Beware the Ides of March -- U.S. Politics March 2021

Good morning!

"Vehicle," from 1970, is definitely something to beware.

Didnt we already do this title 3 years ago

If so, March tends to the deadly.

So April going to find sore tootsies cos it's going to be the end of a long march.
Like 31 days & 12 months or something?

lousy smarch politics thread

March is just a slightly less aggro February here. Having to wait until late April/early May to experience spring for a split second before summer sets in is one of the things I hate the most about living in Quebec.

Oops, wrong thread. Carry on.

is it

#onethread, #onecountry

23 dems feels like...not a lot

.@RoKhanna + 22 House Dems call on White House to ignore the parliamentarian and allow a $15 wage in the Covid bill.

A Senate expert tells me @VP has the power do this—and it'd take 60 votes to overrule her—but that it's never been done on Byrd rule.

WH has rejected this call. pic.twitter.com/dbiFonV6cR

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) March 1, 2021

Lol, here we go again.

we could talk about trump's cpac speech instead?

Who?

yeah let's not.

I was pleased a couple of the networks didn't cut to clips of his ramblings.

I like to pretend it was just a CPAP convention

I mean, I like to think that whatever the hell small t does at this point will only drive more people out of the republican party, directly or indirectly, but who knows. Beyond that I sure as hell don’t want to think about it or read any analysis of it, because any predictions will surely be wrong, and not just wrong but also just no fun to get into the mental gymnastics of.

can we talk about how the CPAC stage was designed like an Odal Rune which is clearly designed to start the whole "liberals see Nazi symbols in everything" conversation again

no

frogbs, it was mentioned in last month's thread, but I guess we aren't supposed to talk about the American Nazi party being openly Nazi any more.

I hate giving these people the clicks, but this is...good news?. Among John McCain's worst sins was hating earmarks/pork.

earmarks were the only thing holding this dumb country together, let's earmark our way to decarbonization

So is March 4 going to result in anything? My take: Not in DC but maybe some state capitals where legislators are sitting?

West Virginia exists thanks to earmarks, about the only thing Robert Byrd did well.

I thought West Virginia existed thanks to racism and geography but idk, my ancestors only lived there for 200 years

well, those white farmers had to get something, the poor dears

West Virginia exists mostly b/c of the Civil War I thought

the ones the next county over from us got cancer and had fucked up cows thanks to Dupont but ...

West Virginia exists mostly b/c of the Civil War I thought

― a (waterface), Monday, March 1, 2021 9:10 AM (one minute ago)

yes, racism + geography

"So is March 4 going to result in anything? My take: Not in DC but maybe some state capitals where legislators are sitting?" what's on March 4th (aside from apparently being the fictional date that Trump will be revealed to still be in charge according to Qnuts)

"So is March 4 going to result in anything? My take: Not in DC but maybe some state capitals where legislators are sitting?" what's on March 4th (aside from apparently being the fictional date that Trump will be revealed to still be in charge according to Qnuts)

Yeah all my Nazi friends are posting about it

They meant March 4, 2025

White hats must lay the groundwork for the Rebirthening.

I only respected two things about my former congressional rep, who was in office about 30 years thru 2018: He was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Iraq war, which he accurately assessed as poorly planned and expensive; and he was shameless about snagging any earmarks he could get. He always said if there was money available, he’d bring home whatever he could.

Nation's going to be over way before the ides innit.
Gorlumme

Aside from the possible merits of hitting the Iran-backed militia(s?) in Syria, and aside from whatever the merits of a given such op in the Middle East, somehow even such ostensible one-and gones on part of US tend to lead to rong and unforeseen effects (and by "MIddle East" I also mean Libya and Black Hawk Down-era Mogadishu)---even aside from all that, can't help noticing the proximity of this latest to news that: yeas, report reveals that KSM ordered the hit on Khashoggi duhhh and no not much will be done to him because our relationship w SA too big 3 fail---which further reminds me of Saudi connection to 9/11 so let's pivot to Irag by cracky.

Saudi Arabia shot down some (presumably Houthi) drones or rockets near the Formula E race over the weekend, too?

Take with as many grains of salt as you need

Punchbowl News: Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are shifting gears: Election reform, police reform, guns, immigration, a pro-workers' rights bill and possibly the Violence Against Women Act and the Equal Rights Amendment. That's all in the next two weeks.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) March 1, 2021

Really worried that "pro-workers' rights" bill is gonna look more like Prop 22.

Really worried that "pro-workers' rights" bill is gonna look more like Prop 22.

Can we be a little clearer on West Virginia existing because of racism?

Yes but. West Virginia noped out of Confederate Virginia in 1861, to stay in the union and work toward abolition. Arguably they were the (relatively) good guys. Appalachian white poors didn't really benefit from slave labor (as their holdings were small and the pickings slim, so they didn't really identify with the elite patrician Virginian plantation elites.

Similarly in Maryland, there were a lot of Southern sympathizers in the east (Baltimore especially). But Confederates miscalculated when they thought Appalachian, montane, western Maryland would rise to the rebel banner. It mostly didn't, with significant consequences.

A lot has happened since then, flipping the dynamics a bunch, but can we maybe apply a little perspective? thxbye

I'm reasonably certain everyone on this thread who commented on West Virginia knows American history well enough to not need that explainer?

You can always count how many comment. You can't know how many lurk. Never hurts to be clear, imo.

xp I saw recently that there’s now debate among the Q crowd of whether March 4th might be a deep state trap to lure in Patriots.

just like the successful 1/6/21 deep state trap

This long profile of Senate Majority Leader Manchin from a West Virginia paper will piss you off, but it's worth reading. He's got some good ideas (immigration, infrastructure, rural internet, guns) and some very bad ones (thinking Republicans can be reasoned with).

Manchin said he remains a core believer in the minority representation the Senate body was designed for. He said he’ll protect the legacy of Byrd, the historian who fought to preserve Senate rules and forced the body to work together. Manchin now occupies Byrd’s seat.

lol die in a fire.

James Loewen, in Lies Across America, about misleading monuments and historical markers has pointed out the the Appalachian South was largely pro-union.

After the war, the South’s successful rewriting of history meant that there are now a lot of Confederate monuments and battle flag-waving in areas that actually voted against secession and sent more soldiers to the Union Army than Confederate.

On Wikipedia, I see someone has very subtly, but pointedly, has put the vote tally for secession in the Wiki page for every county in Eastern Tennessee to drive home the point (anti-secession usually winning).

Manchin can occupy a lake of sewage

If he doesn’t stand up for the anti-democratic white supremacist institutions of America, who will?

Or, as the US Senate loves to think of itself, it's the Greatest Antidemocratic White Supremacist Deliberative Body in the World!

news that: yeas, report reveals that KSM ordered the hit on Khashoggi duhhh and no not much will be done to him because our relationship w SA too big 3 fail

remember back in October 2018, when this was bad

it still is

Re: WV and the Appalachian south, a lot of the history of abolitionism in those area has been obscured by pro-Dixie racists. There's some excellent history that's been written about it, some of which is included in this fine book co-written by a friend of mine: https://www.akpress.org/dixie-be-damned.html

It also covers a number of historical events pre- and post-Civil War that give a more rounded (and heartening) picture of the south as a place of deep resistance to white supremacist AND oligarchic hegemony.

Still supportive of filibuster/reconciliation rules, though. Biden and Harris "both respect the history of the Senate." On overriding the parliamentarian's decision: "That's not an action we intend to take."

— Jack Fitzpatrick ☘️ (@jackfitzdc) March 1, 2021

More Senate respecters have logged on

xpost yeah Southern Appalachia has a whole history of political action and activism that is among the many things written out of most people's awareness of the region. A lot of it has to do with labor action, obviously, but there's also a strong environmental and social justice lineage. (And of course, there are and have been a lot more people of color than get included in the mainstream narrative.)

This podcast is produced here in Knoxville, it just got a shout-out in the NYT. Worth a listen! (I know both of the women who produce it, they're awesome.)

https://www.blackinappalachia.org/podcast

Xp

I'm Phil Spector
I'm an elector
I'm a Senate respecter
I play my music in the sun

#BREAKING: Ranking Member @Jim_Jordan calls on @RepJerryNadler to hold first full committee hearing on “cancel culture.” pic.twitter.com/FEI20b6qio

— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) March 1, 2021

Jordan’s going to have to work harder if he wants to be Trump’s 2024 running mate.

Calling for a committee on cancel culture = getting ahead of a reasonable expectation that one is likely to be cancelled for something that hasn't yet come to light?

we're getting this much closer to cancelling cancel culture.

if Biden had any courage he'd issue an executive order banning it!

Jordan covered up child abuse and hasn’t been cancelled.

Like seriously, what's he planning on doing? how do you legally ban cancel culture?

"Sorry, director, you are LEGALLY PROHIBITED for firing this actor for saying 'Hitler was a great leader'. oh, you can fire him for being gay or being anti-cop, just not being a Nazi"

"Sorry, customer, you are legally prohibited from boycotting Publix because of the actions of their heirs. You are hereby ordered to spend $100 at Publix every week for the next year."

"Sorry, Tweeter, you are legally prohibited from starting a tweetstorm about this controversy. "

"sorry, FB user, you are legally prohibited from defriending someone for being accused of sexual assault - you are required to remain his friend unless he is arrested and convicted."

Remember that they've made BDS campaigns essentially punishable.

yes and that's kind of what I am worried they're using as their starting point. the 'anti boycott' laws were fucked up enough

all US citizens should be forced to purchase Israeli products, and if you disagree you are doing a cancel culture

Next stimulus: a Sodastream in every house

It doesn't matter. The GOP doesn't legislate, they inflame.

I'd say they're nearing 100% troll saturation at this point but I fear that might be selling their troll potential short.

The GOP doesn't legislate, they inflame.

This is more true than ever right now and I know there is a percentage of the base that absolutely loves to see it and couldn't give two shits if they did any actual governing or legislating. But I have to imagine (baselessly hope?) that this is only serving to erode some corners of the base. I mean, at this point I don't feel like the continued trolling is bringing many new people into the fold. Basically the state fair circuit band playing to the diehards at this point.

Obviously, as soon as we can, we must end the filibuster that currently exists in the U.S. Senate. Given the enormous crises facing working families today, we cannot allow a minority of the Senate to obstruct what the vast majority of the American people want and need.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 2, 2021

Bernie finally comes around?

The root problem with the Senate is not so much the filibuster, but the disproportionate allocation of Senators to a state's population, making it highly undemocratic at its very core. Because getting rid of that would be as likely as my growing feathers and flying, getting rid of the filibuster seems like a solution that's within reach and the need is so great it should be done.

I do predict that once it's gone that progressives may learn to regret it, but the hope is that if really popular programs can be installed and well-established, the reactionaries will be hard pressed to eliminate them. That won't stop them from gleefully instituting other horrors as soon as it's in their power.

so eliminate the Senate in the best of worlds

I would just like to note that I was otm on this issue 16 years ago. And got pushback!

Defend the Indefensible: The Undemocratic (and, right now, un-Democratic) United States Senate

(I love the way ilx conversations never really end.)

#oneconvo

Because the Senate is so deeply embedded in the body of the constitution, eliminating it would be no harder than e.g. eliminating the Supreme Court.

I think djt would threaten manchn with siccing the feds against his daughter’s epi biz somehow, so that’s what biden should do.

what???

Aside from the possible merits of hitting the Iran-backed militia(s?) in Syria, and aside from whatever the merits of a given such op in the Middle East, somehow even such ostensible one-and gones on part of US tend to lead to rong and unforeseen effects (and by "MIddle East" I also mean Libya and Black Hawk Down-era Mogadishu)---even aside from all that, can't help noticing the proximity of this latest to news that: yeas, report reveals that KSM ordered the hit on Khashoggi duhhh and no not much will be done to him because our relationship w SA too big 3 fail---which further reminds me of Saudi connection to 9/11 so let's pivot to Irag by cracky.

― dow, Monday, March 1, 2021 11:58 AM (eight hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Saudi Arabia shot down some (presumably Houthi) drones or rockets near the Formula E race over the weekend, too?

― Joe Biden Stan Account (milo z), Monday, March 1, 2021 12:00 PM

Hunger has been weaponized in the war in Yemen, says a former U.N. official who is currently in the country.

"We are seeing a relentless countdown to a possible famine that the world hasn't seen since Ethiopia in the 1980s," says Jan Egeland, who is now secretary-general of the Norwegian Refugee Council.

The need is enormous: Nearly 50,000 Yemenis are already starving to death and 16 million will go hungry this year, according to the United Nations.

In addition to more funding for aid, Egeland says there needs to be a "famine prevention" cease-fire. The war in Yemen started in 2014, when the Iran-backed Houthi militant group overtook Yemen's internationally recognized government in the capital. A Saudi-led coalition soon began airstrikes in support of the ousted Yemeni government.

...But what the Saudis first envisioned as a weeks-long campaign has dragged on nearly six years. More than 233,000 people have already died. The Saudi-led coalition imposed a blockade, restricting the flow of food, fuel and medicine.

The conflict has caused a chain of reactions, including internal displacement, economic collapse, the destruction of health systems and multiple disease outbreaks.

A U.N. refugee agency official recently wrote that COVID-19 isn't even the biggest concern as far as diseases go.

....The U.S. has supported the Saudis during both the Obama and Trump administrations, with intelligence-sharing, logistical support and targeting information. The U.S. has sold billions of dollars-worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia. U.S. bombs have killed people in hospitals, schools and homes.

