What are the Democrats going to do about welfare?

Page 5 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

21 Sep 2021, 12:54 am

Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The infrastructure second package is designed to address issues that often lead to poverty, including lack of childcare. It is an effort to be transformative when it comes to the issue of poverty.

Side note, in response to something else above: Trump didn’t gut Obamacare; he didn’t actually change much of the law at all. What he tried to do is basically starve it to death. Cut funds, pull incentives, shorten and obscure enrollment periods, etc.


You have my attention in my thread. 8)

The health and welfare systems in America have major issues, I have been told.
Assuming this is correct, what are the Democrats going to do about it?
Can they do anything with the Democratic "ministers" they have?
Are they willing to try?


This is what is on the table, a "soft" infrastructure bill that Democrats are trying to pass knowing there will be no Republican support: https://thehill.com/policy/transportati ... cture-bill

It's stalled and faced roadblocks and changes since the date on the article.

We don't know what the Senate and house will look like after the next midterm, so this bill is being treated as the only opportunity to do anything potentially transformative, if they can get it passed. Moving it without any Republican support is tricky. I've seen a lot of excitement over some of proposals, but it is an expensive package and some of the more moderate Democrats are saying it has to be watered down to get their vote. Every Democratic Senator is needed, so that is a lot of power in the hands of the moderate Democrats. I don't know if it can become law and, honestly, I'm hesitant on it myself; not sure at my age I have any more temperament for "transformative" than I do "disruption."

The main idea, as I wrote early, is to create soft infrastructure making it easier for families to support themselves. Expanded child tax credits already came in through a coronavirus aid package, and those alone lifted millions out of poverty (if I am recalling correctly). Making childcare more affordable is a road to helping families escape poverty, as is expanding medical benefits to dental work, eye glasses, and hearing aids. I think there is also job retraining money. Not sure what else. I tend to avoid digging deep into packages until they look like they are ready to pass.

Hope this helps and was a digestible summary.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

21 Sep 2021, 2:32 am

Democrat strategy: Rob Peter to pay Paul.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

21 Sep 2021, 2:47 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Democrat strategy: Rob Peter to pay Paul.


I'll be snippy: that was the result with the Republican 2017 TCJA, regardless of the sales pitches otherwise. At least these new proposals have some real economic chance of helping the country reach a place the increased tax revenues from lifting people out of poverty can make up for the costs. Times like these are exactly when spending is economically indicated. Countries spend their way of recessions and depressions; that is what they do. My personal concern is where to draw the line so that it works as intended, instead of overshooting the mark.

Data is showing us that trickle down economics does not work, but trickle up economics can.

The deficit has grown more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Sep 2021, 3:26 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
We don't know what the Senate and house will look like after the next midterm, so this bill is being treated as the only opportunity to do anything potentially transformative, if they can get it passed.


If history is any guide, it suggests that the Democrats are likely to lose control of the house (The President's party suffers an average loss of 25 seats in mid-terms, taking the split from 222:213 (as I believe it is) to 197:238) and the Senate (By my calculations the President's party has an average loss of around 3 seats which would take it from 48(+2):50 to 45(+2):53, which also aligns closely with the expected result for the number of seats they have up for re-election (14)).



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

21 Sep 2021, 3:35 am

Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
We don't know what the Senate and house will look like after the next midterm, so this bill is being treated as the only opportunity to do anything potentially transformative, if they can get it passed.


If history is any guide, it suggests that the Democrats are likely to lose control of the house (The President's party suffers an average loss of 25 seats in mid-terms, taking the split from 222:213 (as I believe it is) to 197:238) and the Senate (By my calculations the President's party has an average loss of around 3 seats which would take it from 48(+2):50 to 45(+2):53, which also aligns closely with the expected result for the number of seats they have up for re-election (14)).


Yes. Americans instinctively don't like having one party in control of 3 major components of the government at once.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Sep 2021, 5:34 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The infrastructure second package is designed to address issues that often lead to poverty, including lack of childcare. It is an effort to be transformative when it comes to the issue of poverty.

