Joe Manchin and the GOP think Biden's plan to give parents bigger monthly checks will encourage people to quit their jobs. A new study shows that argument is garbage.

Joe Manchin and the GOP think Biden's plan to give parents bigger monthly checks will encourage people to quit their jobs. A new study shows that argument is garbage.


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


If the job you can't fill doesn't pay well enough to keep people off the pittance that is welfare, you have a business built on exploitation and it deserves to fail.


Wish we could flip the mindset from “these full time workers using government aid programs are lazy” to “these companies that don’t pay full time employees enough to not need government aid programs aren’t run properly.” Also a good time to bring up how many part time jobs will let you work 40 hour weeks, but only for part of the year so they don’t need to provide healthcare or similar.


During the 1850 something potato famine, British politicians falsely thought giving aid to the Irish would make them lazy and stop working. Instead they let a lot of people starve to death.


For anyone faint of heart, careful going down that rabbit hole. The British treatment of it's "first colony" is pretty appalling. For starters, the reason the potato famine hit as hard as it did is that Ireland was not diverse in their agricultural production. See, Britain had seen the logistical value of a easy to grow, slow to spoil food which was cheap and nutritionally sufficient to make up the majority of a person's diet. So they forced Ireland into becoming the potato production centre of the Empire, and when the crop began to die there was no back up other than the hope that the Parliament would see fit to send food to the island. Not only did the Empire not help the Irish, they set them up to fail in the first place and then called them lazy and refused to help them.


Except there was actually enough food in Ireland to feed the people. Unfortunately, the food was owned by the British, which meant it was for export and profit. Beyond that, the British people sent food, which was allowed to rot by people like [Sir Charles Trevelyan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Charles_Trevelyan,_1st_Baronet), rather than be given to the starving Irish. An Gorta Mor was an attempted genocide, not a simple famine.


Yeah, the relief that was offered was deliberately inadequate because the English wanted to discourage the Irish from having large families. It was also contingent on doing useless physical labour for 12 hours a day, like building roads to nowhere and walls surrounding nothing


No surprise why the Irish hold such vehement hate for the British to this day.


Nice to see this morph from 'capitalism is to blame' into 'actually the British just wanted them dead.'


America likes to keep the spirit of British traditions alive I see. Edit: missed a “the”


[Despite the role of natural causes, the conclusion is inescapable that modern famines, like most of those in history, are man-made.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3300728/) Scrimshaw NS. The phenomenon of famine. Annu Rev Nutr. 1987;7:1-21. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nu.07.070187.000245. PMID: 3300728.


Then there were the famines in India which was handled even worse but approached with the same ethos…


Then they came to the United States where they were treated terribly too.


"Irish need not apply"


And so, we mostly became cops…because nobody wanted that job either. 200 years later, the racist Irish cop is a cliche…and I can’t even imagine being treated like a minority for being of Irish descent.


Cops and firefighters, which in addition to being jobs many people didn't want were also easy jobs for corrupt municipal politicians to offer in exchange for votes.


Anti-Irish discrimination is alive and well in England still. A few years back those with "Irish sounding surnames" were barred from an English holiday camp.


> For anyone faint of heart, careful going down that rabbit hole. The British treatment of it's "first colony" is pretty appalling. Yup. It’s worth remembering how awful the UK has been throughout history for the sake of perspective. As bad as US foreign (even domestic) policy has been, and it has been awful, it doesn’t come close to the damage the UK has done to the world. Low estimates are in the tens of millions of people died of famine under their rule, but it’s far more likely to be well into the hundreds of millions. On top of that the UK were the progenitors of modern capitalism and all the societal ills associated with it. We can talk about all the awful shit the other major colonial powers did, but truthfully the UK was in a league of it’s own when it came to destroying cultures for profit. What’s truly sad is that they don’t seem to be apologetic about it in the slightest.


That was the exact tactic the British used in their south Asian colony as well, blamed Indians for having too many kids and didn’t want to use the food being exported out to feed the population that grew it


The Potato Famine was an opportunistic act of genocide by the Brittish against the Celtic People. The Crown taxed land owners per resident motivating them to "tople"ancestral properties in order to get them to leave focing starving people out into the cold to die all to save money on taxes meant to cause the extermination of Irelands indigenous people. If Native Americans were able to send food to support the Irish, The English could have done so easily if they had any desire to. Thank you for mentioning this misunderstood piece of history. Im an American decensant of the Irish Diaspora.


