DNC Restructuring

[Day]

Commies I swear to god

[Byrthnoth]

oh ok

So we can't invest in a social safety net and can't make changes that give people money.

[Day]

Free money why didn't anyone think of it before

[Zealot]

A better argument would be 1000 bonuses and tax cuts are a good start but we can do better, but it would be a lie, because dems would raise taxes to pay for some ineffective bloated shit govt program.

Then why not permanent tax cuts for the poor and middle class and a system of profit sharing that incentivizes workers increasing productivity and awareness of where they work? What government program is ineffective? Food stamps, welfare, social security, CHIP, Medicare, or maybe a few others that continually keep hundreds of thousands of people from sinking below the poverty line?

[Byrthnoth]

Increasing after-tax takehome for poor people is giving them money, regardless how you do it. If you get that money by taxing the rich, it is wealth redistribution regardless how anyone spins it. It would definitely be spun because no one likes to say that's what they're doing, but inequity in our country is the problem and wealth redistribution is the solution.

The favored method of the Republicans (a lump sum payment, similar to the Bush tax cut and all the stupid bonus shit that's happening now) is the least efficient way to give people money. Studies have shown it is more efficient to do weekly disbursements than monthly, people are more frugal/make more responsible purchases with increases in their paycheck over time than getting a thousand dollars dropped on them, etc. That's just how people work, and if we had legislators interested in making useful policies then they would account for that.

[Niiro]

Unpredictable and inconsistent small cash bonuses are surely the way to encourage people struggling to make good long-term financial decisions.

[Day]

I mean first of all these companies giving bonuses are just a result of the tax plan so Im not sure why its being treated like republicans passed a law saying everyone give out 1k bonuses. Some people are likely to get raises along with a bigger check each week.

[Niiro]

Why would they be likely to get raises?

[Day]

Then why not permanent tax cuts for the poor and middle class and a system of profit sharing that incentivizes workers increasing productivity and awareness of where they work? What government program is ineffective? Food stamps, welfare, social security, CHIP, Medicare, or maybe a few others that continually keep hundreds of thousands of people from sinking below the poverty line?

Here's many examples of waste:

https://twitter.com/jasonelevation/s...99069632208896

[Deftscythe]

I mean first of all these companies giving bonuses are just a result of the tax plan so Im not sure why its being treated like republicans passed a law saying everyone give out 1k bonuses. Some people are likely to get raises along with a bigger check each week.

You realize the bonuses are just a PR campaign, right?

[Day]

Why would they be likely to get raises?

For being a good employee? Have you never gotten a raise?

[Byrthnoth]

It makes sense for companies repatriating foreign capital to give their employees a one-time bonus and for companies that got an annual, permanent tax break (many/most/all of them?) to give employees raises.

Seeing a lot of companies go for the one-time bonus option regardless whether they had foreign capital to repatriate because it's cheaper and curries favor with the administration.



Regardless, end of the day what we actually need is wealth redistribution in this country. That's the only way to address the wealth gap.

[Niiro]

For being a good employee? Have you never gotten a raise?

So a raise that would have happened regardless.

[Day]

So a raise that would have happened regardless.

Maybe, maybe not. If taxes were going up? doubtful.

[Byrthnoth]

Did no one get a raise when the ACA happened?

[arus2001]

Gonna agree with Byrth on the wealth redistribution.

Being aggressive about it, I'd be in line for some percentage relative to the total number of employees that the highest paid employee can get over the lowest. Something like a CEO can't make 2000% more than their janitors at 500 or less total employees, scaling the first number downward as worker numbers increase. Might offer incentive to break up some of these larger telecoms/conglomerates, but something would still need to be done to curb owning too many businesses within the same field as a loophole tactic.

Next step is probably cutting the expected work week back to 30-35 hours, with overtime 100% guaranteed in all states with no loopholes. Salary work should also probably be amended to guarantee a minimum, with more should their employer try to pull shit like 60+ hour weeks thinking they suckered some cheap labor out of the lower management tiers.

And while it's difficult to say how much the earlier ratio may steer the minimum wage toward a comfortably liveable non-poverty wage, that should still be a goal.

[Patriarch]

I just gotta solid raise raise last week

Thanks trump

[Gredival]

ineffective bloated shit govt program.

People wanting to be cheap with social welfare programs are the cause of most of the waste.

Studies have shown repeatedly that the cheapest way to address homelessness is to give them housing, even if they refuse to work. But we hate the idea of giving free houses to leeches, so instead we waste money on a bunch of programs that are far less efficient.

Most of the waste in medicaid is because of the poor quality of services available to people in the program. Practices run by shitty doctors who hire a few PA practitioners that are just around to bill the system. That results in chronic misdiagnosis and conditions that go untreated, resulting in years of additional treatment and/or ER visits that add up to tens of thousands more in bills.

You know how to solve that? Remove the ability for people to use money as an exclusionary barrier to get better services and deny that level of service to the poor.

[Byrthnoth]

Welfare inefficiencies are generally related to the block grant system we switched to in the 90s. Some states (like Kansas) spend less than 10% of their TANF funding on cash assistance. Some states (like Michigan) use it to subsidize college tuition (including for people whose parents are comfortably middle class).

If you want to talk about waste, we switched to the block grants under Billy C because he really wasn't a very good policy mind, like bipartisanship too much, and had a Republican congress for 6 years. Also, looking back, I think it's safe to say that the 90s were a weird time. That said, the block grant system has allowed states a lot of flexibility to figure out how to best aid their poorest citizens. We should be able to, at this point, assess the efficacy of the many different programs and come up with a better national strategy for TANF funding on the Federal level.

[Gredival]

Welfare inefficiencies are generally related to the block grant system we switched to in the 90s. Some states (like Kansas) spend less than 10% of their TANF funding on cash assistance. Some states (like Michigan) use it to subsidize college tuition (including for people whose parents are comfortably middle class).

If you want to talk about waste, we switched to the block grants under Billy C because he really wasn't a very good policy mind, like bipartisanship too much, and had a Republican congress for 6 years. Also, looking back, I think it's safe to say that the 90s were a weird time. That said, the block grant system has allowed states a lot of flexibility to figure out how to best aid their poorest citizens. We should be able to, at this point, assess the efficacy of the many different programs and come up with a better national strategy for TANF funding on the Federal level.

I don't doubt what you say, but do you happen to have any sources that speak to block grants specifically as a state-created inefficiency? I'm always interested in federalism literature.