March 22, 2021

"An unlikely coalition of Democrats across the ideological spectrum mounted an 11th-hour push in the final weekend before the American Rescue Plan for President Biden to go big on tackling child poverty."

"They prevailed over what one person involved in the process called the 'cost police' in Biden’s inner circle, those anxiously warning about the ballooning cost of the stimulus package.... This under-the-radar success created what could be the most consequential piece of the $1.9 trillion package — one that, if made permanent, could approach the impact of the programs established under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. The sudden, unexpected creation of an approximately $120 billion social program has thrown a twist into the political landscape.... With the initiative expiring in a year, all but ensuring it will be a major issue in the midterms, the child poverty measure raises a central question: Are the politics of big government back?... A family with two young children and no income will now get $600 a month. The parents of 90 percent of the country’s children will benefit, and 27 million children will be lifted from poverty, according to analysts.... ...Democrats hope American families will get used to receiving their checks, and they cite the Washington axiom that it’s hard to take something away from voters after they’ve started receiving it. Still, popularizing the program will require Biden to begin selling it..... Some Democrats acknowledge that some in their party are squeamish about having to defend the distribution of government checks to working-age adults who are not working....  "

From "How Biden quietly created a huge social program" (WaPo).

103 comments:

bleh said...

one that, if made permanent, could approach the impact of the programs established under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty

Is that a good thing?

bleh said...

Democrats hope American families will get used to receiving their checks, and they cite the Washington axiom that it’s hard to take something away from voters after they’ve started receiving it

Is this an example of saying the quiet part out loud?

DanTheMan said...

Since there is an infinite amount of money, I don't see the problem.

R C Belaire said...

Won't work. Never has and never will. Just look at the last 50 years.

iowan2 said...

That's exactly what "never let a disaster go to waste" means.
All agree the disaster needs to be addressed. It's only Republicans that limit their legislation to the the disaster and don't advance any of the rest of their agenda.

narciso said...

A mere subsistence wage, while making everyone else poorer with other regulations and rules

Andrew said...

Add the poor children Biden is importing. The 70s will be back, the postive thing is that all those Anti-Trump Karens in the suburbs are going to be ratfucked on their taxes. That and the coming inflation.

iowan2 said...


Democrats hope American families will get used to receiving their checks, and they cite the Washington axiom that it’s hard to take something away from voters after they’ve started receiving it


Or
'There is nothing as permanent as a temporary govt program'

Michael said...

90%? The numbers look whacky.

bleh said...

So glad the Republicans let Georgia slip away. Also thanks to Shane T. Hazel for spoiling Perdue's chances of an outright win in November.

Elliott A said...

Nothing like incentivizing people with no money to have more children they cannot support

elissa said...



If the proposed child tax credit could in fact cut child poverty in half, as it claims to do, then why not double it and get rid of child poverty all together?

Nobody should be dumb enough to believe that a tax credit will get rid of poverty. How anyone can make such a claim with a straight face is beyond me.

iowan2 said...

Baseline budgeting
Federal departments are set to increase budgets...4% across the board.
Republicans find waste and fraud in a welfare program, eleminate the worst they can find, and that one dept only gets 2% increase in their budget.
Democrats squeal(propaganda media amplifies the lie) children are going to starve because the evil Republicans have stripped the food program by a reduction of 2%

Ignorance is Bliss said...

An unlikely coalition of Democrats across the ideological spectrum...

An ideological spectrum that ranges from Marxist on the left to Socialist on the far right.

DavidUW said...

27M children will be lifted from poverty?

Bullshit.

How many children are there in America?
There are 61M Americans aged 0-17 years old.

So you're telling me that this program, which is not even purporting to eliminate child poverty will "lift 27M" from poverty.

There are not 27M children "in poverty." At least not by any real definition of the word.

These assholes just lie.


Derve Swanson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Levi Starks said...

“Poverty” any child forced to survive with a 2 year old iPhone.

Big Mike said...