And then those lazy dead fuckers stopped working anyway.


Or, a good time to just bring up that countries with greater welfare states than the US, such as Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Finland, etc, have higher employment rate for people between ages 25-54 (considered prime working ages): https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate-by-age-group.htm The idea that providing benefits dramatically cuts away at people working is a complete farce. The reality is that childcare is so expensive in the US, and might well become more expensive if the Dems implement means tested reform while upholding private for profit childcare, that it can make sense for people to fully leave their job and take care of their kid because it is would cost nearly their entire pay to pay for someone else to take care of their kid.


This is exactly it 💯. My wife ultimately stopped working because if we had to get childcare, she would essentially be working just to pay for that. The system is pretty FUBAR at this point.


I had to do that when our son was small. Daycare actually cost more than I would have made, so it made sense for me to stay home. We really could have used a monthly stipend. We went without, and never went to the doctor unless there was a serious injury. Later we were able to jump onto the state child health and food stamp system. But in those early years we didn't know about that.


And then people deny that there's a gender pay gap or wonder why there aren't more women CEOs


I lost the help of my family, so this is the situation I’m in now. I’m grateful my kid’s pre-k is subsidized, but I have to pay out of pocket for a babysitter and extended day just so I can go to work. So what would be two incomes is more like 1.5 - still better than a lot of families who may even be better off than us :/


Ironically I did the same, it was more profitable for our family to be a stay at home dad and work nights/weekends than a full time job since daycare costs are crazy. Now that both kids are in school I'm back to FT office work, but the pittance of an hourly makes me consider flipping burgers for $2 more per hour everyday I deal with a screaming or passive aggressive immature manager.


I try to make this argument with people who argue against increasing minimum wage. They always say that “minimum wage’s intention wasn’t to have a livable wage” and that “the intention is to motivate people to improve themselves and get a different job”. Makes no sense to me.


because they wrongly believe that companies will pay people more than the minimum without other market forces.


This is a major issue. There are too many people who simply do not understand or are unwilling to accept that most companies singular goal is to squeeze every drop of value they can from their employees, their consumers and their assets. They do not care what negative societal ramifications this creates.


Minimum wage is very literally meant to be a living wage. See the speech that introduced it.


[Here is some perspective ](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/qe48xc/the_labor_shortage_is_a_lie_the_capitalists_have/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)


I think this is starting. For many people, they never make the connection that the business is on welfare. I didn't, because I just didn't take the time to think that deeply about it. I saw Bernie mention it and it clicked, it made so much sense, and I finally saw how those corporations were twisting the narrative through the GOP. I've exposed the idea to at least five people in my life who also never considered. We just need to keep sharing. The idea isn't hard to grasp and clicks easy once it's been considered. Call out anyone who mentions an employee on welfare and explain this.


Exactly! Not only are we subsidizing the company employees, but often-times the company itself, too (looking at you, Walmart). Literally propping up an invalid business model with taxpayer money.


A number of years ago, a bunch of soldiers got into trouble at their second jobs - I forget the actual details, but a bunch of enlisted soldiers were moonlighting and got caught. So the question was posed “Why are they moonlighting?” and the answer was “we don’t pay them enough to cover the cost of living”. Instant national scandal. Massive pressure on the government, resulting in a pay raise and a national program that analyzes the cost of living in different posting locations and pays extra money to pers posted to more expensive locales. But this is also in a country with an effective government, so there’s that.


Yes, or how many of these jobs cut off your hours right before 40 so you can't qualify for benefits.


But they *are* run properly in the capitalist frame. This is exactly what capitalists want. Extract profit from labor while strangling the government.


I agree with this. The sad state is that healthcare workers and the systems that our modern expectations of quality of life are built around all depend on people working for wages that are way too low. The industries are too slow to catch up to the reality of this labor market, so now they think “no one wants to work”. They look at what their competitors are paying, and see similar rates. What does it matter if the competitor only pays $15/hr? They can’t get their positions filled at that wage either, so why would you? I think we are on the verge of a huge cost of living increase as this labor situation comes to full view and the supply side of service and commodities has a huge dip as people start to get paid more in the lower end of the economy. If your wages aren’t going up by *at least* 5% a year in 2021 and 2022, you are getting paid less each year.


