True, but it turns out the cost of Head Start is in the neighborhood of 1/6th of the median income per child ($10,000 per kid, according to the Congressional Budget Office). Just because the feds are picking up the tab doesn't mean the cost disappears; so long as child care providers are being reasonably compensated, it's going to cost *someone* about $10,000/child/year to provide it.
I don't think anyone said the cost disappears. Like all governmental services when it is spread across the populous it doesn't actually cost all that much to anyone.
Perhaps I misread, but to me it had seemed that "we could expand Head Start" was offered as a response to my claim that (compensated) child care is always going to cost somewhere around 1/6th of the median income per child, as if Head Start was dramatically less expensive or something.
Hedgethorn on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Pretty sure the burden of child care cost can mostly be attributed to the rise in income inequality. Yeah standards improved and all but costs of almost all services have been steadily increasing with inflation while median household income has lagged it.
Listening to the CBC on the way in the other day, one of the things that I heard being talked about was that low interest rates are driving increased borrowing. More keeps going on mortgages, car loans, lines of credit, and to some extent even credit cards than we'd see if interest rates were higher. This has two effects: firstly, it's helping to keep the economy spinning along, and secondly it means that if and when things stop spinning the crash will hit that much harder. And since raising interest rates slows down all of that spending on credit, you could trigger the crash by raising rates.
yeah the idea is that you're supposed to raise rates until it causes a bear (but hopefully not a recession) as a pressure release that keeps you from full on crashing.
Taxpayer funded childcare is really the only way to solve this. Good luck getting people to accept it. I've never quite gotten why conservatives don't view taxes in the lens of patriotism. Taxes are the lifeblood of the country you supposedly cherish so much.
I'm really happy for you, Imma let you finish but fuck you got mine
It's less fuck you got mine and more fuck you and me.
You are assuming that it is something they actually thought about and not a knee-jerk reaction of "keep the government's hands off my money!"
There is also the idea that we fought for independence because of taxes, which leads to the conclusion that taxes are inherently evil, even though that isn't entirely true and any complaints about taxes at the time stopped mattering to most when Parliament decided that economicly starving Boston and essentially ending democracy in Massachusetts were reasonable reactions to the Boston Tea Party.
Taxpayer funded childcare is really the only way to solve this. Good luck getting people to accept it. I've never quite gotten why conservatives don't view taxes in the lens of patriotism. Taxes are the lifeblood of the country you supposedly cherish so much.
I'm really happy for you, Imma let you finish but fuck you got mine
It's less fuck you got mine and more fuck you and me.
You are assuming that it is something they actually thought about and not a knee-jerk reaction of "keep the government's hands off my money!"
There is also the idea that we fought for independence because of taxes, which leads to the conclusion that taxes are inherently evil, even though that isn't entirely true and any complaints about taxes at the time stopped mattering to most when Parliament decided that economicly starving Boston and essentially ending democracy in Massachusetts were reasonable reactions to the Boston Tea Party.
Everyone forgets the second great American tax rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, where George Washington told anti-tax revolutionaries to get fucked and marched an army on them.
Fucking farmers isn't helping the GOP. People tend to ignore some key caveats. Will never vote democrat, doesn't mean they'll always vote for the ratfucker republican either. If someone is disenchanted with both choices, they either pick a third party, an independent or just don't vote. You also have a few people in the middle that are normally GOP sympathetic, switching to the democratic candidate. Finally, you also get the people that normally don't vote at all, showing up and voting strongly against the party responsible for fucking them over. I'd argue we saw how those three groups came together in Iowa, to move their house makeup from 3-1 GOP/Democratic to 1-3 GOP/Democratic.
I'd say there is a good chance the GOP is very worried this will fuck them over. Will they do anything about, probably not because the vast majority of them are all ratfuckers. They fully expect someone else to save them because they know the base, they created and enabled, will throw a shit fit if anyone tells their guy to get fucked.