....The war has made it difficult for aid groups to operate. About two-thirds of Yemenis likely rely on food assistance to survive, according to the U.N.

....Now the Biden administration says it's ending support for "offensive operations" and assigned a special envoy to pursue a diplomatic end to the war....

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/01/972530322/as-yemenis-starve-to-death-humanitarian-relief-group-pleas-for-international-hel

Some more good links in there too.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemen-war-biden-urged-clarify-policy-saudi-arabia

Dozens of Democratic lawmakers OTM about clarification of what constitutes offensive operations.

As we reported last night, among the changes centrist Senate Dems want:

-- Knock UI down from $400/week to $300/week (some also want longer duration)
-- Further tighten eligibility thresholds on stimulus checks
-- Repurpose some of $350B in state $ for infrastructure/broadband

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) March 2, 2021

I saw that, went ugh, then the followup:

My impression is the WH is open to 3 but not really 1 or 2

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) March 2, 2021

Wanting to use the relief bill to tack on tens of billions to the half trillion we’ve already given telecoms is infuriating enough even without the first two.

nationalize broadband and we can talk

Internet should be a utility as basic as water, gas, and electricity. Long past that.

it is the Die Hard With a Vengeance water jug puzzle but the water is fury and the jugs are milo

telecoms don't even pretend to use that money for infrastructure improvements or upgrades, it goes straight into their pockets. in fact they get extremely pissed off if you even ask them about improvements.

I agree internet access should be a utility, tho always with the asterisk that utilities have a lot of problems too. But at least they (theoretically) provide the same service to everyone at fixed rates.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/02/murkowski-tanden-alaska-472525

Trade ANWR drilling for confirming Neera Tanden: who says no

NO!

I just announced Texas is OPEN 100%.

EVERYTHING.

I also ended the statewide mask mandate.

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) March 2, 2021

Countdown to the first business owner getting shot for attempting to enforce a mask mandate in their store in 3...2...

maybe Neera gets in.

always very extremely cool to see what the Democratic Party will go to the mat for

cool to see what the Democratic Party will go to the mat for

Referring responsibility for this kind of stuff to "the Democratic Party" is a bad mental/verbal tic. However, if that deal gets made, you can reasonably pin it to Joe Biden, because it wouldn't happen without his endorsement.

Is there any evidence they are even considering allowing drilling ANWR? Not in the article linked. Just a (typical) throwaway line in a Politico piece:

What Biden could give Murkowski in terms of her home state's energy industry is unclear. Backtracking on early moves to pause drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and temporarily halt new lease sales for oil and gas drilling on federal lands would mean breaking major campaign promises for Biden.

IOW, that's one thing Murkowski wants, not that Biden is even considering giving it to her.

I don’t see anyone here saying Biden has made an offer, but rolling back environmental action is what she’s hoping to leverage.

CORNYN says Murkowski is using the Tanden nom to have a convo w/ Biden Admin on exec orders that have affected AK: “I know that Sen Murkowski feels like Alaska was targeted by the admin.”

“But I know she was interested in using this as an opportunity to have that convo,” he said

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) February 25, 2021

and?

Sorry.

Don't think anyone is invested in Tanden to the degree that would confer leverage of that scale. May be mistaken.

Cornyn just wants Murkowski to get a bit of good PR in AK.

and?

What the swing vote on a confirmation is seeking to vote yea is news?

tanden is not worth doing that, I'd be disappointed if they go for it.

is Tanden even good at all? or is it just because the GOP is opposing her

Tanden sucks from my limited exp with her. i was using her name as a verb to insult Dems I didn't like last year

this possible replacement director seems fine

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/02/shalanda-young-neera-tanden-omb-472753

(sorry to be dense but i don't really know the position)

but is it a big deal who it is? would they have independence to make calls on things that weren't basically dictated to them by biden anyway?

Houston's Mayor

Every time we start moving in the right direction the Governor steps in and sets us back and makes all of our jobs harder. He minimizes the sacrifices of people and businesses. I just don’t get it. st

— Sylvester Turner (@SylvesterTurner) March 2, 2021

yeah I don't think so which is why it's weird biden is so insistent on tanden. who gives a fuck, this is an administrative position.

I think the TX & FL governors have the same basic philosophy: you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and if we want indoor Applebees again we're gonna have to sacrifice quite a few family members for the greater good

xp - Biden doesn't want to be seen as caving in when pushed. Tanden was his choice. It's just good politics to back your personal choice right up to the point where there is a scandal that disqualifies them, or it is obvious they'll lose confirmation. That's when the nominee withdraws, saying it was their own free choice, as a courtesy to the president, in order to avoid needless controversy and delay.

Tanden is politically whatever and as a person/manager bad (war crimes, harassment, outing victims). Presumably they’re so insistent because she’s a loyalist. She was on track to have a bigger role than this in the Clinton White House.

well I'm glad we avoided that

war crimes

neera tanden sucks, but when did she commit war crimes? she worked for health and human services during the obama era, no?

nomination withdrawn

we can all rest easy now

when did she commit war crimes

She wanted Libya to 'pay us back' with oil for the privilege of getting fucked up by NATO.

point taken, but i still think that there should be a distinction advocating for a terrible policy and actually enacting it.

if this is how it works from here out with posting then i don't think any of us are going to get cabinet positions.

I was thinking this

xxp - sure, but just wishing for it makes you a bad person, IMO - I was just doing the shorthand on why it's funny that she had to go through all this.

She's going to walk back into cashing checks from Bloomberg and Saudi Arabia though so I'm sure she'll be able to drown her sorrows.

And double down on posting. We're probably 12 hours away from her declaring holy war on the Manchin family.

there should be a distinction advocating for a terrible policy and actually enacting it

a brazen thoughtcrime

_when did she commit war crimes_


She wanted Libya to 'pay us back' with oil for the privilege of getting fucked up by NATO.

One of the contenders to replace Neera

Thanks for kind words on economic dignity wage @RoKhanna from my book.

The combo of $15 min wage, the type of EITC expansion you have proposed and major child care expansion - is a powerful policy threesome for a true economic dignity wage. https://t.co/ZRNNUE5Dsr

— Gene Sperling (@genebsperling) July 20, 2020

"Unfortunately, it now seems clear that there is no path forward to gain confirmation, and I do not want continued consideration of my nomination to be a distraction from your other priorities," Tanden said in the letter.

normal protocol observed down to the last detail

“powerful policy threesome”?!

Don’t kink shame.

You could call it a daisy-chain of mutually pleasing policies.

A real prosperity train

more like a policy human centipede

Orgy of Management and Budget

(OMB)

The U.S. Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to uphold Arizona's restrictive voting laws, setting the stage for what happens in the coming months and years, as Republican-dominated state legislatures seek to make voting more difficult.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972935032/supreme-court-seems-ready-to-uphold-restrictive-voting-laws

Yep cool great.

All statutes unconstitutional except voter suppression and abortion bans, there’s our future.

pack the court

or use the CIA heart attack gun on 3-5 current Justices (leave Clarence Thomas for the lols)

The more the powers that be stamp all over the notion of democracy, the more it feels like we're heading/hurtling toward our own Gracchi Bros. tipping point. When you can't resolve shit at the ballot box, shit winds up getting resolved in much less healthy ways.

Chop chop

Today Venezuelan Interim President @jguaido and I discussed our unwavering support for democracy in Venezuela and our efforts to improve the lives of the Venezuelan people.

— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) March 3, 2021

lmao where is he rn, Miami?

Disney World

A very interesting article about shifts in the voting public in 2020.

Over the last four years, white liberals have become a larger and larger share of the Democratic Party. There’s a narrative on the left that the Democrats’ growing reliance on college-educated whites is pulling the party to the right (Matt Karp had an essay on this recently). But I think that’s wrong. Highly educated people tend to have more ideologically coherent and extreme views than working-class ones. We see this in issue polling and ideological self-identification. College-educated voters are way less likely to identify as moderate. So as Democrats have traded non-college-educated voters for college-educated ones, white liberals’ share of voice and clout in the Democratic Party has gone up. And since white voters are sorting on ideology more than nonwhite voters, we’ve ended up in a situation where white liberals are more left wing than Black and Hispanic Democrats on pretty much every issue: taxes, health care, policing, and even on racial issues or various measures of “racial resentment.” So as white liberals increasingly define the party’s image and messaging, that’s going to turn off nonwhite conservative Democrats and push them against us.

everybody hates entitled nerdy overeducated very-online know-it-alls. i don't know anyone like that i should ask around.

That's an amazing article. Some of the conclusions about the Hispanic voting bloc in South Florida correlates with local pollsters learned after talking to voters and with my own conclusions.

sorry, slightly ot: before i make a new thread on the issue of "multiethnic multicultural multiracial societies: how can they work (justly)?" does anyone recommend a book or thread on this topic? i searched thraed titles and didnt see an obvious place.

WASHINGTON (AP) — AP source: Biden, Senate Democrats agree to tighten income limits for receiving $1,400-per-person stimulus checks.

— Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) March 3, 2021

such a great look that these checks will go to less people under Biden than Trump

The breakdown:

Biden agrees to phase out checks faster, per Dem source: pic.twitter.com/00WTBgcSPJ

— Erica Werner (@ericawerner) March 3, 2021

Pathetic

some bullshit imo

Vote for us for a $2000 check!
$1400!
Not you!
Plz ignore the $15bn blank check we gave Verizon.

do you ant to lose the house in 2022? because this is how you do it

*bombs Syria*

this was like one thing they could have actually fucking done and kept their word on FFS

just incredibly stupid

idk Americans including Dems hate perceived chiselers. We might actually see in those who pay attention, "Mmm yeah, makes sense."

I'm being facetious but *shrugs*

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy lol

how do you manage to shut down all campaign promises this fast is my question, shouldn't it take longer than 6 weeks to be disappointing

is this so by november 2022 people will forget, strategic like

Frack em in the leg Biden didn’t even have that high a bar to begin with

i know right. it's like you had one job.

If the economy picks up and vaccinations increase such that we approach something like semi-normal times in the fall, I don't see this thing mattering to anyone outside our circles. Lots of "ifs," of course.

shut down all campaign promises ths fast

lol ilx

the poster you're quoting is named harbl

yes, it's the consensus ilx opinion

There will be thousands of ads of Joe Biden saying “$2000 checks” and “DID YOU GET ONE?”

(We know it doesn’t matter that the GOP opposed checks.)

harbl’s a goddamn legend and they’re not wrong

I’m sure overriding right to work laws nationwide will be a breeze when they can’t get a relief bill with 80% approval through without stripping it and cutting checks to donors.

but hey he will fight for sneera tandem. i'm pretty center-y "okay, joe" at times, but this is so fucking stupid. some things are worth really fighting for, and some promises have been made, and some optics are bigger than others, and means-testifying of all benefits, esp against this economic public disaster, is bad bad bad. it makes me think he really didn't learn jackshit from obama.

It just sucks. The people adversely affected economically by the pandemic have gotten little more than a middle finger from the government for the past year. Living up to the promise of a $1400 check is almost literally the least these dumbfucks could do, and a helluva lot less than they should do.

The people adversely affected economically by the pandemic

Are likely making less than $75,000 a year. Which means they'll get a check. What, exactly, is the problem here?

If you and your partner/spouse make less than $150,000 a year collectively, you'll be getting $2800 in the mail. Do you people even know what you're complaining about anymore?

Yes, we do.

If you individually make $81k you now get nothing instead of something. Further eroding confidence in and support for the government spending money to help anyone has consequences. Making any voter feel like they were promised something and received nothing certainly has political consequences. Like all the upper-middle white suburbanites who've been so valued by Democrats over the last four years.

Defending the cuts to the actual economic stimulus to give money to telecoms is just fucking braindead.

One obvious issue is that there will be people who got a check from Trump but not one from Biden.

yes, but if you made 160 you get nothing, which is not how it was before. Ill out myself as someone who will be impacted by this going by my 2019 income, which previously would have meant I'd get some but not the full amount. Now I don't know what I'll get; and do I "need" it? Well I banked on having it to pay part of our property taxes which are now over due, partly because my wife's income decreased drastically, so yeah, I'm not happy about this.

^^^ object lesson as to why this is very dumb and the dems look like shit

Yes historic tax data isn't v helpful during a crisis. Plus the inevitable problem with means testing is being just over the limit: why, ethically or morally speaking, does someone "deserve" a check at 74,999 but not at 75,001?

Yeah this is getting worse and more indefensible by the week. What a terrible own goal at this point.

Yeah. My income level is below the threshold so his doesn't affect me directly (although I still never got that last $600 check so who knows if I'll even get the $1400) and I'm still working so I'm fine but this sucks.

Maybe if we can smoke 100 cigarettes before the checks get cut we guarantee a slice.

Like the only save here would be 'well, this is what we need to do to get this particular stimulus payment out ASAP but then the plan is for maybe like smaller regular stimulus payouts for EVERYONE after this is taken care of' but lol, yeah right.

I've never made $75,000 a year in my life. I bet it's nice.

Are they getting out ahead of this at all? Because otherwise they're just full-on letting the obviously shitty action dictate the shitty message, to no constructive end that I can see.

man, neither have i, that’s not what this is about

xp

I've never made $75,000 a year in my life. I bet it's nice.

― but also fuck you (unperson), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 10:47 AM (forty-nine seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

Yeah, me neither, nowhere near. What's your point.

i'm still getting the whole check but i'm not complaining about me, i'll be fine. it's not the point at all. they knew the political value of giving people money, that's why they campaigned on it. then they acted like dumbasses.

you can tell this was a good idea because of the way it stirs up class antagonism

free idea for JB: raise the minimum wage to a level where no one is eligible for these checks

yeah imna get the check but this is stupid stuff for the dems

Yeah, me neither, nowhere near. What's your point.

To put it bluntly? If you're above that threshold you should shut the fuck up. If you make more than $75,000 a year, not only should you not get a stimulus check, the stimulus check you should have gotten should be re-routed to someone making less than $30,000 a year, so they get two.

That's not what's on the table, though. They're not increasing payments for people making $30k a year, they're routing that check to Verizon HQ.

is this still going to be based off 2019 tax numbers?

i think it's 2020 if you have filed this year and 2019 if you haven't

Not everyone wants to live in New Jersey, unperson

yeah i know plenty of people that were making good money in NYC that are now making a significant amount less due to the pandemic and are now struggling to pay rent and bills.

centrist class rage is new to me

Where do u teach your economics class, unperson, I still have so much left to learn

yeah, if you made 75k in an expensive area a year ago and then stopped making money, you need it. it's not necessarily an accurate picture of how well you're doing right now. it should be universal and just taxed back from rich people if we want to be more precise about who really deserves it.

centrist class rage is new to me

Reagan Democrats IIRC

plus it's called "stimulus" for the reason you are supposed to spend it to "stimulate" the economy. it's not food stamps (which should pay way more btw). people making $75k are still likely to spend it when those making twice as much are not. i know i will be spending it on home improvements i really need before my house falls down.

Where do u teach your economics class, unperson, I still have so much left to learn

It's really just about making good life choices.

1) Don't buy a house
2) Don't have kids
3) Spend your money on books and movies and CDs forever!!! :)

oh wow this is me

Ladies & Gentlemen, the GOP:

"Of the 23.8 million people whose 2019 wages would be lifted with a [minimum wage] hike, around 12.4 million reside in the 22 states with two Republican senators" via @ThePlumLineGS https://t.co/rAuiZghHWJ

— ryan cooper (@ryanlcooper) March 3, 2021

xxpost Yes, that's pretty much how I live, too, but expecting everyone else to live like I do and believing they deserve to suffer if they don't is a very...oh what's the word...conservative viewpoint.

The editor absolutely chose that McConnell photo to amuse himself

as if those people won't still vote for them xxp

"your wage should be only this big"

That's how I live and I've never broken $38k in a year IIRC but is also one reason why I support policies to make life easier for people not making $160k instead of reflexively explaining why better things aren't possible and to trust the process. Making $30k a year fucking sucks as a single dude, absolute nightmare for a single parent or person with more physical difficulties than me.

Yeah, the continuum of my working life has been barely scraping by check-to-check >>> comfortably living check-to-check but still without much wiggle room in the event of an emergency and certainly no room for a big lifestyle change eg having kids. I'm doing fine but this shit isn't aspirational.

good thing we have awesome pension plans and great safety nets when we retire!

what I dislike about this isn't so much the requirements; it's changing the requirements, particularly after changing the amount. If it had been $1400k all along with those as the requirements, sure. But don't say one thing then fucking change it in a way that will mostly impact your voting base. That's dumb politics for little apparent gain.

$1400 obv not $1400k. wow that would be nice

Wouldn't be totally shocked at this point if they were like 'no no, we said $14.00, did you not notice the decimal before?'

Voucher for a vial of CBD oil, one month free HBO Max and 50% off an epi-pen

And you'll like it.

how do you fuck this up worse than Trump and GOP majority in senate?

they really do hate the people who vote for them. it’s bizarre.

anyway, glad I’m rich and probably won’t ever vote D* in a national election again and all they can do is trip over themselves to make my life easier. cool cool cool.


(*unless you come out 100%, no ifs and buts on M4A, free college, living wage, etc)

*coughs* I told you so *coughs*

Warnock going to be there less time than Douggie Jones

And look, I don't want to hear any more shit about it, I remember the timeline and the way things unfolded and the dems absolutely initially said $2000, none of this 'well but of course they always only meant an additional $1400' because no they didn't, that was the fucking narrative they wove after they'd bandied the $2000 figure around a bit. And a lot of people bought and regurgitated, and I'm sure a lot of those people will buy whatever fuckin' line they're handed this time. 'Well, there was always gonna be some degree of means testing on distributing the $1400, which is again the figure they'd always said, I have no idea where you got $2000'

'bought and regurgitated that line'

This is really the equivalent of shitting your running shorts thirty seconds after the starter pistol fires.

This is really the equivalent of shitting your running shorts thirty seconds after the starter pistol fires.
― Stefan Twerkelle (Old Lunch), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 6:02 PM (twenty seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

... while standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.

not my favorite Primitive Radio Gods song.

Small update here: Limiting the benefit results in roughly ~$12 billion in savings, per Dem aide. Whole bill is ~$1.9 trillion

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) March 3, 2021

well good thing!

fucking infuriating

i know where they can shove that $12 billion in savings: my wallet

12 million fewer adults and 5 million fewer children getting checks, in order to reallocate .00001 percent of the bill to something people will never see or notice (or into the pockets of an ISP they hate)

Well, hey, Biden found something that could bring unity to the ilx politics threads (mostly). So, yay?

a true bridge builder

The Manchin giveth (torturing Neera) and the Manchin taketh away (torturing constituents who don't own coal mines).

Tim Kaine reintroducing his bill to end the post-9/11 military force blank check is good.

I wonder if his leftist son is still cool?

To put it bluntly? If you're above that threshold you should shut the fuck up. If you make more than $75,000 a year, not only should you not get a stimulus check

More proof, if any were needed, that means-testing government benefits turns that benefit program into a wedge issue that creates a political fissure right at the income point and sorts citizens into opposing groups based on an arbitrary measure of 'deserving'.

There are a lot of things to be mad at the Dems about, but those of you convinced that this whole $1400 vs $2000 thing is a big deal are just ... wrong. It's not. The Republicans are NEVER going to run ads anywhere talking about $2,000 checks (have you ever even met a Republican?), and people will be glad to get money just like they were glad to get money last year. Also the Dems tried to pass a $1,400 add-on to the $600 in December, so this isn't new, it's a continuation of what they just tried two months ago. I don't think phasing out faster above $75k matters politically either.

There's lots of things to be mad about! Don't waste time on this.

Well if you don't think it matters I guess it won't to those 12 million people.

Um, who gives a fuck about what ads might get run. It's absolutely fair to be mad that the Dems are lowering the threshold on this. People need money now, not better ad campaigns in 2022.

i really don't agree with you Tipsy. Did we forget 2010 or something?

more angry that the Dems negotiated themselves down. The Republicans were never going to try a reasonable bargain, so this is more the fault of Manchin, Sinema and other more cowardly centrist Dems that took cover

Incredible to think they won’t run ads on failure to deliver on promises. They have hours of footage of Biden (and Warnock) promising $2000 checks if only you’d vote for the Democrats.

Now fewer voters are getting smaller checks. That’s bad politics (and bad policy).

the $2k vs. $1400 checks isn't very likely to matter in many places, but i think it will 100% matter in georgia, where the dems have a vulnerable senate seat and the state leg. is passing voter repression laws by the boatload. people will certainly remember the $500 million worth of ads that bombarded the airwaves in november and december, especially the closing argument which was "we will give you $2000"

more angry that the Dems negotiated themselves down. The Republicans were never going to try a reasonable bargain, so this is more the fault of Manchin, Sinema and other more cowardly centrist Dems that took cover

― Nhex, Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:14 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i think this particular means-test is brought to you by new hampshire senator jeanne shaheen, who just won reelection. apparently she doesn't care much for her co-senator maggie hassan who has a tough fight in 2022.

I don’t know, is this even being made an issue of anywhere else? The only place I see people being mad about this is on ILX. Even on the level of what they promised, I always understood that what they were talking about was the $1400 they tried to add on in December. It never even occurred to me that they were talking about separate $2000 checks on top of the $600, because of the way the whole issue evolved.

If they send out $1400 checks to everybody within the next little while, and they need to do it soon, that will be plenty from a political standpoint. Is it actually enough for people who need it? Definitely not for some people. But there are a lot of other forms of aid in the package too. Rental assistance and other things that are more targeted specifically to people who need it most.

Have you spent much time on Twitter tipsy? I can assure you this is not just ilx mad about this.

Point being, they need to not get bogged down and get this thing passed and signed.

The harsher means testing is national news for fuck’s sake.

IMO, based on how people I know from college have been reacting so entirely anecdotal and by no means scientific or conclusive, his happened largely because well-meaning people who make a lot of money said "I don't need this, I want my senator to put in controls to make sure I don't see it" and senators said "I can do that" and then proceeded to shit directly into their own mouths

It's so fucking dumb, if you don't need the money then GIVE IT AWAY TO SOMEONE OR SOME ORGANIZATION THAT DOES, it's not fucking rocket science and also who cares if some number of rich people get extra money if more non-rich people are also getting money?

It's absolutely fair to be mad that the Dems are lowering the threshold on this.

Yes. You can be mad about this outcome. But you should also remember that the Dems had no trouble passing that higher threshold when it came to a vote. The Dems also passed a $15/hr minimum wage with votes to spare. I speak of the Dems in the House. They, too, are "the Dems" and they didn't lower a fucking thing. They passed good bills.

We all know the problem is a 50-50 senate and a Republican caucus that will vote as a solid bloc against any and every good piece of legislation, throwing it into the laps of senate Democrats to pull all 50 votes they need out of their 50. If they aren't unanimous, it gets shot down.

So, this isn't an overarching problem with "the Dems", but a rare confluence of events that gives any single senator complete veto power over every piece of legislation Congress could pass. I wish posters would stop flinging their ire at "the Dems", as if this were the plan the party had all along.

they need to not get bogged down

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 12:23 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

too late for this one afaict

We all know the problem is a 50-50 senate

fixed for you

The money, at this particular moment, is incidental (except to those who really really need the money right now). It's a drop in the bucket in terms of the economic devastation of the past year and that's a whole larger issue that needs to be dealt with ASAP. What matters at this particular moment is the massive unforced error the dems are making with this dumbass goalpost shifting. No, the shit they're pulling isn't going to hit everyone all at once, but it's slowly but surely going to feed the narrative that if they can't live up to this one little promise, they probably can't be relied on for much more. And that's going to sting come 2022 and 2024.

Aimless, I get all that, but as pointed out above, the problem is the centrist Democrats who played a big part in giving up on this.

I wish posters would stop flinging their ire at "the Dems"

They’re a voluntary collective, that’s how blame works. When they fail to deliver on something - for the next two years - it is entirely on the party as a whole, because it will be a Democrat standing in the way.

I wish posters would stop flinging their ire at "the Dems", as if this were the plan the party had all along.

― Judge Roi Behan (Aimless), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:27 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

This is fair in terms of what I and others are literally saying when we simply evoke 'the dems' but I just assume that everyone here knows that it's more complex than that. It's more 'the dems who, instead of publicly trumpeting what garbage Manchin and Sinema are, just seem to be folding like rickety lawn chairs in the face of interparty intransigence'.

'intraparty' rather

When they fail to deliver on something - for the next two years - it is entirely on the party as a whole

You are correct that this is how the blame works. I see it happening here on this thread every few minutes. It drives me up a wall that the party that just drew 80,000,000 votes is now forced to act as stupidly as the single stupidest Democratic senator. Chains being as strong as their weakest link, indeed.

Old Lunch otm. I already have plenty of ire for the Republicans, that goes without saying. I'm extra pissed at the Dems who are caving.

I agree with the ideas that the Dems stand or fall collectively on what gets done. Where I disagree is that sending out $1,400 checks is delivering — it's delivering $1,400 checks. But whatever. Ire away.

I mean I'm just repeating a point others have made but it's delivering to a lot fewer people than promised. And that most definitely matters.

I'm uncharacteristically torn. tipsy's where I was this morning, but I'm in an anti-Biden mood based on the basic point that fewer people will get dough regardless of anticipatory anxiety about attack ads in '22.

idk why ms. shaheen couldn't have waited for the big infrastructure bill that is apparently coming next to sneak in her little kickback for telecoms.

Man, is infrastructure week coming up already?!

american infrastructure makes maeby feel "c-minus"

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973054080/potholes-grid-failures-aging-tunnels-and-bridges-nations-infrastructure-gets-a-c

NEW: President Biden calls Texas and Mississippi decisions to end mask mandates “a big mistake" and criticizes what he views as “Neanderthal thinking” after CDC warned against complacency in the face of emerging coronavirus variants on Monday. https://t.co/rdOcWokNDa

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 3, 2021

fuck u Joe!

lol

RIP Neanderthal

bodied by the President, it's realy sad

Incredible to think they won’t run ads on failure to deliver on promises. They have hours of footage of Biden (and Warnock) promising $2000 checks if only you’d vote for the Democrats.

Now fewer voters are getting smaller checks. That’s bad politics (and bad policy).

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:15 PM bookmarkflaglink

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

lol

This is the kind of stuff Rs have threatened if Dems nuke the filibuster — withdrawing consent for routine stuff. https://t.co/LYZhIFtsMf

— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) March 3, 2021

Hmmmm seems like they’re doing it anyway

xpost i know the bigger harm = if you piss off your voter base enough, they stay home on election day, but how are Rs going to successfully enact attack ads that expose that Democrats actually provided a larger one-time stimulus check than they ever did (1400 vs 1200) and when they weren't willing to give them anything, much less 1400.

xpost - No, but "broken promises" sets up some slam dunk ads that, uh, could easily have been avoided.

By "slam dunk" I mean easy content.

