American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The compromise was the $3.5T package. Progressives came down from $10T to $6T to $3.5T. I'm hoping they continue to hold the line and force Manchin and Sinema to vote against it.

so that Trump and the GOP have a better chance of being reelected while both Manchin and Sinema look like hero's to their constituent's and ordinary Americans get nothing, or is there some other objective I'm not aware of here?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The compromise was the $3.5T package. Progressives came down from $10T to $6T to $3.5T. I'm hoping they continue to hold the line and force Manchin and Sinema to vote against it.

So you'd rather nothing pass rather than smaller improvements? Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And pretty sure voting against it would be good politically for manchin given you'll never get another democrat voted in West Virginia.

[nfotiu]

The whole thing is a boondoggle, and I don't know who's to blame? Probably Biden, Pelosi, the progressives, and Manchin/Sinema are all guilty.

The marketing of these bills is terrible. What are they even trying to sell? A 5 trillion dollar spending bill and a x trillion dollar infrastructure bill? Why is anyone supposed to get excited about these? Does anyone even know what is really in them? What problems are they going to solve for all this money? All we know is that they're really expensive and no one really knows why they should want them.

[Azure]

Break down the details of the bill. There are billions of dollars flowing into the big players states. As soon as that happens the whole thing is almost certainly corrupt.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I mean if they don't do anything on climate change, it's all kind of moot.

Guess what? It's the Republicans preventing that. Again, that's how governance works down here.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Those seem like reasonable compromises and Biden trying to get some compromises to get a deal seems like the job he was elected to do.

Free community college doesn't really seem like a winning policy anyway. It's basically free up to middle class families anyway. I have a step daughter in community college. they calculate her fees based on my wife and her ex's income and she pays no tuition, gets credit on her books and some money for living expenses.

Also community colleges classes are pretty packed already and you have to be on top of registration to even get in all your classes. Making it free for everyone would stress the system even more.

It's an idea that sounds good, but in practice wouldn't help too many people and might cause more problems than it fixes.

There's the problem, you're expecting there to be compromise, but rubecube believes the "progressives" should be able to just ram things through, since Biden is in the White House and all.

To your comments on community college, it does vary by system, but generally speaking, your anecdotal evidence is not the way it is for the vast majority of the country or students. Community college is the much more affordable method of going to school, driving the cost per credit hour down to double digits at some institutions, but still averaging $135 per credit hour. Conversely, the cost per credit hour to go to a four year degree granting institution has reached $594 per credit hour on average. Community colleges do try to provide a plethora of scholarship opportunities to drive those costs further down, and a very small percentage get a free ride, but it is far from free for most students to go to school.

I don't know what type of arrangement your step daughter has, but that is a very unique situation. The only means testing I have seen for students and their parents' income is for receiving student loans, or being gifted through the college foundation (scholarship for disadvantaged students). That doesn't seem consistent with Virginia's Community College's policies. Here's the numbers for students in Virginia, and by college.

VCCS - $154 per credit hour ($354 out of state)
BRCC - $154 per credit hour ($330 out of state)
CVCC - $161 per credit hour ($362 out of state)
NVCC - $180 per credit hour ($360 out of state)
VHCC - $157 per credit hour ($357 out of state)
RCC - $158 per credit hour ($335 out of state)
J.SRCC - $158 per credit hour ($358 out of state)
VWCC - $156 per credit hour ($356 out of state)
PGCC - $155 per credit hour ($355 out of state)

While those numbers are way below the $594 average at a four year degree institution, they are far from free. The average student is still going to face a bill of around $10K to complete their associates degree, and that does not include costs of labs, books, and living expenses. Way cheaper than going to even a state school, but still a hefty price when all you're doing is completing your lower division credits and have no actual specialization.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Guess what? It's the Republicans preventing that. Again, that's how governance works down here.



There's the problem, you're expecting there to be compromise, but rubecube believes the "progressives" should be able to just ram things through, since Biden is in the White House and all.

To your comments on community college, it does vary by system, but generally speaking, your anecdotal evidence is not the way it is for the vast majority of the country or students. Community college is the much more affordable method of going to school, driving the cost per credit hour down to double digits at some institutions, but still averaging $135 per credit hour. Conversely, the cost per credit hour to go to a four year degree granting institution has reached $594 per credit hour on average. Community colleges do try to provide a plethora of scholarship opportunities to drive those costs further down, and a very small percentage get a free ride, but it is far from free for most students to go to school.

I don't know what type of arrangement your step daughter has, but that is a very unique situation. The only means testing I have seen for students and their parents' income is for receiving student loans, or being gifted through the college foundation (scholarship for disadvantaged students). That doesn't seem consistent with Virginia's Community College's policies. Here's the numbers for students in Virginia, and by college.

VCCS - $154 per credit hour ($354 out of state)
BRCC - $154 per credit hour ($330 out of state)
CVCC - $161 per credit hour ($362 out of state)
NVCC - $180 per credit hour ($360 out of state)
VHCC - $157 per credit hour ($357 out of state)
RCC - $158 per credit hour ($335 out of state)
J.SRCC - $158 per credit hour ($358 out of state)
VWCC - $156 per credit hour ($356 out of state)
PGCC - $155 per credit hour ($355 out of state)

While those numbers are way below the $594 average at a four year degree institution, they are far from free. The average student is still going to face a bill of around $10K to complete their associates degree, and that does not include costs of labs, books, and living expenses. Way cheaper than going to even a state school, but still a hefty price when all you're doing is completing your lower division credits and have no actual specialization.

The prices you quoted are what we expected to pay. However after filling out the overly complicated FAFSA forms, tuition and books were fully re-imbursed by grants, and she gets a $1470 check for living and school expenses per semester. There's nothing really special about her case as far as I can tell, other than having low income parents. Her mom makes about $45k/year, Dad doesn't claim much income, and my income doesn't count.

Parents I talk to with kids in 4 year colleges often pay no where near the posted rates for tuition either, and that includes parents with professional salaries. It doesn't seem anyone really knows what they are going to pay until they fill out the FAFSA forms.

The system is way overly complicated, and impossible to figure out why or what you have to pay, but at least in Virginia, low income families are not paying much or anything at all for community college.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

so that Trump and the GOP have a better chance of being reelected while both Manchin and Sinema look like hero's to their constituent's and ordinary Americans get nothing, or is there some other objective I'm not aware of here?

The policies contained in the bill are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Sinema has already come out of this looking horrible.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

So you'd rather nothing pass rather than smaller improvements? Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And pretty sure voting against it would be good politically for manchin given you'll never get another democrat voted in West Virginia.

And this is exactly how the Democrats manufacture consent to get nothing substantive done. How much ground should progressives concede on this? They've already conceded 70%. If you truly believe progressives are bad guys here for fighting for climate change and policies that are popular with an overwhelming majority of Americans, you're being duped.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The whole thing is a boondoggle, and I don't know who's to blame? Probably Biden, Pelosi, the progressives, and Manchin/Sinema are all guilty.

How are progressives to blame here? They've negotiated in good faith and been completely reasonable the entire time. The goal of Pelosi, Biden, etc., is to break the backs of progressives and make them kneel. If they're successful at doing so, you can basically seal the door on the working class voters voting D, and progressives will either likely become apathetic or one-issue voters.

The marketing of these bills is terrible. What are they even trying to sell? A 5 trillion dollar spending bill and a x trillion dollar infrastructure bill? Why is anyone supposed to get excited about these?

Have you asked yourself why the MSM, including the liberal outlets, aren't bothering to report on what's in the bill?

Corporate Dems do not want this bill because they've had money flying in from their donors to persuade them to vote against it.

If the situation were reversed, you can bet your ass Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden would be whipping the hell out of opposition progressives. Why aren't they doing so with Sinema and Manchin?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

There's the problem, you're expecting there to be compromise, but rubecube believes the "progressives" should be able to just ram things through, since Biden is in the White House and all.