The Laws of Economics are suspended for Democrats because their hearts are pure.

“Not” to both assertions

Rusty said...

You could shoot an arrow anywhere in that mess and still hit bullshit.

Temujin said...

Yes, in one fell swoop they undid Bill Clinton's (forced) welfare reform and made it good to get paid by the government to do nothing, change nothing, and have more babies out of wedlock.

The Dems continued assault on the Black community will someday become a 5 day, 15 hour documentary. But for now, WaPo, fresh from telling us how to parent, is praising the government buyout of a generation of voters in return for their soul, telling us "27 million children will be lifted from poverty".

Yeah. I particularly love the fake question: "Are the politics of big government back?"

A quick look at almost any numbers would tell you that it never left: US National Debt Clock

Temujin said...

PS- Joe Biden has no idea about many things, but this program sounds so 1970ish, I almost think it could have been something he was fully engaged in. It sapped his bodily fluids and made him weak while trying to run up the steps of Air Force One.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Have another child you cannot afford = get a raise.

Derve Swanson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Derve Swanson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
narciso said...

Its the great unlearning, like rewinding the monolith back

Derve Swanson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Derve Swanson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bleh said...

All the expensive legislation being enacted or proposed (Biden's pondering an additional $3 trillion in spending) -- as well as HR1, etc. -- has me thinking about the crazy repercussions of the GOP's losses in Georgia. Just insane how it turned out.

If Joe Biden resigned due to ill health (as many speculate he will), and Kamala Harris succeeds him, whomever Harris nominates for VPOTUS would have to be confirmed by a majority of both houses of Congress. Presumably the thin-majority of Democrats in the House would confirm. But what if the 50 Republicans hold firm and say "no"? Harris, no longer the Veep, would not be able to cast a tie-breaking vote, right? With no majority, there would be no VPOTUS, and thus no Democratic control of the Senate.

For that possibility alone, I now think it unlikely that Biden will ever resign. Too much risk that control of the Senate would swing to the GOP. The GOP's best hopes between now and 2022 is either with (1) the death or resignation of a Democratic Senator from a state where a Republican would be appointed to replace him or her, or (2) the death of Joe Biden, forcing the above scenario to play out, or (3) someone like Manchin switching parties.

I'm afraid the GOP is going to have to expect to sit back and take it until 2022.

narciso said...

You trust collins or romney to hold fast, tell me another story.

donald said...

Good thing most of us here are old and won’t be around for the final crash. I’m sure we can limp along for a few years. I only feel bad for for any kid middle school and below. The good kids like my nephew know it’s gonna be bad, but don’t realize that this entire republic will probably not exist in their lifetime. They can’t stop it. They won’t do what they have to do TO stop it.

Humperdink said...

And they said the Afghanistan war was longest US war. It doesn’t hold a candle to LBJ’s war on poverty.

gilbar said...

DavidUW (or someone) said....
So you're telling me that this program, which is not even purporting to eliminate child poverty will "lift 27M" from poverty.
There are not 27M children "in poverty." At least not by any real definition of the word.


YOU are misunderstanding!
All the effects won't be felt THIS YEAR...

They're Saying that it will "lift 27M from poverty", over the life of the program
So, that's 27,000,000 children; over the next Forty-Eight Thousand Years
Government Programs don't end....EVER

gilbar said...

Still, popularizing the program will require Biden to begin selling it.....

Serious Question: How's he going to Do THAT? he can't walk up a flight of stairs

iowan2 said...

The govt gets more of what is subsidizes and less of what it taxes.

Govt subsidizes the poor...

Govt taxes income...

President Trump did more to lift the poor, (of all color, gender and sexuality spectrums) out of poverty then all the Democrat programs since FDR

DavidUW said...

Re. your imported American bride: Yes, I was thinking of you when I wrote that. Conservative and wealthy men have imported wives;
>>
It's sweet you're thinking of me. I didn't import her though. She picked me up in a bar, the way all solid relationships begin.
Considering too many American women prefer to wait (CAREERS!) until they're too old to have babies, and they're poisoned by other feminist BS, well, that's not my fault.