I think it's just another play to centralize wealth collection. Burger King doesn't care how many burgers it sells a day short term in US markets. It can cover the expenses through profits from international markets. Meanwhile Bob's Burgers is two months away from closing, charging more for burgers so they can pay enough to actual hire someone, and being ignored by lunch crowds going to Burger King instead. The giant chains will survive this. They can afford to just ride it out. The pandemic, and a lack of attention by the community, are going to bring about the death of small restaurants. If you doubt it, try finding a small local hardware store...


yeah our small local coffee shop is having a hard time keeping people because they don’t just make coffee like starbucks. they’re a bakery and the muffins/scones/cookies are made fresh each day. once they train someone in this market they go to one of the larger bakeries around town that pay more for experienced people. and they can’t afford to offer the benefits that starbucks can offer. and it’s not pricing. their coffee is about 50 cents to a dollar more than starbucks. but they also offer sandwiches made to order, daily soups and quiches so once someone has 3-6 months there, they’ve got a good amount of short order kitchen experience and can go to a lot of other places. i know the owner, their spouse and their son all work in the place everyday because they can’t keep people in this job market. they used to have a fair amount of people working that had disabilities and other health issues but w covid those workers had to quit because of the anti-vax/mask people.


Not only that, *everything* Conservatives say is *garbage* meant to maintain a hierarchy with an aristocracy and an underclass. They want serfs again. Conservatism (big C) has always had one goal and little c “general” conservatism is a myth. Conservatism has the related goals of maintaining a de facto aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing outsiders down to enforce an under class. In support of that is a morality based on a person’s inherent status as good or bad - not their actions. The thing that determines if someone is good or bad is whether they inhabit the aristocracy. Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and therefore deserve punishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs its a ret con https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else. ***** A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.” Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.” The philosophic definition of something should include criticism. The Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms. Involving those we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst. ***** Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism. >The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not. And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs. Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite? ***** There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed. In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way. This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy. ***** If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ. While a non-conservative would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad. To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good. To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system. ***** The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They *want* the working class to get fucked by global warming. They *want* people to die from COVID19. Etc. Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408 Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality. Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do. ***** We still need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.” * This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote? * This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more... * We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month. * But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations. The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor. The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people of lower in the hierarchy don’t.” Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U ***** For good measure I found video and sources intersecting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0 ***** Some links incase anyone doubts that the contemporary American voter base was purposefully machined and manipulated into its mangle of abortion, guns, war, and “fiscal responsibility.” What does fiscal responsibility even mean? No one describes themselves as fiscally irresponsible? Atwater opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/ a little academic abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01 They were trying to rile a voter base up and abortion didn't do it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f https://www.salon.com/2019/07/01/the-long-southern-strategy-how-southern-white-women-drove-the-gop-to-donald-trum/ The best: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133


> It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. -FDR, June 16, 1933


What always astounds me is the idea in America that a fair wage is a privilege. It ties in with the very American belief that poverty is a moral consequence and not something that can potentially befall anybody.


I think they should be taxed. Companies with more than 100 employees should be taxed for every worker they have on SNAP or WIC. The taxpayers should not have to subsidize corporate greed.


An ongoing study shows that Joe Manchin is garbage.


West Virginian here. He has always been garbage and always will be.


Seriously, how brain dead does one have to be stand on his million dollar yacht and roll his eyes while people can’t afford food and housing beg him for help


He's not brain dead he just doesn't care. Which makes it much worse, ya know, since he's supposed to be representing these people begging for help.




Not brain dead, just evil.


As a West Virginian can ya all recall his moronic self centered stupid ass. He said zero at Trumps fiscal ridiculousness, instead posed for pictures with him. I am independent and have voted Republican in past but he is not a democrat. He’s in the mutha freaking way


He looks even weirder when he smiles.


An ongoing study shows that Joe Manchin is what garbage shits out.


The dollar general of garbage


Oil soaked garbage.


Came here to say nearly the same thing. Have an upvote.


Who the fuck is going to quit their job and try to raise kids on $300 each? These goons are so fucking rich and out-of-touch that they have no idea $300 per kid isn't enough to retire a socialist.


The math is so simple it's insulting. $300/ month is $3,600 per year. What the hell kind of job do you think I have that I will quit for $3,600.