And I've said that where exactly?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The policies contained in the bill are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Sinema has already come out of this looking horrible.



And this is exactly how the Democrats manufacture consent to get nothing substantive done. How much ground should progressives concede on this? They've already conceded 70%. If you truly believe progressives are bad guys here for fighting for climate change and policies that are popular with an overwhelming majority of Americans, you're being duped.



How are progressives to blame here? They've negotiated in good faith and been completely reasonable the entire time. The goal of Pelosi, Biden, etc., is to break the backs of progressives and make them kneel. If they're successful at doing so, you can basically seal the door on the working class voters voting D, and progressives will either likely become apathetic or one-issue voters.



Have you asked yourself why the MSM, including the liberal outlets, aren't bothering to report on what's in the bill?

Corporate Dems do not want this bill because they've had money flying in from their donors to persuade them to vote against it.

If the situation were reversed, you can bet your ass Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden would be whipping the hell out of opposition progressives. Why aren't they doing so with Sinema and Manchin?

I share your view that climate change issues are serious and need some real action right away. It should really be out of this bill, and senators should be able to vote on it standalone.


You claim a lot of these social policies are overwhelmingly popular. I'm sure you can show polls that say the idea of some of these things have majority of support. The problem is the implementation and execution of these things is complicated and support starts to fall apart once those details come out.

They have to be implemented well to be popular at the next election, and a lot of well intentioned policies can have very negative consequences on implementation, and those can cost elections too.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The policies contained in the bill are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Sinema has already come out of this looking horrible.



And this is exactly how the Democrats manufacture consent to get nothing substantive done. How much ground should progressives concede on this? They've already conceded 70%. If you truly believe progressives are bad guys here for fighting for climate change and policies that are popular with an overwhelming majority of Americans, you're being duped.



How are progressives to blame here? They've negotiated in good faith and been completely reasonable the entire time. The goal of Pelosi, Biden, etc., is to break the backs of progressives and make them kneel. If they're successful at doing so, you can basically seal the door on the working class voters voting D, and progressives will either likely become apathetic or one-issue voters.



Have you asked yourself why the MSM, including the liberal outlets, aren't bothering to report on what's in the bill?

Corporate Dems do not want this bill because they've had money flying in from their donors to persuade them to vote against it.

If the situation were reversed, you can bet your ass Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden would be whipping the hell out of opposition progressives. Why aren't they doing so with Sinema and Manchin?

I'd rather get 15% than 0%. But I guess throwing a fit works too.

And you can't do anything to Manchin. He's a West Virginia democrat. He can do whatever he wants. There is 0% chance the democrats could get anyone else elected in West Virginia. He's the 50th vote and you've got nothing to leverage against the guy.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The prices you quoted are what we expected to pay. However after filling out the overly complicated FAFSA forms, tuition and books were fully re-imbursed by grants, and she gets a $1470 check for living and school expenses per semester. There's nothing really special about her case as far as I can tell, other than having low income parents. Her mom makes about $45k/year, Dad doesn't claim much income, and my income doesn't count.

Parents I talk to with kids in 4 year colleges often pay no where near the posted rates for tuition either, and that includes parents with professional salaries. It doesn't seem anyone really knows what they are going to pay until they fill out the FAFSA forms.

The system is way overly complicated, and impossible to figure out why or what you have to pay, but at least in Virginia, low income families are not paying much or anything at all for community college.

