|
Regarde Aduck posted:the rare "gently caress you, got nothing" I laughed irl at this Professor Beetus posted:Kids are pretty fuckin' expensive, so by not having kids my partner and I are probably saving way more than 600 dollars a month in the long run. I still think more direct aid to people living in poverty should be a thing though, just so I'm clear. Agreed, that goes without saying
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm still waiting to hear how children are means tested, thanks. Children aren't means tested. The aid (money) is means tested. The metric by which the aid is means tested is "is the potential recipient have a dependent child?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Propaganda works. Always has. Do you think it works on you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Their hope is is they act enough like a child on the internet they will qualify for the child care tax credit. This is very funny.  On topic though, it's also illustrative of one of the biggest problems the democrats have. There aren't things that they can do that are widely popular with everyone. Americans have a very mythologized understanding of what's possible or realistic or even good when it comes to independence and individualism. Whatever group or groups of people we might decide to help via legislation, there will be those who will stand against it because they don't "deserve" it, but way, way more people on the sidelines who are unhappy that while something good is happening, it isn't happening to them. Most people care more about themselves than other people, which isn't a bad thing, per se, just like, a baseline to be aware of -- so when we focus on helping the most disadvantaged, we create resentment in those who are disadvantaged, but not as much. It's why the internet is more or less incapable of discussing intersectional problems without it turning into the oppression olympics where x group has it worse than some other group for y definable reason. It's also, I think, why republican dogma is so much easier to approach. They admit rather readily that they think rich people are better, and so deserve more, and a lot of people are well-propagandized to enough to accept that. The democratic message "trust us and we'll see that those who need it most get it" requires a lot more suspension of disbelief. And I don't think they've much to spare. e: oh we have a timeout now. Cool. vvvvvvv: I agree with you that it isn't true. Hence "suspension of disbelief." Personally I think it's because they operate with the intent to maximize return for capital in everything they do, but that critique hits a little too close to "both parties are the same" for a lot of people to jive with it Ershalim fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:This is very funny. "trust us and we will see to those who need it most get it" isn't true or we'd have universal healthcare. You can argue on if it's not true because it was a lie or because it was a failing but it's not true
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Do you have any data to suggest that it has legitimately changed the lives of millions, because I'd be curious to see it "The 2021 temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) is unprecedented in its reach and is predicted to cut American child poverty by more than half. The expanded CTC provides families with $3,600 for every child in the household under the age of six, and $3,000 for every child between the ages of six and 17. Almost all middle- and low-income families with children are eligible for the CTC. Married parents making less than $150,000 and single parents making less than $112,500 per year will receive the full amount of the credit, which begins to phase out slowly after these income cut-offs." So, as absolutely no surprise to anyone on this forum, giving people an extra $3k a month lets them save for emergencies, pay for housing and utilities, and provide for their children - without forcing families to jump through hoops or prove they weren't 'wasting' the money. Combined with other studies that showed that giving a lump cash payment instead of current welfare programs also didn't result in 'wasted' money by recipients, I feel pretty comfortable saying that a universal UBI program would be equally effective for households without children. I'd love to see the program expanded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Do you think it works on you? Yes of course. Just like advertising, it works on everyone. Even and especially the people who think it doesn't work on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Racism isn't a regional thing and people didn't start being racist because of propaganda. Killer robot posted:It's also important to recognize that while the population of the south is disproportionately likely to be programmed as virulently racist, and while the population of the south is disproportionately likely to suffer from poverty, poor health, disfranchisement, and other forms of misery, the two don't actually describe exactly the same people. It's another replay of explaining school shootings as bulled kids pushing back when they're usually middle-class white boys that don't get singled out much. “Criticizing Southern politics, looks like Dems hate poor people” is not - it’s old, stale, and frankly I thought we’d moved on to “you mentioned antivaxxers, that must mean you hate old black people” as the nonsequitur du jour? Jaxyon posted:Is it every CSPAM poster? Every time? AmiYumi fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Nov 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Everyone from the south drives like this but everyone from cspam drives like this
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Racism is taught, and echo chambers are propaganda - I don’t think I understand the distinction you’re trying to cleave, here. You're right, you didn't understand. 1. Racism is taught, but it isn't just taught regionally. 