I'd love to be proven wrong here, but this is very much a case of we need well more than 4 republicans to buck the party's idiocy and that is a tall order.
Universal Pre-K for 4 and 5 year olds is the best RoI we have for cutting down on the number of hours of childcare that your average family has to pay for outside of taxes.
Better education outcomes especially in low income areas as well.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Universal Pre-K for 4 and 5 year olds is the best RoI we have for cutting down on the number of hours of childcare that your average family has to pay for outside of taxes.
Better education outcomes especially in low income areas as well.
problem is of course one party directly benefits from an un educated poor work force and will fight tooth and nail for anything that would affect that.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Here we go -- House Ways and Means Chair Richie Neal on Trump's pending Mexico tariffs: "If the President does declare a national emergency and attempt to put these tariffs into place, I will introduce a resolution of disapproval to stop his overreach."
- Seung Min Kim is a White House reporter for WaPo.
Yes, it's likely to get defeated, either by the Senate initially, or by failed veto override.
But making Republicans have to stand by their "Trump is king", and vote on this, is important.
It was pointed out to me a couple pages ago, that Democrats are concerned because their constituents want the tariffs. The easy counterargument to that is to point out it's not WHAT is being done, it's HOW.
If Trump wanted to put forward trade proposals, and have them go through the proper channels, and some Democrats wanted to do that because it makes sense for their constituency, that's one thing. Trump doing it by executive edict on shaky as fuck legal justifications, and relying on Republicans supplicating themselves for him, is not the way to do it.
Is a resolution of disapproval one of those non-binding things that goes on a Presidents permanent record of it passes?
It is pretty much the least you can do while still technically doing something.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited June 2019
A resolution of disapproval in this case means that it is the Congress saying "there is no state of emergency", which means President cannot unilaterally enact tariffs.
It so means he can't fund his wall, except through congress, btw.
Taxpayer funded childcare is really the only way to solve this. Good luck getting people to accept it. I've never quite gotten why conservatives don't view taxes in the lens of patriotism. Taxes are the lifeblood of the country you supposedly cherish so much.
I'm really happy for you, Imma let you finish but fuck you got mine
It's less fuck you got mine and more fuck you and me.
You are assuming that it is something they actually thought about and not a knee-jerk reaction of "keep the government's hands off my money!"
There is also the idea that we fought for independence because of taxes, which leads to the conclusion that taxes are inherently evil, even though that isn't entirely true and any complaints about taxes at the time stopped mattering to most when Parliament decided that economicly starving Boston and essentially ending democracy in Massachusetts were reasonable reactions to the Boston Tea Party.
Everyone forgets the second great American tax rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, where George Washington told anti-tax revolutionaries to get fucked and marched an army on them.
A resolution of disapproval in this case means that it is the Congress saying "there is no state of emergency", which means President cannot utilaterally enact tariffs.
It so means he can't fund his wall, except through congress, btw.
I expect it to go the same way this time around, but like then, it was heartening to see Democrats at least trying, and not going "Welp, not gonna work, no point trying".
Yeah I did a little more reading and it's actually deceptively more impactful than it sounds. 'Resolution of disapproval' sounds like the worst kind of passive-aggressive action one can take, but passing it does actually have consequences, or it would, if it didn't effectively require the President to disapprove of themselves.
+3
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
I am happy to stand corrected on this point.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
A resolution of disapproval in this case means that it is the Congress saying "there is no state of emergency", which means President cannot utilaterally enact tariffs.
It so means he can't fund his wall, except through congress, btw.
I expect it to go the same way this time around, but like then, it was heartening to see Democrats at least trying, and not going "Welp, not gonna work, no point trying".
Republicans are much more unhappy about the tariffs this time around, and I am seeing numbers that are close to veto override being thrown around, as a warning to the president.
They will become much more vehemently against them the moment Trump is out of power, having never been okay with them, but certain there was no possible thing they could have done, and declare it just another example of government being inefficient and ineffective.