Anyway, I agree with you (I think) that we shouldn't be importing poverty. I'm just pointing out the blatantly false numbers thrown about in this article.

Arturo Ui said...

It's fantastic news.

MikeD said...

LBJ destroyed the Black community & hid'nBiden's handlers look to do it to the entire Nation.

Arturo Ui said...

iowan2 said...


President Trump did more to lift the poor, (of all color, gender and sexuality spectrums) out of poverty then all the Democrat programs since FDR

************************

What specifically did Donald Trump do to accomplish any of that?

DavidUW said...

What specifically did Donald Trump do to accomplish any of that?
>>
Cut the corporate tax rate and restrict immigration, you nitwit.

henge2243 said...

If adults who have no income and also have children currently can afford to spend $200 per month per child to buy necessities, what will happen when they have $600 per month per child to spend. Will they be able to buy Gucci toddler clothes or will prices of basic items increase such such that the higher monthly amount of income only buys the same basic items?

Is the Adderall epidemic in DC really messing people's brains up so much that they can't think anymore?

Humperdink said...

What did Trump do?

J-O-B-S. You nitwit.

Sebastian said...

"to go big on tackling child poverty."

Except that, given the way poverty is measured, government transfers won't actually reduce it.

"The sudden, unexpected creation of an approximately $120 billion social program"

Unexpected? Sure, the particular mendacity involved in making it part of "Covid relief" is unexpected, but bribing people with other people's money was entirely to be expected.

"Are the politics of big government back"

Huh? They never left. Even W and Trump loved themselves some big g.

"27 million children will be lifted from poverty"

Depends on how you measure.

"it’s hard to take something away from voters after they’ve started receiving it"

True. Bribes work.

"having to defend the distribution of government checks to working-age adults who are not working"

Nice women may say there's reason to be skeptical but that's all they'll say. Handing out money is nicer.

hstad said...

"...if made permanent, could approach the impact of the programs established under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty..." God - I hope not!

According to the Cato Institute - "...since Lyndon Johnson declared “war on poverty” in 1965, government efforts to fight poverty have cost more than $23 trillion..."

And here we are - Liberals pointing to the success of one of the most failed programs in our Nation's history and we still have "child poverty". Just another propoganda meme to spend, spend, spend with no accountability wasting taxpayers' money.

Reminds me of the continuing meme of public education's siren call of we need more money for the students. Yet every Liberal City, County or State which have spend over $20k per student have experienced failing schools and students not benefiting from more money because of the government monopoly.

hstad said...

Blogger Arturo Ui said...What specifically did Donald Trump do to accomplish any of that?
3/22/21, 1:32 PM

Another Liberal clueless about 'supply and demand' and how it quickly works to increase peoples income.

Hey, "Arturo Ui", watch the income numbers coming out (despite Biden's payments) 1 year from now. Flooding the job market with immigrants, which is what big business loves, will depress wages for the most vulnerable U.S. citizens.

Amadeus 48 said...

The Dims go-to solution:

"Throw money at it! If we can just create dependency, we'll be in power forever. $23 Trillion for the Great Society programs. Sweet!"

I am a Boomer. I am not paying for this. It's the children and grandchildren of the Boomers that will pay.

Another problem solved.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

Speaking of propaganda....

MayBee said...

We're at the point where we're just going to start passing out money and do all the old school worrying about benefits and ramifications later. If there's a problem, we'll just spend more.

MayBee said...

I can't read the article because of WaPo. But I notice the bit Althouse quoted mentions the "cost police" in Biden's inner circle. Is what Biden said about it mentioned anywhere?

Inga said...

The best thing to come out of the Stimulus. What better stimulates the economy than people buying things? These working and even not working parents are going to be spending that money, not sitting on it, or investing in the stock market. Why are people who profess to love children so against helping families with children?

The Biden Administration is getting things done, at long last. And conservatives hate it, what else is new under the sun?