2. "stolen elections" is taught via social media and cable news propaganda, and also isn't regional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I still think more direct aid to people living in poverty should be a thing though, just so I'm clear. People should get tax credits for all kinds of poo poo because capitalism is a miserable failure and the more the government can give to everyone, the better. It's a lot harder to claw good things away the more people benefit from them. This is definitely true. But even in a world where the government straight up gives everyone aid according to their needs, parents with children will need more than people without. In fact most likely to a greater degree than what they're getting in this bill. Again, because children are people with needs, but on government balance sheets their parents handle it because in our culture it's traditional for parents to care for their children. That's why characterizing it as that drat dirty means testing discriminating against people who don't have kids is gross. It's aid to children just as sure as money on schools is, and surely many of those benefiting from it will grow up to pay school taxes while never having kids of their own too. And that's just loving fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:This is the report that a lot of people were talking about last time this conversation came up. From its first page: "To understand how families were responding to the CTC, we utilized a probability-based online panel to survey a nationally-representative group of 1,514 American parents eligible for the credit. The survey was administered between July 8 and July 13, 2021—immediately before the first CTC payments were delivered. In this summary report, we highlight key findings from the first wave of the study, focusing specifically on how families plan to use CTC payments and their initial perceptions of the expanded credit. The full report, examining the impacts of the CTC on families relative to a comparison group of households ineligible for the CTC, is forthcoming in early 2022." (emph. added) That's quite a difference from the initial claims that it did cut child poverty in half, especially since the mobile app was still fubar as of a few weeks ago, and since initial surveys showed that half of the single parents who needed it the most weren't getting any money. Initial surveys also showed that those most in need were using the money to keep up with inflation, which while a good thing may help explain why Biden's approval rating on economic issues has gone down, and not up, over the four months that parents have been getting the checks. There's also that pesky problem of the govt. telling divorced parents to work out payments between themselves, but there have yet to be studies on how that's shaking out, although I have some ideas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
The Child Tax credit is means tested.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The Child Tax credit is means tested. You do need to exist to get it yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:You do need to exist to get it yes. There are income limits as well
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:This is definitely true. But even in a world where the government straight up gives everyone aid according to their needs, parents with children will need more than people without. In fact most likely to a greater degree than what they're getting in this bill. Again, because children are people with needs, but on government balance sheets their parents handle it because in our culture it's traditional for parents to care for their children. That's why characterizing it as that drat dirty means testing discriminating against people who don't have kids is gross. It's aid to children just as sure as money on schools is, and surely many of those benefiting from it will grow up to pay school taxes while never having kids of their own too. And that's just loving fine. I do wonder how expensive people think kids are; like are these parents a bunch of lucky duckies making off with most of that 600 to buy steak and lobster?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:My hope is that the democrats will do something to discharge the $40,000 worth of medical debt I took on during the pandemic. Professor Beetus posted:I do wonder how expensive people think kids are; like are these parents a bunch of lucky duckies making off with most of that 600 to buy steak and lobster? So I feel like there's a big gap between the criticism given and the argument people keep arguing with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So I feel like there's a big gap between the criticism given and the argument people keep arguing with. I guess I don't get why the child tax credit gets brought up as a negative thing that is competing with the actual good things? No one is this thread disagrees more needs done and that debt should be forgiven and those without kids need help too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So I feel like there's a big gap between the criticism given and the argument people keep arguing with. No not really. I agree completely that medical debt should be wiped out entirely; it doesn't require the framing that somehow the CTC is a bad thing to advocate for or desire that. The government could clearly afford to do all these things and more since there's infinite money for the military industrial complex and bank bailouts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:I guess I don't get why the child tax credit gets brought up as a negative thing that is competing with the actual good things? No one is this thread disagrees more needs done and that debt should be forgiven and those without kids need help too. Because it's a thread about the US news and government and one of the current big fights is if the people in charge of the government think people need more or not and it turns out that there are Democrats in charge who don't think more should be done and that the current rules need more testing if they're going to be expanded. Not really sure how no one in the thread keeps disagreeing but I'm also not sure why people keep arguing if you all agree that people with medical debt need help. Honestly it really doesn't matter if you agree or not, none of you are making those laws and the people actually making those decisions are in a real big fight over who does and doesn't need help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:No not really. I agree completely that medical debt should be wiped out entirely; it doesn't require the framing that somehow the CTC is a bad thing to advocate for or desire that. The government could clearly afford to do all these things and more since there's infinite money for the military industrial complex and bank bailouts. Agreed. Why does the need to address medical debt invalidate giving payments to children? It just feels all very "how are we helping refugees while HOMELESS VETERANS" to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:I guess I don't get why the child tax credit gets brought up as a negative thing that is competing with the actual good things? No one is this thread disagrees more needs done and that debt should be forgiven and those without kids need help too. Because it allows the user to derail the discussion to address an endlessly shifting counterfactual, and abuse any recognition of any good thing in preference to the unreal (and any user who expresses understanding of what is happening). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Mods change my name to the impossible counterfactual, please
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