Yup, Rep Katie Porter demonstrates it brilliantly. Like wages are not fucking high enough for us to survive. We’re not free loaders, I just wanna buy a small fucking house and retire someday https://youtu.be/2WLuuCM6Ej0


This just in: If you give crumbs to historically starving and impoverished people, they don't suddenly become so healthy and well fed that they no longer have a need for food. They're just a starving person who no longer has those crumbs you left them, still looking for food.


but if you had 20 kids that’s 72k a year of government support. why should the guvmint be giving you 72k a year to sit on your ass making babies! we paying them to make us a minority /s


Exactly. What an extra $300 a month might do is pay the light bill or buy some groceries and reduce the stress on families and children. This leads to happier, healthier parents, which leads to happier, healthier kids, leading to a happier and healthier society. Even if you're a selfish conservative, you'd want the whole of society to be better because, in the end, doesn't that benefit you? These motherfuckers seriously believe that everyone is an island and that the health of society as a whole is not their responsibility, while at the same time complain about crime and "degradation of the nuclear family." I can imagine the relief for families when that tax credit shows up and they don't have to worry about small bills anymore. It's an overall good.


I use it to help pay down my daycare costs. 2 kids, $600/mo for them... Doesn't even cover 2 weeks of part-time childcare.


How do you get this money? I have two kids and I'm not getting $600 a month. I'm working 60 hours a week, but everything keeps getting more expensive and I'm getting behind.


You could have signed up in July to get money per kid each month OR get a larger tax credit on your return next year


If you haven’t been getting them, you can get them all as a lump sum when you file your taxes next spring.


Obviously nobody wants a happy and healthy population.


It’s not even 300 extra. It’s at best $133. They were already getting $2000 per year,so if they get $3600 it’s only $133/mo extra. It’s $83/mo extra after it reduces to $3000 annual.


Stockton, CA had a GBI pilot program where low income families got I think $1000 a month and at the end of the program it was found that families getting assistance actually ended up working more. People were able to get or fix a car, pay for gas, pay for childcare or after school programs, etc that gave them more hours to work.


It's not the value of $300/month itself that would be a factor. It's the added economic benefit of not having to pay for childcare as well. I don't know how we ended up in a situation where allowing working families to have one stay at home parent is actually a bad thing. We should be adopting policies which give parents the *option* to either stay home or work.


The Venn diagram of people who blame violence/criminal behavior on a lack of parenting and people who fight against $300 stipends for parents because they’ll leave the workforce is a perfect circle. I thought they wanted to make America “great again”, like it was in the sitcoms set in the 50s. Ya know, with mom at home with the kids? …Every day it feels more like they’re talking about some *other* aspect of the 50s. Weird.


I wonder what other aspect that might be 🤔


What’s even weirder is that some of those 50s sitcoms were about single parents doing the best they could.


It's a banana, what could it cost, $10? - GOP, Manchin, and far too many politicians.


If one parent quits you can now quit paying for daycare and commuting expenses which could be like $2000 a month. A 15% boost in that cash flow delta could push people over the edge. I’m fully in favor of it though. The fewer people having to work the better for society.


If you are working minimum wage $300 probably isn’t far off of what you have left after paying to get to work and for daycare. If you can eliminate those expenses by not working then your probably not in a worse place than you were before and some people in that situation may choose to prioritize their kids.


Cute of you to assume that these decisions are being made out of naivety and not just old-fashioned cruelty


An odd argument coming from someone who continually cashes checks from big donors, and yet, feels no urgency to leave office.


Just like the argument that when federal unemployment benefits went away early in red states that people would return to jobs in mass, which also turned out to not be true. How about we try something different?


Republican arguments tend to be made on how intuitive it sounds and how well it will divide people into groups… usually with the intention of lowering the tax burden of their wealthy donors at the expense of helping fewer people or cutting government/public funding (except for military/security spending). It’s *never* about the actual outcome of the course of action they’re suggesting and they’d rather engage on the outrage of the audacity of the argument than the implied outcome anyway.


It's only intuitive from an uninformed perspective. Their policies are all about strong arming the poor and the weak so they don't have to have mean words with the rich and the powerful


"Um. I guess we could try stepping on their knees instead of their hands, feet, heads, and arms." -The GOP probably.


Important to note that Biden agreed with them. Manchin isn't the only one who believes this nonsense.


Not really. Biden agreed to not extend the benefits past labor day while the GOP (and what you are referencing) killed the Federal UI in their states months prior. It seems they had other plans for the money. So yea, it's still just Manchin and the GOP.


Really most politicians are for exactly what Manchin wants. At this point, it's kind of looking like Manchin is just playing fall guy for the Dems. Like Romney and Collins when they get their little hall passes from McConnell.


