For comparison with the last major depression relief packages: Which was bigger, the 2009 Recovery Act Package, or FDR's New Deal? My back-of-the-envelope calculation says $1.9 trillion is about...
Thus, the cost on a per capita basis in 2009 dollars was $2,738 for ARRA and $5,231 for the New Deal.
Dupor also compared the costs in terms of the size of the economy at the time of enactment. ARRA’s cost was equal to 5.7 percent of the nation’s 2008 output. The New Deal, however, was about 40 percent of the nation’s 1929 output.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation says $1.9 trillion is about 9% of the most recently reported $21.2 trillion U.S. GDP.
I'll be surprised if half of the amount gets through even a Democratic-controlled Congress, but it's a fair start. The $15 minimum wage is a modest beginning to decreasing inequality over the long term, but redistributive tax policy will have to pass as well.
This is why "biggest proposal ever" type stuff always rubs me the wrong way. To match that New Deal change, by percent of GDP, we'd be looking closer to 10 trillion. Makes me think Bernie's GND...
This is why "biggest proposal ever" type stuff always rubs me the wrong way.
To match that New Deal change, by percent of GDP, we'd be looking closer to 10 trillion. Makes me think Bernie's GND proposals were actually much more in line with what's needed, and a lot more budget wiggle room to cut (16 trillion).
1.9 trillion sounds like a lot, but isn't really when talking about trying to overhaul inequality and stabilize covid problems, let alone tackling climate issues.
It was a far more progressive-sounding proposal when taking senate was a pipe dream. Now that Dems have it, they should be pushing hard for immensely progressive change. Because we have 40ish years of wage stagnation to compensate for, let alone all the cuts to social programs along the way.
If we want to be pedantic, the currently proposed stimulus comes out to be ~$4,800 per capita in 2009 dollars. Still a huge jump up from the ARRA though!
If we want to be pedantic, the currently proposed stimulus comes out to be ~$4,800 per capita in 2009 dollars. Still a huge jump up from the ARRA though!
I don't like the per-capita total dollar amount though. The percent of GDP makes more sense, because in theory the entire nation should benefit from that GDP growth.
I don't like the per-capita total dollar amount though. The percent of GDP makes more sense, because in theory the entire nation should benefit from that GDP growth.
Agree it is a pretty progressive bill! But my cynical self also feels like a bunch of things on this bill are there to be used as bargaining chips, i.e. will be dropped for support from lawmakers....
Agree it is a pretty progressive bill!
But my cynical self also feels like a bunch of things on this bill are there to be used as bargaining chips, i.e. will be dropped for support from lawmakers.
I doubt things like $15/hr federal minimum wage is going to survive in this bill to the end. I hope I am wrong.
This is not cynical at all, $15/hr minimum wage is absolutely there to be thrown away. Others as well, but this one is clearly not meant as serious.
But my cynical self also feels like a bunch of things on this bill are there to be used as bargaining chips, i.e. will be dropped for support from lawmakers.
This is not cynical at all, $15/hr minimum wage is absolutely there to be thrown away. Others as well, but this one is clearly not meant as serious.
To pass in the senate you need a supermajority because of the filibuster which Manchin doesn't want to remove. However, much of this can be done through something called budget reconciliation,...
To pass in the senate you need a supermajority because of the filibuster which Manchin doesn't want to remove.
However, much of this can be done through something called budget reconciliation, which can be done unilaterally with the Dem majority in the senate. But you also only get one budget reconciliation bill per year so you really gotta cram everything you want in there so preferably both the Rescue and Recovery bills would be passed with bipartisan support, but who knows.
Well, yeah, I mentioned budget reconciliation. In fact it's the largest single paragraph. But you only get one reconciliation bill a year and many items in the package can't be passed, like...
Well, yeah, I mentioned budget reconciliation. In fact it's the largest single paragraph.
But you only get one reconciliation bill a year and many items in the package can't be passed, like increasing minimum wage. It's not the same as passing this bill with bipartisan support.
I'm pretty sure all Dems, even Manchin, will vote in for of this bill, but what Manchin won't vote for is to override the filibuster, which means you need about 10 or so Republicans to have a...
I'm pretty sure all Dems, even Manchin, will vote in for of this bill, but what Manchin won't vote for is to override the filibuster, which means you need about 10 or so Republicans to have a supermajority to pass the bill.
I guess we'll see. I see a bunch of different areas I expect him to use as a reason to vote against. From the top comment: $1 trillion in direct relief to Americans $440 billion in relief to...
I guess we'll see. I see a bunch of different areas I expect him to use as a reason to vote against. From the top comment:
$1 trillion in direct relief to Americans
$440 billion in relief to communities, businesses
$1,400 checks to individuals (bringing the total to $2,000 from the $600 checks last month)
$400 / week unemployment insurance supplement through September
Huge tax credits for families with children with additional benefits for the very poor
$15/hr federal minimum wage
Eviction moratorium thru 9/21
14 weeks of paid sick and family medical leave for millions of workers
If I gambled, I'd bet money on Biden's bill not passing, and Manchin voting no for one of the above reasons.
