White House correspondents dinner getting ready to start with Colin Joust hosting and Sleepy Woke Joe getting ready to riff and razz. Look forward to the Faux whining.
Those mean, mean libs! So mean!
those "journalists" better be careful. if they have their way, trump will win, and then there will never, ever be another journalism wankfest known as the "white house correspondents dinner" ever again.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
White House correspondents dinner getting ready to start with Colin Joust hosting and Sleepy Woke Joe getting ready to riff and razz. Look forward to the Faux whining.
Those mean, mean libs! So mean!
those "journalists" better be careful. if they have their way, trump will win, and then there will never, ever be another journalism wankfest known as the "white house correspondents dinner" ever again.
White House correspondents dinner getting ready to start with Colin Joust hosting and Sleepy Woke Joe getting ready to riff and razz. Look forward to the Faux whining.
Those mean, mean libs! So mean!
those "journalists" better be careful. if they have their way, trump will win, and then there will never, ever be another journalism wankfest known as the "white house correspondents dinner" ever again.
My silver lining to what could happen if Trump wins is knowing that many people who a) thump their chests for him or b) say "both parties are the same" are going to have a "what have we done" moment....
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,939
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree. Although I think the argument that "it's not fair because I paid mine" is a stupid argument as well. Whenever there is a new societal benefit, there will be people who miss it by timing. That's just bad luck. Those are the people with the worst argument.
The argument I have against it is that it's a middle/upper class benefit, one that is focused on a portion of the population MOST likely to be high earners. That doesn't make sense to me.
Biden to tout Microsoft AI center on site of Trump’s failed Foxconn deal By Cat Zakrzewski, David J. Lynch and Jeanne Whalen May 08, 2024 at 11:08 ET President Biden will champion a new Microsoft artificial-intelligence investment in Wisconsin on Wednesday — showcasing the failed economic commitments of his political rival Donald Trump, whose promises for a job-rich Foxconn plant in the battleground state never materialized. The president will appear in Racine, Wis., at the site of the ill-fated Foxconn manufacturing campus, to announce Microsoft’s $3.3 billion investment in an AI data center, according to the White House. The investment is expected to create 2,000 permanent jobs and 2,300 temporary union construction jobs, and Microsoft will also invest in workforce training programs in the state. The White House is pitching the appearance as part of Biden’s “Investing in America” strategy, seeking to draw a sharp contrast with the president’s predecessor, who spent Tuesday posting angry messages on social media about his criminal trial for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels. The trip marks Biden’s fourth visit this year to the swing state of Wisconsin, where he narrowly defeated Trump in 2020.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,341
^ And it will get like a quarter the amount of press Trump's bullshit Foxconn thing got. Watch.
I agree. Although I think the argument that "it's not fair because I paid mine" is a stupid argument as well. Whenever there is a new societal benefit, there will be people who miss it by timing. That's just bad luck. Those are the people with the worst argument.
The argument I have against it is that it's a middle/upper class benefit, one that is focused on a portion of the population MOST likely to be high earners. That doesn't make sense to me.
The problem isn't just that "I paid mine." It's that those benefits are coming at the expense of those who didn't receive the same benefit. It's not like money falls from the sky and the loan is forgiven, someone else pays for it.
It's like my school district this year decided to grant 8 weeks maternity leave for both parents. And it's retroactive, if you've had a kid in the last 2 years, they are granting you 8 weeks off this year. I didn't get that when I had my kids, I had to burn my own sick days and go back to work within a few days. And it's not just the "I didn't get that." Providing a benefit most didn't get comes at a cost to everyone else. It costs a lot of money to have a teacher out for 8 weeks. And guess what, we are eliminating about 10% if positions and increasing class sizes due to financial reasons. I'm not saying I disagree with maternity leave, but that's an example of me paying for someone else to get something I never got. That extra cost could go to more teachers, salaries, smaller class sizes, etc.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,341
Trump's tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations did absolutely NOTHING for the economy and cost us TRILLIONS....yet most the people really vocal about the student loan thing said hardly anything about that.
The student loan thing is a drop in the bucket in comparison.
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
Trump's tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations did absolutely NOTHING for the economy and cost us TRILLIONS....yet most the people really vocal about the student loan thing said hardly anything about that.
The student loan thing is a drop in the bucket in comparison.
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
Back when FMLA was passed, one of the opposing arguments was that businesses would go out of business because they wouldn’t have employees and they wouldn’t be able to get the work completed. Yet, here we are, FMLA still exists, as do businesses.
What are you paying for, for a benefit you didn’t receive? Larger class sizes and 10% budget reduction? If so, those become legislative spending priorities and budget requests, among all other state spending priorities. Class sizes and student/teacher ratios become union contract negotiation issues. I fail to see how “you or anyone else” is “paying” for this benefit? Are your taxes going up as a result? Are student test scores falling? What is the cost to “you?” Other than not getting the “benefit?”
If memory serves, you’ve been a teacher for decades in multiple districts in CA, CO and TN. Public education is controlled at the state and local level. Because you didn’t have this benefit in other districts and when you had kids doesn’t make it now that it’s available a “burden.” Again how are you “paying” for this benefit you didn’t receive? Are the 8 weeks with or without pay or are teachers required to use any paid time off they have on the books or just take leave without pay?
