TenderLovingKiller®
Well-Known Member
I guess reneging on a $77 Billion dollar Sub deal really pissed off France…
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
BazookaTooth
Well-Known Member
The Boston Herald had a very damning article yesterday about how public transportation in Massachusetts was on course for fiscal calamity by 2023.
www.bostonherald.com
Many people don't know this, but back in the 90's a large portion of the "Big Dig" debt was passed off to the MBTA by lawmakers to pay out of their operating budget for the next 50 years. This was a poison pill for the MBTA.
During much of the 80's and 90's the MBTA did the bare minimum for infrastructure maintenance. Patches here and there but no proper repairs or replacements. Money was tight in this time period and ridership was declining. Since the late 90's ridership has been steadily increasing, but the poison pill from the big dig has prevented any but small patches to the infrastructure for the last 20 years. This means we have seen 40 years of not doing proper upkeep to the infrastructure and it's at the breaking point.
in 2019 the MBTA infrastructure reached the breaking point and needed substantial work to keep service running. The governor allotted an additional $16.5 Billion to this but that extra capital has all been erased due to operating losses so far in 2020 and 2021 due to covid.
Service levels are back near pre pandemic levels, but ridership is still well below 50% of pre pandemic levels. Fare evasion is also at an alltime high. The MBTA cannot continue operating as is without substantial service cuts and fare increases which will be very harmful to those who rely on the MBTA most to get to work or the store. Those living in poverty.
No governor or state legislator has tried to solve the issues. They just keep kicking it down the road. Easier to ignore it when there is a lot of opposition from tax payers not wanting their tax dollars going to a service they don't use. No attempt has also been made to payoff or move the big dig debt off the MBTA.
To make matters worse, progressives are currently running on making public transportation free. Have it completely subsidised by taxpayers. While studies show that this would be hugely beneficial to Boston and those living in poverty due to the high cost of living, there is no way to pay for this. Taxpayers want no part of it nor do lawmakers from outside the metro boston area, which is the vast majority of them.
Report: MBTA on course toward ‘fiscal calamity’
As candidates for governor and mayor of Boston tout plans for fare-free public transit before the end of the decade, a new report suggests the MBTA could be facing a “fiscal calamity” i…
www.bostonherald.com
Many people don't know this, but back in the 90's a large portion of the "Big Dig" debt was passed off to the MBTA by lawmakers to pay out of their operating budget for the next 50 years. This was a poison pill for the MBTA.
During much of the 80's and 90's the MBTA did the bare minimum for infrastructure maintenance. Patches here and there but no proper repairs or replacements. Money was tight in this time period and ridership was declining. Since the late 90's ridership has been steadily increasing, but the poison pill from the big dig has prevented any but small patches to the infrastructure for the last 20 years. This means we have seen 40 years of not doing proper upkeep to the infrastructure and it's at the breaking point.
in 2019 the MBTA infrastructure reached the breaking point and needed substantial work to keep service running. The governor allotted an additional $16.5 Billion to this but that extra capital has all been erased due to operating losses so far in 2020 and 2021 due to covid.
Service levels are back near pre pandemic levels, but ridership is still well below 50% of pre pandemic levels. Fare evasion is also at an alltime high. The MBTA cannot continue operating as is without substantial service cuts and fare increases which will be very harmful to those who rely on the MBTA most to get to work or the store. Those living in poverty.
No governor or state legislator has tried to solve the issues. They just keep kicking it down the road. Easier to ignore it when there is a lot of opposition from tax payers not wanting their tax dollars going to a service they don't use. No attempt has also been made to payoff or move the big dig debt off the MBTA.
To make matters worse, progressives are currently running on making public transportation free. Have it completely subsidised by taxpayers. While studies show that this would be hugely beneficial to Boston and those living in poverty due to the high cost of living, there is no way to pay for this. Taxpayers want no part of it nor do lawmakers from outside the metro boston area, which is the vast majority of them.
Last edited:
I just read about someone being evicted and it angered me.
The problem was she was single had no kids and was still working. She never lost her job during all of covid, but did see her status cut from full time to part time while living in a high cost of living area thus not being able to make rent even after picking up another job in the food service industry. She started to fall behind in her rent and applied for the government aid for rent.