[Its because he's the rotating villain](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rotating%20villain)


Yep the designated opposition. "We really have all these great ideas but because an extreme minority of representatives aren't on board we can't go ahead with them." Same shit that's been going on for awhile.


The same people losing their minds about people not taking shitty service jobs are the same people who have been losing their minds over people not having kids, and now are the same people refusing to make changes so that having kids and working a shitty job becomes a financially viable option.


Daycare in some cities is as much as someone's monthly income. It's absurd.


I was a server for over a decade. Nearly every parent I worked with relied on family for childcare. I can’t think of anyone who didn’t have family watch their kids regularly, but I’m sure there were some. There is almost no way to secure regular childcare when your weekly schedule comes out one to seven days in advance. And if you have limited availability, your managers will view you as less committed.


> There is almost no way to secure regular childcare when your weekly schedule comes out one to seven days in advance. Right?? I don’t even have kids and it this bothers me so much. Like how can I plan to do anything if I don’t know when I’m working 2 weeks from now? Managers should be scheduling a month out and it frustrates me that they don’t. When I’m a manager someday I’ll be the change I want to see in the world lol


> There is almost no way to secure regular childcare when your weekly schedule comes out one to seven days in advance One of the reasons I'm glad I don't have kids, my schedule is *mostly* regular and consistent but is prone to changing at times and I won't know it's changing until a few days before the next week starts.


Where I live we can't find it anywhere below 2k a month. Minimum wage here is $7.50. Daycare is more than double the monthly income of a lot of people.


And the same people who are probably ok with Bezos buying yet another superyatch worth millions


Also both parties then only pass help that is mostly only accessibly to people with kids. Leaves single or childless adults and couples absolutely fucked.


So boomers?


But Manchin received bigger payments from the coal industry and he didn’t quit his job. What gives?


Right, he just doesn't do his job. You get fired from a normal job when that happens.


A new study shows that if you are a politician and own a coal mine you’ll always vote for your best interests over the American Peasant’s.


When is the last time the Republicans were correct about anything related to the economy? It certainly hasn’t been in my lifetime.


I agree, but I think people who believe stuff like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and trickle-down economics need to hear this and accept it. Kinda funny that he bootstraps phrase was originally meant as a sort of joke since trying to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps is physically impossible, but it mutated into being taken seriously by some instead of an absurdity. And trickle-down has been shown to be a total lie, but some still believe it.


Seriously. This is a dog bites man article not a man bites dog article.


When has being right dissuaded Republicans from enabling their agenda?


They don't even *believe* what they say. They just make wild unfounded claims which they know are made up. Journalism needs to shut it down harder. It's not the journalist's job to show all sides. It's the journalist's job to show the truth.


"When was the last time Republicans were right about (blank)?" Is usually answered Nixon, sometimes Eisenhower, and, with sad frequency, Lincoln.


Nixon, the guy that prolonged a war to get elected and then built the war on drugs to destroy his perceived enemies, whose legacy is the dog whistle master Reagan?


Nixon, who enacted the clean air and water acts, opened relations with China, created campaign finance reporting (lol!). People are complicated. Nixon was a Bond villain but he did some good shit.


Is this about the $300 per month? Do these people understand how expensive kids are? Hell even just LIVING. If I did not have the expense of a child and was given 300 a month I couldn’t even cover all of my utilities let alone rent and food


Estimated cost to raise a kid in the U.S. is like $250,000 last I checked.


So at 300 a month it’s just under 70 years to break even from that payment alone xD definitely quitting my job brb


It tracks. Manchin quit his job working for the people once he got paid more.


Oh no, quitting a job to become a stay at home parent? The thing that conservatives idolize and bemoan that it's disappearing? Money to take care of the children that they claim to care about? It's almost like public policy can be used to build the world they'd like to see. That they're actively choosing against it tells us that supporting families and children isn't actually what they want. What a shock


What essentially appears to be UBI, is just a supplemental income. Things are too expensive, especially in bigger cities, to survive off only supplemental income. As of now I think families are getting monthly $300 per child. A family of 4 can’t survive off $600 a month. This is just the lie corporate political puppets say to scare away the American people from what’s better for them. Funny thing is a lot of republicans states depend on federal welfare


If you're given money for essentials, that means you've got more disposable income for luxary goods and services, boosting the economy. People aren't gonna quit their jobs and make do with the bare minimum


I remember when ultra-conservative pundit Michelle Malkin made this argument in the 2000's, and it was too batshit right-wing for a lot of Republicans. Forget that it was easily disprovable/disproven that long ago. In this short a time, the views of someone one step less crazy than Ann Coulter (who isn't that crazy by modern Republican standards), has become a debate-worthy assertion, echoed by a Democratic senator, and taken seriously by the media. That's how far *to* the right, and *away from* reality, our political discourse has moved in that short a time. And it's been moving that quickly, in those directions, for a lot longer than 10-15 years.