Forgiving the cost of student loans for millions of Americans who can’t get out from under them and spreading the cost amongst all taxpayers and revenue streams is better than the millions of beneficiaries living a life of poverty. I say that as someone who paid off my student loans to the penny over ten years and never received any relief. The loan forgiveness could have been paid off with POOTWH’s trillion dollar tax cut and nobody would have blinked. You could pass a special tax bill targeting Bozos and Elongitaint, call it the Bozos & Elongitaint Making America Smart Again Act, and they wouldn’t miss a beat or be impacted in the slightest. Or you could take it out of defense spending and nobody would notice.
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
Who paid for the 3 Trillion Trump added to the deficit for his tax cuts....which did absolutely nothing for the economy? Who's gonna pay to extend it? Why aren't you talking more about this? At least a sizeable amount of people who need the money would benefit from the student loan stuff.
Permanently Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Would Cost $4 Trillion Over the Next Decade
Permanently extending the Trump tax cuts would cost $400 billion per year and give the largest tax cut to extremely rich households.
Then-U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about tax reform legislation during a lunch with lawmakers in the Cabinet Room of the White House on December 13, 2017, in Washington, D.C. (Getty/AFP/Saul Loeb)
In December 2017, then-President Donald Trump signed into law legislation that disproportionately cut taxes for wealthy individuals and large profitable corporations—colloquially known as the “Trump tax cuts.” While the corporate provisions of that bill were largely made permanent, the portions that affect individuals were mostly temporary and are set to expire at the end of 2025.
According to new estimates released today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), permanently extending the expiring provisions of the Trump tax cuts would cost $4 trillion over the next 10 years, $400 billion per year.* This includes $3.4 trillion from extending the expiring individual and estate tax provisions as well as $551 billion from extending business provisions.
Analysis by the Center for American Progress based on the CBO figures finds that extending the Trump tax cuts would, in 2024 dollars, cost $3.2 trillion over 10 years, $6.8 trillion over 20 years, and $10.3 trillion over 30 years. By 2054, extending the Trump tax cuts would increase the projected debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio by 36 percentage points, pushing it above 200 percent of GDP. Taken together, the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts would be responsible for more than 100 percent of the increase in the projected debt ratio, with the Trump tax cuts responsible for nearly one-third of the future growth in the debt ratio above 2024 levels.**
Permanently extending the Trump tax cuts would increase the debt ratio by 36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)
Debt net of financial assets as a percentage of GDP
Line graph showing debt net of financial assets under the Congressional Budget Office's 2024 long-term budget outlook as well as a line showing debt if the Trump tax cuts are permanently extended. Doing so would would push debt above 200 percent of the gross domestic product by 2054.
Historical
and projected debt
Debt
if Trump tax cuts are permanently extended
36 percentage point increase
Hover over or click to see values.
MethodologyThe authors made a few adjustments to the original Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections. The authors have incorporated the budget side deals that Congress used in enacting 2024 appropriations and have assumed those same side deals will be used in enacting 2025 appropriations; the CBO did not assume adherence to these side deals and, accordingly, assumed lower appropriations than intended by those who negotiated the deals. This adjusted projection also sets disaster-related funding to match historical averages as a percentage of GDP and removes the extrapolation of any other emergency funding—with the exception of emergency-designated money that is intended to fund ongoing base operations.
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from Congressional Budget Office, “The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2024 to 2054” (Washington: 2024), available at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59711; Congressional Budget Office, “How Changes in Funding for the IRS Affect Revenues” (Washington: 2024), available at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59972; Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034” (Washington: 2024), available at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59710; Congressional Budget Office, “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024” (Washington: 2024), available at https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-03/FCAA_2024-Divs_A-G.pdf; Congressional Budget Office, “CBO Estimate for HR-4366AR, Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024,” March 11, 2024, on file with author; Congressional Budget Office, “CBO Estimate for HR-4366CJ, Division C - Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,” March 11, 2024, on file with author; Congressional Budget Office, “CBO Estimate for HR-2882FS, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2024,” March 22, 2024, on file with author; Congressional Budget Office, “CBO Estimate for HR-4366IN, Div. E Dept. of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations A,” March 11, 2024, on file with author; Congressional Budget Office, “CBO Estimate for HR-2882LA, Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024,” March 22, 2024, on file with author; Richard Kogan, senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, personal communication with author via email and phone, April 21, 2024, on file with author and updated by author.Chart: Center for American Progress
An extension would provide, on average, a larger tax cut for extremely rich households than for everyone else. Households with incomes of more than $500,000 per year—roughly the top 2 percent of households by income—would receive a larger tax cut than households making $200,000 per year, not just in dollars terms but also as a percentage of their after-tax income. And the households making $200,000 per year would receive a larger tax cut than those making $50,000 or less per year.
FIGURE 2
Extending the Trump tax cuts would decrease taxes most for the very rich
Tax cuts that disproportionately helped the richest Americans are the entire reason debt is rising as a percentage of the economy. Congress should not double down on failed and unfair budget policy. 2025 presents an opportunity for reforms to create a more equitable tax system: Policymakers should raise revenue to ensure the wealthy and corporations pay their share, especially by paring back some of the corporate cuts previously enacted.
The authors would like to thank Jean Ross, Brendan Duke, Madeline Shepherd, and Emily Gee for their helpful suggestions.
* This projection is larger than the CBO’s projection from May 2023 because the budget window has shifted from 2024–2033 to 2025–2034. Extending the Trump tax cuts costs very little in 2024, so shifting the budget window drops a year with almost no cost and adds a year with a large cost. In addition, this projection has estimated that extending the Trump tax cuts would cost more as a percentage of GDP than the estimates from the May 2023 projection.
For the same reason, the projected cost over 2026–2035, which is the 10-year budget window that will be used when the Trump tax cuts are being debated next year, will be significantly larger than the current 10-year projection: CAP estimates that extending the Trump tax cuts would cost roughly $4.4 trillion from 2026 to 2035.
** In other words, if the Trump tax cuts expire on schedule, more than 100 percent of the increase in the debt ratio above its current level over the next 30 years can be attributed to just the Bush tax cuts. If the Trump tax cuts are instead permanently extended, the Bush and Trump tax cuts combined would be responsible for more than 100 percent of the increase in the debt ratio above its current level.
Methodology
To put figures in 2024 dollars, future values are discounted using the CBO’s projected average Treasury interest rate on new federal debt. All debt figures show debt net of financial assets.
Long-term debt projections were made from a slightly adjusted version of the CBO’s March 2024 long-term budget outlook. The authors have incorporated the budget side deals that Congress used in enacting 2024 appropriations and that will likely be used in enacting 2025 appropriations; the CBO did not assume adherence to these side deals and, accordingly, assumed lower appropriations than intended by those who negotiated the deals. This adjusted projection also sets disaster-related funding to match historical averages as a percentage of GDP, and it removes the extrapolation of any other emergency funding—with the exception of emergency-designated money that is intended to fund ongoing base operations.
Note that expiring business provisions in the Trump tax cuts, which this estimate assumes will be extended, are restoring 100 percent bonus depreciation for business investment and preventing corporate tax rates for multinational corporations from rising as scheduled after 2025. The CBO’s projection of the cost of extending them does not include reversing amortization of research and experimentation expenses or the stricter limit on business interest deductions, which are Trump tax cut provisions that took effect in 2022 and have frequently been discussed as part of tax packages extending the Trump tax cuts. Reversing those provisions would add to the cost of extensions.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,939
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,939
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree. Although I think the argument that "it's not fair because I paid mine" is a stupid argument as well. Whenever there is a new societal benefit, there will be people who miss it by timing. That's just bad luck. Those are the people with the worst argument.
The argument I have against it is that it's a middle/upper class benefit, one that is focused on a portion of the population MOST likely to be high earners. That doesn't make sense to me.
The problem isn't just that "I paid mine." It's that those benefits are coming at the expense of those who didn't receive the same benefit. It's not like money falls from the sky and the loan is forgiven, someone else pays for it.
It's like my school district this year decided to grant 8 weeks maternity leave for both parents. And it's retroactive, if you've had a kid in the last 2 years, they are granting you 8 weeks off this year. I didn't get that when I had my kids, I had to burn my own sick days and go back to work within a few days. And it's not just the "I didn't get that." Providing a benefit most didn't get comes at a cost to everyone else. It costs a lot of money to have a teacher out for 8 weeks. And guess what, we are eliminating about 10% if positions and increasing class sizes due to financial reasons. I'm not saying I disagree with maternity leave, but that's an example of me paying for someone else to get something I never got. That extra cost could go to more teachers, salaries, smaller class sizes, etc.
You are defining a social benefit, writ large. TNSTAAFL. So in any change in benefit, there is inherently a cost. You are still pointing back to "not fair".
My company also moved to paternity leave, but I didn't get it because my kids are older. I'm happy for the new fathers that will get it. And I'm an executive who will have to deal with the pain of people being out in a number of ways.
As far as your other points around cutting staff and enlarging class size, I get it. I have no opinion on your specific situation, only that entitlements always have a cost and they always leave someone behind.
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
Haha, I didn't read this until after I posted. My father-in-law was an economics professor and was proud of his t-shirt TNSTAAFL.
And BTW, I'm still against the student loan waiver, as I have said numerous times here. But it's all it being a regressive benefit, one targeting the professional class.
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
Back when FMLA was passed, one of the opposing arguments was that businesses would go out of business because they wouldn’t have employees and they wouldn’t be able to get the work completed. Yet, here we are, FMLA still exists, as do businesses.
What are you paying for, for a benefit you didn’t receive? Larger class sizes and 10% budget reduction? If so, those become legislative spending priorities and budget requests, among all other state spending priorities. Class sizes and student/teacher ratios become union contract negotiation issues. I fail to see how “you or anyone else” is “paying” for this benefit? Are your taxes going up as a result? Are student test scores falling? What is the cost to “you?” Other than not getting the “benefit?”
If memory serves, you’ve been a teacher for decades in multiple districts in CA, CO and TN. Public education is controlled at the state and local level. Because you didn’t have this benefit in other districts and when you had kids doesn’t make it now that it’s available a “burden.” Again how are you “paying” for this benefit you didn’t receive? Are the 8 weeks with or without pay or are teachers required to use any paid time off they have on the books or just take leave without pay?
Forgiving the cost of student loans for millions of Americans who can’t get out from under them and spreading the cost amongst all taxpayers and revenue streams is better than the millions of beneficiaries living a life of poverty. I say that as someone who paid off my student loans to the penny over ten years and never received any relief. The loan forgiveness could have been paid off with POOTWH’s trillion dollar tax cut and nobody would have blinked. You could pass a special tax bill targeting Bozos and Elongitaint, call it the Bozos & Elongitaint Making America Smart Again Act, and they wouldn’t miss a beat or be impacted in the slightest. Or you could take it out of defense spending and nobody would notice.
Or you can have the beneficiaries continuing to struggle to make ends meet and cost society in other ways. Costs you pay for.
Many districts have a very weak or no union at all. Districts are given a budget. Must of that comes from federal, state and local government. The district then allocates the funds into different budgets.
