Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Dem senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are two of the good ones


NipkowDisc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Joe Manchin and Family have been in the coal business.  The main reason he doesn’t support the Build Back Better Bill is because all the money and prioritization of green renewable energy and mitigation of climate change-exacerbating fossil fuels.   His constituents overwhelmingly want him to vote for the bill!
 

Sinema, otoh, apparently wants money for green projects.  Petulant and noncommunicative, No one seems to know what else she is for or against, other than taking money from big pocket interests opposed to tax cuts.  Dems in her state are already working on primarying the first term senator.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mr6666 said:

 

This is Bernie math.  This is not 48 against 2. It is 52 against 48 in the Senate. I saw in the Washington Post where there are only 210 votes for the huge welfare bill in the House. That sounds wrong because that would mean 225 against, but the vote is close because the Dems have a slim majority there.  And like I've said before, paying for childcare for other people is not my problem. It is the problem of parents. If you can't financially swing parenthood, then don't do it. For some reason people have always believed this, but the millennials think money just grows on trees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Remember that the next time someone in your neighborhood calls the fire department.

BTW, who pays your bills?

Far be it from me to defend Nip, but what the heck are you talking about? Nobody is saying we should not have fire departments. I assume Nip pays his own bills. I assume you pay yours. 

How can you possibly mix up things that a person cannot do for themselves - fire department, police protection, highways - with what has ALWAYS been something one pays for themselves like the care of their own children? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

This is Bernie math.  This is not 48 against 2. It is 52 against 48 in the Senate. I saw in the Washington Post where there are only 210 votes for the huge welfare bill. That sounds wrong because that would mean 225 against, but the vote is close because the Dems have a slim majority there.  And like I've said before, paying for childcare for other people is not my problem. It is the problem of parents. If you can't financially swing parenthood, then don't do it. For some reason people have always believed this, but the millennials think money just grows on trees. 

The problem is this is not the 1950's where a middle class household can get by on just the man's salary.  If you want women in the work force and you also want to maintain a population you need to be able to make child care affordable which for millions it is not.

I wish this were not so.  As a retiree I could be selfish like many millions and just say not my problem but it is more complicated than that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Far be it from me to defend Nip, but what the heck are you talking about? Nobody is saying we should not have fire departments. I assume Nip pays his own bills. I assume you pay yours. 

How can you possibly mix up things that a person cannot do for themselves - fire department, police protection, highways - with what has ALWAYS been something one pays for themselves like the care of their own children? 

He painted with a broad brush denouncing "Socialism."  I wasn't particularly singling out child care.

Let him answer how he pays his bills.  My guess is that the government subsidizes him and has done so for just about his entire life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

The problem is this is not the 1950's where a middle class household can get by on just the man's salary.  If you want women in the work force and you also want to maintain a population you need to be able to make child care affordable which for millions it is not.

I wish this were not so.  As a retiree I could be selfish like many millions and just say not my problem but it is more complicated than that.

Actually, and if you are a retiree you probably remember this, it was the 1970s when women entered the workforce in large numbers. And that was mainly because inflation got out of control and required two incomes. I happen to be a woman who has and has had a long actual career in engineering. I love it. I love solving problems and learning new things. And I've always been paid well.  But lots of women just have jobs....boring repetitive workaday jobs.  And would love to do ANYTHING but those boring usually low paying workaday jobs. But NEVER in the almost 50 years that women have been so much in the workforce in large numbers  have I heard them whine that the care of their children is anything but their own family's personal problem until recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Actually, and if you are a retiree you probably remember this, it was the 1970s when women entered the workforce in large numbers. And that was mainly because inflation got out of control and required two incomes. I happen to be a woman who has and has had a long actual career in engineering. I love it. I love solving problems and learning new things. And I've always been paid well.  But lots of women just have jobs....boring repetitive workaday jobs.  And would love to do ANYTHING but those boring usually low paying workaday jobs. But NEVER in the almost 50 years that women have been so much in the workforce in large numbers  have I heard them whine that the care of their children is anything but their own family's personal problem until recently.

Wages have not kept up with the price of living.  They have been stagnant for about 30 years.  That is the major problem.  And I'm not talking about $15 an hour either.  The problem is monumental.  Though the billionaires are getting richer at a staggering pace and that is why Republicans are marching toward a kleptocracy ... but I digress.

What do you think about subsidies for farmers and for the fossil fuel industry?  Socialism for Corporations under Republican leadership.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, LsDoorMat do you like the fact that Biden is addressing climate change problems in the reconciliation bill?

Joe Machin saying industry will take care of this problem all by itself is like saying the fox has vowed to become a vegetarian.  It is an insult.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bogie56 said:

Wages have not kept up with the price of living.  They have been stagnant for about 30 years.  That is the major problem.  And I'm not talking about $15 an hour either.  The problem is monumental.  Though the billionaires are getting richer at a staggering pace and that is why Republicans are marching toward a kleptocracy ... but I digress.

What do you think about subsidies for farmers and for the fossil fuel industry?  Socialism for Corporations under Republican leadership.

I'm against corporate welfare.  I was against the Trump and Bush tax cuts. When I say I am a fiscal conservative I am that way across the board. But nobody has seemed to care about that since Bill Clinton was president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bogie56 said:

BTW, LsDoorMat do you like the fact that Biden is addressing climate change problems in the reconciliation bill?

