US Debt Ceiling

[Lexicus]

I honestly don't get why you keep trying to pick a fight with me.

Short answer is our job is to change political reality, not accept it as given. The long answer is that I'm sick of hearing, to quote Dr. King, that we must "wait for a more convenient season" for justice.

Gradual progress may be imposed on us by the resistance of the forces of reaction, but we should never be putting up gradual progress as the goal itself.

Also you basically said I'm an antisemite in the Tolkien's Orcs thread which I don't take too kindly to

 

[Farm Boy]

Orcs are pretty much poster boys for refusing to wait. Those who abhor breaking things in favor of just trying something new that might be better is more elven in this analogy. Incrementality is a state of mind to lean on when fixing stuff, since when you change less variables at a time, you can better control unexpected outcomes and future tweaks, which will be happening.

 

[Lexicus]

Orcs are pretty much poster boys for refusing to wait. Those who abhor breaking things in favor of just trying something new that might be better is more elven in this analogy. Incrementality is a state of mind to lean on when fixing stuff, since when you change less variables at a time, you can better control unexpected outcomes and future tweaks, which will be happening.

So your position is that Martin Luther King Jr's demands for justice now put him in the category of Orcs?

And I guess the white people who spat on Ruby Bridges were elves

I really have nothing more to say at this point

 

[Farm Boy]

Making a point does not mean making this point. But it might help build a shared series of metaphors to aid in conversation with people we generally seem to like?

Everyone has some orc. My kid rolls his eyes everytime I'm messing with the seed talc tub and I slap his chest and yell "Saruman!"

Dark elves are generally considered a greater evil per unit than orcs, no? Just there are less masters than slaves.

 

[Lexicus]

Dark elves are generally considered a greater evil per unit than orcs, no?

Orcs are themselves corrupted, twisted versions of elves - there aren't really dark elves in Tolkien's universe that are 'evil' in the same sense as dark elves from either of the Warhammers.

But yeah, it is implied that Morgoth did more damage by corrupting Fëanor than with his Orcs.

 

[Samson]

On the same day the deal passed the house to take away some "cash transfers" we get this paper:

The effects of cash transfers on adult and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries

Spoiler Legend :

Forest plot showing the fully adjusted overall associations between cash transfer programmes and mortality among women (n = 14,994,934 person-years), men (n = 15,249,343 person-years) and children aged less than 5 years (n = 6,757,284 person-years), 5 to 9 years (n = 4,818,370 person-years) and 10 to 17 years (n = 4,824,891 person-years). Effect estimates are ARRs and error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Estimates were generated using multivariable modified Poisson models with country and year fixed effects, country-level covariates (GDP per capita, PEPFAR funding budgeted, and three Worldwide Governance Indicators: control of corruption, political stability and absence of violence, and voice and accountability), and individual-level covariates (age and rural or urban setting in all models; sex, age of mother and birth order in child analyses). We used robust standard errors clustered at the country level. CI, confidence interval.

Spoiler Abstract :

Poverty is an important social determinant of health that is associated with increased risk of death. Cash transfer programmes provide non-contributory monetary transfers to individuals or households, with or without behavioural conditions such as children’s school attendance. Over recent decades, cash transfer programmes have emerged as central components of poverty reduction strategies of many governments in low- and middle-income countries. The effects of these programmes on adult and child mortality rates remains an important gap in the literature, however, with existing evidence limited to a few specific conditional cash transfer programmes, primarily in Latin America. Here we evaluated the effects of large-scale, government-led cash transfer programmes on all-cause adult and child mortality using individual-level longitudinal mortality datasets from many low- and middle-income countries. We found that cash transfer programmes were associated with significant reductions in mortality among children under five years of age and women. Secondary heterogeneity analyses suggested similar effects for conditional and unconditional programmes, and larger effects for programmes that covered a larger share of the population and provided larger transfer amounts, and in countries with lower health expenditures, lower baseline life expectancy, and higher perceived regulatory quality. Our findings support the use of anti-poverty programmes such as cash transfers, which many countries have introduced or expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, to improve population health.

 

[Lexicus]

The deal passes the House with more Democrat votes than Republican votes.

I'd guess we can count on it passing the Senate too. I do wonder how many Senators will vote against it.

 

[Lexicus]

On the same day the deal passed the house to take away some "cash transfers" we get this paper:

The effects of cash transfers on adult and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries

Spoiler Legend :

Forest plot showing the fully adjusted overall associations between cash transfer programmes and mortality among women (n = 14,994,934 person-years), men (n = 15,249,343 person-years) and children aged less than 5 years (n = 6,757,284 person-years), 5 to 9 years (n = 4,818,370 person-years) and 10 to 17 years (n = 4,824,891 person-years). Effect estimates are ARRs and error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Estimates were generated using multivariable modified Poisson models with country and year fixed effects, country-level covariates (GDP per capita, PEPFAR funding budgeted, and three Worldwide Governance Indicators: control of corruption, political stability and absence of violence, and voice and accountability), and individual-level covariates (age and rural or urban setting in all models; sex, age of mother and birth order in child analyses). We used robust standard errors clustered at the country level. CI, confidence interval.