My understanding is my district this year is giving 8 weeks of paid leave to anyone who had a kid within the last 2 years, and 8 weeks of paid leave for anyone who has a kid in the future. I've never been in a district where either parent got 8 weeks of paid leave. Usually you have to use all your sick days, then you can pull from "sick bank" if you had donated day sin the passed. That was never available to fathers, only mothers and for up to 6 weeks. When a school pays a sub 5k every time a teacher is on leave, that money comes from somewhere. Whether that was money that could have been added to salaries, hiring more teachers, or even maybe just means they can't increase the sub day pay rate so we end up being short on subs and work over time to cover the classes, the burden eventually falls on the teachers.
I've been in a district with a strong union and would never have to work a minute over my contract, but most of the time that has not been the case.
I'm for maternity leave for new mothers. I think being retroactive for 2 years, and including fathers for 8 weeks is a little excessive. We have a teacher out right now who adopted a child 2 years ago and waited until the end of the year to take his leave so he could have an extra 8 weeks of summer break.
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
Back when FMLA was passed, one of the opposing arguments was that businesses would go out of business because they wouldn’t have employees and they wouldn’t be able to get the work completed. Yet, here we are, FMLA still exists, as do businesses.
What are you paying for, for a benefit you didn’t receive? Larger class sizes and 10% budget reduction? If so, those become legislative spending priorities and budget requests, among all other state spending priorities. Class sizes and student/teacher ratios become union contract negotiation issues. I fail to see how “you or anyone else” is “paying” for this benefit? Are your taxes going up as a result? Are student test scores falling? What is the cost to “you?” Other than not getting the “benefit?”
If memory serves, you’ve been a teacher for decades in multiple districts in CA, CO and TN. Public education is controlled at the state and local level. Because you didn’t have this benefit in other districts and when you had kids doesn’t make it now that it’s available a “burden.” Again how are you “paying” for this benefit you didn’t receive? Are the 8 weeks with or without pay or are teachers required to use any paid time off they have on the books or just take leave without pay?
Forgiving the cost of student loans for millions of Americans who can’t get out from under them and spreading the cost amongst all taxpayers and revenue streams is better than the millions of beneficiaries living a life of poverty. I say that as someone who paid off my student loans to the penny over ten years and never received any relief. The loan forgiveness could have been paid off with POOTWH’s trillion dollar tax cut and nobody would have blinked. You could pass a special tax bill targeting Bozos and Elongitaint, call it the Bozos & Elongitaint Making America Smart Again Act, and they wouldn’t miss a beat or be impacted in the slightest. Or you could take it out of defense spending and nobody would notice.
Or you can have the beneficiaries continuing to struggle to make ends meet and cost society in other ways. Costs you pay for.
Many districts have a very weak or no union at all. Districts are given a budget. Must of that comes from federal, state and local government. The district then allocates the funds into different budgets.
My understanding is my district this year is giving 8 weeks of paid leave to anyone who had a kid within the last 2 years, and 8 weeks of paid leave for anyone who has a kid in the future. I've never been in a district where either parent got 8 weeks of paid leave. Usually you have to use all your sick days, then you can pull from "sick bank" if you had donated day sin the passed. That was never available to fathers, only mothers and for up to 6 weeks. When a school pays a sub 5k every time a teacher is on leave, that money comes from somewhere. Whether that was money that could have been added to salaries, hiring more teachers, or even maybe just means they can't increase the sub day pay rate so we end up being short on subs and work over time to cover the classes, the burden eventually falls on the teachers.
I've been in a district with a strong union and would never have to work a minute over my contract, but most of the time that has not been the case.
I'm for maternity leave for new mothers. I think being retroactive for 2 years, and including fathers for 8 weeks is a little excessive. We have a teacher out right now who adopted a child 2 years ago and waited until the end of the year to take his leave so he could have an extra 8 weeks of summer break.
I'm against tax cuts for billionaires.
Is it 6 or 8 weeks paid leave and are you sure it’s retroactive? Seems the law was passed by the state legislature and was funded to some degree. As it should be in a state with $1.1B in a “rainy day fund.”
Can you link to something that discusses the evolution of the bill? Seems the repub governor previously walked away from his own bill a few years ago but signed this one. Guessing he’s up for reelection?
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
Back when FMLA was passed, one of the opposing arguments was that businesses would go out of business because they wouldn’t have employees and they wouldn’t be able to get the work completed. Yet, here we are, FMLA still exists, as do businesses.
What are you paying for, for a benefit you didn’t receive? Larger class sizes and 10% budget reduction? If so, those become legislative spending priorities and budget requests, among all other state spending priorities. Class sizes and student/teacher ratios become union contract negotiation issues. I fail to see how “you or anyone else” is “paying” for this benefit? Are your taxes going up as a result? Are student test scores falling? What is the cost to “you?” Other than not getting the “benefit?”
If memory serves, you’ve been a teacher for decades in multiple districts in CA, CO and TN. Public education is controlled at the state and local level. Because you didn’t have this benefit in other districts and when you had kids doesn’t make it now that it’s available a “burden.” Again how are you “paying” for this benefit you didn’t receive? Are the 8 weeks with or without pay or are teachers required to use any paid time off they have on the books or just take leave without pay?
Forgiving the cost of student loans for millions of Americans who can’t get out from under them and spreading the cost amongst all taxpayers and revenue streams is better than the millions of beneficiaries living a life of poverty. I say that as someone who paid off my student loans to the penny over ten years and never received any relief. The loan forgiveness could have been paid off with POOTWH’s trillion dollar tax cut and nobody would have blinked. You could pass a special tax bill targeting Bozos and Elongitaint, call it the Bozos & Elongitaint Making America Smart Again Act, and they wouldn’t miss a beat or be impacted in the slightest. Or you could take it out of defense spending and nobody would notice.