But she was told there was nothing they could do for her. She was still working, to be eligible she had to be unemployed or have kids. She tried applying through multiple different government agencies and got the same answer. We can't help you. You are not eligible. Her landlord quickly filed for eviction after getting a partial rent payment 3 months in a row and the courts sided with the landlord. She has 60 days to move out which has passed and she's still living there and paying what she can for rent waiting for the day the eviction moratorium ends and the authorities show up to remove her. She can't afford rent anywhere else to move out. She tried getting a roommate and co-signing a lease at a couple places, but was denied because of the eviction on her record.
Having your hours reduced is far more harmful than losing your job, because virtually all aid is not available to you if you are still working.
And people wonder why people on unemployment don't want to take low wage jobs that are available. If they took them, they wouldn't be able to afford to keep a roof over their head and lose their benefits.
The problem was she was single had no kids and was still working. She never lost her job during all of covid, but did see her status cut from full time to part time while living in a high cost of living area thus not being able to make rent even after picking up another job in the food service industry. She started to fall behind in her rent and applied for the government aid for rent.
But she was told there was nothing they could do for her. She was still working, to be eligible she had to be unemployed or have kids. She tried applying through multiple different government agencies and got the same answer. We can't help you. You are not eligible. Her landlord quickly filed for eviction after getting a partial rent payment 3 months in a row and the courts sided with the landlord. She has 60 days to move out which has passed and she's still living there and paying what she can for rent waiting for the day the eviction moratorium ends and the authorities show up to remove her. She can't afford rent anywhere else to move out. She tried getting a roommate and co-signing a lease at a couple places, but was denied because of the eviction on her record.
Having your hours reduced is far more harmful than losing your job, because virtually all aid is not available to you if you are still working.
And people wonder why people on unemployment don't want to take low wage jobs that are available. If they took them, they wouldn't be able to afford to keep a roof over their head and lose their benefits.
Biden and congressional Democrats are talking about wanting to raise taxes on the rich again to help pay for the $3.5 trillion plan to expand the nations social safety net.
They would do this by repealing the portion of the 2018 taxcut that eliminated the top tax bracket for people making over $400,000 a year, $450,000 a year for people filing jointly. This is less than the top 1% of people, but equal to additional trillion dollars of tax revenue for high income Americans each year.
But not unexpected, there is zero Republican support for this in the senate. Even if Democrats are able to get the support of moderate members like Joe Manchin they wouldn't have enough votes to end a filibuster which has already been promised by Republicans if Democrats attempt to raise taxes...
They would do this by repealing the portion of the 2018 taxcut that eliminated the top tax bracket for people making over $400,000 a year, $450,000 a year for people filing jointly. This is less than the top 1% of people, but equal to additional trillion dollars of tax revenue for high income Americans each year.
But not unexpected, there is zero Republican support for this in the senate. Even if Democrats are able to get the support of moderate members like Joe Manchin they wouldn't have enough votes to end a filibuster which has already been promised by Republicans if Democrats attempt to raise taxes...
It's really this bit from the 2017 tax act that is really the issue:
President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) into law on Dec. 22, 2017, bringing sweeping changes to the tax code. How people feel about the $1.5+ trillion overhauls depend largely on their opinion of Trump's presidency. Individually, how the changes were felt depended on factors like income level, filing status, and deductions. Those living in a high-tax state with soaring property values may have paid more in taxes in 2019.
For the wealthy, banks, and other corporations, the tax reform package was considered a lopsided victory given its significant and permanent tax cuts to corporate profits, investment income, estate tax, and more. Financial services companies stood to see huge gains based on the new, lower corporate rate (21%), as well as the more preferable tax treatment of pass-through companies.4
Some banks said their effective tax rate would drop under 21%.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-911586914-d4186dafdd8d4c3f94d4b0077f3c5918.jpg)
Explaining the Trump Tax Reform Plan
President Trump created a sweeping tax overhaul, which rewards the wealthy and corporations the most, has fizzled among voters.
What they eventually say is that this rate was cut from 35% to 21% during the Trump tax cuts. Biden and his crew have been trying to re-raise this to 28% tax and they claim that will pay for this package along with taxing wealthy individuals more. But the problem is that all of our politicians are bought and paid for and thus, cannot raise taxes on corporations without risking campaign funds. No one is willing to take a strong stand on this seeing as it would be political suicide in our current environment.