Amadeus 48 said...

Let's think about the name "Arturo Ui".

Ui is, of course, a stand-in for Hitler in Brecht's "deeply unfunny comedy", The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui.

Why Hitler/Ui? Well, why not? But I mentally invoke Godwin's law every time Arturo Ui shows up.

Mark said...

Everyone a government dependent. Everyone on welfare.

That's the Democrat agenda.

Amadeus 48 said...

Inga--You just made the argument for paying people to dig holes and then fill them in. I prefer a more apt analogy, which is various politicians flying over cities and suburbs in helicopters pushing stacks of $100 bills out the door.

What could go wrong?

Earnest Prole said...

Hey, I’ve got a great idea: Let’s wage war against Georgia Republicans while two Georgia Senate seats, control of Congress, and the levers of American governmental power are at stake — what could possibly go wrong?

Paul Snively said...

WaPo: Some Democrats acknowledge that some in their party are squeamish about having to defend the distribution of government checks to working-age adults who are not working....

Gee, I can't imagine why that would be.

Francisco D said...

"Free" money from the government is popular among businesses struggling with COVID restrictions.I know people who Door Dash for extra income. When stimulus checks are announced their business goes up dramatically.

Guess what poor people are buying from Door Dash when the anticipate stimulus checks. Fast food at three times the price. Another piece of evidence that the reason many people are poor is because they do not know how to manage money or delay gratification.

Trump made a mistake with the stimulus payments, but the people behind Biden are going to triple down on that mistake by giving away money for government dependency and votes.

Inga said...

‘...politicians flying over cities and suburbs in helicopters pushing stacks of $100 bills out the door.”

Like Trumps big tax giveaway to the ultra rich. Worth 1.9 trillion.

Amadeus 48 said...

"Hey, I’ve got a great idea: Let’s wage war against Georgia Republicans while two Georgia Senate seats, control of Congress, and the levers of American governmental power are at stake — what could possibly go wrong?"

Talk about persuasion! That was some profound politicking by the ultimate 5-D chess playing champion of genius strategic moves that is so deep that it makes no sense whatsoever, but 100 years from now will save the republic or something.

Moving on...

DavidUW said...

Trumps tax rates did fuck all for the ultra rich.

Just look at the numbers.

Amadeus 48 said...

Inga--Is not Trump a politician? But he could not do it alone. We need the dream team of Trump and Biden! Now there is some great spending. I think the total is $6 trillion in twelve months.

Are our children ready to go to work to pay these bills? Maybe they'll all do an extra shift twice a week for the rest of their lives. At least say thank you.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Latest statistics I can find is that there are 10.5M children in the U.S. living under the poverty line. That is just prior to the pandemic, so likely that is a little higher now, but nowhere close to 27M.

So is Biden going to put 17M into poverty with taxes and unemployment first, and then lift them back out with government checks? And what about their parents?

Amadeus 48 said...

DavidUW--Inga didn't get the word. She's still working with 2018 campaign messaging.

Rosalyn C. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rosalyn C. said...

"A family with two young children and no income will now get $600 a month." How much for additional children? Is this a suggestion to limit the poor to only two children? Not very realistic.

IDK how this new program is different from the social services and programs which already exist, but I assume it has been introduced in part to take the place of having to build more low income multi family housing.

In the last few years I met a number of young Hispanic women with babies -- that's who are low income in my area. I am a non judgemental person and they freely explained to me that they believe they deserve to start their a family and the "system" is there to take care of them. They could live legally with up to three or four young children in a one bedroom low income apartment and then they would receive a voucher for a HUD section 8 home. Then they would get married. That's how the system works for some people. Or how they work the system.

That shocked me because of course I had always assumed the system I grew up in was more or less universal: get an education, get started in a career, get married, and start a family. That's not what everybody believes. Those young women were not making any apologies for having children first. They firmly believed that was their right.

Isn't the government encouraging poor young women and won't we end up with more children in poverty? Maybe that's where the govt. got the 27 million number?

