Based on CBO numbers I've seen I believe if you took every cent from every billionaire in the country you could probably pay for a year or two of the BBB plan and if you abolished the military budget for a year you could pay for a couple more. I'm not sure about the next 6 years though.Originally Posted by jp1
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I haven't really seen Congress debate on much for years now. It is sort of depressing, and definitely outside the Schoolhouse Rock model. Instead it seems to be partisan bickering for social media soundbites and memes, and issues don't even seem to come up for discussion, or for a vote.
A pox on all their houses.
This is ridiculous nonsense that noone is willing to pay for stuff. Most people realize it would be in their self interest to pay more in taxes for a better safety net. But minority rule and so never mind.
Trees don't grow on money
Feel free to share the numbers that make you reach this conclusion. The BBB bill, in it’s final now dead, iteration was going to cost less than the tRump tax cut for rich people and corporations.
That's assuming all this government largesse would simply end and the various programs would expire sometime after the votes they're intended to buy are counted. Do you really think that would happen?
CBO estimates suggest that the various plans the Democrats are promoting to pay the bill will cover approximately 1/4th of the cost over a 10 year period.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Is that the fault of the political class, or of we the people for allowing it? They couldn’t take advantage of our indifference to the issues, class/race resentments or greed if we practiced basic civic virtue on an individual basis. The outrage industry and political hacks couldn’t prosper if they had nobody to pander to.
It's too bad we're in a time of political extremes. There are things around climate change, education, health and crumbling infrastructure that the richest country in the world should be able to advance. With out making a study of it, I'd wager that pregressives have padded and pork rolled less vital social programs into the package. And the right "steal the vote" who don't believe in climate change or even vaccines. I don't know if those are the sticking point or not, but the logical progression to me is to decide what we need to do to have prospering country first, and then figuring out how to pay for things. Quite a bit of it is over my head.
I would love to see individual items discussed and addressed separately.
I imagine Manchin's personal fossil fuel pork barrel influenced his vote.
He's a rich senator from a poor state and apparently that's fine with him.
Is the votes for each proposal on it's merits Even Possible under the rules they insist on keeping?
1) They are maintaining the filibuster. It's doubtful Manchin or others would allow repeal of the filibuster.
2) The filibuster requires bills to pass with a 60% threshold.
3) If no Dem proposals are going to get Republican support, Dems do not have 60%, so they have to pass bills by reconciliation which bypasses the fillibuster.
4) they are not allowed unlimited reconciliation bills
I mean it's all well and good to argue that perhaps they should have gone for a smaller more targeted bill as their 1 (yearly) bill to pass under reconciliation and leave other things unaddressed (but if so they should go for something that makes a real impact, real medical changes like lowered medicare eligiblity to 60 would). But ACTUALLY PASSING bills for each thing, was that ever possible?
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote