Democrats trying to unseat each other III

[Harry Bosch]

Consider Clintoncare. It was a big fat mess that the Clinton Admin took a year to work on, but when it was released, the Clintonites whimpered and came close to apologizing for having introduced it. They let the insurance lobby run its "Harry and Louise" ads without running any "Gary and Denise" ads to counter them. Right-wingers called "Hillarycare" some monstrous scheme to take over much of the economy, but it wasn't some national super HMO like Britain's National Health Service.

Barack Obama tried again, and he succeeded with Obamacare. That didn't do much to stop healthcare from being grotesquely expensive.

Well they faced incredible opposition from the right. Such major legislation takes time. Then dems got busy, had other priorities and didn’t vote well in 1994. Republicans took over. And they killed the act. Obama care is awesome. It’s currently half the cost of Cobra.

 

[Derec]

Right-wingers called "Hillarycare" some monstrous scheme to take over much of the economy,

I think Clinton's biggest blunder here was to let Hillary run the show.

 

[Derec]

Opinion | How the Squad and Like-Minded Progressives Have Changed Their Party - The New York Times - April 23, 2024

Didn't you also post that Squad puff piece by Mara "what the fuck is a million" Gay in another thread?

When the far-left politicians Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley were first elected to Congress roughly half a decade ago, many moderate Democrats saw their unapologetically progressive vision for America as an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party.

Even though he is running against Trump, and should be winning in a landslide, Biden is still underwater in most polls. This lefty albatross may prove to be a millstone instead.

That certainly seemed to be the view of Democratic leaders, who seemed intent on making the Squad, as the progressive caucus is known, a group of permanent outsiders.

Gay is wrong here. The Squad is not the same as the Progressive Caucus. It is a more select and informal group of congresscritters, and more lefty than even the CPC. The Squad came into being when AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley (truly the bass player of the four) won their elections in 2018. Since then several others joined the group justifying the name (originally it was the size of a fire team). Two privates, Cori Bush and Fire Marshal Jamaal, will hopefully be sent home by losing primaries. Knock on wood.

And in recent months, the insurgent group of unapologetic leftists has gained even more sway within the Democratic Party. Some of this is clearly a reaction to the extremism of Trumpism and far-right House Republicans. But the progressives have gained power in Washington amid rising anger over the U.S. role in Gaza.

Speaking of US role in Gaza, the pier is finally getting finished. Hopefully Hamas won't attack it again.

Another reason may be the failure of Clintonism to accomplish its stated goals. Make lots of progressive promises, then wring one's hands about how helpless one is and propose weak half-measures. Also act like one has battered-partner syndrome with the Republican Party, perpetually trying to appease it despite getting lots of nastiness and hostility in response.

Clinton managed to win two terms after Dems being out of the White House since 1980. Since LBJ left office in 1968, Carter's one term was also the only Democratic one until Clinton.
And Clinton's presidency was overall successful. Sure, "progressives" did not get all they wanted, but Clinton did not run as a McGovern.

 

[Derec]

I’m glad you agree that it is better if other countries exhaust their fossil fuel reserves.

I did not say that. I said that the bulk of remaining reserves of our enemies should become stranded assets once demands plummets.
If we hamstring our oil and gas production due to misguided environmentalism, we (as well as Europe) would become more dependent on the likes of Russia and Iran. That is not good economically, and it is not good geopolitically. It is not even good environmentally, as imported oil and gas has to be transported longer distances and, besides, we would probably end up increasing coal consumption for electricity. Remember, it was the shale revolution and resulting abundant natural gas that allowed us to greatly decrease our coal use over the last two decades.

We will never agree on fracking—I am guessing you have ties to that industry.

I wish!

I see environmental damage due to fracking in a regular basis. I’m guessing you’ve never been anywhere to see the before/after effects of mining sand for fracking or fracking itself. I have.

Can't say I have. I have been close to a coal plant and also an open pit coal mine, both of which were absolutely ghastly. I have also lived very close to an oil refinery, which was much better (and also provided hot water for residential and commercial heating).
There is environmental damage connected with any extractive industry. The question is how much, and how much utility we are getting in return. I think reducing our coal consumption (and mining!) is more than enough of a tradeoff by itself. Exporting LNG to our allies and reducing their dependence on Russian gas is a big added benefit as well. And that's just benefits of natural gas fracking.

 

[Derec]

And I asked you what method you used to determine the "plethora" is too much?

In the end it's a matter of opinion how much is too much. But let's not pretend that there are not many programs that subsidize having children already.

I absolutely agree more should be done for single people. But jealousy is not a reason to not attempt to get children out of poverty.

1. As I said before, the eligibility for the expanded child tax credit is so extensive, most of the beneficiaries are not even in poverty.
2. The expensive expanded child tax program would be paid for by the child free, either directly through higher taxes or indirectly through higher inflation and/or interest rates.

For fuck's sake, show us any family making $400k receiving the above benefits.

Not the other benefits, but the cutoff for the expanded child tax credit is $400k.

 

[Toni]

I’m glad you agree that it is better if other countries exhaust their fossil fuel reserves.