Achilles said...

Earnest Prole said...

Hey, I’ve got a great idea: Let’s wage war against Georgia Republicans while two Georgia Senate seats, control of Congress, and the levers of American governmental power are at stake — what could possibly go wrong?

This way is better.

There is no way they wouldn't have gotten "bi-partisan" support even if those seats were republican. The only difference is they would have had to spend more to buy off Romney and Murkowski or Collins.

I am surprised they aren't going all in on bi-partisianship. Murkowski and Romney and the other traitors aren't going to get re-elected.

Doesn't matter anyways.

The whole thing is going to come crashing down sooner rather than later. I can't wait for the IRS swat teams to get to work.

Achilles said...

Inga said...

The best thing to come out of the Stimulus. What better stimulates the economy than people buying things? These working and even not working parents are going to be spending that money, not sitting on it, or investing in the stock market. Why are people who profess to love children so against helping families with children?

The Biden Administration is getting things done, at long last. And conservatives hate it, what else is new under the sun?



False promises and debt. Invest in it now.

You will buy Bitcoin at the price that you deserve.

I would recommend as much mortgage debt as you can possibly obtain. Cash out your house if you own it and buy Bitcoin. In 7 years any mortgage you owe today will be worth 0 and you will have an asset. There are only 21 million bitcoins ever.

The country is run buy people who are soulless enough to buy Inga's vote. They do not care that tools like Inga do not understand what is going to happen or that this will destroy them.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Hmmm... and this from college graduates?

Jim at said...

Like Trumps big tax giveaway to the ultra rich. Worth 1.9 trillion.

Allowing people to keep their own money isn't a giveaway, you twit.

Rick said...

We're going to pay people to have kids during the decades they should be learning skills for the job market. What are they going to do when they can't have more kids to support themselves and haven't learned a skill because the kid-bounty kept them afloat?

When we reach this point will we call this structural racism because the motivational effect will be most pronounced among those without marketable skills who are disproportionately black? If so we'll blame it on "America" right? Conservative failures are conservative, but progressive failures are American.

Gahrie said...

The parents of 90 percent of the country’s children will benefit, and 27 million children will be lifted from poverty, according to analysts..

Bullshit.

The income and standard of living of those families might improve, hopefully they would. But no one would be lifted from poverty. The reason is very simple. The definition of poverty would change, upwards, as it does almost every single year. Most of those kids would still be classified as poor under the new definition of poverty. That's the true genius behind the war on poverty. You can't ever win, because as you begin to, they literally move the goal posts further away.

The standard of living of the poor in the United States is historically astonishing. If we were measuring our attempts to help the poor by improvements in their standard of living, we would have much to be proud about. The average poor person in the United States has a standard of living comparable to the middle class in most European nations. The absolute poor, including some homeless, have a standard of living comparable to the middle class in much of Latin America.

If it didn't make me so angry, I would laugh at my students as they stare down at their $300 phones (a miracle they don't appreciate), while wearing $200 tennis shoes and gold chains, carrying their free breakfast, lunch or dinner (every kid at my school is eligible for all three); complain to me about how poor they are. I was born in 1965, and their childhoods have been something I could literally only dream about.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Like Trumps big tax giveaway to the ultra rich. Worth 1.9 trillion.

Jim at replied:

Allowing people to keep their own money isn't a giveaway, you twit.

Thank you.

Democrat loyalists love to spout complete BS talking points. Right on Q.

Gahrie said...

We're going to pay people to have kids during the decades they should be learning skills for the job market. What are they going to do when they can't have more kids to support themselves and haven't learned a skill because the kid-bounty kept them afloat?

Universal Basic Income. We're on the slope, whether that was the plan or not.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Russia Russia Inag confuses "getting things done" - with screwing hard working tax payers over and calling in it "for your own good".

Skippy Tisdale said...

She picked me up in a bar, the way all solid relationships begin.

Really? All solid relationships are the fruit of whores picking up men in bars?