Side note, in response to something else above: Trump didn’t gut Obamacare; he didn’t actually change much of the law at all. What he tried to do is basically starve it to death. Cut funds, pull incentives, shorten and obscure enrollment periods, etc.


You have my attention in my thread. 8)

The health and welfare systems in America have major issues, I have been told.
Assuming this is correct, what are the Democrats going to do about it?
Can they do anything with the Democratic "ministers" they have?
Are they willing to try?


This is what is on the table, a "soft" infrastructure bill that Democrats are trying to pass knowing there will be no Republican support: https://thehill.com/policy/transportati ... cture-bill

It's stalled and faced roadblocks and changes since the date on the article.

We don't know what the Senate and house will look like after the next midterm, so this bill is being treated as the only opportunity to do anything potentially transformative, if they can get it passed. Moving it without any Republican support is tricky. I've seen a lot of excitement over some of proposals, but it is an expensive package and some of the more moderate Democrats are saying it has to be watered down to get their vote. Every Democratic Senator is needed, so that is a lot of power in the hands of the moderate Democrats. I don't know if it can become law and, honestly, I'm hesitant on it myself; not sure at my age I have any more temperament for "transformative" than I do "disruption."

The main idea, as I wrote early, is to create soft infrastructure making it easier for families to support themselves. Expanded child tax credits already came in through a coronavirus aid package, and those alone lifted millions out of poverty (if I am recalling correctly). Making childcare more affordable is a road to helping families escape poverty, as is expanding medical benefits to dental work, eye glasses, and hearing aids. I think there is also job retraining money. Not sure what else. I tend to avoid digging deep into packages until they look like they are ready to pass.

Hope this helps and was a digestible summary.


And are the Republican representatives as unsympathetic as some here suggest?

I find it strange that many Republicans have a religious bent but are seen as uncaring of those less fortunate in society.
Do you agree that conservatives generally "don't have a heart"?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Sep 2021, 6:14 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Democrat strategy: Rob Peter to pay Paul.


I'll be snippy: that was the result with the Republican 2017 TCJA, regardless of the sales pitches otherwise. At least these new proposals have some real economic chance of helping the country reach a place the increased tax revenues from lifting people out of poverty can make up for the costs. Times like these are exactly when spending is economically indicated. Countries spend their way of recessions and depressions; that is what they do. My personal concern is where to draw the line so that it works as intended, instead of overshooting the mark.

Data is showing us that trickle down economics does not work, but trickle up economics can.


Bringing manufacturing back to America from China actually did create more jobs, I believe.
Even an Australian billionaire put many millions of dollars into America to build up a business, because of the now-defunct tax reduction.
Data suggested it was the POC who benefitted the most percentage-wise, with the economic recovery, before the pandemic.

Of course, there is political spin saying that wasn't the case, which seems to defy reason, but I am hoping you are more objective and more independent politically.
I am not saying I am totally convinced.
Just that it seems to be a reasonable assumption even though I have heard that many disbelieve the "Trickle-down" theory.
And the "Trickle-up" theory also has validity, imo, and is used frequently here as an argument in favour of increasing welfare.

Despite Trump being hated by "half" your country, he did seem to improve the economic situation for many, especially the poor, even if big business had their snouts in the trough also.
Before the pandemic, it looked as though he was going to romp in.
Fortunately, for the progressives, Trump mishandled the Wuhan virus situation.

DW_a_mom wrote:
The deficit has grown more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones.


I am fairly confident you can't say that now, after the Democrat's spending spree after their win.
I am not saying it was wrong.
I don't even know what it was spent on, btw.
And massive payments/spending had to be made and massive losses of income/tax were accrued as the result of the pandemic.

Here in Australia, the left is known as Olympic champions when "spending other people's money", as Marget Thatcher famously said.
I am surprised it isn't the same when it comes to "liberal/progressive" political ideology in America.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

21 Sep 2021, 7:54 am

Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The infrastructure second package is designed to address issues that often lead to poverty, including lack of childcare. It is an effort to be transformative when it comes to the issue of poverty.

Side note, in response to something else above: Trump didn’t gut Obamacare; he didn’t actually change much of the law at all. What he tried to do is basically starve it to death. Cut funds, pull incentives, shorten and obscure enrollment periods, etc.


You have my attention in my thread. 8)

The health and welfare systems in America have major issues, I have been told.
Assuming this is correct, what are the Democrats going to do about it?
Can they do anything with the Democratic "ministers" they have?
Are they willing to try?


This is what is on the table, a "soft" infrastructure bill that Democrats are trying to pass knowing there will be no Republican support: https://thehill.com/policy/transportati ... cture-bill

It's stalled and faced roadblocks and changes since the date on the article.

We don't know what the Senate and house will look like after the next midterm, so this bill is being treated as the only opportunity to do anything potentially transformative, if they can get it passed. Moving it without any Republican support is tricky. I've seen a lot of excitement over some of proposals, but it is an expensive package and some of the more moderate Democrats are saying it has to be watered down to get their vote. Every Democratic Senator is needed, so that is a lot of power in the hands of the moderate Democrats. I don't know if it can become law and, honestly, I'm hesitant on it myself; not sure at my age I have any more temperament for "transformative" than I do "disruption."

The main idea, as I wrote early, is to create soft infrastructure making it easier for families to support themselves. Expanded child tax credits already came in through a coronavirus aid package, and those alone lifted millions out of poverty (if I am recalling correctly). Making childcare more affordable is a road to helping families escape poverty, as is expanding medical benefits to dental work, eye glasses, and hearing aids. I think there is also job retraining money. Not sure what else. I tend to avoid digging deep into packages until they look like they are ready to pass.

Hope this helps and was a digestible summary.


And are the Republican representatives as unsympathetic as some here suggest?

I find it strange that many Republicans have a religious bent but are seen as uncaring of those less fortunate in society.
Do you agree that conservatives generally "don't have a heart"?


Conservatives here have a different view of the role of government. Taking care of the less fortunate is, under the conservative position, is better done by charity and not the government. Some conservatives do put that into practice and are generous with time, talent and treasure; others are not. My experience is that relying on charity is far too unpredictable and far too inconsistent to be a societal solution to poverty, disability et al. Plus, there is the concept of dignity; people don't like accepting charity. Finally, a lot of the charity favored by conservatives is attached to religion, so anyone taking advantage of it is likely to feel pressure to convert (if not already in the faith).

Americans in general have a strong belief in personal responsibility and hard work. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe that a person's misfortune is more the result of their own bad choices or lack of work ethic. As a result, conservatives often believe that government actually does harm to people by taking care of them, in depriving them of the incentive to achieve on their own. While the argument isn't without a point, given how proud it made me the first time my kids came home exhausted but giddy after a day of hard work, I'm not convinced it comes from a place of true caring; I think more often it is paternalistic and self-serving.

All of which becomes a long way of saying I don't think the question of heart is as obvious as some liberals try to make it out to be. There are some fundamentally different underlying beliefs behind the position differences which complicate things.

Does this make any sense?


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

21 Sep 2021, 8:26 am

Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Democrat strategy: Rob Peter to pay Paul.


I'll be snippy: that was the result with the Republican 2017 TCJA, regardless of the sales pitches otherwise. At least these new proposals have some real economic chance of helping the country reach a place the increased tax revenues from lifting people out of poverty can make up for the costs. Times like these are exactly when spending is economically indicated. Countries spend their way of recessions and depressions; that is what they do. My personal concern is where to draw the line so that it works as intended, instead of overshooting the mark.

Data is showing us that trickle down economics does not work, but trickle up economics can.


Bringing manufacturing back to America from China actually did create more jobs, I believe.
Even an Australian billionaire put many millions of dollars into America to build up a business, because of the now-defunct tax reduction.
Data suggested it was the POC who benefitted the most percentage-wise, with the economic recovery, before the pandemic.