It's really this bit from the 2017 tax act that is really the issue:
President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) into law on Dec. 22, 2017, bringing sweeping changes to the tax code. How people feel about the $1.5+ trillion overhauls depend largely on their opinion of Trump's presidency. Individually, how the changes were felt depended on factors like income level, filing status, and deductions. Those living in a high-tax state with soaring property values may have paid more in taxes in 2019.
For the wealthy, banks, and other corporations, the tax reform package was considered a lopsided victory given its significant and permanent tax cuts to corporate profits, investment income, estate tax, and more. Financial services companies stood to see huge gains based on the new, lower corporate rate (21%), as well as the more preferable tax treatment of pass-through companies.4
Some banks said their effective tax rate would drop under 21%.
Explaining the Trump Tax Reform Plan
President Trump created a sweeping tax overhaul, which rewards the wealthy and corporations the most, has fizzled among voters.www.investopedia.com
What they eventually say is that this rate was cut from 35% to 21% during the Trump tax cuts. Biden and his crew have been trying to re-raise this to 28% tax and they claim that will pay for this package along with taxing wealthy individuals more. But the problem is that all of our politicians are bought and paid for and thus, cannot raise taxes on corporations without risking campaign funds. No one is willing to take a strong stand on this seeing as it would be political suicide in our current environment.
Actually, according to the CNN article I read it's a different portion of the tax code. They are too afraid to touch the corporate tax cuts. It also has nothing to do with investment income or estate tax. Some house democrats are discussing adding this to the bill. But It's not part of Biden's agenda.
What is is a tax increase for individuals making $400,000 or more a year, or those filing jointly who make $450,000 or more the current tax rate is. This group was taxed at 39% before the tax bracket was eliminated. Now they are taxed at 35%. This is less than 1% of Americans. But the pushback on this change to taxes, or rather reversal of Trump's changes is what is making Republicans revolt. Because for many of them, this would affect their wallet as well as anger wealthy donors.
Sure they will bring in an estimated trillion more in tax revenue. But the ultra wealthy still have the same loopholes to not pay taxes.
Ah, so that's their new angle.
They're too afraid to touch corporate tax rates, so they will try to guilt the wealthy again. The wealthy, however, are really good at tax sheltering money.
TenderLovingKiller®
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I think it likely will be.
Twentytwo
Pre-order Goodness
I can't help but think this all could have been avoided if Ginsberg could have let her ego go and got out during Obama's term. Now democrats and a woman's right to the choose is in a world of crap.
Twentytwo
Pre-order Goodness
Let's have another housing crisis, shall we.
www.cnn.com
Stocks tumble as Wall Street's fears turn to China
The Dow and the broader US stock market fell to close sharply lower Monday as Chinese real estate conglomerate Evergrande's debt crisis made American investors uneasy.
www.cnn.com
A San Antonio doctor wrote a co-op about how he violated Texas' new abortion ban and says bring on the lawsuits. He wants it to be challenged so it can go through the legal process and hopefully be shot down as unconstitutional by the courts.
And now at least two lawsuits has been filed.
So apparently these are the type of people suing under Texas' new law.
It doesn't surprise me that it is corrupt individuals.
And now at least two lawsuits has been filed.
So apparently these are the type of people suing under Texas' new law.
It doesn't surprise me that it is corrupt individuals.
I've been following this. The Chinese government is quietly making billionaires disappear. Go look up Jack Ma (founder of Alibaba) who was trying to get a money lending IPO of the ground last year. I think this was when I noticed all of this officially starting, but the government came out with a statement saying that it was against predatory loaning, and that if Ma wanted to have a money lending app, the Chinese government was going to take everything past 30% (or something like that) making money lending much less lucrative. Ma was basically going to open up a new sector of people who could be preyed upon for silly amounts of interest to the West by making it publicly traded. The Chinese government decided that if anyone was going to profit off of predatory loans, it would only be the government, not private investment, and definitely not Wall Street. After this show down, Ma is rarely seen in public anymore and was mysteriously absent for months after the Chinese government shot down his hopes of a money lending IPO.Let's have another housing crisis, shall we.
Stocks tumble as Wall Street's fears turn to China
The Dow and the broader US stock market fell to close sharply lower Monday as Chinese real estate conglomerate Evergrande's debt crisis made American investors uneasy.