Or you can have the beneficiaries continuing to struggle to make ends meet and cost society in other ways. Costs you pay for.
Many districts have a very weak or no union at all. Districts are given a budget. Must of that comes from federal, state and local government. The district then allocates the funds into different budgets.
My understanding is my district this year is giving 8 weeks of paid leave to anyone who had a kid within the last 2 years, and 8 weeks of paid leave for anyone who has a kid in the future. I've never been in a district where either parent got 8 weeks of paid leave. Usually you have to use all your sick days, then you can pull from "sick bank" if you had donated day sin the passed. That was never available to fathers, only mothers and for up to 6 weeks. When a school pays a sub 5k every time a teacher is on leave, that money comes from somewhere. Whether that was money that could have been added to salaries, hiring more teachers, or even maybe just means they can't increase the sub day pay rate so we end up being short on subs and work over time to cover the classes, the burden eventually falls on the teachers.
I've been in a district with a strong union and would never have to work a minute over my contract, but most of the time that has not been the case.
I'm for maternity leave for new mothers. I think being retroactive for 2 years, and including fathers for 8 weeks is a little excessive. We have a teacher out right now who adopted a child 2 years ago and waited until the end of the year to take his leave so he could have an extra 8 weeks of summer break.
I'm against tax cuts for billionaires.
Is it 6 or 8 weeks paid leave and are you sure it’s retroactive? Seems the law was passed by the state legislature and was funded to some degree. As it should be in a state with $1.1B in a “rainy day fund.”
Can you link to something that discusses the evolution of the bill? Seems the repub governor previously walked away from his own bill a few years ago but signed this one. Guessing he’s up for reelection?
It was a district decision, not state law so there is no bill. I wasn't aware of it until about a month ago when a coworker told me he was leaving for the rest of the year. I asked why, he said maternity leave. I said "I didn't know your wife had a baby." He told me he and his wife adopted a girl almost 2 years ago and the district created this new policy this year and that it is retroactive for 2 years, so he's taking the last 2 months of work off for it. He also told me several others are doing the same thing. I was aware we had several teachers out on maternity leave, I had no idea they had kids 1 or 2 years ago though.
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
Back when FMLA was passed, one of the opposing arguments was that businesses would go out of business because they wouldn’t have employees and they wouldn’t be able to get the work completed. Yet, here we are, FMLA still exists, as do businesses.
What are you paying for, for a benefit you didn’t receive? Larger class sizes and 10% budget reduction? If so, those become legislative spending priorities and budget requests, among all other state spending priorities. Class sizes and student/teacher ratios become union contract negotiation issues. I fail to see how “you or anyone else” is “paying” for this benefit? Are your taxes going up as a result? Are student test scores falling? What is the cost to “you?” Other than not getting the “benefit?”
If memory serves, you’ve been a teacher for decades in multiple districts in CA, CO and TN. Public education is controlled at the state and local level. Because you didn’t have this benefit in other districts and when you had kids doesn’t make it now that it’s available a “burden.” Again how are you “paying” for this benefit you didn’t receive? Are the 8 weeks with or without pay or are teachers required to use any paid time off they have on the books or just take leave without pay?
Forgiving the cost of student loans for millions of Americans who can’t get out from under them and spreading the cost amongst all taxpayers and revenue streams is better than the millions of beneficiaries living a life of poverty. I say that as someone who paid off my student loans to the penny over ten years and never received any relief. The loan forgiveness could have been paid off with POOTWH’s trillion dollar tax cut and nobody would have blinked. You could pass a special tax bill targeting Bozos and Elongitaint, call it the Bozos & Elongitaint Making America Smart Again Act, and they wouldn’t miss a beat or be impacted in the slightest. Or you could take it out of defense spending and nobody would notice.
Or you can have the beneficiaries continuing to struggle to make ends meet and cost society in other ways. Costs you pay for.
Many districts have a very weak or no union at all. Districts are given a budget. Must of that comes from federal, state and local government. The district then allocates the funds into different budgets.
My understanding is my district this year is giving 8 weeks of paid leave to anyone who had a kid within the last 2 years, and 8 weeks of paid leave for anyone who has a kid in the future. I've never been in a district where either parent got 8 weeks of paid leave. Usually you have to use all your sick days, then you can pull from "sick bank" if you had donated day sin the passed. That was never available to fathers, only mothers and for up to 6 weeks. When a school pays a sub 5k every time a teacher is on leave, that money comes from somewhere. Whether that was money that could have been added to salaries, hiring more teachers, or even maybe just means they can't increase the sub day pay rate so we end up being short on subs and work over time to cover the classes, the burden eventually falls on the teachers.
I've been in a district with a strong union and would never have to work a minute over my contract, but most of the time that has not been the case.
I'm for maternity leave for new mothers. I think being retroactive for 2 years, and including fathers for 8 weeks is a little excessive. We have a teacher out right now who adopted a child 2 years ago and waited until the end of the year to take his leave so he could have an extra 8 weeks of summer break.
I'm against tax cuts for billionaires.
Is it 6 or 8 weeks paid leave and are you sure it’s retroactive? Seems the law was passed by the state legislature and was funded to some degree. As it should be in a state with $1.1B in a “rainy day fund.”
Can you link to something that discusses the evolution of the bill? Seems the repub governor previously walked away from his own bill a few years ago but signed this one. Guessing he’s up for reelection?