It's always been garbage. There have been plenty of small scale studies on giving people UBI that have shown time and again that it doesn't stop people from working. Even if it did, who gives a flying fart? There's never going to be enough jobs and industry on the planet to employ everyone. Most of the work people do now is complete bullshit anyways. I'd rather we not have people starving and homeless in a land of plenty.


Free riders exist in every system. Letting people go without to avoid a statistically inconsequential subset of society getting a few extra crumbs is inhumane. The whole idea of using starvation, exposure, and shame to drive capitalism is kind of disgusting given the wealth of our systems. At this point in human development, starvation, thirst, and dearth of proper housing is a political issue, not an issue of resource scarcity. Humans work much better at the peak of Maslow's hierarchy, but the majority of business models rely on Maslow's floor to drive output. If people stopped having to worry about simply surviving day to day, the renaissance driven by newfound self-actualization could be transformative for us as a species. The whip works, but the carrot is ultimately cheaper and more effective.


But the carrots mean that managers have to learn and pay attention, they can just spreadsheet their way through life


It stops people from working menial, soul sucking jobs with horrible conditions and worse pay. If the peons stop working the menial jobs, who will serve our corporate overlords?


But also... why would that be necessarily bad?? The US would probably benefit from a few more parents being able to stay home with their kids. And with that birth rates are


Also, "if we give people free health care they'll injure themselves on purpose" and "if cars come with airbags then people will deliberately crash them".


What will encourage people to quit: Perpetually low wages, an increasingly hostile customer base, and demeaning managers


Also, the fact that the cost of childcare can easily exceed take home pay.


God for bid they give tax money back to the taxpayers for their children.


"But centrists like Joe Manchin" JOE MANCHIN IS NOT A CENTRIST.


And apparently they have forgotten that there's a world outside the United States. Nearly all other Western democracies have child allowances to encourage parenthood. There is decades and decades of data from all over the world on the effect on labor market participation. Arguing that people stay home because of a child allowance is just false in every way possible. All it doesn't is keep low-income children out of deep poverty.


Jeez, if, what, an extra $300 per month, is enough to allow you to quit a shitty job, how shitty must that job be? To be honest, though, I can’t see how this makes any sense. Republicans just hate to see poor people getting any help at all.


They explicitly admit that their economic model relies on poverty and economic vulnerability. Capitalism is only great if you’re the one capitalizing I guess.


They already know it's garbage. Entitlement for me, not for thee.


Quick stop all paments to the military we are giving them too much money they aren't going to work. NICE ANOTHER POST REMOVED BY THE MODS WHAT IS THIS DIGG?


“pretext”. It’s the excuse you give when the real reason is something you’d rather not say.


Also joe manchin is garbage


I mean every argument he has been making in this debate over the BBB plan has been garbage and not from a solid policy stance. This is just the same "give poor people money and they get lazy; give rich people money and they save the world" trash leeches like him continue to piss on us with.


Love being single with no kids in America


Let’s suppose he’s right. So what? I’m fine supporting parents who choose to stay home with the kids.


Many jobs to skirt requirements of HEALTHCARE give less than 40 hrs. Maybe make that loop hole close


I wish I had a child so I could get that sweet $300 a month and stop working completely. I’m not good at math but I think it’s a solid plan.


“Encourage people to quit their jobs”… No, its more likely they’re afraid it will give them enough of a safety cushion that they can afford getting a job thats just slightly better than the minimum wage serfdom shitty job they currently are stuck in. Not everyone can use the bankruptcy system the way the Sackler family and Johnson and Johnson can… but thats how the GOP likes it.


Rest assured it will keep happening regardless, really shows their disconnection from the world.


No study will change the way they create policy. They have spent too much time fighting “government handouts” for individuals. However, if you’re a business… here’s a few billion dollars but please please don’t give your CEO millions in bonuses. Of course CEO then gets bonus. They will never admit they’re wrong. Their voters will turn on them.


Let’s be honest- all of their arguments are garbage


No, they don't think that. They just say it because they can't be honest about why they oppose it.