I did not say that. I said that the bulk of remaining reserves of our enemies should become stranded assets once demands plummets.
If we hamstring our oil and gas production due to misguided environmentalism, we (as well as Europe) would become more dependent on the likes of Russia and Iran. That is not good economically, and it is not good geopolitically. It is not even good environmentally, as imported oil and gas has to be transported longer distances and, besides, we would probably end up increasing coal consumption for electricity. Remember, it was the shale revolution and resulting abundant natural gas that allowed us to greatly decrease our coal use over the last two decades.

We will never agree on fracking—I am guessing you have ties to that industry.

I wish!

I see environmental damage due to fracking in a regular basis. I’m guessing you’ve never been anywhere to see the before/after effects of mining sand for fracking or fracking itself. I have.

Can't say I have. I have been close to a coal plant and also an open pit coal mine, both of which were absolutely ghastly. I have also lived very close to an oil refinery, which was much better (and also provided hot water for residential and commercial heating).
There is environmental damage connected with any extractive industry. The question is how much, and how much utility we are getting in return. I think reducing our coal consumption (and mining!) is more than enough of a tradeoff by itself. Exporting LNG to our allies and reducing their dependence on Russian gas is a big added benefit as well. And that's just benefits of natural gas fracking.

Mining for sand used in fracking looks similar to open pit mines. And the dust created contaminates the air in surrounding areas, creating health hazards for people who simply want to live their lives. You are right: It s ghastly.

You are also correct that all extraction methods fit whatever energy source create environmental damage. What we need to do is to follow in the footsteps of Europe and work harder to conserve as much energy as possible, improve energy efficiency and… to stop being so materialistic.

 

[Derec]

You are also correct that all extraction methods fit whatever energy source create environmental damage. What we need to do is to follow in the footsteps of Europe and work harder to conserve as much energy as possible, improve energy efficiency and… to stop being so materialistic.

If you look at the chart, US managed to reduce CO₂ emissions more than European countries like Germany or UK. I do not have anything against improving energy efficiency, but it only goes so far. Europe had a big problem in 2022 - their dependence on imported gas from Russia. If US was not there to supply Europe with our abundant fracked gas, Europe would have been in deep trouble.
Where does the EU’s gas come from?

 

[ZiprHead]

And I asked you what method you used to determine the "plethora" is too much?

In the end it's a matter of opinion how much is too much. But let's not pretend that there are not many programs that subsidize having children already.

Who's pretending?

I absolutely agree more should be done for single people. But jealousy is not a reason to not attempt to get children out of poverty.

1. As I said before, the eligibility for the expanded child tax credit is so extensive, most of the beneficiaries are not even in poverty.
2. The expensive expanded child tax program would be paid for by the child free, either directly through higher taxes or indirectly through higher inflation and/or interest rates.

About 16 Million Children in Low-Income Families Would Gain in First Year of Bipartisan Child Tax Credit Expansion | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Half a million or more children would be lifted above the poverty line when the proposal is fully in effect in 2025.

www.cbpp.org

Impacts by the Numbers​

The bipartisan Child Tax Credit proposal released by Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Jason Smith, while smaller than the American Rescue Plan expansion, would provide meaningful help to millions of children in families with low incomes, starting in the first year.

• Roughly 16 million children in families with low incomes would benefitfrom the expansion in the first year.
  • That’s more than 80 percent of the 19 million children who currently receive less than the full credit, or none at all, because their families’ incomes are too low. (See Table 1 for state-specific estimates overall and by race and ethnicity.)
  • Nearly 3 million children under age 3 would benefit in the first year.
• The expansion would meaningfully reduce child poverty.
  • In the first year, the expansion would lift as many as 400,000 children above the poverty line. 3 million more children would be made less poor as their incomes rise closer to the poverty line.
  • When the expansion is fully in effect, it would lift some 500,000 or more children above the poverty line. About 5 million more children would be made less poor.
• The expansion would help children of all races and ethnicities. It would particularly help groups where parents are overrepresented in low-paid jobs due to historical and ongoing discrimination and other structural barriers to opportunity. In the first year:
  • Overall, more than 1 in 5 children under 17 would benefit from the expansion.
  • More than 1 in 3 of all Black and Latino children under 17 would benefit.
  • 3 in 10 of all American Indian and Alaska Native children under 17 would benefit.
  • 1 in 7 of all white and Asian children under 17 would benefit.
• The expansion would meaningfully helpmillions of children in families with low incomes. Of the about 16 million children who would benefit in the first year:
  • Half live in families that gain $630 or more.
  • 40 percent live in families that gain $1,000 or more.
  • 25 percent live in families that gain $1,400 or more.
  • Half of the children who benefit and who live in families with more than one child would see their families gain $1,000 or more.
• Consider the following examples of families that would benefit from the expansion:
  • A single parent with two children who earns $13,000 working part time as a home health aide would see their credit double (a $1,575 gain) in the first year.
  • A single parent with two children who earns $22,000 as a child care worker would gain $675 in the first year.
  • A married couple — with one parent earning $32,000 as a nursing assistant and the other parent staying home to take care of their three young children — would gain $975 in the first year.

Good heavens! How do they deserve such a fortune?

For fuck's sake, show us any family making $400k receiving the above benefits.

Not the other benefits, but the cutoff for the expanded child tax credit is $400k.

Families making $400k probably pay far more in income taxes than they would receive in the extremely small amount of the tax credit such a family would receive. The higher the income, the lower the credit.