I think it's disturbing how the original poster never said that the money going to parents should be reallocated elsewhere but for some reason that seems to be the strawman being attacked by much of this thread.Professor Beetus posted:I do wonder how expensive people think kids are; like are these parents a bunch of lucky duckies making off with most of that 600 to buy steak and lobster? Killer robot posted:Agreed. Why does the need to address medical debt invalidate giving payments to children? It just feels all very "how are we helping refugees while HOMELESS VETERANS" to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:No not really. I agree completely that medical debt should be wiped out entirely; it doesn't require the framing that somehow the CTC is a bad thing to advocate for or desire that. The government could clearly afford to do all these things and more since there's infinite money for the military industrial complex and bank bailouts. It's not bad, it's simply insufficient means to repair the American working class. Would you like to respond to that rather than the post you think I'm making?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Agreed. Why does the need to address medical debt invalidate giving payments to children? It just feels all very "how are we helping refugees while HOMELESS VETERANS" to me. It doesn't. You all read someone saying the current implementation is bad and not enough and reworked that into no one should get the tax credit. You heard "I wish everyone got more" and somehow turned it into "gently caress you I want just mine". I mean look at this wild reading of what was said Kirios posted:Look I'm sorry but there's been so many bad faith arguments and extremist opinions of the Child Care Tax Credit here, something that has legitimately changed the lives of millions, that it's hard for me to take them seriously. Is it enough? No probably not. Is it right for you to use it to justify your holy crusade to show why America has failed so many people? No of course not. So Kirios' response to reading about someone wishing more could be done for their medical debt was too say that yes, the child care tax credit isn't enough to help out everyone who needs it but also you shouldn't use it as an example that America doesn't help out everyone who needs it because they perceived the whole thing as a "bad faith troll" instead of "Hey, I have medical debt and it sucks". Edit: Like, is anyone really going to get up in arms at the idea that the child tax credit helps some people while leaving many others who need it without sufficient help and that the promise of more help is not guaranteed because of both the Republicans and specific Democrats and that the Democrats will do better if they can get that guarantee? Because that's what you're all saying when you stop assuming it's bad faith trolling. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Nov 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:This is the report that a lot of people were talking about last time this conversation came up. As Willa said, this is a survey conducted before the expanded payments even began going out, it isn't data that shows actual poverty reduction, but quote:So, as absolutely no surprise to anyone on this forum, giving people an extra $3k a month lets them save for emergencies, pay for housing and utilities, and provide for their children - without forcing families to jump through hoops or prove they weren't 'wasting' the money. $3k a month? It's $3k a year, up from the $2k a year set by a law passed by Trump and a Republican congress. It's more than that if you have children under 6 and/or you expect to pay <$1400 in income tax and/or you make <$2.5k in income a year, but for many people ITT and elsewhere talking up how transformative it is, it's an extra $167 a month Thom12255 posted:I guess I don't get why the child tax credit gets brought up as a negative thing that is competing with the actual good things? No one is this thread disagrees more needs done and that debt should be forgiven and those without kids need help too. People tend to be critical of the CTC expansion because it gets used as a cudgel against others who are dissatisfied with the lack of relief the Democrats have produced for them. "Oh you think Dems bad huh? You're not getting any help? Why don't you stop being selfish and try being happy for people with kids??" Discendo Vox posted:Because it allows the user to derail the discussion to address an endlessly shifting counterfactual, and abuse any recognition of any good thing in preference to the unreal (and any user who expresses understanding of what is happening). What discussion is being derailed in this 4 page long thread exactly? Southern billboards?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:It's not bad, it's simply insufficient means to repair the American working class. Would you like to respond to that rather than the post you think I'm making? I don't think that the child tax credit program was conceived as the means to repair the American working class, or was messaged as the means to repair the American working class. I think that framing the child tax credit as a means to repair the American working class and then pronouncing it insufficient is kind of a straw man. It is a program to provide money to parents of children, for the assistance of children. It is not the vehicle by which we repair the American working class. Repairing the American working class is going to have to be a different project.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Yes. I have not, and will continue to not be shy about my feeling that the child tax credit is not enough of a reparative measure for all Americans, simply based on the fact that it is a "child tax credit" and not a "tax credit for everyone." Lib and let die posted:It's not bad, it's simply insufficient means to repair the American working class. Would you like to respond to that rather than the post you think I'm making? Ruzihm posted:I think it's disturbing how the original poster never said that the money going to parents should be reallocated elsewhere but for some reason that seems to be the strawman being attacked by much of this thread. The first post sure makes it sound like their position is that the CTC should be replaced with something for everyone, not that we should have more benefits in addition to the CTC, which is why they were getting pushback. That's all, doesn't sound like we're in disagreement after additional discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Hey, here’s an idea: instead of starting this bad faith trolling on page three of the new thread, maybe don’t? AmiYumi posted:Try again without cutting out half my post, like every CSPAM poster does every time for mysterious reasons AmiYumi posted:The pattern is there, though - a post gets selectively quoted in CSPAM, then an influx of “new” posters rush in to shitpost here. Not just talking myself - again, it’s an easy to recognize pattern. Hey, could we not do this any more, please? We just got done with a week of hashing out poo poo in the feedback thread & the mods already have taken up some of the suggestions people made, including defusing tensions by putting this thread on slow roll. And the changes seem to be working, for the most part. I'd reckon there are fewer reports being made; there are definitely fewer probations going on; and for the most part everyone is getting along--even when we disagree. Throwing grenades like these don't add to the discussion, and seem counter to the type of environment that we & the mods have agreed we need to work toward. They've also said that the feedback thread will be reopened at some point in the future, so you'll have another opportunity to weigh in publicly if you feel that reporting posts is futile, for whatever reasons. Thanks! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:08