I need to read more about Evergrande because I don't know enough about it. The only thing I know is that it planned to get out of it's debt trouble by selling stocks and the Chinese government isn't really bailing Evergrande out. In fact, it looks like the government might just let it fail as a warning to exploitative investors. China has a plan, and Xi laid out that he wants 80% of all Chinese citizens to be considered middle class. He is really, really big on wealth redistribution. And the Chinese government's way ahead is wrapped up in rhetoric about making a society where all people prosper. China is very much okay with screwing Western investors out of money. Ultimately, I think that China wants to win over the West with their ability to build a stable society. They don't want to fight us. They want to beat us economically, and they have a strategy, which is way more than I can say for any part of the West.
‘Can’t Compete’: Why Hiring for Child Care Is a Huge Struggle (Published 2021)
The Biden administration is trying to address a problem with private child care that has worsened during the pandemic.
Yet child care centers have not responded the way some other industries have — by significantly raising wages and expanding benefits. That’s because of a math problem with the business model.
In the United States, child care for children younger than 5 and before and after school is mostly financed by private tuition. Yet more than 60 percent of families are already paying more than they can afford, according to a report published Wednesday by the Treasury Department. (The Department of Health and Human Services considers child care affordable if it costs families no more than 7 percent of their income.)
Also, the cost of child care increased by half during the pandemic because of new health regulations, including additional staff to keep small groups of children in stable cohorts. States limit the number of children per teacher, so providers can’t bring in more tuition without hiring more workers.
“The free market works well in many different sectors, but child care is not one of them,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Wednesday, speaking about the Biden administration’s spending proposals for education and child care.
“Those who provide child care aren’t paid well, and many who need it can’t afford it,” she said. The Biden plan would make preschool free starting at age 3, subsidize child care before then and raise the minimum wage for child care workers to $15 an hour.
Median pay for childcare workers is just $12.24/hr.
Child care is increasingly a bigger issue to our economy than ever before. Not only can many people who need it can't afford it, as child care can cost more than peoples low wage salary provides them, the pay is absolute crap and workers are leaving left and right. Thus the availability of childcare is dwindling.
Earlier this month I had a discussion with my barber about this. She was going on and on about how all these places, like Dunkin', can't find enough help and have cut their hours back. She was happy that the unemployment benefits were being cut so that she could once again get her afternoon coffee from Dunkin'. That those lazy people who don't want to go back to work will be forced to.
I brought up the issue of childcare and how that may be why many are choosing not to take these low wage jobs or return to the workforce. And to her that was an excuse. "You do what you have to do", whether it's be work a different shift than your spouse, multiple jobs or have your parents / relatives watch our kid. I brought up that that many people don't live by their family anymore, and that there is also a childcare shortage, so even those who could afford it may not be able to find it.
And again, she thought that was a cop out. She says you need to consider these things before having kids. Like planning to live by family. Who in their right mind would move 12 hours away from their nearest family and have kids.
Though, I bet she would be among the first people to say there are plenty of jobs out there if you are unemployed. Pick up and go to where the jobs are available.
I have seen a similar attitude from many Boomers.
1. At one time, I was paying 22% of my income to daycare providers for my children.‘Can’t Compete’: Why Hiring for Child Care Is a Huge Struggle (Published 2021)
The Biden administration is trying to address a problem with private child care that has worsened during the pandemic.www.nytimes.com
Yet child care centers have not responded the way some other industries have — by significantly raising wages and expanding benefits. That’s because of a math problem with the business model.
In the United States, child care for children younger than 5 and before and after school is mostly financed by private tuition. Yet more than 60 percent of families are already paying more than they can afford, according to a report published Wednesday by the Treasury Department. (The Department of Health and Human Services considers child care affordable if it costs families no more than 7 percent of their income.)
Also, the cost of child care increased by half during the pandemic because of new health regulations, including additional staff to keep small groups of children in stable cohorts. States limit the number of children per teacher, so providers can’t bring in more tuition without hiring more workers.
“The free market works well in many different sectors, but child care is not one of them,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Wednesday, speaking about the Biden administration’s spending proposals for education and child care.
“Those who provide child care aren’t paid well, and many who need it can’t afford it,” she said. The Biden plan would make preschool free starting at age 3, subsidize child care before then and raise the minimum wage for child care workers to $15 an hour.
Median pay for childcare workers is just $12.24/hr.
Child care is increasingly a bigger issue to our economy than ever before. Not only can many people who need it can't afford it, as child care can cost more than peoples low wage salary provides them, the pay is absolute crap and workers are leaving left and right. Thus the availability of childcare is dwindling.
