It’s a silver bullet. The previous temporary expansion lifted something like 4 million children out of poverty.
Imagine being the party trying to force people to have babies but also actively working against supporting those same people. Fucking hypocrites.
So. That’s the point. Or one of the main points. At least, as far as the people actually setting republican policy is concerned.
They need cheap (read, unskilled, uneducated,) labor desperate for low-paying shit jobs. The easiest way to get that is to force young women who aren’t ready or very incapable of having a child to have children.
This creates a desperate single mother struggling to afford basic necessities; and likely a child without any financial support as they become working age adults- and similarly desperate.
You’ll also notice they’re all for the tough-on-crime stupidity that locks people up for shit reasons and then forces them to work in the only constitutionally-approved form of slavery.
That it just happens to affect more minorities is just a bonus.
What part of orphan crushing machine don’t you understand?
We are all supposed to be supporting our kids with stipends from a trust account our daddies set up for us…. What, doesn’t everyone have a trust fund set up by their daddies?
Senate Republicans voted against it.
Just a little reminder that Dems control the Senate.
From the article…
Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Jason T. Smith, a Republican from Missouri who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, crafted the deal at the start of the year and secured passage in the House on a 357-70 vote in the hopes of passing it before the start of tax season. But objections from Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee stalled the bill.
This week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer finally called a vote, in part to force Republicans to take a public stand on the bill ahead of the November election. Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, handed out pamphlets to Republican colleagues suggesting that voting in favor of the bill would “give Harris a win before the election.”
Also a quick reminder that this bill needs 60 votes to pass.
Also a quick reminder that this bill needs 60 votes to pass.
Because Democrats are unwilling to do away with the filibuster for good.
That’s not how this works lol. Everyone still gets a vote and the ones who voted no were only Republicans
I thought Bernie voted no too? And the bill gave like two or three times as much money to rich people via tax breaks? Maybe I’m thinking of the wrong bill. But if it’s the one I’m thinking of, then it was probably a good thing because it was more of a distribution to the wealthy than to the needy.
Maybe I misread the article, but this would have simply given poorer people the same incentive richer ones ALREADY get, and… the argument Republicans have is essentially fuck you, you worthless poor person?
Well I guess they stayed on message.
republicants strike again. can’t be giving the democrats anything that could be perceived as a ‘win’ in an election year.
Enjoy your crumbs, peasants.
What crumbs? Republicans just voted against giving peasants crumbs.
There’s still what little you can get from WIC. For now. If you qualify.
Vote!
The 19th News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Name: The 19th News Bias: Left
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-19th-news/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
