@Derec — Although you attempted a response, I notice that you were unable to answer either question.
I answered both.
First: Make up your mind!
My mind is made up and the Bezos example was to show how absurd government benefits with no income ceiling are.
Your ilk likes to whine and whinge that Pocahontas wants to confiscate billions of dollars of hard-earned wealth from Jeff.
Actually I leave whining and whinging to your ilk. But yes, Warren wants to confiscate most of Bezos' et al wealth, because she is offended they get to develop space companies with that wealth.
Warren: Billionaires who 'have enough money to shoot themselves into space' will pay for reconciliation bill
Also, her name is Fauxachontas. Fake Indian and a fake progressive.
Now you're whining that the same people want to give him an extra $12,000! Is this consistent?
It is. I do not think Bezos should qualify for the child tax credit, but at the same time I do not think wealth taxes or taxing unrealized (i.e. paper) appreciation are good ideas.
Now, should billionaires pay more in taxes? Probably. But the rhetoric coming from Warren and some other Democrats is one of bellicose envy and confiscatory taxation. And it weirdly identifies travelling to the edge of space as this moral affront we all should be outraged at.
You don't want to give Jeff an extra dollar in tax relief, nor take away a dollar. You think that Ted Cruz, Steve Bannon and the rest of Trump's coven have stumbled on the PERFECT tax table, the tax table Yahweh would have come up with if he had a vote?
I don't even believe in Jebus! (Or Yahwe)
No, I do not think present tax rates are perfect. I was just commenting on the absurdity of saying that income limits on things like child tax credits are somehow unacceptable. Such limits already exist on myriad of tax credits and other programs.
Second: Please try to keep up!
Oh, I am kept up, baby! It's all I can do not to zoom ahead by a country mile!
It's already been patiently explained that means-testing introduces unnecessary costs and inequities.
It has not been explained. It has been asserted using a quite unrelated example of flat postage from 200 years ago. And that is the supposed explanation on cost. There wasn't even an attempted explanation on supposed "inequities".
Note that the old child tax credit, as well as EITC and SNAP etc. all have income limits. It's not some kind of dastardly novel idea concocted by Manchin and Sinema in their supervillain lair under the La Palma volcano.
Uncle Sam can simply give with one hand (an extra exemption box to click) and take back with the other hand (higher rates in the tax table). Presto: No means-testing, no welfare "cliffs", Bezos doesn't net that $12,000 of so much concern to you.
It could. Or it could do the same as it does for other tax credits and programs. This is not some new idea. It's what has been done up until now. Bezos is not getting EITC or SNAP either and neither do I because income limits are very low (at least if you don't have any kids).
@Derec — You have told us, over and over, that you have no children yourself and begrudge your tax dollars going to help other people's children.
Those are two unrelated things.
1. What do the things in the bill do for me?
True, I have no kids (always use a condom). And I do not think any of the proposed $3.5T spending would directly benefit me at all. I think that is fair to point out.
After all, that is a lot of money and the Dem spending priorities show how little they think of people like me.
2. Do I think the policies are good for the country?
I think US has more than enough subsidies for having children. Existing child tax credit for one. EITC is mostly another child tax credit in disguise as hardly anybody makes little enough to qualify unless they have children. Same goes for programs like SNAP or Medicaid. So when we already have so many subsidies, why add almost $2T of new ones? The expanded child tax credit alone
Now, do I think there are some good ideas in the bill? Some of the climate stuff is good (minus the climate paramilitaries). The free community college is not bad. Too bad both of these things will get cut out while increased breeding subsidies will survive in some form.
Do you understand that when debating public policy in a forum like this we want to focus on general benefit and not just our own tax?
In this case I think the two align. The expanded child tax credit is not good policy and it will cost me money if not in taxes then in increased inflation.
BTW, since benefits to the well-to-do will be effectively canceled by higher taxes on the well-to-do, is it interesting that QOP is the Party that insists on means testing? Do you wonder why that is?
GOP is against the bill anyway. It is Manchin, a Democrat who insists on limiting eligibility.
If you think you know the answer, write a brief 50-word essay on the topic. Suggested title: "Making voters resentful: Directing hatred at non-existent Welfare Mama elects Republicans."
Before Clinton's reforms, there indeed were ma many "welfare mamas", people who could live long term of government benefits without even trying to find work. Unfortunately, Biden wants to go back to the bad old days.
, and 
are all part of your body. So why doesn’t Medicare cover them?