Of course, there is political spin saying that wasn't the case, which seems to defy reason, but I am hoping you are more objective and more independent politically.
I am not saying I am totally convinced.
Just that it seems to be a reasonable assumption even though I have heard that many disbelieve the "Trickle-down" theory.
And the "Trickle-up" theory also has validity, imo, and is used frequently here as an argument in favour of increasing welfare.

Despite Trump being hated by "half" your country, he did seem to improve the economic situation for many, especially the poor, even if big business had their snouts in the trough also.
Before the pandemic, it looked as though he was going to romp in.
Fortunately, for the progressives, Trump mishandled the Wuhan virus situation.


The economy was on a long, steady rise when Trump took office and the trajectory actually started to slow down during his term, not pick up. Where the credit falls for any gains during his term and before the start of the pandemic are actually difficult to attribute. I am only willing to say that he didn't mess it up completely.

My families economic situation took a steep nose dive after Trump took office, with a huge chunk of it attributable to Trump's tariffs, so I am personally a bit biter about his economic policies. Something to keep in mind, although I'll try to stay objective.

Overall, in my work, where I see what a huge variety of businesses and individuals earn, I saw the wealthy getting wealthier and the middle class just ... stalled.

Jobs did not come back from China. The improvement there was really small. Meanwhile, some industries (like the one my husband used to work in) took a nose dive pretty immediately. My husband's employer went completely out of business (obviously there were other problems, but the tariffs seemed like the final nail in the coffin). My strongest Trump supporting friend stayed unemployed the entire Trump presidency only just this past month finally getting a new position. But he still believes in Trump and hates Biden. I can't explain it.

Historic patterns do suggest Trump would probably have been reelected if there was no pandemic.

Quote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The deficit has grown more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones.


I am fairly confident you can't say that now, after the Democrat's spending spree after their win.
I am not saying it was wrong.
I don't even know what it was spent on, btw.
And massive payments/spending had to be made and massive losses of income/tax were accrued as the result of the pandemic.

Here in Australia, the left is known as Olympic champions when "spending other people's money", as Marget Thatcher famously said.
I am surprised it isn't the same when it comes to "liberal/progressive" political ideology in America.


I've taken my eyes off the deficit since the start of the pandemic because we've kind of had to spend our way out of it. It is what governments are supposed to do, and Trump would have spent more if the Republicans in congress would have agreed. For legislation that had to be drafted in a hurry it wasn't that bad, but it definitely had some loopholes that sent a ton of money to people who didn't need it. In that situation, Trump did what he was supposed to do, IMHO, and Biden has done the same. The pending infrastructure packages are more debatable, but if a country is going to overspend, infrastructure is definitely the most beneficial way to do it, IMHO.

Liberals joke that the American Republican party is the "don't tax, spend anyway" party. Once Republicans noticed that voters wouldn't penalize them for increasing the deficit, they seemed to take their eyes off of it. They move around the budget, cutting taxes, cutting social programs, and increasing military spending but when push comes to shove they'll use magic numbers to pretend that what they want to do will work when budget office projections say it won't. They USED to be conservative about spending some 4 decades ago. They aren't anymore, although how they spend is clearly different than how Democrats spend, and Democrats do still spend more (but are willing to raise the taxes it takes to pay for it).

Taxes are my specialty, so I could talk for hours on the 2017 tax act, and also on all the bills that have come out since the pandemic. But I'm not up all night for the purpose of posting here; I actually have a work project my company needs first thing. So I guess I should finish it.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

22 Sep 2021, 5:48 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The infrastructure second package is designed to address issues that often lead to poverty, including lack of childcare. It is an effort to be transformative when it comes to the issue of poverty.

Side note, in response to something else above: Trump didn’t gut Obamacare; he didn’t actually change much of the law at all. What he tried to do is basically starve it to death. Cut funds, pull incentives, shorten and obscure enrollment periods, etc.


You have my attention in my thread. 8)

The health and welfare systems in America have major issues, I have been told.
Assuming this is correct, what are the Democrats going to do about it?
Can they do anything with the Democratic "ministers" they have?
Are they willing to try?


