Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard they're dropping Paid Leave from the BBB bill. Personally I think that and subsidized child care should go.

Focus on getting universal pre-school paid for which is formative for early education. I could take or leave community college. Child tax credits can stay but with an employment requirement and a limit on number of kids - I don't care of its a limit of 8 or 10 but SOME LIMIT in place.

I think the community college one is one of the most important. It gives people a path to save on university costs and builds up a hub to help the broader community. So much could be done with it long term if the base funding is fixed.

Yeah, im down for a four kid limit on the kids credit. Dont let it become a moneymaking scam like homeschool (some people take bigly advantage and give the legit homeschool parents a bad name). I dont think conditionality is ever a good idea.

Conditionality? You mean the employment requirement?

Yes. Employment requirement and means testing. If it's a public virtue then it should be universal. Adding complexity adds costs, degrades the meaning/purpose, and transforms it from a public policy to a government handout.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard they're dropping Paid Leave from the BBB bill. Personally I think that and subsidized child care should go.

Focus on getting universal pre-school paid for which is formative for early education. I could take or leave community college. Child tax credits can stay but with an employment requirement and a limit on number of kids - I don't care of its a limit of 8 or 10 but SOME LIMIT in place.

I think the community college one is one of the most important. It gives people a path to save on university costs and builds up a hub to help the broader community. So much could be done with it long term if the base funding is fixed.

Yeah, im down for a four kid limit on the kids credit. Dont let it become a moneymaking scam like homeschool (some people take bigly advantage and give the legit homeschool parents a bad name). I dont think conditionality is ever a good idea.

Conditionality? You mean the employment requirement?

Anonymous wrote:I heard they're dropping Paid Leave from the BBB bill. Personally I think that and subsidized child care should go.

Focus on getting universal pre-school paid for which is formative for early education. I could take or leave community college. Child tax credits can stay but with an employment requirement and a limit on number of kids - I don't care of its a limit of 8 or 10 but SOME LIMIT in place.

I think the community college one is one of the most important. It gives people a path to save on university costs and builds up a hub to help the broader community. So much could be done with it long term if the base funding is fixed.

Yeah, im down for a four kid limit on the kids credit. Dont let it become a moneymaking scam like homeschool (some people take bigly advantage and give the legit homeschool parents a bad name). I dont think conditionality is ever a good idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you know "nobody" wants these things? Where is there specific polling on them? Just because GOP members of congress don't want them doesn't mean their constituents don't want them. Long history of GOP not delivering on what their constituents need - red districts typically lag far behind blue districts on healthcare, college access, economic development, etc...

NP. Why not publish a list of proposals accounting for every penny and then another list of how these spending proposals will be paid for? I think if people saw that there would be more excitement for the bill. Does one already exist and I missed it?

Because the details of many of them have not been finalized yet and publishing them locks in their negotiating position. Theyve published the broad stroke outlines. I agree with you though. Show the dang cards already.

Manchin says no deal before Halloween. Which means Biden's leaving for Europe with his entire Cabinet, a supply chain crisis, and still neither Infrastructure passed nor the BBB bill.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/577260-manchin-on-finishing-agenda-by-halloween-i-dont-know-how-that-would-happen

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you know "nobody" wants these things? Where is there specific polling on them? Just because GOP members of congress don't want them doesn't mean their constituents don't want them. Long history of GOP not delivering on what their constituents need - red districts typically lag far behind blue districts on healthcare, college access, economic development, etc...

NP. Why not publish a list of proposals accounting for every penny and then another list of how these spending proposals will be paid for? I think if people saw that there would be more excitement for the bill. Does one already exist and I missed it?

Yeah, you missed it. And particularly, you missed the part where the proposals were laid out showing how it would be paid for by taxes and other revenue and have zero net cost. Conservative media made idiots of themselves for mocking analysts who said no cost "OH HOW CAN IT NOT COST ANYTHING!", not understanding the concept of NET cost. Along with also consistently getting things wrong, like the fact that it's $3.5T expense (offset by revenue) OVER 10 YEARS ($350B a year) plus huge ROI returns, as opposed to Trump who increased the debt by $7T with zero offset and little to show for it.

Seriously, the party that's supposed to be the party of business is so damn embarrassing to the world when they demonstrate their failure to understand basic business concepts like net cost (vs gross expenditure) and ROI.

Anonymous wrote:How do you know "nobody" wants these things? Where is there specific polling on them? Just because GOP members of congress don't want them doesn't mean their constituents don't want them. Long history of GOP not delivering on what their constituents need - red districts typically lag far behind blue districts on healthcare, college access, economic development, etc...

NP. Why not publish a list of proposals accounting for every penny and then another list of how these spending proposals will be paid for? I think if people saw that there would be more excitement for the bill. Does one already exist and I missed it?