Okay, that's a pretty significant shift of the goalposts. For our Canadian readers, FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) is a form that all students are expected to complete and is the means test to determine access to federal grants and student loan availability. If you come from a poor family, you have access to a number of funding options, most notably the Pell Grant, that can reduce your tuition expense. You must be considered economically challenged (poor) and meet a number of means tests. Again, this is for poor families. Pell grants are given on a sliding scale, so she may be receiving some grants and loans. Those with the means have their grants applied and then the balance put through to a student loan program, many times with the recipient unaware of terms and conditions. Those loans can end up in a number of products like Stafford loans (for the poor), direct and indirect subsidized loans, or parent plus loans, where the parents are on the hook for the debt. In all cases the cost of tuition and a living expense is included, so a student gets their classes paid for and then gets a check for cash in hand (a bad practice). The whole FAFSA process is complex and part of the problem IMO. I would be certain to make sure that she is not receiving a Pell grant and has a backend loan on top of it, because the process is the same and the outcomes appear to the recipient that they are receiving a free education, when they have a loan to worry about at the end. If she signed a promissory note as part of the FAFSA process, usually near the end of the process, there's a loan attached.

It should be noted that Pell grants pay a maximum of $5,500, with the average grant being $3,600. Again, these are for poor families and require proof of income, or lack there of. The Stafford loans are low interest loans and can be subsidized or unsubsidized, subsidized meaning the interest is paid by the government while you are in school. The benefit being the low interest rate.

I would verify what she's got cooked up and where she is receiving funding and from whom. Based on the numbers you've thrown out, she should have some loan on the backend. Unless the Virginia community colleges system has given her a number of scholarships to cover the rest of her costs, there's something hidden there. This is part of that student loan crisis that has exploded around the country. The FAFSA process makes it way too easy to have loans slipped into the process and students rack up debit they are unaware of until they get close to graduation and have the bills come rolling in. Verify just for your peace of mind, because the numbers don't seem to stack up. Of course, I'm basing this off what students in Arizona get, and $45K in AZ is a pretty decent income. In VA, that's probably more like $25K out here, so there may be more to the Grant. I'd still verify just to be safe.

Bottom line, the system is very much broken, and while you believe you are getting a free education, the reality is you aren't. FAFSA is a terrible process. For many students, including poor students, there is a rude awakening at the end of the pursuit of the degree, which is why there is $1.7 trillion in student debt, and a disproportionate amount of it is to poor and disadvantaged families.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And I've said that where exactly?

Where haven't you? Just look at the post above the one I just quoted.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Okay, that's a pretty significant shift of the goalposts. For our Canadian readers, FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) is a form that all students are expected to complete and is the means test to determine access to federal grants and student loan availability. If you come from a poor family, you have access to a number of funding options, most notably the Pell Grant, that can reduce your tuition expense. You must be considered economically challenged (poor) and meet a number of means tests. Again, this is for poor families. Pell grants are given on a sliding scale, so she may be receiving some grants and loans. Those with the means have their grants applied and then the balance put through to a student loan program, many times with the recipient unaware of terms and conditions. Those loans can end up in a number of products like Stafford loans (for the poor), direct and indirect subsidized loans, or parent plus loans, where the parents are on the hook for the debt. In all cases the cost of tuition and a living expense is included, so a student gets their classes paid for and then gets a check for cash in hand (a bad practice). The whole FAFSA process is complex and part of the problem IMO. I would be certain to make sure that she is not receiving a Pell grant and has a backend loan on top of it, because the process is the same and the outcomes appear to the recipient that they are receiving a free education, when they have a loan to worry about at the end. If she signed a promissory note as part of the FAFSA process, usually near the end of the process, there's a loan attached.

It should be noted that Pell grants pay a maximum of $5,500, with the average grant being $3,600. Again, these are for poor families and require proof of income, or lack there of. The Stafford loans are low interest loans and can be subsidized or unsubsidized, subsidized meaning the interest is paid by the government while you are in school. The benefit being the low interest rate.

I would verify what she's got cooked up and where she is receiving funding and from whom. Based on the numbers you've thrown out, she should have some loan on the backend. Unless the Virginia community colleges system has given her a number of scholarships to cover the rest of her costs, there's something hidden there. This is part of that student loan crisis that has exploded around the country. The FAFSA process makes it way too easy to have loans slipped into the process and students rack up debit they are unaware of until they get close to graduation and have the bills come rolling in. Verify just for your peace of mind, because the numbers don't seem to stack up. Of course, I'm basing this off what students in Arizona get, and $45K in AZ is a pretty decent income. In VA, that's probably more like $25K out here, so there may be more to the Grant. I'd still verify just to be safe.

