is there is a pretty strong consensus in this board for ubi.  Once you drop the preconceived kneejerk reactions it really makes the most sense. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

@sactowndog Bruh, I have been in and out of the lowest 10%.  I was raised by a single mom making $7 an hour.  I became part of a community where the average income was 300 bucks a month, made illegally.  

The poorest of the poor absolutely use making babies as a way to raise themselves from starvation to being able to barely make it.  To suggest otherwise is ignorant of the plight of severe poverty.  Your privilege is showing.

I've seen it first hand.  I have seen single mothers addicted to drugs get pregnant for the extra money, and pawn their kids off on their relatives while illegally keeping the money.  I've seen the $600 in food stamps being traded for $400.

Extra credits for kids helps and hurts but would be far less helpful than just a UBI.

UBI is by far the best way forward.

Bruh.  Not sure why you are tagging me.  I never disputed your point.  You are arguing against yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maji said:

My point is that the bottom 10% don't receive the full potential of the CTC since it isn't fully refundable. I'm not saying that the CTC doesn't help or that some people don't view babies as a way of "making it."

I'm not exactly rich. By global standards, perhaps :shrug:

UBI is an intriguing proposal. I currently lean towards a NIT. If the UBI taxes the payments out from wealthy individuals, both policies can achieve similar outcomes. I'm definitely open to UBI

One thing I like about UBI is if we get away from all these special tax breaks and credits through the tax code.   Child tax credit is just another form of special interest oil subsidy. Social welfare payments and tax collection should be separated,  imo., because people in the middle class have thus idea they don't receive welfare when their payments are hidden as part of doing their taxes. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Akkula said:

Child tax credit is just another form of special interest oil subsidy

Do you view a child allowance as a special interest subsidy?

I disagree with the framing because it's just welfare that alleviates child poverty. Most welfare is targeted. We shouldn't get rid of unemployment insurance just because it's targeted towards the unemployed.

Source for chart below: The UBI Center

https://blog.ubicenter.org/20200707/adult_child_ubi.html

20201223_133331.jpg

Do you support UBI for everyone, or only adults? @Akkula

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...