How do you know "nobody" wants these things? Where is there specific polling on them? Just because GOP members of congress don't want them doesn't mean their constituents don't want them. Long history of GOP not delivering on what their constituents need - red districts typically lag far behind blue districts on healthcare, college access, economic development, etc...

I heard they're dropping Paid Leave from the BBB bill. Personally I think that and subsidized child care should go.

Focus on getting universal pre-school paid for which is formative for early education. I could take or leave community college. Child tax credits can stay but with an employment requirement and a limit on number of kids - I don't care of its a limit of 8 or 10 but SOME LIMIT in place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah…we’ve been saying that for weeks. Meanwhile ACTUAL Infrastruture has a bill and it passed the Senate.

An ACTUAL infrastructure bill should also address energy but that part's been poisoned by Manchin and the Republicans in order to appease their fossil fuel donors so that we can continue clinging to crumbling 70-year-old coal plants.

Yeah well the progressives decided to laden down an energy proposal with unpassable social welfare junk so talk to them. Tell them to craft a Clean Energy and Climate Change only bill and whip the votes for it.

What *specific* "unpassable social welfare junk" items need to be removed, and why?

Here's your answer -

Too much shackled to actual Infrastructure that no one wants. Including $1.8 Trillion that they haven't even explained what they want to do with. They've had 8 months, stop hanging us up.

You cut these three things, its $2.6 trillion in expenditures gone, and a lean $900 billion 'Build Back Better' proposal which still tackles environmental concerns and clean energy. Which is INFRASTRUCTURE.

$1.8 trillion for the Finance Committee. This part of the bill is for investments in working families, the elderly, and the environment. It includes a tax cut for Americans making less than $400,000 a year, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

$726 billion for the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee. This addresses universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds, childcare for working families, tuition-free community college, funding for historically black colleges and universities, and an expansion of the Pell Grant for higher education.

$107 billion for the Judiciary Committee. These funds address establishing "lawful permanent status for qualified immigrants."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah…we’ve been saying that for weeks. Meanwhile ACTUAL Infrastruture has a bill and it passed the Senate.

An ACTUAL infrastructure bill should also address energy but that part's been poisoned by Manchin and the Republicans in order to appease their fossil fuel donors so that we can continue clinging to crumbling 70-year-old coal plants.

Yeah well the progressives decided to laden down an energy proposal with unpassable social welfare junk so talk to them. Tell them to craft a Clean Energy and Climate Change only bill and whip the votes for it.

Republicans won't vote for an energy infrastructure bill unless it doubles down on antiquated, polluting coal technology

There's like 6 coal plants in the U.S. Republicans are about money. Give them a reason to support clean energy - like Tesla moving his production factories and a billion-dollar business to Texas - and they will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah…we’ve been saying that for weeks. Meanwhile ACTUAL Infrastruture has a bill and it passed the Senate.

An ACTUAL infrastructure bill should also address energy but that part's been poisoned by Manchin and the Republicans in order to appease their fossil fuel donors so that we can continue clinging to crumbling 70-year-old coal plants.

Yeah well the progressives decided to laden down an energy proposal with unpassable social welfare junk so talk to them. Tell them to craft a Clean Energy and Climate Change only bill and whip the votes for it.

What *specific* "unpassable social welfare junk" items need to be removed, and why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah…we’ve been saying that for weeks. Meanwhile ACTUAL Infrastruture has a bill and it passed the Senate.

An ACTUAL infrastructure bill should also address energy but that part's been poisoned by Manchin and the Republicans in order to appease their fossil fuel donors so that we can continue clinging to crumbling 70-year-old coal plants.

Yeah well the progressives decided to laden down an energy proposal with unpassable social welfare junk so talk to them. Tell them to craft a Clean Energy and Climate Change only bill and whip the votes for it.

Republicans won't vote for an energy infrastructure bill unless it doubles down on antiquated, polluting coal technology

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah…we’ve been saying that for weeks. Meanwhile ACTUAL Infrastruture has a bill and it passed the Senate.

An ACTUAL infrastructure bill should also address energy but that part's been poisoned by Manchin and the Republicans in order to appease their fossil fuel donors so that we can continue clinging to crumbling 70-year-old coal plants.

Yeah well the progressives decided to laden down an energy proposal with unpassable social welfare junk so talk to them. Tell them to craft a Clean Energy and Climate Change only bill and whip the votes for it.

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah…we’ve been saying that for weeks. Meanwhile ACTUAL Infrastruture has a bill and it passed the Senate.

An ACTUAL infrastructure bill should also address energy but that part's been poisoned by Manchin and the Republicans in order to appease their fossil fuel donors so that we can continue clinging to crumbling 70-year-old coal plants.