It was a district decision, not state law so there is no bill. I wasn't aware of it until about a month ago when a coworker told me he was leaving for the rest of the year. I asked why, he said maternity leave. I said "I didn't know your wife had a baby." He told me he and his wife adopted a girl almost 2 years ago and the district created this new policy this year and that it is retroactive for 2 years, so he's taking the last 2 months of work off for it. He also told me several others are doing the same thing. I was aware we had several teachers out on maternity leave, I had no idea they had kids 1 or 2 years ago though.
There was a state bill passed and signed into law by the governor. Link below:
The FMLA was passed in 1993 and look, businesses still exist! My parents didn’t get that benefit and their parents and grandparents didn’t have social security or Medicare. Yet, businesses still exist. I’m pretty sure public schools will still exist 30 years in the future if the earth holds out that long. It’s called progress.
No one said businesses and schools won't exist. It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for. I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
Back when FMLA was passed, one of the opposing arguments was that businesses would go out of business because they wouldn’t have employees and they wouldn’t be able to get the work completed. Yet, here we are, FMLA still exists, as do businesses.
What are you paying for, for a benefit you didn’t receive? Larger class sizes and 10% budget reduction? If so, those become legislative spending priorities and budget requests, among all other state spending priorities. Class sizes and student/teacher ratios become union contract negotiation issues. I fail to see how “you or anyone else” is “paying” for this benefit? Are your taxes going up as a result? Are student test scores falling? What is the cost to “you?” Other than not getting the “benefit?”
If memory serves, you’ve been a teacher for decades in multiple districts in CA, CO and TN. Public education is controlled at the state and local level. Because you didn’t have this benefit in other districts and when you had kids doesn’t make it now that it’s available a “burden.” Again how are you “paying” for this benefit you didn’t receive? Are the 8 weeks with or without pay or are teachers required to use any paid time off they have on the books or just take leave without pay?
Forgiving the cost of student loans for millions of Americans who can’t get out from under them and spreading the cost amongst all taxpayers and revenue streams is better than the millions of beneficiaries living a life of poverty. I say that as someone who paid off my student loans to the penny over ten years and never received any relief. The loan forgiveness could have been paid off with POOTWH’s trillion dollar tax cut and nobody would have blinked. You could pass a special tax bill targeting Bozos and Elongitaint, call it the Bozos & Elongitaint Making America Smart Again Act, and they wouldn’t miss a beat or be impacted in the slightest. Or you could take it out of defense spending and nobody would notice.
Or you can have the beneficiaries continuing to struggle to make ends meet and cost society in other ways. Costs you pay for.
Many districts have a very weak or no union at all. Districts are given a budget. Must of that comes from federal, state and local government. The district then allocates the funds into different budgets.
My understanding is my district this year is giving 8 weeks of paid leave to anyone who had a kid within the last 2 years, and 8 weeks of paid leave for anyone who has a kid in the future. I've never been in a district where either parent got 8 weeks of paid leave. Usually you have to use all your sick days, then you can pull from "sick bank" if you had donated day sin the passed. That was never available to fathers, only mothers and for up to 6 weeks. When a school pays a sub 5k every time a teacher is on leave, that money comes from somewhere. Whether that was money that could have been added to salaries, hiring more teachers, or even maybe just means they can't increase the sub day pay rate so we end up being short on subs and work over time to cover the classes, the burden eventually falls on the teachers.
I've been in a district with a strong union and would never have to work a minute over my contract, but most of the time that has not been the case.
I'm for maternity leave for new mothers. I think being retroactive for 2 years, and including fathers for 8 weeks is a little excessive. We have a teacher out right now who adopted a child 2 years ago and waited until the end of the year to take his leave so he could have an extra 8 weeks of summer break.
I'm against tax cuts for billionaires.
Is it 6 or 8 weeks paid leave and are you sure it’s retroactive? Seems the law was passed by the state legislature and was funded to some degree. As it should be in a state with $1.1B in a “rainy day fund.”
Can you link to something that discusses the evolution of the bill? Seems the repub governor previously walked away from his own bill a few years ago but signed this one. Guessing he’s up for reelection?
It was a district decision, not state law so there is no bill. I wasn't aware of it until about a month ago when a coworker told me he was leaving for the rest of the year. I asked why, he said maternity leave. I said "I didn't know your wife had a baby." He told me he and his wife adopted a girl almost 2 years ago and the district created this new policy this year and that it is retroactive for 2 years, so he's taking the last 2 months of work off for it. He also told me several others are doing the same thing. I was aware we had several teachers out on maternity leave, I had no idea they had kids 1 or 2 years ago though.
There was a state bill passed and signed into law by the governor. Link below:
Seems TN, a deep red state, is going progressive with regard to public education. Who knew?
Yes, I meant there was no state bill for the 2 years retroactive. That was a district decision as far as I know. I also thought the bill didn't include fathers. But reading it again, it doesn't exclude them, so maybe it does.
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2024/04/28/new-cnn-poll-shows-trump-ahead-and-rosy-recollections-of-his-presidency/?p1=hp_featurestack
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The argument I have against it is that it's a middle/upper class benefit, one that is focused on a portion of the population MOST likely to be high earners. That doesn't make sense to me.
https://www.youtube.com/live/AXLjdZbwutY?si=NJSGXZfjoY-2uLEE
By Cat Zakrzewski, David J. Lynch and Jeanne Whalen
May 08, 2024 at 11:08 ET
President Biden will champion a new Microsoft artificial-intelligence investment in Wisconsin on Wednesday — showcasing the failed economic commitments of his political rival Donald Trump, whose promises for a job-rich Foxconn plant in the battleground state never materialized.