Earlier this month I had a discussion with my barber about this. She was going on and on about how all these places, like Dunkin', can't find enough help and have cut their hours back. She was happy that the unemployment benefits were being cut so that she could once again get her afternoon coffee from Dunkin'. That those lazy people who don't want to go back to work will be forced to.
I brought up the issue of childcare and how that may be why many are choosing not to take these low wage jobs or return to the workforce. And to her that was an excuse. "You do what you have to do", whether it's be work a different shift than your spouse, multiple jobs or have your parents / relatives watch our kid. I brought up that that many people don't live by their family anymore, and that there is also a childcare shortage, so even those who could afford it may not be able to find it.
And again, she thought that was a cop out. She says you need to consider these things before having kids. Like planning to live by family. Who in their right mind would move 12 hours away from their nearest family and have kids.
Though, I bet she would be among the first people to say there are plenty of jobs out there if you are unemployed. Pick up and go to where the jobs are available.
I have seen a similar attitude from many Boomers.
2. What free market is Janet Yellen talking about? This isn't a free market problem. This is a "corporations have held wages stagnant for 50 years and now we are seeing the fall out of coupling that with financialized rentierism. Maybe bring back some means of production over here and outlaw much of what private equity does, and we could get ourselves out of this.
Let's consider a friend of mine who has two profoundly Autistic daughters (also remember that ASD has both a genetic and environmental component, and it has been shown that some environmental chemicals including pesticides could increase the incidence of Autism in a population Prenatal and infant exposure to ambient pesticides and autism spectrum disorder in children: population based case-control study). Her daughters go to a school for ASD kids that is paid for by Medicaid. If they had to pay, it would be about $30K per child per year. So she can either work, and not make enough money to send her children to school, but too much money so that her kids no longer qualify for benefits. Or she can not work, and get the school her kids need. Many mothers make this same choice. It's not as stark as what my friend has to do, but many women are left to care for children and elderly. I had a friend who stayed home to care for her great aunt who had mobility issues due to a stroke. She wasn't able to work, and paying for someone to come in and care for her aunt would have cost too much. It's this same story over and over again. The cost of the care ends up being more than the money brought in by a job, which makes the job pointless because it's putting you further in debt.
It's not that people aren't "doing what they have to". On the contrary, they very much are doing exactly what they have to to reduce their debt. It doesn't make sense to work if it's a net negative. That's really the missing piece in your argument. When you look logically at certain situations, the MOST logical answer is not to work. This implies that our system is broken (which I believe that it is). The people who deny this fact are those that are profiting most if the system stays exactly as is--and the only people that are really profiting from this system are people who own shares of stocks on Wall Street. If you point out the system exploits people and creates pollution, the people profiting from the system get very anxious because they should also be responsible for all the waste that the system they champion creates. They are running away from their responsibility to our society and this planet. They rationalize it through a doctrine of personal freedom.
Progressives plan to vote no on the Infrastructure Bill if the $3.5 Trillion package for economic stimulus is first passed. They fear that is the only way to get the other bill to pass at this time and they are serious about not voting for the Infrastructure Bill until that happens.
Meanwhile, political analysts are saying that either bill does not pass by the end of the month, they likely will not for the next 18 months effectively bringing Biden's agenda to a halt.
Can someone explain why this would happen. Figured that could happen after the midterm election, but we are not there yet.
Meanwhile, political analysts are saying that either bill does not pass by the end of the month, they likely will not for the next 18 months effectively bringing Biden's agenda to a halt.
Can someone explain why this would happen. Figured that could happen after the midterm election, but we are not there yet.
yukbon
Well-Known Member
Because the Democratic party has no party discipline nor a prick like McConnell and is like super dedicated to infighting above actually getting things done.
The democratic party: snatching failure from the jaws of victory
Last edited:
avecigrec
Well-Known Member
Gold.
It's looking like the government defaulting is a good possibility come the end of the month. And if that happens the best case scenario is a mild recession.
There is too much infighting going on at the moment to get any agreed too, let alone get enough votes to pass anything as Republicans are pretty much universally opposed to many aspects of the proposed budget.
There is too much infighting going on at the moment to get any agreed too, let alone get enough votes to pass anything as Republicans are pretty much universally opposed to many aspects of the proposed budget.