Bottom line, the system is very much broken, and while you believe you are getting a free education, the reality is you aren't. FAFSA is a terrible process. For many students, including poor students, there is a rude awakening at the end of the pursuit of the degree, which is why there is $1.7 trillion in student debt, and a disproportionate amount of it is to poor and disadvantaged families.

She absolutely does not have loans. I checked and verified that much. There was a mixture of grants, and the sneaky loans seem to be more a product of shady private and for profit colleges and not state schools. At least around here.

I can agree that the process is terrible and way too complicated. That would be my biggest complaint about health care in this country too.

Dating a woman for quite a few years who would legally be considered a poor, working single mom gave me a pretty good insight into programs available for an under <$50k year family. Obamacare was fantastic for that income level if you can navigate the forms and make the good choices, and make just enough to be over the medicaid threshold, but little enough to have subsidized premiums and copays. College is very affordable for that income level if your kid has the means to do well enough in school and take the time for college, and you can figure out how to fill out the forms. College tuition is rarely the obstacle that would or should keep a low income kid out of going to college.

There are good social programs for that level of income in this country or at least in our state. But they are a mess to navigate, and once you get up into the $50k-$100k income level, they disappear quickly, and those families aren't really making enough to afford those things easily.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'd rather get 15% than 0%. But I guess throwing a fit works too.

It shows you have some and won't be walked all over. The centrist wing of the party completely stabbed the progressive wing of the party in the back on this.

Why would anyone take progressive opposition seriously after this if they know they can just offer crumbs and the progressives will just wilt because "something is better than nothing."

Furthermore, if you're a progressive or working class voter, why would you believe a single thing the Democrats promise you after this? Biden nailed the vaccine rollout and parts of the American recovery stuff, but most of those benefits have now expired, and there really hasn't been anything substantive passed since.

If you look ahead to 2022, you're basically banking on voters still being mad/scared of Trump and the GOP to maintain control of the House and Senate, and I just don't see that as a winning strategy. What can the Democrats point to so far to say they've accomplished that has made a tangible difference in the lives of working class people?

And you can't do anything to Manchin. He's a West Virginia democrat. He can do whatever he wants. There is 0% chance the democrats could get anyone else elected in West Virginia. He's the 50th vote and you've got nothing to leverage against the guy.

There are absolutely things you can do to put pressure on Manchin. Senators crave visibility (visibility = money), so start by taking him off various committees, etc., to remove that visibility. We both know McConnell would be absolutely ruthless at whipping the votes if the GOP were in power. It might not work, but at least you can say you've made an attempt.

From what I've been reading, Manchin tends to fall in line when he gets told to and it's time to vote. It's Sinema who's the bigger issue.

[Lanny_McDonald]

^^^ Because the progressive segment of the party is very small and an ineffective block in establishing governance? Majorities make things happen, and when you're a small minority you are nothing but noise in the signal. When you're small you have to find wins where you can. Pick ONE issue and make sure you get the ONE win. Picking a laundry list and not having any major influence guarantees you get nothing you want.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

^^^ Because the progressive segment of the party is very small and an ineffective block in establishing governance? Majorities make things happen, and when you're a small minority you are nothing but noise in the signal. When you're small you have to find wins where you can. Pick ONE issue and make sure you get the ONE win. Picking a laundry list and not having any major influence guarantees you get nothing you want.

I actually agree with this to some extent. They should have set an immovable target on climate change and hammered away at the messaging on it.

That said, here's a brief guide of what's in the bill:

What’s in it?
Universal preschool for children

Biden’s 2020 presidential platform included a guarantee of preschool for all US children aged three and four. With the legislation, Biden hopes to make that plan a reality. Families can either choose to send their young children to a publicly funded preschool program or to any number of the privately run preschool programs already available. But those who do not choose to enroll in a public preschool would still have to pay the tuition or enrollment fees associated with that private institution.