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

Warmock’s opponent won’t have voted against checks... but yes in general. Republicans acting with rank hypocrisy? Inconceivable!

While obstructing Obama for six years they did not continually run on a slow economic recovery and rising healthcare costs.

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

― Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:57 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

i think the messaging would be more like "remember when you got a check when donald trump was president and not when joe biden was prez?"

of course, that would make me remember the reasons why people needed a stimulus check in the first place...

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

― Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:57 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Since when did the gop have to give their base anything but dem tears to make them happy?

Democrats actually provided a larger one-time stimulus check than they ever did (1400 vs 1200)

people might ignore the "one-time" and focus on the fact that the gop gave away $1800, which is more than the dems gave away. there also might be political value in giving more money in a one-time payment than the previous admin. gave in 4 years, but i'm not a big-brained dc insider.

I don't really care about ads (do they actually influence people? idk), but the fear is depressing D turnout in a midterm -- "Dems can't do anything right, why bother?" -- not whether Rs have a cohesive philosophy of governance. Framing this around people switching parties is kind of misleading

hope some enterprising Hill staffer at McCarthy's office is ghosting on ILE now taking notes

geave mi mani

I'm mad about the means testing changes, don't get me wrong, but....think some of you are overestimating how much of an effect it'll have long-term. of course it'll lead to attack ads! but even when Obama's economic recovery was very slow, and attack ads appeared of Obama saying if he couldn't repair the economy, he should be a one-term President, and he still managed to win re-election.

granted, bloodbath at the midterms, but the party in power always loses seats and I tend to feel racism played a role (a Black President! let me vote for people of the opposite party so he can't enact pro-Black legislation!).

i'm with Alfred, I'm just mad about it in principle, not because of optics/lost votes later. plus you can bet, if society re-opens en masse due to the Biden admins aggressive federal efforts in strengthening vaccine production and distribution, even though vaccine development began long before he was in office, he will definitely get a positive bump from that. stuff's open again, nationally! much less people are dying! businesses can be at full capacity! whether he was fully responsible or not, he'll be associated with it.

whether that benefits D Senators and House reps...is another thing.

people might ignore the "one-time" and focus on the fact that the gop gave away $1800, which is more than the dems gave away. there also might be political value in giving more money in a one-time payment than the previous admin. gave in 4 years, but i'm not a big-brained dc insider.

― little johnny juul (voodoo chili), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:03 PM bookmarkflaglink

screw that, Dems get all of the credit for the $600 in January. wouldn't have even been in the bill if not for D politicians, and they need to mention that in their own ads. not that it matters, it took then a whopping 10 months to do it, Biden's been in office five weeks.

some Senators are already pushing for another round of payments, which I'm sure won't be as easy as I can see that asshole Manchin already pushing back on it, but it should definitely be attempted. i want monthly payments, but i see less of a road for that since there are only a handful on record supporting it. but maybe try for that first, compromise with another one time payment of like...idk, $1,200?

Fwiw, the only reason I'm angry about this is the 12 million people who won't get money many of them really need. I was only mentioning the point about ads because I think it's very very unlikely that this doesn't come back to bite the Dems in the ass, pretending this will be completely forgotten by 2022 seems silly. A lot of people suffered economically in this pandemic and I think that's going to extend the memories of a lot of people.

xpost though to your point I actually see dumb Democrats pushing the "Rs got us $1800 vs $1400, they're better than us" nonsense narrative so the truth doesn't really matter with voters, which I know was your point

logistical question - what i read told me that they only go by 2019 tax return if that's what's on file, but if you've filed in 2020, they'll use that (similar to last year). is that true? if so, at least those who had a salary drop in 2019-2020 due to layoffs/furloughs etc may qualify if they have filed for 2020 already....if not, i think they can claim the difference in a credit next year.

that still doesn't come close to paying everybody that was paid before but thinking of add'tl options

*filed for 2020

God knows complicated explanations are a political winner. The fact is people would have $1800 from a Republican President and a Republican Senate and less than that from a Democratic House, Senate and President.

I don’t think those numbers matter. I think saying “$2000” over and over and over matters and I think no check at all is going to matter a lot to 12 million upper-middle class voters (who are prone to voting).

. I wouldn’t be so sure that Dems get credit for the $600 in December. Trump was president. That’s how it will be remembered by lots of folks.

And tbf, the $1400 still hasn’t actually happened. Never doubt their ability to even fuck this up. I’d cop to being a “dumb democrat”, but I might be registered independent now iirc

Also, Neanderthal, in the other thread you were calling deeper means testing a dead issue that non-Manchinites had won.

at least the enhanced unemployment is expected to stay at $400 (which is still too low, but $100 higher than before, which i'll take, since my mother is utilizing it).

I just don’t know what doing dumb shit gets them. Like actually who benefits by being stingy after a full year of the economy being more or less shut down for tens of millions of people?

If you’re putting your chips on a gangbusters economy (by no means a forgone conclusion) after vaccinations reopenings then the stimulus will pAy fOr iTsELf.

You compromise for the thrill of compromise - deal-making is an art...

xpost you are right, I did. and now i'm eating crow on that.

but if you recall they were talking about phasing out payments at 50,000 for single participants, 100,000 for married participants, and people were reacting angrily as if that had already happened. the current phase-out changes, though I obviously oppose them, was nowhere near that much of a chop (though still fairly ridiculous)

assuming the child credits stay untouched, I have more than a few friends who will benefit greatly from it

isn't the idea to give also give money to people that don't need it so they will buy stuff?

I just don’t know what doing dumb shit gets them.

All 50 democratic senators' votes, instead of fewer than 50.

well yeah the point of a stimulus is to stimulate the economy, though basically this round of checks is more "the previous administration abandoned you, this is to give you something so you can pay some bills" by this point.

it's dumb to reduce the pay thresholds and i am hoping Manchin gets eaten by wolves.

if the Democrats think being the party of austerity and “tough on Venezuela/ Iran/ whoever the natsec bugbear of the day is”, but with a rainbow flag slapped on the side going to finally give them those permanent majorities then they are in for some really dark days

but hey wgaf. not me. line go up!

Governing more like they prefer divided government to permanent majorities. After all, the country needs a strong Republican Party.

Loathe though I am to come near this thread, did anyone else see the NYTimes (I think?) story about a lot of state budgets being better off post covid/recession than people predicted? A few states are still doing pretty badly, but a few are actually doing really well, too, and people seem to be at least partly crediting the impact of that $600 stimulus check for taking some of the burden off local governments.

Heck, here's the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/business/covid-state-tax-revenue.html

And I might as well C&P it, too, for anyone without access:

Virus Did Not Bring Financial Rout That Many States Feared
Grim forecasts held up for a few states, but many took in about as much tax revenue as before the pandemic — sometimes a lot more.

By Mary Williams Walsh

March 1, 2021

Throughout the debate over stimulus measures, one question has repeatedly brought gridlock in Washington: Should the states get no-strings federal aid?

Republicans have mostly said no, casting it as a bailout for spendthrift blue states. Democrats have argued the opposite, saying that states face dire fiscal consequences without aid, and included $350 billion in relief for state and local governments in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion federal stimulus bill, which narrowly passed the House this past weekend. It faces a much tougher fight in the Senate.

As it turns out, new data shows that a year after the pandemic wrought economic devastation around the country, forcing states to revise their revenue forecasts and prepare for the worst, for many the worst didn’t come. One big reason: $600-a-week federal supplements that allowed people to keep spending — and states to keep collecting sales tax revenue — even when they were jobless, along with the usual state unemployment benefits.

By some measures, the states ended up collecting nearly as much revenue in 2020 as they did in 2019. A J.P. Morgan survey called 2020 “virtually flat” with 2019, based on the 47 states that report their tax revenues every month, or all except Alaska, Oregon and Wyoming.

A researcher at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank, found that total state revenues from April through December were down just 1.8 percent from the same period in 2019. Moody’s Analytics used a different method and found that 31 states now had enough cash to fully absorb the economic stress of the pandemic recession on their own.

“You can see it’s just a completely different story this time,” said Louise Sheiner, a Brookings Institution economist whose research showed that over all, the states struggled far less during the pandemic than in previous recessions.

New Jersey, for instance, managed to avoid financial calamity despite a dire forecast when the pandemic started, because of better-than-expected tax revenue from retail sales and high earners, who lost fewer jobs and reaped the benefits of a bullish stock market. However, it still had to borrow $4 billion in emergency relief.

The findings are being cited by Republican lawmakers. In a Feb. 2 blog post, the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, said the J.P. Morgan report was evidence that the states were doing just fine. He called on Democrats not to insist on “blue-state slush funds that are not needed.”

At the same time, Democrats have said states need relief even if their revenues are resilient, because their costs will spiral as schools reopen and vaccination programs roll out.

States need revenue to function. For day-to-day operations, they raise money by collecting different kinds of taxes: sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on singular transactions like energy production or gasoline sales. (For public works, they issue bonds.)

Most state tax collections plunged last spring when shutdown orders started and millions were thrown out of work as businesses closed. That prompted many states to issue doomsday forecasts, lay off workers and turn to Washington for billions of dollars in aid to replace revenue they were expecting to lose. Many feared a replay of the Great Recession, when state revenues fell 8 percent and took more than five years to recover, exacerbating the overall downturn.

But this time, after falling 4 percent over all, Ms. Sheiner said, tax collections turned back up again, all in the span of a few months. She and other public finance experts cautioned that the numbers didn’t tell the full story. With new variants of the virus emerging, the pandemic isn’t over yet, and revenues could slip again — just as states increase spending amid signs of an economic rebound.

Also, averaging the states’ revenues — the J.P. Morgan report used weighted averages to show that revenues last year were down just 0.06 percent from 2019 — can mask the pain of the states whose tax collections have not yet rebounded. And focusing just on state revenue collection glosses over the weakness of local governments, which administer many social services under state administration.

No matter how they measured the states’ rebound, the analysts said the federal stimulus money that began to flow to consumers and small businesses late in March — especially the extraordinary support for the jobless through the end of July — had helped greatly. Those programs allowed consumer spending to continue, even as unemployment surged to levels not seen since the 1930s.

During the Great Recession, Congress sent supplements of just $25 a week. This time, Washington sent supplements of $600 a week. Since the pandemic ravaged low-wage sectors like retail sales and restaurants, adding $600 a week to the lowest unemployment benefits pushed many recipients’ purchasing power above what they had while working.

In Illinois, for example, per capita personal income actually rose as the pandemic kicked in. It climbed to $66,224 in the second quarter, from $59,896 in the first, according to the state’s Office of Management and Budget.

Consumer spending, in turn, bolstered the states’ sales tax revenues. The federal unemployment benefits also buoyed income tax receipts in the 36 states that tax unemployment benefits.

The Federal Reserve helped indirectly by making credit widely available at very low interest rates, prompting investors to leave the safety of the bond markets and buy stocks. That fueled an enormous stock-market rally, which ultimately gave states including New Jersey capital gains to tax.

Many states also benefited from tax-law changes enacted before the pandemic, after a 2018 Supreme Court decision that let them compel out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on online purchases. The new laws ended years of legal wrangling over how to tax such sales, just in time to help the states weather the pandemic-induced shift to online shopping.

“If the Covid-19 pandemic had occurred even five years earlier than it did, the impacts to state and local sales taxes would have been truly devastating,” Dan White, director of government consulting and public finance research at Moody’s, said.

In his survey, Peter DeGroot, head of municipal research and strategy at J.P. Morgan, found a handful of states, including Idaho, South Dakota and New Mexico, that managed to take in even more money last year than in 2019. The survey also identified several states where tax revenues have not yet bounced back because they depend heavily on tourism, oil and gas, or coal extraction — among them Hawaii, Nevada, Florida, Texas and West Virginia.

Ms. Sheiner’s analysis showed that Idaho had the biggest revenue recovery of any state. She conducted her research with Byron Lutz, an economist with the Federal Reserve.

The head of Idaho’s Division of Financial Management, Alex J. Adams, said in an interview that the rebound had taken officials by surprise, and that they thought one reason was an influx of new residents from California, seeking to escape that state’s high cost of living — a trend that started before the pandemic but accelerated last year. Mr. Adams also said Idaho didn’t pause construction when the lockdowns happened, which helped economic activity.

Idaho’s Republican governor, Brad Little, said in his State of the State address in January that 2020 revenue collections were strong enough to send $295 million back to the taxpayers, and still have enough to invest in better highways, bridges and broadband access. He also wrote to Idaho’s congressional delegation last year, urging it to oppose the use of no-strings federal dollars to bail out mismanaged states.

With some states now “enjoying windfalls” and others still struggling, Mr. White said a smaller amount of money, more carefully targeted to the states that needed it most, would be the most efficient approach for Congress. But getting assistance to those governments that truly need it, without sending unnecessary aid to those that do not, will require some “exceptional creativity,” he said.

To some extent, the states’ surprising recoveries reflect the timing of events last year. The pandemic started just as many state lawmakers were reviewing initial budget proposals for the coming fiscal year. The proposals, drawn up weeks before the shock, forecast a year of strong tax collections.

Then, in a matter of weeks, millions of people lost their jobs. State officials think of unemployment as a powerful driver of their fiscal affairs; research from past recessions suggests that a single percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate can produce $45 billion worth of state budget woe.

So they braced for disaster. Most states tore up their initial budgets, laid off workers and, like the federal government, pushed back their April income-tax deadlines to mid-July. Income tax receipts plummeted.