Edit: I feel as though I should note that as someone who was and still is very anti-Biden, the bill he put forward is far better than anything I expected, even if some things I view as necessary are going to be bargaining chips. I don't love the "we'll reach across the aisle" mindset and time will tell how his presidency does as a whole. But to be clear, while I am pessimistic about it passing, I do think it is a really good bill and that Biden deserves credit for it.
Is there any particular reason to think that Manchin would veto those items? For instance, $15/min wage is actually one of the big areas he diverges from Republicans, and is a focal point of "get...
Is there any particular reason to think that Manchin would veto those items? For instance, $15/min wage is actually one of the big areas he diverges from Republicans, and is a focal point of "get votes on bills that would piss Manchin off to have fillibustered to eliminate the fillibuster". I grabbed this line from his "website"
“I am disappointed that the Senate failed to pass an increase in the minimum wage,” Senator Manchin said. “This bill would cut the number of Americans enrolled in SNAP by more than 3 million and save taxpayers almost $4.6 billion. We can all agree that Americans who work hard and provide for themselves and their families should not live below the poverty line and deserve a raise. By increasing the national minimum wage, we would not only help West Virginians and Americans receive a fair shot at building better lives for their families, but we would also boost economic prosperity and create jobs.
He's said he's not supportive of the checks recently, but his reasoning was inefficiency - he was supportive of relief spending. Since it's a minor point, as a career democrat I would expect him to be bullied into it.
Yes, but some Dems only won narrowly or in the count of a lot of split ticket voters (Manchin is the obvious example) so not all of them are comfortable in their seats to pass whatever Biden promises.
Yes, but some Dems only won narrowly or in the count of a lot of split ticket voters (Manchin is the obvious example) so not all of them are comfortable in their seats to pass whatever Biden promises.
First words out of Biden's mouth were about reaching across the aisle. First words after he knew we controlled everything? Same line. I really don't see them not continuing business as usual, but...
First words out of Biden's mouth were about reaching across the aisle. First words after he knew we controlled everything? Same line. I really don't see them not continuing business as usual, but I would love to be surprised.
They don't have a choice. Their majority in the senate is incredibly slim. Outside of the annual budget reconciliation bill, everything they want to pass needs the support of at least 10 Republicans
They don't have a choice. Their majority in the senate is incredibly slim. Outside of the annual budget reconciliation bill, everything they want to pass needs the support of at least 10 Republicans
Ok, this is the same thing we heard through Obama's presidency. "Democrats just can't make things happen because of those bad, bad Republicans." Trump put a lie to that. There's plenty that can be...
Ok, this is the same thing we heard through Obama's presidency. "Democrats just can't make things happen because of those bad, bad Republicans."
Trump put a lie to that. There's plenty that can be done if they have the motivation to not just sit on their hands. It's our job over the next few years to keep Democrats enthusiastic about pushing back against political recalcitrance.
Did he? One of the "brightest" areas of his administration was the complete and utter failure at doing much of anything when they were perfectly able to. In terms of legislation, it was mostly the...
Trump put a lie to that.
Did he? One of the "brightest" areas of his administration was the complete and utter failure at doing much of anything when they were perfectly able to. In terms of legislation, it was mostly the corporate tax cuts - even the ACA repeal failed, and that's with enough of a R majority in both chambers.
Much of Trump's agenda was hamstrung by their lack of a supermajority in the Senate. They couldn't even repeal Obamacare. Yes, there is a lot Biden can do, but many things cannot happen without an...
Much of Trump's agenda was hamstrung by their lack of a supermajority in the Senate. They couldn't even repeal Obamacare.
Yes, there is a lot Biden can do, but many things cannot happen without an act of Congress, and all it takes is one Republican to declare a fillibuster to torpedo anything that lacks enough bipartisan support to get 60 votes.
What survives and what do the Democrats have to offer to make it go down easier? Between Trump Impeachment II and the razor thin Senate margins, Democrats have a loaded plate and Mitch can whip up...
What survives and what do the Democrats have to offer to make it go down easier? Between Trump Impeachment II and the razor thin Senate margins, Democrats have a loaded plate and Mitch can whip up opposition to all of it unless Corporate Liability, Less State Aid, or something else is up for offer.
For comparison with the last major depression relief packages: Which was bigger, the 2009 Recovery Act Package, or FDR's New Deal?
My back-of-the-envelope calculation says $1.9 trillion is about 9% of the most recently reported $21.2 trillion U.S. GDP.
I'll be surprised if half of the amount gets through even a Democratic-controlled Congress, but it's a fair start. The $15 minimum wage is a modest beginning to decreasing inequality over the long term, but redistributive tax policy will have to pass as well.
This is why "biggest proposal ever" type stuff always rubs me the wrong way.