+21
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
They will become much more vehemently against them the moment Trump is out of power, having never been okay with them, but certain there was no possible thing they could have done, and declare it just another example of government being inefficient and ineffective.
They'll say it was the gul'durn Dems in the house that didn't give them the freedom to stand against Trump in some fashion
+7
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited June 2019
Oh, I don't doubt any of that, I'm just saying they are giving the traditional lines that they hate the thing that's happening. And trying to signal the president to pleasepleaseplease stop.
But they will also claim there is absolutely nothing they can do, because they are cowards.
Fencingsax on
+2
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
In world agricultural news, let's talk about African swine fever, almost inevitably fatal to pigs. There is no vaccine, no treatment, and it's highly contagious. The largest animal disease outbreak in world history is going on now across Asia. In China alone, 200 million pigs might end up being slaughtered; they're already over a million there, with many more across other countries being culled in a losing effort to contain the virus.
This might have been a good thing for American pig farmers, but, you know, stupid-ass tariffs. But anyway, pork prices are already shooting up around the world. I don't know what greater effect to the world economy there will be (I doubt anything good), but I guess get your bacon while you can if you're into it.
I've mentioned 'em in the finance thread, but https://www.freetaxusa.com/ is my go-to software right now. It's less Web 3.0 or whatever, but the forms are pretty easy to navigate, and it's quite cheap.
A resolution of disapproval in this case means that it is the Congress saying "there is no state of emergency", which means President cannot utilaterally enact tariffs.
It so means he can't fund his wall, except through congress, btw.
I expect it to go the same way this time around, but like then, it was heartening to see Democrats at least trying, and not going "Welp, not gonna work, no point trying".
Republicans are much more unhappy about the tariffs this time around, and I am seeing numbers that are close to veto override being thrown around, as a warning to the president.
They are because southern red states like texas would bear some of the biggest brunt of the pain as a ton of their economy is cross border stuff and then places like michigan and some of the other rust belt states that flipped to trump would get turbo fucked due to the car industry from these tariffs. It basically is a giant kick in the jimmy to areas where they had been making gains or are big strong holds. If you push texas even somewhat purple a lot of stuff changes.
- Neil Irwin is an economics reporter for the New York Times.
"So basically the U.S. undermined its credibility in all future trade negotiations in order to get Mexico to do a bunch of stuff it had already agreed to do. "
And a link to the story by Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman.
So again, Trump makes a stupid rash decision, then claims credit when he reverses that stupid rash decision because of something the other party was already doing.
- Neil Irwin is an economics reporter for the New York Times.
"So basically the U.S. undermined its credibility in all future trade negotiations in order to get Mexico to do a bunch of stuff it had already agreed to do. "
And a link to the story by Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman.
So again, Trump makes a stupid rash decision, then claims credit when he reverses that stupid rash decision because of something the other party was already doing.
This f'n guy.
To be fair, he more likely reversed the decision because there was a possible veto override on his bullshit coming, and no Republican wanted that vote.
Fencingsax on
+5
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
This was pure propaganda. A year from now there will be campaign ads on this "historic victory"
Posts
Perhaps I misread, but to me it had seemed that "we could expand Head Start" was offered as a response to my claim that (compensated) child care is always going to cost somewhere around 1/6th of the median income per child, as if Head Start was dramatically less expensive or something.
This is basically the business cycle
You are assuming that it is something they actually thought about and not a knee-jerk reaction of "keep the government's hands off my money!"
There is also the idea that we fought for independence because of taxes, which leads to the conclusion that taxes are inherently evil, even though that isn't entirely true and any complaints about taxes at the time stopped mattering to most when Parliament decided that economicly starving Boston and essentially ending democracy in Massachusetts were reasonable reactions to the Boston Tea Party.
Everyone forgets the second great American tax rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, where George Washington told anti-tax revolutionaries to get fucked and marched an army on them.