Spoiler Abstract :

Poverty is an important social determinant of health that is associated with increased risk of death. Cash transfer programmes provide non-contributory monetary transfers to individuals or households, with or without behavioural conditions such as children’s school attendance. Over recent decades, cash transfer programmes have emerged as central components of poverty reduction strategies of many governments in low- and middle-income countries. The effects of these programmes on adult and child mortality rates remains an important gap in the literature, however, with existing evidence limited to a few specific conditional cash transfer programmes, primarily in Latin America. Here we evaluated the effects of large-scale, government-led cash transfer programmes on all-cause adult and child mortality using individual-level longitudinal mortality datasets from many low- and middle-income countries. We found that cash transfer programmes were associated with significant reductions in mortality among children under five years of age and women. Secondary heterogeneity analyses suggested similar effects for conditional and unconditional programmes, and larger effects for programmes that covered a larger share of the population and provided larger transfer amounts, and in countries with lower health expenditures, lower baseline life expectancy, and higher perceived regulatory quality. Our findings support the use of anti-poverty programmes such as cash transfers, which many countries have introduced or expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, to improve population health.

Just about the only thing both parties can agree on is maximizing the social murder of poor people. In this case tho the deal is probably the lesser evil - a default would not be good for recipients of cash transfers.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Rather dissappointed, Biden has wimped out.

 

[RobAnybody]

So you are the white moderate Dr. King wrote about, congratulations!

Also you basically said I'm an antisemite in the Tolkien's Orcs thread which I don't take too kindly to

Did I? If so, I guess that means you called me a racist above, which I don't take too kindly to.

We could probably read each other's posts in a better light, surely. Or more likely, phrase our posts better as to not antagonize each other. I will try to phrase things better, for my part.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Lexicus’ prediction ended up winning - although I think it’s more naked self-interest then their masters - either way the result is the same. MTG and Boebert are the quintessential MAGA ‘burn it all down’ republicans in every way, from election denial to social media use etc, etc. One voted for the deal, one didn’t. The following table will allow you to make your best guess at who did and who didn’t between the two. I do think there is some major concern still at playing this game; over 70 Republicans voted to default. And as the keyfabe Republicans like McCarthy (MAGA in public, ‘relatively’ sane - relatively doing a lot of lifting here - in congress/private deal making/etc.,) get replaced by more true believers, this risk only grows. The bandaid will have to be ripped off at some point. Also, 2025 becomes a RIDICULOUS year; child tax credits, the small but still there lower and middle-income part of the trump tax cuts, expanded health care subsidies, and the debt ceiling now all hit their end in 2025, so if you thought this negotiation was bad, a split government in 2025 will be uhhhh… really really bad.

 

[Lexicus]

Lexicus’ prediction ended up winning - although I think it’s more naked self-interest then their masters - either way the result is the same. MTG and Boebert are the quintessential MAGA ‘burn it all down’ republicans in every way, from election denial to social media use etc, etc. One voted for the deal, one didn’t. The following table will allow you to make your best guess at who did and who didn’t between the two. I do think there is some major concern still at playing this game; over 70 Republicans voted to default. And as the keyfabe Republicans like McCarthy (MAGA in public, ‘relatively’ sane - relatively doing a lot of lifting here - in congress/private deal making/etc.,) get replaced by more true believers, this risk only grows. The bandaid will have to be ripped off at some point. Also, 2025 becomes a RIDICULOUS year; child tax credits, the small but still there lower and middle-income part of the trump tax cuts, expanded health care subsidies, and the debt ceiling now all hit their end in 2025, so if you thought this negotiation was bad, a split government in 2025 will be uhhhh… really really bad.

Don't give me any credit; I actually heard or read a theory somewhere that the big capitalists got more ok with threatening a default because they got really spooked by the expansion of social spending that happened during the pandemic; that is certainly a possibility.

Overall the deal isn't too bad but this is just going to keep happening until people learn not to elect Republicans to Congress.

 

[Farm Boy]

And then you'll all live in Illinois. Where everyone hopes to become the made men.

As opposed to, what did your call it, Robin Hood peasants? No blades, no bows, leave your weapons here! <gallows chunk>

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Hey I love Chicago, I would move there in a heartbeat if I could, but the current plan is not for a couple years still.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Waiting for global warming ?

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm so sorry.

There are things to like about it! Their benevolent governance isn't high on the list. Nor is the "broad, diverse, and worldly view." Those could be worse, though, too!

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I'm so sorry.

There are things to like about it! Their benevolent governance isn't high on the list. Nor is the "broad, diverse, and worldly view." Those could be worse, though, too!

It’s ok, I’m very much a big city person and always have been. I like going for walks and seeing something new every time, I like going to concerts and not having to drive 2+ hours to see then, I would also love to not spend 10k on cars a year (we did last year!) and instead take the L, and I like cultural diversity. Also while my experience with traveling is that regional stereotypes are generally not true, New Yorkers being aholes absolutely is a true stereotype, and Chicago is NYC-lite but with fewer butheads.

Waiting for global warming ?

Nah, just taking time to fix up our current place and travel some more first, although funnily enough general environmental destruction is the one thing that gives me pause, since I live in Michigan now. Everybody is going to want our fresh water some day.

 

[Lexicus]

And then you'll all live in Illinois. Where everyone hopes to become the made men.

As opposed to, what did your call it, Robin Hood peasants? No blades, no bows, leave your weapons here! <gallows chunk>

You merely adopted the corruption. I was born in it, molded by it (I'm from New Jersey)

 

[Farm Boy]

If you understood I'm not actually kidding when I say I've never once caught my father in so much as a little white lie, or intentionally speeding...

No, I'm ruled by it. That is not my father.

<rats skitter back to oil drums>

 

[BvBPL]

Hiya!

Hi.

We the democrats do that too much already.

Hogwash. For one, if Democrat voters had been able hold their elected representatives feet to the fire on assuring reproductive rights via statute then Dobbs would have been very different. For another, there's no such thing as too much voter advocacy in a democracy.