To match that New Deal change, by percent of GDP, we'd be looking closer to 10 trillion. Makes me think Bernie's GND proposals were actually much more in line with what's needed, and a lot more budget wiggle room to cut (16 trillion).
1.9 trillion sounds like a lot, but isn't really when talking about trying to overhaul inequality and stabilize covid problems, let alone tackling climate issues.
It was a far more progressive-sounding proposal when taking senate was a pipe dream. Now that Dems have it, they should be pushing hard for immensely progressive change. Because we have 40ish years of wage stagnation to compensate for, let alone all the cuts to social programs along the way.
If we want to be pedantic, the currently proposed stimulus comes out to be ~$4,800 per capita in 2009 dollars. Still a huge jump up from the ARRA though!
I don't like the per-capita total dollar amount though. The percent of GDP makes more sense, because in theory the entire nation should benefit from that GDP growth.
Agree it is a pretty progressive bill!
But my cynical self also feels like a bunch of things on this bill are there to be used as bargaining chips, i.e. will be dropped for support from lawmakers.
I doubt things like $15/hr federal minimum wage is going to survive in this bill to the end. I hope I am wrong.
This is not cynical at all, $15/hr minimum wage is absolutely there to be thrown away. Others as well, but this one is clearly not meant as serious.
What bargaining chips? The dems control everything, no? House, senate, presidency.
To pass in the senate you need a supermajority because of the filibuster which Manchin doesn't want to remove.
However, much of this can be done through something called budget reconciliation, which can be done unilaterally with the Dem majority in the senate. But you also only get one budget reconciliation bill per year so you really gotta cram everything you want in there so preferably both the Rescue and Recovery bills would be passed with bipartisan support, but who knows.
tl;dr the US government is complicated
Well, yeah, I mentioned budget reconciliation. In fact it's the largest single paragraph.
But you only get one reconciliation bill a year and many items in the package can't be passed, like increasing minimum wage. It's not the same as passing this bill with bipartisan support.
The dems control everything, that doesn't mean all dems are going to vote in favor.
I'm pretty sure all Dems, even Manchin, will vote in for of this bill, but what Manchin won't vote for is to override the filibuster, which means you need about 10 or so Republicans to have a supermajority to pass the bill.
I guess we'll see. I see a bunch of different areas I expect him to use as a reason to vote against. From the top comment:
If I gambled, I'd bet money on Biden's bill not passing, and Manchin voting no for one of the above reasons.
Edit: I feel as though I should note that as someone who was and still is very anti-Biden, the bill he put forward is far better than anything I expected, even if some things I view as necessary are going to be bargaining chips. I don't love the "we'll reach across the aisle" mindset and time will tell how his presidency does as a whole. But to be clear, while I am pessimistic about it passing, I do think it is a really good bill and that Biden deserves credit for it.
Is there any particular reason to think that Manchin would veto those items? For instance, $15/min wage is actually one of the big areas he diverges from Republicans, and is a focal point of "get votes on bills that would piss Manchin off to have fillibustered to eliminate the fillibuster". I grabbed this line from his "website"
He's said he's not supportive of the checks recently, but his reasoning was inefficiency - he was supportive of relief spending. Since it's a minor point, as a career democrat I would expect him to be bullied into it.
Yes, but some Dems only won narrowly or in the count of a lot of split ticket voters (Manchin is the obvious example) so not all of them are comfortable in their seats to pass whatever Biden promises.
First words out of Biden's mouth were about reaching across the aisle. First words after he knew we controlled everything? Same line. I really don't see them not continuing business as usual, but I would love to be surprised.
They don't have a choice. Their majority in the senate is incredibly slim. Outside of the annual budget reconciliation bill, everything they want to pass needs the support of at least 10 Republicans
Ok, this is the same thing we heard through Obama's presidency. "Democrats just can't make things happen because of those bad, bad Republicans."
Trump put a lie to that. There's plenty that can be done if they have the motivation to not just sit on their hands. It's our job over the next few years to keep Democrats enthusiastic about pushing back against political recalcitrance.
Did he? One of the "brightest" areas of his administration was the complete and utter failure at doing much of anything when they were perfectly able to. In terms of legislation, it was mostly the corporate tax cuts - even the ACA repeal failed, and that's with enough of a R majority in both chambers.
I checked the official
propogandaRepublican senate website, and yeah looks like that's all they did in terms of major legislation.And in 2018 Democrats gained the house which ended any ideas of passing whatever is left of Republican policy.
Much of Trump's agenda was hamstrung by their lack of a supermajority in the Senate. They couldn't even repeal Obamacare.
Yes, there is a lot Biden can do, but many things cannot happen without an act of Congress, and all it takes is one Republican to declare a fillibuster to torpedo anything that lacks enough bipartisan support to get 60 votes.
What survives and what do the Democrats have to offer to make it go down easier? Between Trump Impeachment II and the razor thin Senate margins, Democrats have a loaded plate and Mitch can whip up opposition to all of it unless Corporate Liability, Less State Aid, or something else is up for offer.