All the arguments in the far-right's culture war are garbage, but the gullible rubes eat them up anyway.


Yeah, because the entirety of humanity has already proven that once a person has money, they just stop wanting money. That’s such a stupid fucking idea. This asswipe is clearly running on a *lean mixture*


They think we like these fucking handouts because they absolutely love thiers. I want nothing but to work and earn what I'm worth. They don't know a thing about that.


How do we encourage Joe Manchin to quit his job?


It's like $250 a month for one kid, I am not quitting my job for a couple hundred, who are these idiots


US “Conservatives”: - “The nuclear family is the core of America.” - “Children should be raised by two parents!” - “Taxation is theft!” - “Nobody wants to work anymore!” - “If you don’t like it, get an education to get a better job!” Also “conservatives”: - “Claw back that pittance of taxes from working parents who can barely afford to raise their children despite both working a combined 60-100hrs/wk (and/or going into 6-figure college debt to ‘improve themselves’). Otherwise they might get lazy! … Now excuse me, I’m off to cash $750K/yr in lobbyist dollars and govt paychecks for deliberately doing jack-shit while taking half the year off in ‘recess’ as taxpayer-funded vacation.”


A lot of this is projection by Manchin. He’s lived off greed and the public dole so he thinks that’s everyone else’s goal.


They’ll spend more and boost the economy, you tit.


>Honey, we can afford daycare now! I can go back to work! THAT'S the benefit. (Average cost of daycare is $750)


This is exactly why they funded the big tax break under Trump, so all those rich fucks could cash out and retire early.


“Shouldn’t the longterm goal of any society be complete unemployment?”


I am in the process of pursuing a different career altogether from my bachelors degree. I decided I wanted to impact my community in a direct way by becoming a high school teacher. This is a loss of income for me and my family, but it will bring me more happiness and less stress than what I currently do. I get to share my passion for a subject and encourage growth and opportunity for generations of students. I think it is silly to find money as the sole motivator to work, and Manchin inadvertently presents his myopic worldview.


Oh no! People might be able to spend more time with their children instead of work. The horror!


Okay, but if the employer pays like shit and treats them like shit, then I hope they quit their job. That’s the only way shit is going to change.


This from the group of people that's been raising their own salary consistently for decades as they do progressively less work every single year. True entitlement wears a suit every day


No one needs a “study” to know that giving me some money will make me quit. In fact, it’ll make me happier. Unless I am given 1 Billion dollars or more, I’m not going to stop working. The funds that are basically a tax break will end up going into things I need and then quickly followed by investments.


Just from the perspective of a parent with a decent job who could still use a little extra money every month in order to exist with a small level of comfort, I think his argument is bullshit. Maybe that's the problem, maybe they don't want me to feel even the slightest bit of comfort.


Shit jobs with shit pay and shit leadership are why people quit jobs Manchin; ya fuckin' snake.


Maybe West Virginia should not take more money from the federal government than it takes cause that is just making them lazy. Same goes for Kentucky.


Conversely, bigger checks may incentivize employers to pay more to keep their employees.


Every argument republicunts have made since 1979 has been absolute garbage, and I'm sick and tired of pretending they're sane or reasonable anymore.


No, not a "new" study, every fucking study about this for the last 40 years of people pushing this stupid shit.


Starving people does not motivate them. It depresses the shit out of people by creating hopelessness and resentment. These people making our laws have too much $$$. They have lost touch that comfort makes better workforce because more $$$ on their already vast wealth no longer brings them joy. They hunger for feeling that spark from achievement they once had when climbing the mountain. And the more they cling after they reached the comfort plateau the less they feel. They believe that the reason they lost passion and motivation is because it’s not hard for them anymore. Rather than that once you reach a certain wealth more money no longer has incoming emotional value. That is the psychology behind these wealth hoarders and suffering creators. It is an addiction aimed at getting back the loss of those feelings from gaining. But it is misdirected. Because they do not understand why they have lost those feelings. They are misidentifying where these issues are stemming from. You are free to disagree. However, I’m a therapist with 11 years experience in understanding what internal drives are and how and why they develop and how they affect outward behavior. These folks sit in board rooms making it harder for everyone believing that making it harder on the people below will do some good. They also gain a lot of empty $$$$ from doing so. However I do not believe that the latter is the intention behind the drive. I believe the drive is to project the reliving of the climb that brought them earlier joy and is a form of projecting onto others below them. I am only referring to the already wealthy - not to those in the lower classes. They have vastly different internal psychological drivers - though they also hold up this system. It is for different reasons.