I learn so much here.

Skippy Tisdale said...

What better stimulates the economy than people buying things?

People gainfully employed?

Skippy Tisdale said...

I prefer a more apt analogy, which is various politicians flying over cities and suburbs in helicopters pushing stacks of $100 bills out the door.

What could go wrong?


They're just practicing for the day when it's dissenters being pushed out of the helicopter doors.

rehajm said...

Fun fact: Q1 Atlanta Fed GDPNOW at 5.7%, down from 10% on March 1...

DavidUW said...


She picked me up in a bar, the way all solid relationships begin.

Really? All solid relationships are the fruit of whores picking up men in bars?

I learn so much here.
>>
Perhaps. Perhaps I was being slightly tongue in cheek. Although she did pick me up... I didn't push her away.

Anyway, I've never used online "dating" services, so I'm not sure how meeting women in actual live settings compares, but I meet women exclusively in person and not over the computer. One such place is a bar.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Gahrie,

The definition of poverty would change, upwards, as it does almost every single year. Most of those kids would still be classified as poor under the new definition of poverty. That's the true genius behind the war on poverty. You can't ever win, because as you begin to, they literally move the goal posts further away.

Thank you. It can't be said often enough. There is no way to eliminate poverty, or even reduce it, b/c it's based on quintiles and deciles. Someone is always at the bottom; someone will always be at the bottom. The very best you can do is make sure it isn't always the same someone (which, actually, our economy has historically done exceedingly well; there's a lot of "churn" in there, the prominent entertainment and media and political dynasties notwithstanding). You could make literally everyone in the country a millionaire, and the ones with the fewest millions would still be "the poor," and there would still be plans to "eliminate poverty."

unknown said...

What better stimulates the economy than people buying things?

Agreed. We should tax savings at a high rate to spur economic growth!

n.n said...

What better stimulates the economy than people buying things?

Short-term benefits, long-term consequences. Think New Deal, Great Society, Green New Deal, friends with "benefits", diversity dogma, political congruence, social justice, Pro-Choice quasi-religion.

n.n said...

What are they going to do when they can't have more kids to support themselves and haven't learned a skill because the kid-bounty kept them afloat?

Unaccompanied minors, at best. Planned Parent/hood, at worst.

n.n said...

and buy Bitcoin

An energy consumer, a token without intrinsic value, backed by the full faith and credit of the other party.

n.n said...

Since there is an infinite amount of money, I don't see the problem.

Yes, infinite amount of currency, and finite amount of wealth. Dibs on the sea-side estate in Martha's Vineyard.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"What better stimulates the economy than people buying things?"
This is about the dumbest thing I've seen on the internets all day.
Obviously, what would be better, is if people produced, say, $600 of value with their labor (the employer receiving, perhaps, $630 worth of value from the labor). Then the person spends their $600 on items that took, perhaps, $575 in value to produce.
JM Keynes addressed the issue of pure government spending to address a shortfall of consumer spending, when, for instance, demand for labor is too low to provide jobs for those who want them.
He concluded that the money spent would have to come from future revenue, i.e., taxes, so you had a problem with "forward lookers" who would refuse to spend the "free money" in anticipation of higher taxes in the future. The higher future taxes would also reduce future growth because money spent on taxes has no multiplier > 1.0 in the long run.

n.n said...

A mere subsistence wage, while making everyone else poorer with other regulations and rules

Redistributive change, a secular lucre, in the democratic/dictatorial dream of consolidating capital and control. All's fair in lust and abortion.

Rick said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

There is no way to eliminate poverty, or even reduce it, b/c it's based on quintiles and deciles.


Eventually people would be well off enough this would become transparent. That's why they also support unlimited immigration from people without the educations and skills to integrate into a modern economy. They must have an underclass to justify their class-hatred, without that divisiveness their entire economic program has no basis.

Achilles said...

Inga said...

‘...politicians flying over cities and suburbs in helicopters pushing stacks of $100 bills out the door.”