|
|
”
|
Ringo Star Get posted:Manchin saying that Progressives aren’t compromising enough is good because, well, that’s what Progressives do. We have to violently drag people into this side of the 2000’s and not cater to this bumble-gently caress’s twisted idea of not supporting those that need it so that he can continue to get his yacht money in his poor-rear end state. lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Apparently the Progressives are going to try and call Manchin's bluff https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1455291213578448900?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It doesn't. You all read someone saying the current implementation is bad and not enough and reworked that into no one should get the tax credit. You heard "I wish everyone got more" and somehow turned it into "gently caress you I want just mine". I mean look at this wild reading of what was said If that's truly the argument, it makes the initial claim that people will resent Democrats because of aids "means-tested by your ability to have a child" even all the more incoherent. Again, if you're worried about homeless veterans, don't lead with how refugees are getting helped. On the other hand, if you're just not going to support any proposal that's not full communism now all in one shot, own it straight up and in no uncertain words. Otherwise it just comes off as taking pot shots at actual good things instead of proposal of additional good things, followed by mealy-mouthed backtracking when called out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:The first post sure makes it sound like their position is that the CTC should be replaced with something for everyone, not that we should have more benefits in addition to the CTC, I don't see why a position of "a strategy of heavily favoring the enacting of programs with certain conditions such as program x and y is inadequate for generating political support" implies a position of "the beneficiaries of x and y deserve less money." Can you explain that step for me please? ^ I think they're saying that the democrats would be more successful if their strategy favored more universal programs. A contrived example at the local level might be "firefighter coverage free for all" rather than "firefighter coverage free for veterans only". I might be missing something but that doesn't require full communism now. Is there a reason you are suggesting their position may require full communism now? Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Nov 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:If that's truly the argument, it makes the initial claim that people will resent Democrats because of aids "means-tested by your ability to have a child" even all the more incoherent. Again, if you're worried about homeless veterans, don't lead with how refugees are getting helped. On the other hand, if you're just not going to support any proposal that's not full communism now all in one shot, own it straight up and in no uncertain words. Otherwise it just comes off as taking pot shots at actual good things instead of proposal of additional good things, followed by mealy-mouthed backtracking when called out. That's not the initial argument. The initial argument is that people who fall between the gaps of means testing grow resentful if they expect aid and don't get it or feel they're also deserving. That's not very controversial and then the rest of this was stuff you made up about someone's position because of a bunch of assumptions. Hey all, if you feel like you're very good at noticing patterns in behavior from certain groups of people that makes it easy for you to predict or pre-judge what they're going to do or what their true motives are I have some bad news about that "being good at it" part. Just seems like a skill a few people are very proud of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
We clarified one of the thread rules:CommieGIR posted:- When you share tweets or news, link the full article being discussed if it isn't, and comment on what your found interesting about it. Be sure to consider your source and if they're worth listening to before posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
The post that started this:Lib and let die posted:Means testing is a hell of a thing to be put through. Every time the democrats means test aid - whether by some arbitrary poverty cap based on 1950's economic data or one's desire or ability to have a child, they leave a struggling person behind. Every time the democrats leave struggling people behind, some nonzero portion of those people swear off the democrats. The problem I had with the OP that started this was the implication that the CTC somehow cancels out the negative financial cost of having kids and that it makes people better off than single people with no kids when that isn't true. For every single person in poverty, you have a bunch of single people who also have kids in poverty too who are probably still worse off than the former single person even with the extended CTC because kids are expensive. Yes, a UBI for everyone including kids would be ideal but calling out the CTC as a reason people won't vote for the Democrats is just a weird thing to say. Thom12255 fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Nov 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:the implication that the CTC somehow cancels out the negative financial cost of having kids and that it makes people better off than single people with no kids That implication is a strawman you created in your brain (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
Ruzihm posted:I don't see why a position of "a strategy of heavily favoring the enacting of programs with certain conditions such as program x and y is inadequate for generating political support" implies a position of "the beneficiaries of x and y deserve less money." Can you explain that step for me please? Here's the part that I read to imply that: quote:based on the fact that it is a "child tax credit" and not a "tax credit for everyone." If you can't see how that framing could imply the position of "ctc should be replaced with something for everyone" then I don't know how to break it down any more simply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 23:42
|
|