The GQP's policies has never been evidence-based, why would that change now?




Why aren’t people taking these jobs?


Manchin seems to be one of the few Dems left who understands the game here. Take a lot of people's money away quietly, give some of it back flamboyantly, pretend you did them a favor, get votes. It's a total con game.


[Joe Manchin is Daddy Coalbucks.](https://youtu.be/aiYPZkfENmg)


These people are scumbags. Multimillionaire, lazy hypocrites


It’s pretty clear this guy is evil and corrupt.


My wife and I don’t want to quit our jobs. But we pay $3000 a month on daycare. If we had some help with that we would use that extra money to re-landscape our front yard or remodel our kitchen. So actually, we would be creating jobs. Why does the GOP not want to create those jobs?


That is interesting, a larger tax credit would likely make it easier for my family to continue to work. If I had another child, it would make child care nearly unaffordable (certainly in the short term, we would have to dip into savings for 2 years until we were able to put the oldest in school). Here is the thing, the idea of individual 'taking advantage' of the system is permeated throughout our discourse, so much so that it is difficult to even have a honest conversation about who would benefit from policies like this one.


Doesn't manchin have kids? These people are so conservative they'll hoard wealth from their own children. Probably sell them too for a buck fifty.


I need universal health care to quit my job. And ain’t no one talking about that.


Ah yes, because the money used to supplement their income to help them feed their children will totally be enough to justify quitting their jobs.


Studies show all of Manchin's arguments are garbage.


I don’t know of a person who could quit their job for $300/month … the people against this are the same people who vigorously find loop holes to avoid paying taxes on their vast fortunes and needed Tax payer bailouts in 08’. Fuck them all… for the first time, money was actually put to good use to help American families. manchin is a wolf in sheep’s clothing


the people against this don't care what any study says. they just want poor people to suffer and die because it allows them to feel better about themselves.


Not unless they want health insurance. The other starvation tactic of servitude to keep people in meager wage jobs for their entire lives. Believe it or not, in more socialist countries that have universal healthcare and real safety nets, people do still go to work :D


We cannot have that!!! Parents need to work multiple jobs and leave their kids with a TV to raise themselves. Of course it's garbage, but they have a desire for a permanently desperate underclass.


Can only speak for myself by saying that the money is going into savings for us. Still working like a MF right now. Nice to have a safety net available though, which is why this needs to stay in place. Shit happens and a vast majority of people have little to no resources to tap into or supplement their income when needed.


If that were true, why would quitting your job to take care of children be a bad thing? He’s not saying it’s unaffordable, just he wants low wage workers. More evidence to me that modern poverty is not merely a matter of economics but of maintaining a ultra luxurious lifestyle for the top.


On the other hand having to pay 3k/month for childcare with no help has my wife and I considering her quitting her job.


If that were true, why haven’t these jokes quit their jobs yet. They’re getting a lot of government handouts as it is. And we’d be better off if they quit already.


Because only parents need extra money? Fuck people who don't want kids right?


It’s ok for elites to get handouts but not regular people….. then it’s unAmerican and charity.


Facts don’t matter to half the country.


These idiots also think that giving bigger tax cuts to corporations, that money will 'trickle down'


That’s not a new study. Economists have been saying that for years


Who cares about “a study” lol dem days are coming to an end sooner than expected


Manchin wants tax payers to take on more coal miner pension insolvency. It is not the tax payers fault he tried and failed to get coal barons off the hook by selling his soul to Trump, knowing full well Trump has no say. Republicans have always focused to destroy any pension plan that is not their own. [https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/risk-of-pension-meltdown-grows-due-to-inaction-by-congress/article\_bc01443b-4b16-5447-84ee-159bb59a6de7.html](https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/risk-of-pension-meltdown-grows-due-to-inaction-by-congress/article_bc01443b-4b16-5447-84ee-159bb59a6de7.html) *Democrats are pushing for a package of low-interest loans to prop up the funds, while Republicans want to boost insurance premiums paid by employers,* ***add new premiums paid by plan participants and force more conservative accounting assumptions. <-*** This is how Republicans move to declare a plan is insolvent, they make it insolvent, and then point out the insolvency.


A new study shows Joe Manchin is garbage.


So basically the GOP doesn’t want you to have financial freedom. Some should advertise that.