Like Trumps big tax giveaway to the ultra rich. Worth 1.9 trillion.

This is how stupid you have to be to support the regime.

Trump gave the lowest quintile jobs and wage increases.

Biden gives them printed money and open borders.

Biden supporters are just stupid people.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Earnest Prole said...
Hey, I’ve got a great idea: Let’s wage war against Georgia Republicans while two Georgia Senate seats, control of Congress, and the levers of American governmental power are at stake — what could possibly go wrong?

Hey, I’ve got a great idea: Let's have the "Republican" Senate pass a "Covid Relief" bill that has $600 payments for Americans, and a couple of trillion dollars of pork for the fat cats and foreigners.

Right before the GA Senate runoff

Sorry, Prole, but "Cocaine Mitch" owns that loss. The GOP Senators lost because the rural voters didn't come out for them.

Why should they? The "GOP Senate" voted for big money for everyone but them.

Their either should have been no bill until after the GA vote, or else it should have been $$ to US Citizens + unemployment relief + PPP loans.

My guess is that Mitch didn't want to have to try to actually have the GOP Senate block Dem lunacy, or have to explain why a 52 - 48 GOP Senate couldn't stop Dem lunacy, so he threw the election with that bill.

But you can not honestly blame anyone but Mitch for teh GA Senate loses. Not after the GOP Senate said FU to GOP voters a week before the election

Night Owl said...

Democrats hope American families will get used to receiving their checks, and they cite the Washington axiom that it’s hard to take something away from voters after they’ve started receiving it.


"They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please..."

boatbuilder said...

The cost of being poor just went up $600.

Economic idiocy.

Political three-card Monty.

The Godfather said...

Let's see. We've got this great program that will do what "everyone" agrees needs to be done: Eliminate childhood poverty. So what we'll do is sell it by claiming it's part of an emergency program for relief of the Covid pandemic. And we won't talk "out loud" about the childhood poverty thing until the bill is passed. So the sucker voters won't know what their representatives are voting for.

Have I got that right?

Bunkypotatohead said...

The "poor" will just squander the money at Amazon.com. So Bezos and China Inc. will end up with most of it.
Althouse won't see any of it, though. I'm pretty sure the ghetto mob doesn't buy through her portal.

MartyH said...

To Inga and Arturo:

You can compare Trump and Obama on two different metrics: real income by quintile and income distribution by quintile.

Real income for the four lowest quintiles under three years of Trump grew more than under eight years of Obama.

Let me repeat: the bottom 80% of Americans saw their real income grow more under three years of Trump than eight years of Obama.

As to income distribution:

Under Obama, the income distribution tilted strongly to the upper 20% at the expense of the lower 80%. For 2008 to 2016:

The poorest 20% (the poor) went from 4% of national income to 3.7%
The next 20% (lower middle class) saw their share of income sink from 9.7% to 9.2%
The middle class (40% to 60% of population) saw their income drop from 15.5% to 15.0%
The upper middle class saw their income shrink from 23.2% to 22.9%
The upper 20% saw their share of income grow from 47.8% to 49.2%.

Under Trump,

The bottom 20% saw their share of income go up
The lower middle class 20% was unchanged.
The 40-80% group saw their share drop some.
The top 20% saw their share grow 0.3% vs. Obama's 1.4%

Trump's policies created greater real income growth than Obama's for 80% of Americans.
Obama's economic policies benefited the top 20% at the expense of the other 80%.

Under Trump, the poor actually benefited.

Obamanomics is "trickle up." Trump's policy result was more "squish out"

So the question I have for Inga and Arturo is: Why do you hate poor people?

Anonymous said...

DavidUW - "I didn't import her though. She picked me up in a bar, the way all solid relationships begin"

Ha! Good one David. God Bless.

But here's what I want to express. The Federal Gov't was never tasked with Charity.
Here's why.

Charity: Oh man, if you ever get so low, and can't see anyway out...you might go hat in hand and beg for help. In that case -

Charity-

You want the least amount to get you through.
You want it for the shortest time possible.
You want to get on your feet, and have the opportunity to help the next beggar who makes an appeal to you.
You became stronger.