In April, the National Governors Association called on Congress to appropriate $500 billion “to meet the states’ budgetary shortfalls.” But the $500 billion of no-strings budget relief did not materialize. Most state lawmakers finished their budgets by the end of June and went home — and were not on hand to see the wave of income-tax revenue that arrived in mid-July.

By the end of July, revenue had recovered to 2019 levels and stayed there, said Ms. Sheiner, the policy director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. Ms. Sheiner said she and her colleagues had been pointing out the signs of a recovery since September, but state officials remain guarded. They have not yet begun hiring back the 1.3 million public workers they laid off.

“If you talk to state and local government officers, they’re really cautious,” she said. “There’s so much uncertainty. They’re thinking, What if it goes back to how it was last spring?

lol why aren’t young people making expensive babies?!?!

Experts sound the alarm on declining birth rates among younger generations: "It's a crisis" https://t.co/MkdeBtVFiC

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 3, 2021

_I just don’t know what doing dumb shit gets them._

All 50 democratic senators' votes, instead of fewer than 50.

Millennials are not killing the condom industry.

Ok, then, more specifically—what does it get Sinema or Manchin?

As you have pointed out, there's plenty of reason to think these are dumb shit moves, poorly conceived, wrong-headed and counter-productive. But we just got a four year object lesson in a president who made countless poorly conceived, wrong-headed and counter-productive dumb shit moves and lost an election because of it. He still thought he was being smart all the way along and we all had to deal with the fallout. Sinema and Manchin aren't senators because they are political geniuses. Stupid assholes get elected, too.

]There are a lot of things to be mad at the Dems about, but those of you convinced that this whole $1400 vs $2000 thing is a big deal are just ... wrong. It's not. The Republicans are NEVER going to run ads anywhere talking about $2,000 checks

yeah thinking about that, they will specifically say "donald trump promised $2000 checks and joe biden gave you $1400"

I’m willing to means test the benefit if the poor hicks in tha fuckin sticks are willing to have their amounts in their podunkvilles reduced for their lower costs of living. Now that’s some real means testing.

^^not my real position but just wanted to pass that means test vibe on for ya.

Experts sound the alarm on declining birth rates among younger generations: "It's a crisis" https://t.co/MkdeBtVFiC

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 3, 2021

o no, fewer people taking up space in the USA how will the economy survive

fewer people who won't stimulus checks imo

I’m always confused when headlines scream that lower birth rates are “bad”

Conservatives fear them because it means fewer brown babies to discriminate against.

I thought it was more brown babies that they were afraid of

They’re never happy

yeah thinking about that, they will specifically say "donald trump promised $2000 checks and joe biden gave you $1400"

Well, if we all live another few years I'm sure we'll find out. I put the odds of this particular check being any kind of an issue at all in the '22 cycle at ... a very small number. We will have about 1,700 other things between now and then for people to get worked up about. And if this particular check is referenced by anyone, it will be Democrats saying "Remember when we gave you money."

these babbies are terrible, and in increasingly small portions!

millenials not having babies to make room for more illegals

The number of babies the average woman in the U.S. is expected to deliver has dropped from nearly four in the 1950s to less than two today.

I'm not a woman, but this seems like nothing but good news to me? For women in particular. Criminy, four kids is a lot.

Every kind of demographic shift can cause some kind of problems. It's not like there won't be a labor pool in 30 years, because immigration is an easy solution to that, bringing yet a different set of problems. A "crisis" this is not.

One concern (or concern-troll depending on the outlet) is not having the tax-paying workforce to cover for 85-year old Gen Xers who still won’t stop talking about Lollapalooza I guess.

and when you touch down, you'll find that it's stranger than known

ok? pic.twitter.com/QWRZpA0QWv

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 3, 2021

Sen Johnson Obsessed with Thickness, Inches

they call him Thick Johnson

One concern (or concern-troll depending on the outlet) is not having the tax-paying workforce to cover for 85-year old Gen Xers who still won’t stop talking about Lollapalooza I guess.

I feel like abundant and cheap legal weed is going address most of that problem.

Experts sound the alarm on declining birth rates among younger generations: "It's a crisis" https://t.co/MkdeBtVFiC
— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 3, 2021

isn't this how the movie Idiocracy starts?

Idiocracy specifically starts with smart upwardly mobile white people not making babies leaving that to dumb poor POC and immigrants.

lol f hazel

xp ok it's been awhile i only saw it once

Senator Johnson could have produced a chart with even more impressive numbers if he'd gone with pennies instead of one dollar bills.

i misread the word "pennies" for a second there

ew

i appreciated that today, in the "neanderthal" interaction with the media, biden knew off-hand how many people had died, as of yesterday. it's hard to explain without the clip, but he fumbled for a card in his pocket which he says he carries with him but had just left on his desk, then explained that the card showed how many americans had died of covid so far, but that as of yesterday it was 511,874.

i hope stuff like that pushes back on the "senile joe" movement to rest a bit, at least one the left. i don't expect the one on the right to ever let up

he said it so quickly and easily, too, it was almost alarming. but i recognize that. it comes from just seeing those numbers a lot, consistently and frequently. from feb 20 til around december 2020, i used to log the illinois COVID numbers into my spreadsheet, every single night. even though there were lots of websites that would do that automatically. i liked keeping my own sheet, making my own graphs, etc. because of that, i could rattle off some of the Illinois numbers precisely - the deaths, the new cases, the positive %, hospitalized - without making an effort to commit it to memory. it was just because it was important to me and i was paying attention and it was around.

anyway, three hurrahs for competency, but i like to see that

(standard disclaimers: yes, i know that every american president should be in prison for at least a few things they did, and yes of course i hate trump too)

i wouldnt say he's any less lucid than any other 78 year old I've known but that's not saying much for a world leader or is it?

no, but on one hand (the left one, actually), there is much saying that biden is vastly diminished, nearing automaton-status, he can barely speak etc, while on the other hand, the right one, there is also much saying that biden is literally out of his mind and that this paves the way kamala harris which was the plan all along etc

may I see your hands

actually no

it's been 11 months, I'm not sure what might happen

You don't have to mention it, no thanks

i'm a government man

there is also much saying that biden is literally out of his mind and that this paves the way kamala harris which was the plan all along etc

what else are they planning? tell me more

i misread the word "pennies" for a second there

looool, so did I!

You don't have to mention it, no thanks

i'm a government man

― Zach_TBD (Karl Malone),

I'm so thin!

xp it has to do with the one world government and bill gates/vaccinations. this has been in motion for a long time, some say every 80 years, this is the fourth turning, we all know what i'm talking about here

xp you have no idea how deeply i related to that song on a literal level during the obama years

i would listen to it while riding the train into work and be like "well i guess it's neat to have my own 'song', like mechanics in NJ have springsteen songs"

don't even mention it!

One concern (or concern-troll depending on the outlet) is not having the tax-paying workforce to cover for 85-year old Gen Xers who still won’t stop talking about Lollapalooza I guess.

it is concern trolling and a non-issue. even tiny productivity gains over time will swamp the difference in population. better for the environment too.

xpost i know the bigger harm = if you piss off your voter base enough, they stay home on election day, but how are Rs going to successfully enact attack ads that expose that Democrats actually provided a larger one-time stimulus check than they ever did (1400 vs 1200) and when they weren't willing to give them anything, much less 1400.

hey if they want ppl to vote for Kamala Harris in 2024, why not push Kamala Harris' bill to give everyone $2,000 a month for the duration of the pandemic? seems like ppl would still remember that in a couple of years

screw that, Dems get all of the credit for the $600 in January.

no they don't, but also what $600

We did get $600.

We did get $600.

I didn't. But I believe that means I can knock $600 off my taxes this year, so...

Yep

(although I still never got that last $600 check so who knows if I'll even get the $1400)

― Stefan Twerkelle (Old Lunch), Thursday, March 4, 2021 3:44 AM (seven hours ago)

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/claim-missing-stimulus-payments-2020-tax-return.html

i am hoping the IRS fixes its blunders from the last few. like maybe give people a week to update their info, a few weeks before checks go out or something.

when do those $2,000 checks go out the door immediately, again

i got the 600 check, but never got the initial 1200.

good system we have here

works great for for homeless and transient people too

Wow. Chris Hayes is denouncing the stimulus check nonsense.

sorry sic, I didn't realize you meant you personally. Between the collapsing Trump regime and the wreckage of USPS I guess it wouldn't be a shock if a lot of checks literally got lost in the mail, or never sent. (I'm in the lucky group that files electronically, so mine just appeared in my bank account.)

I got a check as my old bank was closed after the first one

yeah, the fact that heaps of ppl didn’t get the $600 bcz ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ makes it even more infuriating that nobody’s getting $2000 bcz lol@u, and hugely more infuriating that heaps of ppl won’t get the $1400 bcz fuck you, and that THE ECONOMY WON’T GET THAT STIMULUS bcz fuck_everyone-tim_dog.mp3

As frustrating as the stimulus and minimum wage moves have been, I think HR1 is going to be the real gut check. This absolutely needs to pass if the democrats want a future, and that means getting around the filibuster. If they do not have a plan to pull this through, they might as well just pack it up rather than deal with months of humiliation as house bills crash upon the rocks.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvnNcTIWgAAzI4v?format=png&name=900x900

under deadline, unscrupulous journos C&P from the press kit instead of listening to the album

the pareene article poster has logged on. thinking about this one from early january after yesterday's stuff about who deserves $2000.

https://newrepublic.com/article/160810/2000-stimulus-checks-vaccine-rollout-democrats

A politics designed to avoid backlash would be more forgivable if our governing institutions and political leadership were effective. In the United States of 2021, they are just exacerbating the widespread incompetence. The alternative to $2,000 checks wasn’t a better-targeted stimulus—it was $600 checks. The alternative to handing out the vaccine more freely isn’t a more efficient rollout to the people who need it most—it’s perfectly good doses spoiling and getting tossed out. It’s time to err on the side of generosity. Give everyone vaccines and checks.

What, do you want to live in a socialism full of comminists and anarchyists?

I do feel like a lot of centrists are compelled to means-test and otherwise make things complicated because it superficially seems smarter and more responsible! In their view, blunt solutions are suspect because they seem too simple; surely, there's room to fiddle around and improve them.

what are the chances that senate leadership is allowing concessions on the stimulus in exchange for support on filibuster fixes?

Would think that alternative of issuing everything and then means testing before teh next tax return day would have been a lot smarter. since it would have recognised the stimulus point of the cheques being issued and allowed teh economy to be stimulated.
Time being of the essence for a lot of people etc whereas hopefully if it worked now things would be a lot better by then.
Seems to be shortsightedness rather tahn over intelligence not to be working that way doesn't it?

Finally some good news: The White House has agreed to drop retaliatory US tariffs on UK exports including scotch whisky, raising hopes of improved relations as talks continue about a post-Brexit transatlantic trade deal...

Oh hell yes.

whew

que lindo

The day after the Transportation Dept's watchdog office referred Elaine Chao to DOJ for potential prosecution, her husband, then-Senate Majority @LeaderMcConnell pushed to confirm a new head for that watchdog officehttps://t.co/KhQer1uBE4https://t.co/8LL0ryVLFu pic.twitter.com/hXunnncNvK

— Nick Schwellenbach (@schwellenbach) March 4, 2021

who will hold mitch accountable?

....unless maybe it's mitch himself?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has compiled a short list of successors in his home state of Kentucky, preparing for the possibility that he does not serve out his full term, Kentucky Republicans tell The Intercept. https://t.co/L3p9mbWlni

— The Intercept (@theintercept) March 4, 2021

v intersting if true

The zombie hand must be trying to strangle him at night

i suspect that's news to mitch

Tim Scott, another so-called moderate and another asshole:

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who led his chamber’s GOP police reform effort during the last Congress, predicted that the House bill would go nowhere in the Senate, noting “it’s the same one that they passed before.” However, Scott said he’d spoken to his Democratic counterpart, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, in policing talks as recently as last weekend.

“It just depends on their definition of bipartisan,” Scott said, when asked if a compromise was possible. “It depends on whether or not their bill includes demonizing police officers or not.”

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2021/03/04/policing-guns-voting-rights-historic-democratic-goals-hit-senate-skids-1366758

I don’t know why Tim Scott doesn’t just make a thumbs down gesture and call it a day

What is happening now: GOP Sen. Ron Johnson objected to dispense the reading of the bill, forcing the 628-page bill to be read out loud before 20 hours of debate can begin in earnest. A Senate clerk started reading the bill out loud around 3:20 p.m. ET and it is expected to take about 10 hours.

thoughts and prayers to the Senate clerk.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/04/climate-change-john-kerry-talking-to-banks-asset-managers-about-clean-energy.html

Who needs a Green New Deal when you can create exciting new bubbles for Wall Street?

Creating new government financed and publicly owned energy generation and distribution institutions like the New Deal TVA and BPA would be most excellent. Until Congress changes radically, it's so not gonna happen.

I am not an expert on finance wrt the environment, but I doubt SPACS are going to move the needle.

All the while, Hydro-Québec works incredibly well.