This is what is on the table, a "soft" infrastructure bill that Democrats are trying to pass knowing there will be no Republican support: https://thehill.com/policy/transportati ... cture-bill

It's stalled and faced roadblocks and changes since the date on the article.


Could it be, despite the Democrats claiming the bill is modest, that it is too demanding?
Is it linked to other legislation bills?

DW_a_mom wrote:
We don't know what the Senate and house will look like after the next midterm, so this bill is being treated as the only opportunity to do anything potentially transformative, if they can get it passed. Moving it without any Republican support is tricky. I've seen a lot of excitement over some of proposals, but it is an expensive package and some of the more moderate Democrats are saying it has to be watered down to get their vote.


Bingo.
If something less than ideal can get passed, it would be a wedge towards greater things.
The left, over here, doesn't seem to appreciate the financial side of things.
This has always been the case since I discovered politics.
I would have thought the progressives in America were the same, but you think differently.

DW_a_mom wrote:
Every Democratic Senator is needed, so that is a lot of power in the hands of the moderate Democrats. I don't know if it can become law and, honestly, I'm hesitant on it myself; not sure at my age I have any more temperament for "transformative" than I do "disruption."

The main idea, as I wrote early, is to create soft infrastructure making it easier for families to support themselves. Expanded child tax credits already came in through a coronavirus aid package, and those alone lifted millions out of poverty (if I am recalling correctly). Making childcare more affordable is a road to helping families escape poverty, as is expanding medical benefits to dental work, eye glasses, and hearing aids. I think there is also job retraining money. Not sure what else. I tend to avoid digging deep into packages until they look like they are ready to pass.

Hope this helps and was a digestible summary.


Regarding healthcare:
Both the Canadian and Australian health systems seem to work well, I believe.
I find it interesting that America can't adopt what is apparently working well in other countries.

I am not a fan of childcare funding, btw.
"You bought it, you fund it with your own money" is basically my attitude.
I am not a fan of breeding, if you didn't know that already. :mrgreen:



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

23 Sep 2021, 3:14 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Democrat strategy: Rob Peter to pay Paul.


I'll be snippy: that was the result with the Republican 2017 TCJA, regardless of the sales pitches otherwise. At least these new proposals have some real economic chance of helping the country reach a place the increased tax revenues from lifting people out of poverty can make up for the costs. Times like these are exactly when spending is economically indicated. Countries spend their way of recessions and depressions; that is what they do. My personal concern is where to draw the line so that it works as intended, instead of overshooting the mark.

Data is showing us that trickle down economics does not work, but trickle up economics can.

Do you wonder what Peter is doing with his money now, and the consequences of taking his money?


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

23 Sep 2021, 3:37 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Democrat strategy: Rob Peter to pay Paul.


I'll be snippy: that was the result with the Republican 2017 TCJA, regardless of the sales pitches otherwise. At least these new proposals have some real economic chance of helping the country reach a place the increased tax revenues from lifting people out of poverty can make up for the costs. Times like these are exactly when spending is economically indicated. Countries spend their way of recessions and depressions; that is what they do. My personal concern is where to draw the line so that it works as intended, instead of overshooting the mark.

Data is showing us that trickle down economics does not work, but trickle up economics can.

Do you wonder what Peter is doing with his money now, and the consequences of taking his money?


No, I don’t need to wonder, because every year I get to see how the economy and tax laws are playing out for a wide variety of businesses and individuals.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

23 Sep 2021, 6:54 pm

Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The infrastructure second package is designed to address issues that often lead to poverty, including lack of childcare. It is an effort to be transformative when it comes to the issue of poverty.

Side note, in response to something else above: Trump didn’t gut Obamacare; he didn’t actually change much of the law at all. What he tried to do is basically starve it to death. Cut funds, pull incentives, shorten and obscure enrollment periods, etc.


You have my attention in my thread. 8)

The health and welfare systems in America have major issues, I have been told.
Assuming this is correct, what are the Democrats going to do about it?
Can they do anything with the Democratic "ministers" they have?
Are they willing to try?