Government doesn't do Charity. It does entitlements. That's different.

You want the most you can get.
You want it for as long as you can get it.
You're pissed off when it ends.
You become weaker.

And that's why women should never have gotten the Franchise.



Chris N said...

Why stop at our borders?

stlcdr said...

The only people to benefit from this are politicians buying votes from the ignorant who are above that waterline of poverty (however you define it). People like Inga, who weakly have no clue how the real world works beyond their bubble.

Transferring cash from those who work, to those who don’t, via government does not work. Never has and never will. The money is better spent on giving these kids a path to establish skills which will support themselves later in life and become a contributor to the commonwealth.

DavidUW said...

Thanks Hercules.

Regarding Charity. It's voluntary on the part of the giver, not extracted under the threat of imprisonment.

Rusty said...

DavidUW
It is, to Christians, a sacrament. A deal we make with god. The state has no business in it. In fact it is impossible for the state to be charitable.

Sam L. said...

I trust NOTHING the WaPOo prints. Same for the NYT.

Bilwick said...

Childhood poverty, fighting the Kung Flu, the War on Poverty, etc., etc., blah blah blah. It's all about expanding the power of Der Staat.

DavidUW said...

Rusty:
It is, to Christians, a sacrament. A deal we make with god. The state has no business in it. In fact it is impossible for the state to be charitable.
>>
Not sure what Christian denomination views it as a sacrament. It's not on my list as a Catholic, but it is a key component of salvation, i.e. Faith AND "Good Works" as opposed to the Protestant belief of sola fide. But Protestants are heretics who deserve their eternal damnation.

hstad said...

3/22/21, 2:31 PM
Blogger Inga said...
The best thing to come out of the Stimulus. What better stimulates the economy than people buying things? The Biden Administration is getting things done... long last. 3/22/21, 2:31 PM

Blogger Inga said..."...Like Trumps big tax giveaway to the ultra rich. Worth 1.9 trillion.
3/22/21, 2:40 PM

Inga your comments are frightening in their ignorance. You know nothing about economics and supply and demand. Inga stop commenting because your love for your Tribe's propoganda is all you got. I guess you only liked Biden's stimulus check? Did you throw away Trump's stimulus check?

The biggest fallacy of direct payments by government to consumers assumes that they will be used for spending or to encourage consumers to spend more. In a study by academics from Columbia, Univ. of Chicago and Northwestern University they found people who had at least $3,000 in their bank account did not spend their stimulus check. People with at least $500 in their bank account spend almost half while people with nothing in their bank account spend 44.5% of their stimulus funds within 10 days the balance thereafter. The other finding of the research was that people used the stimulus checks to pay for food, household items, bills, and rent. Unlike stimulus funds in the past, this money wasn’t used for purchase of durable goods such as electronics, furniture, or cars. So the stimulus checks didn’t stimulate the hard-hit areas of the economy like manufacturing or retail. The lesson here is if you want to impact the economy send out funds to people who will use it immediately. Nevertheless, this is a band-aid and a better solution would've been to create jobs. Problem is, the government induced pandemic prevented the stimulus funds from having any impact. The real question of government stimulus will be the cost, debt incurred by government, and whether or not such largesse will be paid back in our lifetime. Inga and her cohorts on the Progressive side of the isle don't care about things like that. I disagreed with Trump about his stimulus and I disagree with Biden. If government spending works, how come Japan who's being spending like crazy since the '90s has not experienced any growth in its GDP - also known as the lost "2 decades". Well, Inga, when the USA is visited with hyperinflation similar to Zimbabwe's (98% per day) or Argentina's (48% per month), I hope you have a little vegetable patch in your backyard - you'll need it to survive. Zimbabwe's actions forced that country to abandon their own currencies and eventually use U.S. dollars. Argentina today still has hyperinflation (38% per month in Jan., 2021).