Pareene’s podcast is extremely relevant this week:

https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-politics-of-everything-2/episode/the-unnatural-endurance-of-bipartisanship-82125082

The Unnatural Endurance of Bipartisanship

Joe Biden ran for president promising to “revive” the spirit of bipartisanship, put an end to factional battles, and bring Americans together after an era of painful division. Yet faced with an intransigent, extremist Republican Party that has little to gain from compromise, such a vision of politics seems quaint at best. On Episode 26 of The Politics of Everything, hosts Laura Marsh and Alex Pareene look into the history of bipartisanship as an ideal. The show features Paul Blest, a co-founder of Discourse Blog; Ed Burmila, the author of a forthcoming book on the mistakes of the Democratic Party; Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer at The New Republic; and Julian Zelizer, a professor of history at Princeton University. Does bipartisanship have a future in American politics? And, more to the point, should it?

fwiw there’s some pretty solid research on $12/hr being a good federal minimum wage target by 2020 which was, uh, last year obv but there’s nothing magical about the number 15 other than it alliterates with “fight for”. by 2025, according to this analysis, $15/hr starts looking about right.

https://www.epi.org/publication/we-can-afford-a-12-00-federal-minimum-wage-in-2020/

A federal minimum wage of $12.00 in 2020 would return the wage floor to about the same position in the overall wage distribution that it had in 1968.

Tim Scott, another so-called moderate and another asshole

Who thinks Tim Scott is a moderate besides white people?

If you are a Black Republican in the year 2021, you also have QAnon tattoos on your duodenum

Politico and cable news hacks, hence my adjective, alas

I don't trust any non-profit economic think tank, even if it is supposedly a progressive one. Such orgs mostly exist to line the pockets of their boards and high level staff while paying lip service to ideas they don't care about.

$12 isn't a livable wage, period, and anyone saying anything else is an asshole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRIegpdFQqk

$12 an hour didn't happen last year and $15 an hour isn't on the table for 2025 anymore so I don't think I understand the point of the thought exercise anyway?

It's also very strange to base it on the wage distribution of 1968, the year that MLK started the Poor People's Campaign because shit was so bleak for so many.

It's a think tank doing what they do best-- absolutely nothing of any fucking value.

I watched that BBC4 documentary on Stax a couple nights ago and the section when it goes through Otis dying and then a few months later MLK being shot in Memphis was so unbelievably sad. There is a clip of that f'n mayor of Memphis talking about the striking garbage workers who really echoed that now might be a different day, but it's the same a$$holes often in charge and same BS. Uncle Sam can be just one mean son of a bitch.

It occurred someone should play straight and pull that old footage and make it look like a Fox right wing broadcast defending it. I think that image would resonate.

a heuristic i have used to sort out voices to listen to on the minimum wage goes something like "there has been a powerful, growing, nationwide movement that has genuine grassroots working class support and person-to-person organizing power, and whose advocates have presumably done their fucking homework and know what they need economically, and it is called Fight For $15, so how about we just trust them that that's a good floor?"

i trust them.

Is that garbage strike well known to the public? Apart from the famous speech that came out of it, which I'd wonder how many people would link to it.
& the situation that triggered teh strike is so appalling. NOt having places to warm themselves and stay out of the rain etc workers would sit inside their trucks and one got turned on and crushed those inside. Always hope that there might be a bottom line for work conditions taht couldn't be sunk below. I mean gosh they were probably warned taht taht was bad practise but like cold is cold and wet is wet and what are you going to do in the middle of a shift. If you're stuck with inhumane conditions you try to do your best with the hand you're dealt etc.
Hope things likie tat are protected against at the moment though, wouldn't be surprised tehy ahdn't progressed at all.

the $12/hr analysis uses 1968 because that was the historical peak of the minimum wage. but you’re right milo, there’s nothing magic about a “peak” that still left millions of people in poverty. did you know the poor people’s campaign still exists by the way? they think $12/hr is trash. anyway i still think it’s useful to see what it would take to get us to that 1968 peak, and the strong evidence that there would be very little negative repercussions for the wider economy. aita??

as i’ve said many times here, if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth since the late 60s it would be north of $20/hr right now - which seems better than either of those numbers!

xpost

$12/hour = 25k a year. that's way too low. it's better than what it is now, yes, so of course I'd rather $12 than 7.25 an hour, but you also have to remember that most of these jobs that will be paying this amount won't give their employees much opportunity for advancement, so it'll get worse as inflation keeps growing.

$15/hour isn't actually *that much money* either but it's $31,200 per year, which isn't great but gives people more of a fighting chance.

when I was making $12/hour I was still living with my parents. after taxes, that came out to about $800 a pay period (semi-monthly).

so $1600/month. let's say you have a car note of $300/month

$1300 left.

let's say you want to ....eat. and you spend $50/week on groceries/food

$1100 left

Ok, you drive places and you fill up once a week. that's .....let's say $35/week

$960 left

Student loans? $100/month?

$860 left

if you're renting a one bedroom, where I live, you're already fucked. if you're doing the roommate thing, you could possibly get by on $500/month. so let's say you do that

$360 left - or $12/day to do....anything else really.

Good morning!

good morning Alfred your rent is due please send to me via check or money order

my condo association fees are due today, actually, thanks for the reminder

Meanwhile, anyone left alive in the Senate?

Dems seem to have outplayed GOP on the Covid delay. After the all-night reading, @ChrisVanHollen simply got up, proposed shortening the debate from 20 hours to 3 and no Republican including @RonJohnsonWI was around to contest. In the end, the dramatic Bill reading delayed nothing

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) March 5, 2021

lol

hahahaha

the modern-day Poor People's Campaign is a different organization from MLK's afaik. established in 2017.

Parlolmentary procedure

thanks crut - didn’t realise that.

here's your minimum wage shit list

Joe Manchin (WV)
Jon Tester (MT)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Maggie Hassan (NH)
Angus King (ME)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)
Tom Carper (DE)
Chris Coons (DE)

+ 50 GOP

What's up with the Northeasters?

they make too much money

half will come out with statements about how they really really really really support the minimum wage increase but can't get past the oath they swore to defend Senate traditions and the parliamentarian unto death

UI benefits now lowered to $300 too?

xp Right. Even if they claim that the vote is about process, they're basically saying that they think respecting the parliamentarian is ultimately more important than raising the minimum wage.

goddammit. that's so unnecessary and stupid.

they extended it another month which is their way of saying "see, it's still the same amount of money!", but that only works if your landlord only charges you for one month of rent across August/Sept

supposedly the proposal would also make the first $10,200 in unemployment insurance benefits nontaxable.

that really only helps you next year though

well, ok, this year if you were having federal withholding proactively taken from it i guess

Democrats won the Senate by campaigning on $2,000 checks.

Then we had to message $600+$1,400=$2,000.

Then we narrowed eligibility = 17 million fewer people getting checks under Biden v. Trump.

All to save $12B in a $1.9T package with no GOP support. All for a couple moderates.

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) March 5, 2021

aide to Julian Castro - it's maybe not just Brooklyn podcasters and DSA Twitter who think $1400 vs. $2000 (followed by 'no check for you') is a fuck up.

Maggie Hassan (NH)

i feel like i pay a decent amount of attention to national politics, and yet there's always at least one senators where i'm like "who the fuck are you? never heard of ya"

RONALD REAGAN WAS ELECTED IN 1980. THAT WAS 41 YEARS AGO. THERE ARE NO MORE 'REAGAN DEMOCRATS.' THEY'RE ALL DEAD. FUCK THE FUCK OFF WITH THIS BULLSHIT.

The Rise of the Biden Republicans
The pollster who identified “Reagan Democrats” in the 1980s sees the emergence of a mirror image voting bloc. And it spells trouble for a GOP dominated by Trump.

she's up for re-election next year too, after winning by less than 800 votes in 2016

xp

the bill is a good thing for many many people, and the child credit component is going to help a lot of people. but the bill could have been way better if idiot moderates hadn't been allowed to water the fucking thing down.

even the child credit was watered down to one year

"all for a couple of moderates". there were 8?

i mean those are bad votes, but i'm not sure what the other 42 were supposed to do.

(biden on the other hand can eat shit for not grabbing some lapels and leaning over people and yelling at them from the toilet johnson-style on this.)

xpost didn't see that. meh. that's going to piss off one of my friends who is a single mother of three.

like look at this gruel. she has no opinions. biden could totally have persuaded her.

pic.twitter.com/a2VkwKcY8r

— Kyrsten Sinema (@SenatorSinema) March 5, 2021

The 8 moderate votes were on a procedural vote for a roll call vote on the minimum wage, not the check allocation

i don't think senators release statements on purely "procedural votes". those were de facto votes against raising the minimum wage to $15 and there were 8 of them.

but yeah point taken, the castro aid is referring to the "savings" (money isn't real) from reducing the checks. they didn't substantively vote on that yet, did they? are there amendments for $2000, etc.? or is it just a straight $1400 vote?

De facto rejection or not, it was a procedural vote that keeps everyone - like Sinema and every Republican in a state where people want a minimum wage increase - off the actual record on the minimum wage.

well, yes, they didn't have the votes to increase the minimum wage to $15?

love to see it

If any Senator believes this is the last time they will cast a vote on whether or not to give a raise to 32 million Americans, they are sorely mistaken. We’re going to keep bringing it up, and we’re going to get it done because it is what the American people demand and need.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 5, 2021

could someone explain the "avoid another cliff" point here?

Overall I think this is a deal worth making
• taxing UI benefits is good policy during normal times if benefits are generous (it’s a more efficient way of means-testing), but forgiveness this year makes sense to avoid surprise tax bills, both a policy and political problem https://t.co/DPuC99wGAL

— James Medlock (@jdcmedlock) March 5, 2021

• the trade off of going from $400/week to $300 in exchange for tax forgiveness is a regressive one, but extending the benefit duration for much longer will be progressive, and will avoid another cliff. And $300 is still over 100% replacement for 50% of people, which is great

— James Medlock (@jdcmedlock) March 5, 2021

The House bill would have had UI benefits expiring during a recess IIRC

The day can get even better!

So I am hearing the issue on the floor is: Dueling amendments coming up on UI. There's the deal centrist/progressive Dems struck earlier, then a Portman one to cut UI and reduce duration. There's concern Manchin could vote for Portman's.

— Jim Newell (@jim_newell) March 5, 2021

earmarks can't come back soon enough.

Maybe he just hates the pressure of being President and wants to lose Congress so he can be irrelevant again.

Manchin seems like the kind of asshole who will jerk people around just to show he has the power to do it. He thinks it magnifies his importance.

Again with the massive overestimation of the power of the president in these situations. Remember when Trump muscled the ACA repeal through Congress? When Obama didn't have to make a million trade-offs to get the ACA passed? When W rammed through his Social Security privatization and immigration reform bill? No? Because they didn't happen.

But sure, it's just that Sleepy Joe doesn't want it enough.

No one has mentioned Biden today.

Which President were you referring to?

But I mean, Democrats internal disarray over the ACA and everything else worked out wonderfully so we should absolutely be cool with Democrats repeating it now.

The ACA repeal was delayed because it politically unpopular, whereas the COVID relief act in general, $15 minimum wage, enhanced UI and $2000 checks all poll far better than Joe Biden or anyone in Congress.

Presidential Manchin, the proper noun being talked about for the preceding 10 posts.

President Manchin

Senator Sinema a little too happy for poverty wages to remain pic.twitter.com/ze2T2CGtML

— RootsAction (@Roots_Action) March 5, 2021

tee hee hee. Fuck off.

If earmarks had existed now, Biden, who lived through this era, might've been able to buy Manchin and Sinema.

President <asshole senator> is a construction that's been around here since forever:

US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

🎶 It's Been Sinema All Along 🎶

lol

haha

lmao

It’s mind boggling to believe the Sinema clip is real. The curtain isn’t supposed to be peeled back quite that far.

this Mean Girls remake cuts a little too close to home

If sleepy Joe wanted any of this he’d be using the bully pulpit. Obviously that exposes him to cascading gaffes and questions about his cognitive abilities. But it is his job.

Which most likely means he doesn’t want these things.

Sinema is fucking revolting, and that little floppy dance makes it undeniable. She needs to be primaried out of existence. Does she think she's cute in her boots and her idiotic backpack? WTF with this shit. AZ voted in Mark Kelly. They don't need this crap.

Bully pulpits work in 2020? Bully pulpits work when you've got (a) earmarks (b) a conspiratorial electorate ready to believe your messianic fantasies.

*2021 lol

It's important that Biden not rock the boat now by pressuring Manchin and Sinema, because he will need their votes on the John Lewis VRAA, public option, PRO Act and many other bills that will never make it to the Senate floor because of the filibuster.

xps look i'm mad at sinema too but can we dial back the misogyny a notch or two

so last weekend i was in a very small town in the southern utah desert. there is a coffee shop there that has managed to survive over the past 15 years. it's a mom and pop store. they made a point to be very friendly to us (a gay couple) and were a delight to talk to. i asked how business was over the last year and they said that they were holding on, but one thing that would absolutely shut them down would be a $15 minimum wage. she said that she believed people should be paid that but that they wouldn't survive it. i know we all hate small business owners but it would truly be a travesty if this coffee shop in green river utah were gone. do yee oh wise ones of ilx have a response to this kind of scenario.

one would think you could still put public pressure on senators in states where these objectives poll extremely well (i.e., all of them. literally every single state), but it’s possible that people are so inured to the failure of our elected leaders to actually govern that they figure hey why bother.
extremely bad look though imo.

Low wage workers put their money directly into the economy, an actual 'rising tide lifts all boats' scenario because now more people can afford a $5 cup of coffee.

A $15 minimum wage increase would come over the course of four years, allowing the coffee shop owner's circumstances to adjust, with predictable increases going forward. (I'd also be incredibly surprised if a coffee shop's labor costs weren't well behind raw materials, utilities and rent in expenses.)

xpost yeah if you can’t pay an employee then do the work yourself

Part of the reason our economy is perpetually on the verge of crisis is that half the country doesn't have money to spend unless they use credit cards with usurious rates of interest.

ty milo

Part of the reason our economy is perpetually on the verge of crisis is that half the country spends all their money on chai lattes, iirc

i asked how business was over the last year and they said that they were holding on, but one thing that would absolutely shut them down would be a $15 minimum wage.

