With the sudden rise in the cost of commodities, I’ve had to fire a midget and pull an extra shifts to pay for clean underwear.  Its a cotton picking shitshow, let me tell ya.

Here is one as per my usual habit of refusing to pay for bullshit that passes for journolists:

Conservatives beware: If the main elements in Joe Biden’s American Families Plan become law, they’ll be very hard to repeal. Why? Because they’ll deliver huge, indeed transformational benefits to millions.

I mean, just imagine trying to take away affordable child care, universal pre-K and paid leave for new parents once they’ve become part of the fabric of our society. You’d face a backlash far worse than the one that followed Republican attempts to eliminate protection for coverage of pre-existing health conditions in 2017. And that backlash quickly gave Democrats control of the House and set the stage for their current control of the Senate and White House as well.

So what’s the Republican counterargument? Well, much of the party appears uninterested in debating policy, preferring to lash out at imaginary plans to ban red meat or give immigrants Kamala Harris’ children’s book.
Well…Regardless of who paid for it, those kids somehow wound up with copies of her book.  Which I am sure was a small comfort for the prize of being locked in a cage with a mylar blanket.  But do keep beating that strawman.

The official G.O.P. response to Mr. Biden’s speech on Wednesday, by Sen. Tim Scott, seemed low-energy;

Wut?  His response to president colostomy bag was low energy?  How fucking hard is it for you to just call him a house negro like you want to? I’d respect you more for at least being honest instead of picking up 30 peices of silver every time you come across as a communist hack trying to troll MAGAtards.

Mr. Scott is still complaining about “big government” and denouncing Mr. Biden for spending money on things other than roads and bridges. The closest thing to a real argument was the claim that Mr. Biden is proposing “the biggest job-killing tax hikes in a generation” — presumably a reference to Bill Clinton’s tax increase in 1993.

Indeed, Mr. Biden intends to pay for his proposals with higher taxes on corporations and high-income individuals, including a dastardly plan to give the Internal Revenue Service enough resources to crack down on wealthy tax cheats.

Who will move their assets to places the IRS cannot control.  Lets all give a round of applkause for the government’s revenue windfall in taxing the poor.

It’s important, then, to realize that the families plan would, if enacted, be a major job creator. That is, it would increase the number of Americans — women in particular — in paid employment substantially, probably by several million.

To understand why, the first thing you need to know is that while Republicans always claim that raising taxes on the rich will destroy jobs, they have never yet been right. Mr. Scott’s rejoinder to Mr. Biden appeared to suggest that the 1993 Clinton tax hike killed jobs; in reality, the United States added 23 million jobs on Mr. Clinton’s watch. People also seem to forget that Barack Obama presided over a significant hike in high-end taxes at the beginning of his second term; the economy continued to add jobs rapidly, at the rate of about 2.5 million a year.

Oh, and employment in California boomed after Jerry Brown raised taxes on the wealthy in 2012, defying conservative declarations that the state was committing economic suicide.

It’s also instructive to compare the United States with other advanced countries, almost all of which have higher taxes and more generous social benefits than we do. Do they pay a price for these policies in the form of reduced employment?

They do pay a price in terms of reduced buying power.  The EU citizen last year as a whole only compared $0.67 to the $1.  That clearly has no effect on employment if your an idiot that can’t read a chart.

And California?  You know better than that….maybe not.  While you are correctly cherry-picked their unemployment stats in 2012, it was perfectly in line of an overall trend that began in 2010.  Not to mention the drop in unemployment in 2012 was in part a parlor trick by Obama’s BLS changing their definition of “unemployed” to not include people leaving the workforce.

Those people by definition weren’t employed then or now, you dumbfuck.

Many Americans would, I suspect, be surprised to learn that the truth is that many high-tax, high-benefit countries are quite successful at creating jobs. Take the case of France: Adults between the ages of 25 and 54, the prime working years, are more likely to be employed in France than they are in America, mainly because French women have a higher rate of paid employment than their American counterparts. The Nordic countries have an even larger employment advantage among women.

How can employment be so high in countries with lots of “job-killing” taxes? The answer is that taxes don’t visibly kill jobs — but lack of child care does. Parents in many rich countries are able to take paid work because they have access to safe, affordable child care; in the United States, such care is prohibitively expensive for many, if they can get it at all. And the reason is that our government spends almost nothing on child care and pre-K; our outlays as a percentage of GDP put us somewhat below Cyprus and Romania.

Funny how you don’t mention they get that same shit in Cuba,or the declining birth rates in all of the countries mentioned.  Something they’ve noticed for decades and cite declining economic growth as a factor.  Its easier for old people to remain in the workforce if employers have no choice but to employ older workers.

And what the fuck are you trying to say about Romanians?  You better stay the away before you find yourself impaled.

The American Families Plan would completely change this picture, providing free preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds while limiting child care costs to no more than 7% of income for lower- and middle-income parents. If this raised employment of prime-age American women to French levels, it would add about 1.8 million jobs; if we went to Danish levels, we would add 3 million jobs.

Just to be clear, making it possible for more women to take paid jobs isn’t the principal point of this plan — and there’s nothing wrong with parents’ choosing to stay at home and care for their kids. Instead, it’s mainly about improving the environment in which children grow up, partly as a matter of social justice, partly so that they eventually become healthier, more productive adults.

But higher employment — jobs generally expand to meet the available work force — would be a significant and more immediate side benefit. And it would also offer a partial fiscal offset to the direct cost of child care and pre-K, both because newly working Americans would pay taxes and because they would be less likely to need support from safety-net programs like food stamps. No, Mr. Biden’s spending plans won’t pay for themselves. But they’ll cost taxpayers less than the headline numbers might suggest.

And if these plans improve life for millions of Americans, will anyone besides professional ideologues care if they’re “big government”?

Same old limp-dick assurances that this will somehow work if we just prog harder.  Trust this guy, he has an award from Socialist Euroweenies so he could never be wrong.