I'd say there is a good chance the GOP is very worried this will fuck them over. Will they do anything about, probably not because the vast majority of them are all ratfuckers. They fully expect someone else to save them because they know the base, they created and enabled, will throw a shit fit if anyone tells their guy to get fucked.
I'd love to be proven wrong here, but this is very much a case of we need well more than 4 republicans to buck the party's idiocy and that is a tall order.
Better education outcomes especially in low income areas as well.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
problem is of course one party directly benefits from an un educated poor work force and will fight tooth and nail for anything that would affect that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Here we go -- House Ways and Means Chair Richie Neal on Trump's pending Mexico tariffs: "If the President does declare a national emergency and attempt to put these tariffs into place, I will introduce a resolution of disapproval to stop his overreach."
- Seung Min Kim is a White House reporter for WaPo.
Yes, it's likely to get defeated, either by the Senate initially, or by failed veto override.
But making Republicans have to stand by their "Trump is king", and vote on this, is important.
It was pointed out to me a couple pages ago, that Democrats are concerned because their constituents want the tariffs. The easy counterargument to that is to point out it's not WHAT is being done, it's HOW.
If Trump wanted to put forward trade proposals, and have them go through the proper channels, and some Democrats wanted to do that because it makes sense for their constituency, that's one thing. Trump doing it by executive edict on shaky as fuck legal justifications, and relying on Republicans supplicating themselves for him, is not the way to do it.
It is pretty much the least you can do while still technically doing something.
It so means he can't fund his wall, except through congress, btw.
I think it's what they tried to do earlier this year, and it passed the House and Senate the first time, got vetoed, and not enough to overturn.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/senate-vote-trump-national-emergency-declaration-resolution/index.html
I expect it to go the same way this time around, but like then, it was heartening to see Democrats at least trying, and not going "Welp, not gonna work, no point trying".
Republicans are much more unhappy about the tariffs this time around, and I am seeing numbers that are close to veto override being thrown around, as a warning to the president.
It syncs up pretty well with their message of "the government can't get anything right."
They'll say it was the gul'durn Dems in the house that didn't give them the freedom to stand against Trump in some fashion
But they will also claim there is absolutely nothing they can do, because they are cowards.
This might have been a good thing for American pig farmers, but, you know, stupid-ass tariffs. But anyway, pork prices are already shooting up around the world. I don't know what greater effect to the world economy there will be (I doubt anything good), but I guess get your bacon while you can if you're into it.
Amazing what sunlight can do.
Oh they are fucking horrible at this. Ever 10 minutes they try to get you to upgrade and make you seen like you need it.
I spent more time helping my mom navigate those prompts than we did figuring out her taxes!
This was my wife’s first year doing taxes while I sat side saddle. She gets terrible anxiety when doing something important that she hasn’t before.
By the third prompt her anxiety was gone and replaced with irritation that they kept trying to scam her. So there’s that!
They are because southern red states like texas would bear some of the biggest brunt of the pain as a ton of their economy is cross border stuff and then places like michigan and some of the other rust belt states that flipped to trump would get turbo fucked due to the car industry from these tariffs. It basically is a giant kick in the jimmy to areas where they had been making gains or are big strong holds. If you push texas even somewhat purple a lot of stuff changes.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Really? That's a fairly introspective view from someone as ignorant as Trump about the current state of his party.
Ohhhh...
You mean rebelling/insurrecting. Gotcha. That makes MUCH more sense now.
- Neil Irwin is an economics reporter for the New York Times.
"So basically the U.S. undermined its credibility in all future trade negotiations in order to get Mexico to do a bunch of stuff it had already agreed to do. "
And a link to the story by Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman.
So again, Trump makes a stupid rash decision, then claims credit when he reverses that stupid rash decision because of something the other party was already doing.
This f'n guy.
To be fair, he more likely reversed the decision because there was a possible veto override on his bullshit coming, and no Republican wanted that vote.