politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No. Do cash payments. Stop doing wonkish shit like this where oridinary people people can't notice it in their lives because its obscured through taxation where too many people wont' even understand its just a payment.
You know, this is the way we get a perpetual wealth tax. Dividend checks out to every citizen based on how much wealth we squeeze out of their pockets.
Like the alaska payment - but raping the pockets of the rich instead of raping nature
Who downvoted this? Is there some secret contingent who hate cash but love complicated tax breaks?
Democrats. You are describing Democrats. Not necessarily voters, but like, the actual party. And they actually think means testing is like, some super secret thing that actually improves things.
See I always interpreted it as a way to get "moderate republicans" on board; triangulation tells them that if they move their policies to the right, then moderates who are afraid of good polucy will vote for them. I remember Obama talking about how not free his healthcare plan was, repeating "skin in the game" dozens of times.
It doesn't have to be complicated. Actually collecting taxes from billionaires would likely be enough for both, but I'd rather see good policy over a one time bandaid (even as someone that can't currently pay rent.)
Where you get the funds is irrelevant to the conversation, I am trying to understand the mind of somebody who genuinely believes complicated, means-tested tax breaks is better policy than literally just giving people checks with your party's name on it.
I assumed this was like cable-news poisoned boomers who like free healthcare and not haulling their neighbors off to concentration camps and not blowing up school children in Iran, but had it drilled into their head that complicated, means-tested healthcare for the deserving is more feasible, and having ICE politely escorting their neighbors into a van out of view is more realistic, and waging the war more competently is electable.
But someone who genuinely wants the enshittifed-until-they-help-nobody versions of good policies is baffling to me.
When I was growing up (in a very conservative environment) means tests were usually sold as being both fiscally prudent, because giving benefits to someone who doesn't truly, desperately need it is wasteful spending; and civic-minded, because all that money that money that was saved can go toward some other vaguely-defined government expenditure. The cost-benefit analysis never really came up, it was just taken as given that means testing would reduce the number of recipients and therefore reduce the overall cost. It truly did not occur to me that means tests might not be worth the cost of implementing them until I got to college and met my first leftist.
I think the notion that means tests increase efficiency and reduce costs is a pretty widespread one, even among left-leaning folk. And Americans IME are very suspicious of giving something to someone without any preconditions or strings attached, unless they know the recipient personally.