Joe Machin saying industry will take care of this problem all by itself is like saying the fox has vowed to become a vegetarian.  It is an insult.

Manchin is WRONG about climate change. I am in favor of doing something about it last week.  And it will cost a HUGE amount of money.  I think it is going to take everybody starving as their house is simultaneously on fire and flooded for them to say - Hey, we need to fix this. I can see the bill for climate change ALONE costing three trillion. And that's cheap when you add up the cost of climate change to everybody in the US. I can see insurance companies - in the near future - saying they will not cover homes built in certain areas and maybe not cover for weather events at all. You'd have to pay extra for individual coverage like you pay for extra earthquake protection now with a high deductible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

I'm against corporate welfare.  I was against the Trump and Bush tax cuts. When I say I am a fiscal conservative I am that way across the board. But nobody has seemed to care about that since Bill Clinton was president. 

If I'm not mistaken, every single Republican in the federal government voted for the Trump tax cuts for billionaires.

That is where that party is at.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Manchin is WRONG about climate change. I am in favor of doing something about it last week.  And it will cost a HUGE amount of money.  I think it is going to take everybody starving as their house is simultaneously on fire and flooded for them to say - Hey, we need to fix this. I can see the bill for climate change ALONE costing three trillion. And that's cheap when you add up the cost of climate change to everybody in the US. I can see insurance companies - in the near future - saying they will not cover homes built in certain areas and maybe not cover for weather events at all. You'd have to pay extra for individual coverage like you pay for extra earthquake protection now with a high deductible. 

Insurance companies already charge higher or do not issue policies at all for certain areas.  Have a friend who purchased a house near a coastal beach.  Had to go through some organization that the town had collaborated with to get insurance and at a high cost.

The only way to fund climate change protections is to raise taxes significantly while also cutting the budgets in multiple areas.  This would include all governments - school boards, utility authorities, municipalities, counties, states and federal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"......Licensed infant and toddler child care is unaffordable for most families:

  • The average cost to provide center-based child care for an infant in the United States is $1,230 per month. In a family child care home, the average cost is $800 per month.
  • On average, a family making the state median income would have to spend 18 percent of their income to cover the cost of child care for an infant, and 13 percent for a toddler.
  • In no state does the cost of center-based infant or toddler child care meet the federal definition of affordable—no more than 7 percent of annual household income. In 12 states, the cost of child care for just one infant exceeds 20 percent of the state median income............

The benefits of high-quality, licensed child care also extend to parents and the wider society. Access to affordable, high-quality child care can help parents pursue their careers, work longer hours, or attend school10 and can have a long-term impact on families’ economic security.11 When families have access to reliable child care, parents are more productive, and mothers are more likely to work.12

Economists estimate that if child care costs were capped at 10 percent of family income, the United States would see a gross domestic product (GDP) gain equal to $210.2 billion and a corresponding $70 billion annual increase in federal tax revenue—both due to increased earnings............."

s e e:  https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2018/11/15/460970/understanding-true-cost-child-care-infants-toddlers/

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mr6666 said:

"......Licensed infant and toddler child care is unaffordable for most families:

  • The average cost to provide center-based child care for an infant in the United States is $1,230 per month. In a family child care home, the average cost is $800 per month.
  • On average, a family making the state median income would have to spend 18 percent of their income to cover the cost of child care for an infant, and 13 percent for a toddler.
  • In no state does the cost of center-based infant or toddler child care meet the federal definition of affordable—no more than 7 percent of annual household income. In 12 states, the cost of child care for just one infant exceeds 20 percent of the state median income............

The benefits of high-quality, licensed child care also extend to parents and the wider society. Access to affordable, high-quality child care can help parents pursue their careers, work longer hours, or attend school10 and can have a long-term impact on families’ economic security.11 When families have access to reliable child care, parents are more productive, and mothers are more likely to work.12

Economists estimate that if child care costs were capped at 10 percent of family income, the United States would see a gross domestic product (GDP) gain equal to $210.2 billion and a corresponding $70 billion annual increase in federal tax revenue—both due to increased earnings............."

s e e:  https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2018/11/15/460970/understanding-true-cost-child-care-infants-toddlers/

:unsure:

Anytime the government subsidizes the cost of anything the price goes up. It becomes a kind of corporate welfare. And I might ask, WHY is the cost going up so much? Extra regulations? Just plain greed? Because people who work in childcare do not get paid well. Want to know why elective plastic surgery is affordable to individuals? Because insurance doesn't pay and the government doesn't pay. If you want a new nose you are paying for it.  So what I need is a chart - cost of childcare per child in inflation adjust dollars over the past 30 years. If I wasn't busy training a convolutional neural network right now I'd go look for one. Later. 

And again I really have to shake my head at someone who gets in the parent game and only after the kid is born thinks about the cost of any of this stuff. What this amounts to is UBI for parents, which I am against. 

A government racket - Government spends too much, injecting too much money into the economy. Too many dollars chase too few goods. Which produces inflation. Women enter the workforce which means kids need childcare. Because of inflation and demand the price goes up. Wahh! yell the parents. We can't afford childcare. So the government spends too much money paying for childcare. Which causes the price to go up. Rinse and repeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...