The president will appear in Racine, Wis., at the site of the ill-fated Foxconn manufacturing campus, to announce Microsoft’s $3.3 billion investment in an AI data center, according to the White House. The investment is expected to create 2,000 permanent jobs and 2,300 temporary union construction jobs, and Microsoft will also invest in workforce training programs in the state.
The White House is pitching the appearance as part of Biden’s “Investing in America” strategy, seeking to draw a sharp contrast with the president’s predecessor, who spent Tuesday posting angry messages on social media about his criminal trial for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.
The trip marks Biden’s fourth visit this year to the swing state of Wisconsin, where he narrowly defeated Trump in 2020.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And it will get like a quarter the amount of press Trump's bullshit Foxconn thing got. Watch.
It's like my school district this year decided to grant 8 weeks maternity leave for both parents. And it's retroactive, if you've had a kid in the last 2 years, they are granting you 8 weeks off this year. I didn't get that when I had my kids, I had to burn my own sick days and go back to work within a few days. And it's not just the "I didn't get that." Providing a benefit most didn't get comes at a cost to everyone else. It costs a lot of money to have a teacher out for 8 weeks. And guess what, we are eliminating about 10% if positions and increasing class sizes due to financial reasons. I'm not saying I disagree with maternity leave, but that's an example of me paying for someone else to get something I never got. That extra cost could go to more teachers, salaries, smaller class sizes, etc.
The student loan thing is a drop in the bucket in comparison.
It's a disingenuous argument.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It doesn't change the fact those those who went without are paying the way for others to have. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every "free" lunch given out, someone else pays for.
I'm just saying it's not really "I didn't get it, so neither should you" but more "I didn't get it so I shouldn't have to pay for you to." If these benefits like loan forgiveness came at no cost, no one would care. But they don't.
What are you paying for, for a benefit you didn’t receive? Larger class sizes and 10% budget reduction? If so, those become legislative spending priorities and budget requests, among all other state spending priorities. Class sizes and student/teacher ratios become union contract negotiation issues. I fail to see how “you or anyone else” is “paying” for this benefit? Are your taxes going up as a result? Are student test scores falling? What is the cost to “you?” Other than not getting the “benefit?”
If memory serves, you’ve been a teacher for decades in multiple districts in CA, CO and TN. Public education is controlled at the state and local level. Because you didn’t have this benefit in other districts and when you had kids doesn’t make it now that it’s available a “burden.” Again how are you “paying” for this benefit you didn’t receive? Are the 8 weeks with or without pay or are teachers required to use any paid time off they have on the books or just take leave without pay?
Forgiving the cost of student loans for millions of Americans who can’t get out from under them and spreading the cost amongst all taxpayers and revenue streams is better than the millions of beneficiaries living a life of poverty. I say that as someone who paid off my student loans to the penny over ten years and never received any relief. The loan forgiveness could have been paid off with POOTWH’s trillion dollar tax cut and nobody would have blinked. You could pass a special tax bill targeting Bozos and Elongitaint, call it the Bozos & Elongitaint Making America Smart Again Act, and they wouldn’t miss a beat or be impacted in the slightest. Or you could take it out of defense spending and nobody would notice.
Bozos = $206B
Elongitaint = $200B
Defense spending 2024 = $2T
Brandon’s loan forgiveness = $84B
Or you can have the beneficiaries continuing to struggle to make ends meet and cost society in other ways. Costs you pay for.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/permanently-extending-the-trump-tax-cuts-would-cost-4-trillion-over-the-next-decade/
Permanently Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Would Cost $4 Trillion Over the Next Decade
Permanently extending the Trump tax cuts would cost $400 billion per year and give the largest tax cut to extremely rich households.
In December 2017, then-President Donald Trump signed into law legislation that disproportionately cut taxes for wealthy individuals and large profitable corporations—colloquially known as the “Trump tax cuts.” While the corporate provisions of that bill were largely made permanent, the portions that affect individuals were mostly temporary and are set to expire at the end of 2025.
According to new estimates released today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), permanently extending the expiring provisions of the Trump tax cuts would cost $4 trillion over the next 10 years, $400 billion per year.* This includes $3.4 trillion from extending the expiring individual and estate tax provisions as well as $551 billion from extending business provisions.
Analysis by the Center for American Progress based on the CBO figures finds that extending the Trump tax cuts would, in 2024 dollars, cost $3.2 trillion over 10 years, $6.8 trillion over 20 years, and $10.3 trillion over 30 years. By 2054, extending the Trump tax cuts would increase the projected debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio by 36 percentage points, pushing it above 200 percent of GDP. Taken together, the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts would be responsible for more than 100 percent of the increase in the projected debt ratio, with the Trump tax cuts responsible for nearly one-third of the future growth in the debt ratio above 2024 levels.**
Permanently extending the Trump tax cuts would increase the debt ratio by 36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)
Debt net of financial assets as a percentage of GDP
MethodologyThe authors made a few adjustments to the original Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections. The authors have incorporated the budget side deals that Congress used in enacting 2024 appropriations and have assumed those same side deals will be used in enacting 2025 appropriations; the CBO did not assume adherence to these side deals and, accordingly, assumed lower appropriations than intended by those who negotiated the deals. This adjusted projection also sets disaster-related funding to match historical averages as a percentage of GDP and removes the extrapolation of any other emergency funding—with the exception of emergency-designated money that is intended to fund ongoing base operations.