My problem is that this has so long been a knee-jerk response to any call for increasing the minimum wage from "small" business owners that it is really hard to take seriously at this point. Undoubtedly it may be true in some cases, but I need more than just because it might be hard for them to figure out, tbqh.

The important part of the minimum wage missing in most discussions: you're not required to pay the $15 now or else shut down! It's phased in over a few years.

i knwo a non-zero amount of people whose daily livelihoods equals foreclosing their futures to scrape by today.

it was even worse when credit cards were allowed to charge overlimit fees. that shit used to put me in a cycle I couldn't escape when I was in college, to where I couldn't afford my books one semester

I was working construction when gas prices hit $4.25 regularly, doubling the price per gallon for work trucks that didn't get amazing fuel economy left a lot of contractors queasy on a lot of nights.

If the minimum wage had risen $.50 per year for the last two decades, that kind of shock wouldn't be an issue.

(The White House seems to be floating a desire to bring Republicans to the table for less than $15 (lol but maybe) but anyone who defends that should be heaped with abuse.)

Fwiw, map, I'm not trying to shut you down or dismiss the very real fears for small business owners. It's more that we've just heard that from so many business owners (legit small ones and "small" ones that use it as an excuse) with the intention of ending any and all discussion about giving people a reasonable living wage that it grates to hear it, no matter the intention. The answer, unfortunately, is to not base the decision on the businesses operating on the slimmest of margins, no matter how much we may all have examples of those we want to survive.

Low wage workers put their money directly into the economy, an actual 'rising tide lifts all boats' scenario because now more people can afford a $5 cup of coffee.

A $15 minimum wage increase would come over the course of four years, allowing the coffee shop owner's circumstances to adjust, with predictable increases going forward. (I'd also be incredibly surprised if a coffee shop's labor costs weren't well behind raw materials, utilities and rent in expenses.)

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Friday, March 5, 2021 8:00 PM (fifteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i'm realizing there is also a vicious trap that these tourist towns get into where they just rely more and more on a tourist economy, pay transient workers and no one roots down to develop the *actual* on-the-ground economy of the town. sort of similar to boom and bust of extraction economies. if businesses are paying their employees suddenly more people can afford to live and spend in the town without needing to be a wfh-er.

xp i don't care if you want to shut me down or not jon but tbh you aren't engaging with my question by offering a substantive response, just a glib one

like i was asking, what would you say to this person - pretty sure "we're sick of worrying about you" is a shitty thing that you would never have the guts to actually say to anyone irl

Sen. Maggie Hassan wouldn’t answer when I asked her why she voted against an effort to raise wage to $15. “I have long been supportive of increasing the minimum wage,” she said.

I asked her what was wrong with this one, and her aide interjected and said she’s late for a meeting

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 5, 2021

Veep energy

If the filibuster stays intact, which seems all too likely rn, then any increase in the minimum wage would require Republican votes. While I recognize the force of the argument that inadequate stopgap measures diminish momentum toward a genuinely workable solution, I think there are millions of workers mired in minimum wage jobs who'd accept an inadequate raise in wages as a very good thing, even if it's only to $10/hr.

As many of us have experienced, when you live hand to mouth, every dollar you earn has a vital purpose to perform at once. For anyone in that position, the argument that the strategy should be $15 or bust, even after you know $15 is a dead letter for two more years at least, is going to be met with incredulity.

xpost - I never said I was "sick of worrying" about folks like that. Nor is that remotely the truth. I want to improve our system for everyone, so no one has to teeter on those margins.

I don't think it's "glib" to point out that we can't just give up on a livable minimum wage because it might hurt some businesses. Of course it sucks to lose more independent, small family run businesses and I absolutely sympathize with someone who might be on the verge of losing their dream. But I don't have the answer.

Fuck off, aimless

no thanks. perhaps you'd like to.

Manchin having a fucking great time being a shitty ass attention whore, huh?

sorry haven't been able to follow much today

If your dream relies on rock-bottom wages for your employees, it’s actually a nightmare.

I don't know I'm so angry about map's response, but jfc. I grew up and lived in small towns most of my life so I don't need to be condescended to about the value of small town businesses.

But for fuck's sake, I'm not going to say, "gee, sorry 608,000 factory workers, you guys can't get a livable wage because Joe from Joe's cafe says he can't pay his two part time high schoolers $15 an hour."

The fallacy here is that small businesses and Fortune 500 companies absolutely need to be treated the same.

If you can't afford to run a business without underpaying your workers, you can't afford to run a business. Even if you're a nice old couple who's friendly to visiting gay couples.

How is that a fallacy? So the single mom working at a McDonald’s franchise or coffee shop needs a pay increase less than a AT&T worker?

unperson otm

i know we all hate small business owners but it would truly be a travesty if this coffee shop in green river utah were gone. do yee oh wise ones of ilx have a response to this kind of scenario.

― map ca. 1890 (map), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:56 PM (fifty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I've had this convo with small business owners and I don't have the answers either. They look at their thin margins and feel attacked by the messaging that they're not paying people an honest wage and ultimately they have to take home less in their own pocket. I do want to acknowledge that if you thought that was a good business model, to some degree it’s because you were told it was. You learned it and watched others be called successful for doing it. It doesn't mean you "failed." It might mean that your business model is flawed though, and artificially expanded beyond its capabilities.

The fallacy here is that small businesses and Fortune 500 companies absolutely need to be treated the same.

But the minute you start carving out exceptions for the "little guys", the big guys immediately figure out how to utilize the loopholes to their advantage so they can continue underpaying their workers.

A guy who owned a deli/catering businesses where all his workers are either family members or Latinx immigrants, told me angrily that if min wage went up to $15, he would have to pay the dishwashers 15, and then the more valuable employees would need to get THEIR wages raised, and pretty soon he'd be out of business. I mean, I hear what he's saying but also his Latinx employees' kids were the demographic of 30% of my school and a lot of them were living in circumstances that "small business owners" would never consider living in to save money.

suzy otm.

some small businesses will go bust - not that many, per the analysis i linked upthread - but small businesses go bust every day of the year.

there’s also this paper, which rounds up a recent wave of research into the effect of the minimum wage on low-wage employment: https://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

It’s called “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” and it’s from 2013.

it notes that “The employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics.”

The knock on effect is a big part of why Biden’s desire to negotiate down with Republicans is an unacceptable failure. $15 in four years ultimately changes the lives of half the working population of the country.

How is that a fallacy? So the single mom working at a McDonald’s franchise or coffee shop needs a pay increase less than a AT&T worker?

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Friday, March 5, 2021 3:44 PM (fifty-eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I was not talking about workers.

Just the companies they work for? There is no fallacy in treating small businesses and Fortune 500 companies the same when it comes to labor law.

SMEs can be provided with relief to cushion for the increase in wages.

They already have that relief, a multi-year phase in. Paying businesses directly to 'cushion' their labor costs and hoping they pass it on is just socializing risk and privatizing profit once more - and immediately falls prey to evasion by large businesses who want to get that free money.

AT&T needs a multi-year phase in? Ok.

Yes, that's what I said, exactly.

Well if small businesses need a multi-year phase in, I would argue some corporations don't. Hence, there's a difference of treatment between SMEs and large corporations/businesses.

I'm just going to repeat what I keep on repeating: nothing less than $15 is acceptable, and even that amount is much too low. $20 should be the figure that we should be fighting over, as has been mentioned numerous times.

Nothing that any sMaLl bUsInEsS oWnERs say changes that, nothing that anyone says changes that.

If you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, then you and your business can get fucked. Period.

What if you can't afford your workers a living wage because overall workers aren't paid enough to buy enough of your services/products?

volume =! margin

There are about 10 posts answering that particular concern-troll in the last 50 posts.

The way to avoid this exact scenario was to flip at least 1-2 more Senate seats in November. We didn't, so here we are.

Want to lessen Manchin/Sinema's power? Flip more seats.https://t.co/RBZCw4GCNi

— Charles #GetCovered-ba (@charles_gaba) March 5, 2021

Feel like now is not the right time to play the "give us money so we can have a majority so good things can happen" card, since they have a majority.

I worked in an organic grocery store in tourist town of ~3600 people, and the starting wage was $10/hr, with 50cent increases every 6 months. It was back-breaking work.

The owners owned four houses, including one in a *different* tourist town across the Oregon border, and balked and retaliated against anyone who asked for a raise. Yet they were always wondering why none of the younger employees stuck around...

Small business owners who say shit like this are essentially telling their workers, "get fucked so we can live a middle class (or upper middle-class) existence."

Fuck those people and anyone defending them.

Sure, and some other businesses, providing essential services to poor neighbourhoods for example, are struggling to survive even with artificially low wages. If your answer to that is: they deserve to close. Well, I don't know, it just adds poverty in the end, it just seems cruel to me. I don't see why addressing complexities across a wide spectrum of economic situations is always seen as such a bad thing by americans, even on the left, especially that it works very well elsewhere on the continent.

Sure, and some other businesses, providing essential services to poor neighbourhoods for example, are struggling to survive even with artificially low wages.

Such as?

and I'm not even proposing to reduce the minimum wage of 15$, agreed with Table that 15$ is the absolute bare minimum. I just think that some different realities need to be dealt differently.

Such as?

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Friday, March 5, 2021 5:56 PM (twenty-five seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

Independent grocery stores. Restaurants.

Ah, yes, "poor neighborhoods" widely known for being hubs of independent grocery stores.

Perhaps Americans are averse to your stances because your "wide spectrum of economic situations" are pulled directly from your ass to justify half measures and further subsidies of downtrodden classes like "grocery store owners."

If you're talking about bodegas, corner stores, and delis, which are large parts of the food infrastructure of poorer neighborhoods in the US, then I'd like to let you know that selling some crappy vege, blunt wraps, and snack food isn't providing an essential service. If anything, poor neighborhoods need more actual grocery stores, whether they're chains or not.

(response to VHS, obv)

is there data to suggest mandatory wage increases actually cause small businesses to close or is it a chamber of commerce et al. talking point

Milo, I really hope you find meaning in your antagonism because from here it looks sad.

The only difference is that I don't see a problem with subsidies for struggling SMEs, something that shouldn't be very controversial within leftist circles, and I that don't understand why there should be a phase-in for larger corporations to implement 15$ minimum wage.

Yes yes completely uncontroversial in leftist circles to (further) subsidize the literal petite bourgeoisie, how could anyone disagree?

The phase-in over the course of years is the "relief to cushion" you requested.

The minimum wage went up in Seattle and until covid people couldn’t stop falling over themselves to open restaurants. A local bagel shop was offering $250 gift cards to anyone making a successful referral.

There was a longer phase in for “small” businesses, with under 500 employees worldwide, but as of this year small employers get a discount of $1.69 for tipped employees, everyone else the minimum is $16.69, a rate which is now indexed to the local CPI-W

Eventually the tip exemption for small employers will go away too.

Yes yes completely uncontroversial in leftist circles to (further) subsidize the literal petite bourgeoisie, how could anyone disagree?

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Friday, March 5, 2021 6:14 PM (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

If the point is to double the minimum wage of the worker, what could possibly be the problem?

if we truly want to help the small biz owner, aka the backbone of the economy, the distillation of the America dream, then clearly we should be trying to lower the minimum wage

they're struggling will, STRUGGLING

might only buy a new Ski-Doo this year instead of a pair

VHS do you own a small business, like a boutique slaughterhouse or something

We've already cut billions of dollars in checks over the last year to small businesses (via PPP grants) rather than sending that money directly to workers.

(I say grants because you have to fuck up pretty good as a small business with employees to not get the loans forgiven)

No, I am vegetarian thanks, but I worked for some that had to close despite paying minimum wage (around 10$ CAD at the time) leaving owners with insurmontable amount of debt and in one case having to move out of the city because of rent increase, but surely every business owner is evil because some socialist LARPers can't move on from Marx or something.

VHS, in all seriousness, why should people who've started small business get subsides to *pay their workers a living wage*? Shouldn't they be paying their workers a living wage already? If they're not, couldn't one consider them class enemies and not worthy of respect or consideration?

If I was going to take VHS seriously, I'd point out the fundamental difference in categories - no one is forced to be a small business owner, everyone is forced to work to survive. The former, if they're struggling, have made a choice to enter into that struggle because of the potential benefit. As a society, we are not compelled to ensure their risk taking pays dividends.

They had to move out of the city?! God help them.

If only their workers had been more willing to make sacrifices for their benefit.

Sorry, *could* one consider them...

etc.

VHS, in all seriousness, why should people who've started small business get subsides to *pay their workers a living wage*? Shouldn't they be paying their workers a living wage already? If they're not, couldn't one consider them class enemies and not worthy of respect or consideration?

― it's like edging for your mind (the table is the table), Friday, March 5, 2021 6:41 PM (twenty-six seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

If small business were on the same level playing field as larger corporations, I would agree, but they aren't. I don't think they can be faulted, at least not nearly as much, for people generally having a dwindling purchasing power, for not being to sustain the price predatorial commercial property owners fix, for not being given the opportunity to adapt to technological changes, etc. If the government, and there's enough money in the US to do, can chime to cover the difference between 7.5 and 15$ to help to business continue to survive, I see a win for everyone involved.