For the families that choose the public preschool route, the White House estimates it would save them $13,000 a year.

Free community college

Another life-altering education element of the Build Back Better proposal is two years of free community college, which could bridge a wide gap for those socioeconomically disadvantaged by giving them a path to an associate’s degree or to a four-year college. Several cities across the US, including Buffalo, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle have already implemented a version of free community college, but this plan would make it the nationwide standard.

Expanded Medicare services and Medicaid

Medicare is the government-run healthcare program for those ages 65 and over. The passage of Build Back Better would expand Medicare services to cover vision, hearing and dental health needs, which it currently does not.

Medicaid is the government-run healthcare program for low-income families and disabled people who may be unable to get private insurance. This bill would remove certain income and health limitations to allow more people to qualify for the first time.

Lower prescription drug costs

Prescription drugs in the US are more than 2.5 times more expensive on average than prescriptions drugs in the rest in the world. The US ranks first in the cost of prescription drugs like insulin and epinephrine. The reason? Right now, pharmaceutical companies can determine the price of drugs because the US lacks price controls. In addition to expanding Medicare services, Build Back Better would give Medicare (AKA the government) bargaining power to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs with pharmaceutical companies for the first time to bring prices down.

Tax cuts for families with children and childcare support

Build Back Better would increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000 for children ages six and older. The new tax credit for children under the age of six would be $3,600. The credit comes in the form of monthly checks, so that parents and caregivers do not have to front the cost of childcare. Poverty experts believe it would cut child poverty in half, lifting 5 million children out of poverty. The bill also offers additional childcare support based on state median income.

12 weeks of paid family leave

The US is the only industrialized country to not offer paid family leave, or paid time off after adopting, fostering or giving birth to a new child. While some private companies offer this as a perk to their employees, Build Back Better would ensure all new working parents and caregivers job security and almost three months of at least partial paid time off after these major life events.

It would also guarantee all workers at least three days of bereavement leave in the event of a death in the family.

Housing investments

Build Back Better would invest in the production, preservation and retrofitting of more than a million affordable rental housing units and 500,000 homes for low- and middle-income aspiring homebuyers, as well as increase rental assistance agreements.

Tax cuts for electric vehicles and other climate incentives

A tax credit of at least $4,000 would be on offer for those buying an electric vehicle. If the car is bought before 2027, there would be an additional tax credit of $3,500. If the car was made in the US, there would be $4,500 added on top of that. In total, a taxpayer in the US could expect a maximum of $12,500 in tax credits for purchasing an electrical vehicle under these conditions – a weighty incentive to switch from a gas-fueled engine to one better for the planet.

Biden’s bill also includes tax credits and grants for businesses and communities working towards clean energy initiatives. The Civilian Climate Corps, a government workforce dedicated to environment protection and conservation reminiscent of Franklin D Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, would be relaunched and funded with $10bn behind it.

Additionally, utility companies would be subject to a system of payments and fines to clean up emissions from fossil fuels. Over time, these companies would be required to phase in renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. However, much of this plan is reportedly under threat as negotiations on the bill continue.

Considering all of these were in Biden's platform, which ones do you think they should cut out of the bill?

[rubecube]

Are we just about done trying to rehab these absolute pieces of ####?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1450869132782616576

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Considering all of these were in Biden's platform, which ones do you think they should cut out of the bill?

All of it. They are causing their own failure by wrapping all of these issues together into one massive number that will be used as a blunt instrument to show the American people how wrong the Democrats, and their socialist agenda is for the nation.

They should be breaking these issues out into individual bills and issues, then using the Republicans' work against these initiatives as the blunt instrument to damage them. Who doesn't want to resolve climate change and damn the world to destruction, ruining the future for your children and grand children? The Republicans. Who doesn't want to fix our education system and stem the problem of the country tumbling toward Idiocracy? The Republicans. And so on, and so on. Wrapping all of these issues together is just a way of guaranteeing failure and providing the Republicans the road map and talking points to crush the Democrats.