An extension would provide, on average, a larger tax cut for extremely rich households than for everyone else. Households with incomes of more than $500,000 per year—roughly the top 2 percent of households by income—would receive a larger tax cut than households making $200,000 per year, not just in dollars terms but also as a percentage of their after-tax income. And the households making $200,000 per year would receive a larger tax cut than those making $50,000 or less per year.
FIGURE 2
Extending the Trump tax cuts would decrease taxes most for the very rich
Percent change in after-tax income in 2026
Tax cuts that disproportionately helped the richest Americans are the entire reason debt is rising as a percentage of the economy. Congress should not double down on failed and unfair budget policy. 2025 presents an opportunity for reforms to create a more equitable tax system: Policymakers should raise revenue to ensure the wealthy and corporations pay their share, especially by paring back some of the corporate cuts previously enacted.
The authors would like to thank Jean Ross, Brendan Duke, Madeline Shepherd, and Emily Gee for their helpful suggestions.
SEE ALSO
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Failed To Deliver Promised Benefits
Apr 30, 2024
Jean Ross
* This projection is larger than the CBO’s projection from May 2023 because the budget window has shifted from 2024–2033 to 2025–2034. Extending the Trump tax cuts costs very little in 2024, so shifting the budget window drops a year with almost no cost and adds a year with a large cost. In addition, this projection has estimated that extending the Trump tax cuts would cost more as a percentage of GDP than the estimates from the May 2023 projection.
For the same reason, the projected cost over 2026–2035, which is the 10-year budget window that will be used when the Trump tax cuts are being debated next year, will be significantly larger than the current 10-year projection: CAP estimates that extending the Trump tax cuts would cost roughly $4.4 trillion from 2026 to 2035.
** In other words, if the Trump tax cuts expire on schedule, more than 100 percent of the increase in the debt ratio above its current level over the next 30 years can be attributed to just the Bush tax cuts. If the Trump tax cuts are instead permanently extended, the Bush and Trump tax cuts combined would be responsible for more than 100 percent of the increase in the debt ratio above its current level.
Methodology
To put figures in 2024 dollars, future values are discounted using the CBO’s projected average Treasury interest rate on new federal debt. All debt figures show debt net of financial assets.
Long-term debt projections were made from a slightly adjusted version of the CBO’s March 2024 long-term budget outlook. The authors have incorporated the budget side deals that Congress used in enacting 2024 appropriations and that will likely be used in enacting 2025 appropriations; the CBO did not assume adherence to these side deals and, accordingly, assumed lower appropriations than intended by those who negotiated the deals. This adjusted projection also sets disaster-related funding to match historical averages as a percentage of GDP, and it removes the extrapolation of any other emergency funding—with the exception of emergency-designated money that is intended to fund ongoing base operations.
Note that expiring business provisions in the Trump tax cuts, which this estimate assumes will be extended, are restoring 100 percent bonus depreciation for business investment and preventing corporate tax rates for multinational corporations from rising as scheduled after 2025. The CBO’s projection of the cost of extending them does not include reversing amortization of research and experimentation expenses or the stricter limit on business interest deductions, which are Trump tax cut provisions that took effect in 2022 and have frequently been discussed as part of tax packages extending the Trump tax cuts. Reversing those provisions would add to the cost of extensions.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It was on Fox so theres that....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
My company also moved to paternity leave, but I didn't get it because my kids are older. I'm happy for the new fathers that will get it. And I'm an executive who will have to deal with the pain of people being out in a number of ways.
As far as your other points around cutting staff and enlarging class size, I get it. I have no opinion on your specific situation, only that entitlements always have a cost and they always leave someone behind.
And BTW, I'm still against the student loan waiver, as I have said numerous times here. But it's all it being a regressive benefit, one targeting the professional class.
Districts are given a budget. Must of that comes from federal, state and local government. The district then allocates the funds into different budgets.
My understanding is my district this year is giving 8 weeks of paid leave to anyone who had a kid within the last 2 years, and 8 weeks of paid leave for anyone who has a kid in the future.
I've never been in a district where either parent got 8 weeks of paid leave. Usually you have to use all your sick days, then you can pull from "sick bank" if you had donated day sin the passed. That was never available to fathers, only mothers and for up to 6 weeks. When a school pays a sub 5k every time a teacher is on leave, that money comes from somewhere. Whether that was money that could have been added to salaries, hiring more teachers, or even maybe just means they can't increase the sub day pay rate so we end up being short on subs and work over time to cover the classes, the burden eventually falls on the teachers.
I've been in a district with a strong union and would never have to work a minute over my contract, but most of the time that has not been the case.
I'm for maternity leave for new mothers. I think being retroactive for 2 years, and including fathers for 8 weeks is a little excessive. We have a teacher out right now who adopted a child 2 years ago and waited until the end of the year to take his leave so he could have an extra 8 weeks of summer break.
I'm against tax cuts for billionaires.
Can you link to something that discusses the evolution of the bill? Seems the repub governor previously walked away from his own bill a few years ago but signed this one. Guessing he’s up for reelection?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I wasn't aware of it until about a month ago when a coworker told me he was leaving for the rest of the year. I asked why, he said maternity leave. I said "I didn't know your wife had a baby." He told me he and his wife adopted a girl almost 2 years ago and the district created this new policy this year and that it is retroactive for 2 years, so he's taking the last 2 months of work off for it.
He also told me several others are doing the same thing. I was aware we had several teachers out on maternity leave, I had no idea they had kids 1 or 2 years ago though.
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1458&GA=113
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I also thought the bill didn't include fathers. But reading it again, it doesn't exclude them, so maybe it does.