I don't think anyone is saying that there aren't ANY small businesses anywhere in existence that wouldn't be "harmed" (for some value of harm) by a raised minimum wage. Those individual cases just aren't enough to justify keeping 50 million people in poverty. I mean I don't know what to tell you.

The first thing I would want to know would be: Are the business owners/founders in a particular case in a different social class than their employees? Do they live a noticeably different lifestyle? Because if so, there's a possibility of balancing the scales differently.

I mean YES, of course, this is completely a false scarcity argument because if we had M4A/socialized medicine and a better support system then everyone's costs potentially go down and there is relief in other places.

Socialized risk, privatized profit, yes.

If the state is already going to be paying the wages, why not just open up state-owned grocery stores? Why line the pockets of someone already well-off enough to own a grocery store?

that was an xp

If the point is to double the minimum wage of the worker, what could possibly be the problem?

we have asked the workers. they say that subsidizing the petite bourgeoisie in any way is too big a sacrifice, even if it doubles their wages.

If the state is already going to be paying the wages, why not just open up state-owned grocery stores? Why line the pockets of someone already well-off enough to own a grocery store?

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Friday, March 5, 2021 6:52 PM (0 seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

You realize private profit is taxable? Both are viable solutions. Liquor in Quebec is only sold in government mandated stores and workers are paid higher than minimum wage. There is also wage help for certains industry at risk, works very well. The smart thing would be to use the entire array of solutions that government can offer to help citizens and buffer against the worse of the market.

You realize private profit is taxable?

It's never taxable 100% - so the risk remains social and the profit private.

Both are viable solutions

You only suggested one, though - and then said it should be uncontroversial for "leftist."

I don't know about you, but I don't see many risks associated with giving a minimum wage of 15$ to workers.

You've bumbled in here offering up a convoluted fantasy to protect the dignity (and profit) of these many supposedly struggling small businesses that you're very non-specific about, because a four-year phase-in wasn't enough "relief to cushion" for a wage floor that has been frozen for more than a decade and losing value for multiple decades, because you once worked for a small business that had to move.

many risks associated with giving a minimum wage of 15$ to workers.

You cannot be this stupid.

VHS, in your view are there any other costs of doing business that should be addressed by subsidy, rather than accounted for in the spreadsheets of the business owner? Like, if an owner claims "the rising electric bill will put me out of business," or "bringing this kitchen up to code will put me out of business," or "the rising rent will put me out of business," is the government on the hook for those things too, or is it only the cost of labor that goes in this category?

I mention rent since in your example above that was a real factor in a business decision, and something we know shutters businesses all the time. Whereas, as others have pointed out, there is not exactly robust evidence that raising the minimum wage spells doom for the entrepreneur.

So, and I ask this seriously, if President Sanders or Warren had gotten the nomination, beaten Trump, and reached this impasse, would we have been in a different situation? I don't envisage a scenario in which my preferred candidates would've converted a recalcitrant Sinema or Manchin withou pork.

good thing that earmarks will be making a comeback

we're talking theory here, Alfred, not sausage-making

You've bumbled in here offering up a convoluted fantasy to protect the dignity (and profit) of these many supposedly struggling small businesses that you're very non-specific about, because a four-year phase-in wasn't enough "relief to cushion" for a wage floor that has been frozen for more than a decade and losing value for multiple decades, because you once worked for a small business that had to move.

many risks associated with giving a minimum wage of 15$ to workers.
You cannot be this stupid.
― Joe Bombin (milo z), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:05 PM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I am going to need an explanation how the government subsidizing wages is going to help the profits of a business.

Warren or Bernie’s VP would have overridden the parliamentarian, for a start. Putting the recalcitrant Senators on the record on the hook to vote down a bill with 80% support.

xp

.............They...don't have to pay their employees??? so they get to keep more of the gross in the net??

Am I losing my mind?

We’ll never know if that strategy would work, but this one certainly doesn’t seem to be working.

Truly I'm not that good with accounting stuff so forgive me if I'm not understanding the question but

I mention rent since in your example above that was a real factor in a business decision, and something we know shutters businesses all the time. Whereas, as others have pointed out, there is not exactly robust evidence that raising the minimum wage spells doom for the entrepreneur.

― honkin' on bobo, honkin' with my feet ten feet off of beale (Doctor Casino), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:05 PM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Tighter control of SME's rents is absolutely necessary, and to me a solution would be closer to a freeze. I don't see how subsiding rent really help the bottom line of workers.

Truly I'm not that good with accounting stuff so forgive me if I'm not understanding the question but

― Ima Gardener (in orbit), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:13 PM (thirteen seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

Worker is still paid 7.5$ dollar by business, govt pays the balance to 15$ that goes directly in the pocket of the worker.

I am going to need an explanation how the government subsidizing wages is going to help the profits of a business.

Well if I, downtrodden grocery store proprietor, don't have to pay half my labor costs that's extra profit for me. Or extra capital to open up another struggling grocery store... which is also extra profit for me.

Which would, yes, be taxed - if I have a terrible accountant who can't get me out of as much as possible, and would be taxed at a lower rate than actual workers since my S-corp dividend wouldn't have to pay FICA.

Worker is still paid 7.5$ dollar by business, govt pays the balance to 15$ that goes directly in the pocket of the worker.

You're now requiring workers to work to earn profits for the grocery store in order to receive a $7.50 per hour welfare benefit.

Yeah! How is it so mysterious that the subsidization adds overall capacity to the business?? The employer can retain more employees on staff bc is paying less of their salary, so they can do more units of "business" with more people to do the labor.

why would i want my tax money to pay for labor that someone is making a profit from (which we already do in many ways when full time workers are poor enough to qualify for public benefits, for example)? does the government get equity in the business?

You're now requiring workers to work to earn profits for the grocery store in order to receive a $7.50 per hour welfare benefit.

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:18 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Well if it's that or further unemployment, which are you going to chose?

Seems like it would just be easier to phase in a $15 minimum wage and give small businesses a few years to catch up. It's incredibly shitty and imperfect (as $15 itself is insufficient) since the wage floor has been frozen for most of my adult life but I hear compromise is important or something like that.

Well if it's that or further unemployment, which are you going to chose?

I'm going to choose to pay people to stay home and read to their kids instead of stocking shelves for a guy with three houses.

Well if it's that or further unemployment, which are you going to chose?

― Van Horn Street, Friday, March 5, 2021 7:21 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

this is not what the choices are????

You've bumbled in here offering up a convoluted fantasy to protect the dignity (and profit) of these many supposedly struggling small businesses that you're very non-specific about, because a four-year phase-in wasn't enough "relief to cushion" for a wage floor that has been frozen for more than a decade and losing value for multiple decades, because you once worked for a small business that had to move.

many risks associated with giving a minimum wage of 15$ to workers.
You cannot be this stupid.

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Saturday, 6 March 2021 00:05 (seventeen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Bookmarking this one the next time some bullshit artist comes all wide-eyed about poor downtrodden milo just making good firm arguments in the spirit of political cut n thrust

milo’s otm rn tho

this is not what the choices are????

― superdeep borehole (harbl), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:23 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

I am proposing this for struggling SMEs only. It was to answer the question: what do to if a small business is financially threatened by a wage increase? Which is a possibility, and this has been a proven method that can help both workers and small businesses.

No small businesses are actually threatened by minimum wage increases. This FUD was spread widely here years ago when $15/hr was passed, shockingly demand for entry-level labor only went up.

Anyway fuck small business owners.

Anyway fuck small business owners.

― Canon in Deez (silby), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:28 PM (forty-four seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

how rebellious

?

Won't you think of the businesses that had to move to a suburb instead of the city? They have feelings too.

I said they had to close, the people don't own the business anymore, it created unemployment, including theirs, and a great amount of debt, which is fantastic I suppose because 'fuck small business owners'.

You're hatred of all things not of your specific tribe is so terribly sad.

*your

Yes, sorry.

Little bit of news in here: Last weekend, some centrist Senate Dems circulated a plan to amend the $1,400 stimulus payment so families would only receive $400 per child, per 3 sources. The plan ran into stiff opposition & was abandoned. W/ @TonyRomm https://t.co/MV8QRbMyG5

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) March 6, 2021

https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a1169399198_10.jpg

Don’t apologize when I troll you for your typos! Cmon stand up for yourself

VHS it seems like you are really taking this one example to heart and this anecdote is not a basis for policy, you have to understand that surely?

if we have rent controls for small business, won't the landlords have to close their small businesses

I also worked for a year on a wage subsidy for a struggling film co-op and it kickstarted my career. It's mostly that I am talking from somewhere where such subsidy exists and work and have had great benefits.

I don't know why we're stopping at covering 50% of their wages when we could do 100%?

struggling film co-op

Co-op is a business. With owners.

and in this case, the owners were not the workers.

VHS I was not proposing subsidizing commercial rents as a method of helping workers' wages, I was pointing out a cost that, in your account, ACTUALLY closed the business you described, and one which nobody including you is proposing we subsidize. So I'm still scratching my head why, seemingly alone out of all forms of overhead/expenses/costs, labor is the one that needs to be massively (massively!) subsidized, on the vague say-so of owners who speculate (without any evidence, certainly none that's been shared to this thread) that a higher minimum wage will lead to them closing rather than leading to them postponing their planned jacuzzi purchase at the lake house.

milo's aggro stridency here is imo not really helpful and i don't advocate it as a posting strategy, but argument-wise he is otm on this one.

we have asked the workers. they say that subsidizing the petite bourgeoisie in any way is too big a sacrifice, even if it doubles their wages.

― Judge Roi Behan (Aimless), Friday, March 5, 2021 3:54 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

You know this is unfair, Aimless.

The problem is that the bugbear of "small business owners" is not some sort of downtrodden class— they are, for the most part, people who were born, raised, and continue to be middle-class to upper-middle class. Much of how this subject is treated depends upon an irresponsible and reckless view of the class dynamics of US society, which views "small business owners" as some sort of bloc of people who began small businesses on just a dream and a prayer, when there was really *a not insignificant amount of money* behind them, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to start businesses.

So when these small business owners claim that minimum wage increases would "kill their business," what they're actually saying is, "I got mine and I deserve it, fuck the people who allow me to claim the status that I have."

Aggro because I don't think VHS is acting in good faith - when he starts with something like 'it's a fallacy to say small businesses and Fortune 500 companies should be treated the same' (and starts formulating after several posts that that means small businesses should get direct subsidies) and pretending to not understand what 'socializing risk' means, I have my doubts about sincerity.

like, if you "can't" pay your workers a living wage, either...

a) take less out of the business as profit for yourself, like you would when solving any other expenses-vs-receipts problem
b) find some other cost you can reduce... maybe don't spring for the full-color ads in the sunday paper, or whatever, like you would when solving any other expenses-vs-receipts problem
c) increase your prices, like you would when solving any other expenses-vs-receipts problem, or
d) discover to your horror that your business model depends at some inescapable fundamental level on underpaid labor, in which case your business model s evil and needs to be made impossible to operate, for example by requiring that businesses pay a living wage. if the leftist state deems that the service your business provides is so important it must be done even if it can't be done at a profit AND with a living wage, then the state should just provide this service as a subsidized utility/infrastructure/public good.

VHS I was not proposing subsidizing commercial rents as a method of helping workers' wages, I was pointing out a cost that, in your account, ACTUALLY closed the business you described, and one which nobody including you is proposing we subsidize. So I'm still scratching my head why, seemingly alone out of all forms of overhead/expenses/costs, labor is the one that needs to be massively (massively!) subsidized, on the vague say-so of owners who speculate (without any evidence, certainly none that's been shared to this thread) that a higher minimum wage will lead to them closing rather than leading to them postponing their planned jacuzzi purchase at the lake house.

― honkin' on bobo, honkin' with my feet ten feet off of beale (Doctor Casino), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:45 PM (five seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

I was really just responding to one hypothetical and my answer is only a proposed solution that problem in particular: what if the wage increase could lead to bankruptcy? If a wage increase can be absorbed in the profits by the business owner, there would be no reason to give the worker any subsidy. The owner would have to pay the 15$ and too bad for his lake house. If the increase could lead to actual additional unemployment, which I maintain is a possibility in some cases, I don't see the harm in giving the balance to workers directly so they can continue working there. I prefer this subsidy because it goes directly in the pocket of the worker, instead of some potentially useless overhead and expenses being wasted by the owner.

i get where you're coming from, milo. i guess my approach to ppl seemingly posting in bad faith is sort of like defensive driving or the like - let them be the jerk if that is indeed what's happening, but no need to escalate the intensity or contribute to bad vibes that either cause others to not post, or encourages them to rise to that intensity level.

not saying i actually live up to this myself btw

d) discover to your horror that your business model depends at some inescapable fundamental level on underpaid labor, in which case your business model s evil and needs to be made impossible to operate, for example by requiring that businesses pay a living wage. if the leftist state deems that the service your business provides is so important it must be done even if it can't be done at a profit AND with a living wage, then the state should just provide this service as a subsidized utility/infrastructure/public good.

https://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/017/061/air_horn.png

but VHS, every single business in the country would claim they were in such a state of crisis! and those that got this unbelievable sweetheart deal would have a staggering advantage over any competitors who just... pay the minimum wage.

also we've had minimum wages for the better part of a century - what is it about this particular phased increase that requires this bespoke solution?

I prefer this subsidy because it goes directly in the pocket of the worker, instead of some potentially useless overhead and expenses being wasted by the owner.

i think what people are trying to explain to you is that DOES result in money going to the boss in the form of profits he could not make without his workers. there is no scenario where this does not happen.

There’s probably no point in continuing this conversation with a Canadian but I guess we can try