This is what is on the table, a "soft" infrastructure bill that Democrats are trying to pass knowing there will be no Republican support: https://thehill.com/policy/transportati ... cture-bill

It's stalled and faced roadblocks and changes since the date on the article.


Could it be, despite the Democrats claiming the bill is modest, that it is too demanding?
Is it linked to other legislation bills?


The soft bill is linked by political promises to the hard infrastructure bill that was negotiated with members of both parties and that is designed to be able to pass with the 60 votes needed to break filibuster. Those political promises are where things get thorny, and currently both bills seem to be in jeopardy. Updates on the how and why of that can probably be found in print articles but the crux of it is, in my eyes, the more extreme sides digging against each other. Frustrating.

What is and isn't too expensive will always be the debate, won't it? Both political parties have very different ideas and priorities on what will help our economy the most.

Quote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
We don't know what the Senate and house will look like after the next midterm, so this bill is being treated as the only opportunity to do anything potentially transformative, if they can get it passed. Moving it without any Republican support is tricky. I've seen a lot of excitement over some of proposals, but it is an expensive package and some of the more moderate Democrats are saying it has to be watered down to get their vote.


Bingo.
If something less than ideal can get passed, it would be a wedge towards greater things.
The left, over here, doesn't seem to appreciate the financial side of things.
This has always been the case since I discovered politics.
I would have thought the progressives in America were the same, but you think differently.


The progressives in America are split at the moment. When not in power they are forced to be unified. While in power the different priorities of the moderates versus the more progressive sides become more obvious. The strongest progressives will play hardball to get as much of what they believe in that they can while they theoretically have the power to do so. They firmly believe the full progressive agenda is what Biden was elected to put in place. I do not. My pragmatic side is not all that happy with the further left progressives right now; we could end up with nothing.

Quote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Every Democratic Senator is needed, so that is a lot of power in the hands of the moderate Democrats. I don't know if it can become law and, honestly, I'm hesitant on it myself; not sure at my age I have any more temperament for "transformative" than I do "disruption."

The main idea, as I wrote early, is to create soft infrastructure making it easier for families to support themselves. Expanded child tax credits already came in through a coronavirus aid package, and those alone lifted millions out of poverty (if I am recalling correctly). Making childcare more affordable is a road to helping families escape poverty, as is expanding medical benefits to dental work, eye glasses, and hearing aids. I think there is also job retraining money. Not sure what else. I tend to avoid digging deep into packages until they look like they are ready to pass.

Hope this helps and was a digestible summary.


Regarding healthcare:
Both the Canadian and Australian health systems seem to work well, I believe.
I find it interesting that America can't adopt what is apparently working well in other countries.

I am not a fan of childcare funding, btw.
"You bought it, you fund it with your own money" is basically my attitude.
I am not a fan of breeding, if you didn't know that already. :mrgreen:


Americans have focused strongly over the years on the long wait lines and the limitations of choice that happen in Canada and the UK. And then there is that scary word "socialism." Despite all the statistics to the contrary, Americans believe we have the best healthcare in the world. Perhaps we do for those who aren't limited by their private insurance companies, but very, very few Americans actually have access to this theoretical "best healthcare in the world." I don't think most Americans realize how limited the insurance they have is, or what the numbers say. But as long as that disconnect exits, having a national single payer system simply is not politically palatable. Personally, I'm frustrated by our paying the most and getting less than comparable western countries, but I'm not willing to go for in for either all private or single payer. I've always favored a more hybrid model, which is what the ACA attempts to be, it just isn't quite there yet.

We'll have to disagree on childcare. When societies skew too old it creates real economic and care issues within a society, so the youth are needed. If the youth are needed, we all have a vested interest in having them grow up as capable and healthy as possible. The economy also benefits when parents can work instead of focusing on childcare. We have a lot of work requirements to get financial aid, but a parent can't work without someone watching the children. There is a whole cycle involved that more supportive quality childcare can stop, according to data. Emotionally ... that is another topic too complicated for my brain and typing fingers in the limited time I have today.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).