You know, it's almost like these two parties have the same end goals in mind and are just putting on some kabuki theatre to make the people believe they care, when they really don't. Putting all of these things together in a massive spending bill like this - the largest ever - is just a certain way for it to fail. The Republicans know this. The Democrats know this. It's like they are doing this just to make sure these issues all fail as quickly and publicly as possible, and extending a middle finger to the people in need at the same time. I mean it is so obvious that these should be individual bills and policy decisions, but that would mean public debate on them, and neither party wants that. Hence the omnibus bill. You would have to be paying attention to make that connection, but not too many people are paying attention to the details of the process to recognize this obvious fatal flaw.

[rubecube]

So let's look at the polling numbers for the proposals in the $3T deal:

Child-tax credit:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bid...rs-2021-09-15/

The current expanded tax credit has proven popular, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found, supported by 59% of U.S. adults including 75% of people who identified themselves as Democrats and 41% of people who identified as Republicans. The poll was conducted online Sept. 9-10, based on responses from 1,003 adults and with a credibility interval of 4 percentage points.

The policy's support among Republicans far outstripped their 11% backing for Biden's overall job performance in a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Universal pre-k:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...ed-11619630948

Almost the same exact shares of Republican and Democratic voters (73% and 95%, respectively) want universal pre-K programs that would function like public K-12 schools whereby the programs would bear no additional cost to child care providers.

"Free" community college:

Spoiler!

Lower prescription drug costs (specifically allowing the gov't to negotiate with drug companies to get a lower price on Rx drugs that would apply to both Medicare and private insurance ):

83% in favour.

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/pol...-their-prices/

Paid family leave:

https://www.nationalpartnership.org/...ical-leave.pdf

87% among Democrats
71% among Independents
70% among Republicans
78% among Moderate Republicans

Housing:

https://nlihc.org/resource/poll-reve...-affordability

The Opportunity Starts at Home campaign recently released the results of a national opinion poll revealing that the public is deeply concerned about the housing affordability crisis and favors decisive government action. The Tarrance Group, one of the most widely respected Republican strategic research and polling firms in the nation, conducted the poll on behalf of the campaign and found that nearly 9 in 10 (89%) respondents – including 76% of Republicans – believe the role of government is important when it comes to making sure there is enough affordable housing.

Strong bipartisan majorities favor policies designed to address housing affordability and stability. Specific findings include:

74% support policies that expand investments in housing development programs that will build more housing units that are affordable for low-income people (88% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans)

72% support policies that provide emergency crisis assistance for households with the lowest incomes to help cover the rent if they experience an unexpected economic hardship (86% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans)

68% support policies that expand funding for rental assistance to ensure that the approximately 17 million households who currently qualify for rental assistance but are not receiving it get that assistance (87% of Democrats, 54% of Independents, and 55% of Republicans)

68% support policies that expand funding to provide critical infrastructure repairs to public housing units, addressing a $70 billion backlog of needs (83% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans)

Keep in mind, that almost the entire $3T package is paid for, with only a slight increase to the deficit.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

All of it. They are causing their own failure by wrapping all of these issues together into one massive number that will be used as a blunt instrument to show the American people how wrong the Democrats, and their socialist agenda is for the nation.

They should be breaking these issues out into individual bills and issues, then using the Republicans' work against these initiatives as the blunt instrument to damage them. Who doesn't want to resolve climate change and damn the world to destruction, ruining the future for your children and grand children? The Republicans. Who doesn't want to fix our education system and stem the problem of the country tumbling toward Idiocracy? The Republicans. And so on, and so on. Wrapping all of these issues together is just a way of guaranteeing failure and providing the Republicans the road map and talking points to crush the Democrats.

But the reality is that they'll never get passed on their own.

You know, it's almost like these two parties have the same end goals in mind and are just putting on some kabuki theatre to make the people believe they care, when they really don't.

Full agreement from me. Pro-wrestling is more authentic than the political theatre in the U.S.