Outcomes of Overturning Roe Vs. Wade

[Ken]

Does it? Half of Americans pay no taxes at all.

I know someone with 3 kids who gets more back from the government (free Medicaid; $1000/mo in ebt, tax refunds, EITC, child tax credit, stimulus payments) than he even makes in income in the first place.

I believe the standard deduction this year for single filers is 12,950. Do you make more than that? If so, then you likely pay some tax. You are in Ohio? A quick peek at a standard tax calculator says that if you are single and earn $25,000 in rural Ohio you will owe about $3500 in federal income and FICA taxes. The median salary for employed working people in Ohio is about $58,000. That income will generate about $10,000 in Federal taxes. Those are who are paying for Trump's tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Just get married and have kids. Then you get more back in tax credits than you pay in. The single people who are working, and all the rich taxpayers will subsidize you to have kids. It's a wonderful thing. And that's not even counting all the other bennies you qualify for. Tell me that a lot of people haven't figured this out.

Sure, but that's not the majority. My wife and I have been middle class most of our working lives and we have three kids. Our income is higher now but that is a fairly new thing. There wasn't once in my life since I graduated college that we haven't owed substantial income taxes. I think that is much more typical for most middle class taxpayers.

The vast majority of Americans who have actually put together a productive career of some sort and haven't just worked a series of dead-end minimum wage jobs end up paying taxes most of their lives. I'm talking about teachers, nurses, contractors, small business owners, farmers, skilled tradesmen, etc. Basically anyone who has made the effort to build a career or profession of some sort.

I don't personally begrudge those sorts of social programs. Mostly they are targeted at kids and I'm fine with that. Some I'm sure use it for drugs and booze. But I expect the majority use it for food, clothing, and putting roofs over their families and keeping their kids well. What I begrudge is when the ultra-wealthy pocket massive tax cuts and tax loopholes and don't also pay their fair share.

[ohio jones]

In the example I just gave, dad earns around $13/hr, mom $10

$30,000 is at about the 30th percentile for Ohio or right at the upper end of the bottom third. I guess that is about what you get with two people working two part-time minimum wage jobs.

Minimum wage in Ohio is $9.30.

It was not affected by overturning Roe v. Wade.

[Ken]

In the example I just gave, dad earns around $13/hr, mom $10

$30,000 is at about the 30th percentile for Ohio or right at the upper end of the bottom third. I guess that is about what you get with two people working two part-time minimum wage jobs.

Minimum wage in Ohio is $9.30.

It was not affected by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Yes, this is a tangent.

My point was that some jobs are minimum wage jobs even if you are no longer making minimum wage simply because you have been there long enough. A fry cook at McDonalds might start at $9.30/hr. Ohio and then after a year get a "generous" 70 cent raise up to $10/hr. I would still argue they are in a "minimum wage job" as in one in which the starting wage is minimum wage. Most fast food jobs are minimum wage jobs even if you stick around long enough to get a raise or two. If you walk out and get replaced by someone making minimum wage or close to it then you are in a minimum wage job.

By contrast, starting wages for a licensed journeyman electrician around here are about $35/hr. No one does that work for minimum wage so that is not a minimum wage job. If you walk out your replacement will likely be starting somewhere near the prevailing wage which is about $35/hr.

[Josh]

A typical working class family is not pulling $58k. In the example I just gave, dad earns around $13/hr, mom $10,
Mom is part time, dad seems change jobs a lot.

They end up making around $30k. And there’s no reason to earn more or they’ll lose their EBT ($12k/year) and Medicaid (easily worth $10k/yr).

The median household income in Ohio is $58,000: https://www.incomebyzipcode.com/ohio

$30,000 is at about the 30th percentile for Ohio or right at the upper end of the bottom third. I guess that is about what you get with two people working two part-time minimum wage jobs. $23/hour (their combined wage) x 25 hours per week gives you $30,000.

$23/hr x 25 hrs/week x 52 weeks/year = $29,900

If they were both working full time at those wages they would be pulling in closer to $48,000 per year.

$23/hr x 40 hrs/week x 52 weeks/year = $47,900

Yes, believe it or not not every single person is average or above average.

They get max. 28 hours week (often less) for dad - no pay on holidays or sick time either. (That’s how part time jobs are.) average is closer to 25 hours a week and 45 weeks a year = $14k

Mom just works weekends (child care is expensive) and is probably only pulling $100 or so a week

There is no full time career path in these types of jobs, and why bother? If they made $48k they’d lose $22k+ of benefits (actually more, eitc is around $5000).

[Ken]

A typical working class family is not pulling $58k. In the example I just gave, dad earns around $13/hr, mom $10,
Mom is part time, dad seems change jobs a lot.

They end up making around $30k. And there’s no reason to earn more or they’ll lose their EBT ($12k/year) and Medicaid (easily worth $10k/yr).

The median household income in Ohio is $58,000: https://www.incomebyzipcode.com/ohio

$30,000 is at about the 30th percentile for Ohio or right at the upper end of the bottom third. I guess that is about what you get with two people working two part-time minimum wage jobs. $23/hour (their combined wage) x 25 hours per week gives you $30,000.

$23/hr x 25 hrs/week x 52 weeks/year = $29,900

If they were both working full time at those wages they would be pulling in closer to $48,000 per year.

$23/hr x 40 hrs/week x 52 weeks/year = $47,900

Yes, believe it or not not every single person is average or above average.

They get max. 28 hours week (often less) for dad - no pay on holidays or sick time either. (That’s how part time jobs are.) average is closer to 25 hours a week and 45 weeks a year = $14k

Mom just works weekends (child care is expensive) and is probably only pulling $100 or so a week

There is no full time career path in these types of jobs, and why bother? If they made $48k they’d lose $22k+ of benefits (actually more, eitc is around $5000).

The point is that your example of a below average family with two part-time minimum wage-level jobs is not who we are talking about when we say that middle class taxpayers have to pick up the slack for Trump's tax cuts for billionaires like himself.

[Josh]

Middle class taxpayers got a tax cut under the 2016 era tax plan.

[RZehr]

I saw comments today where conservatives were mad at the Supreme Court because the Dobbs ruling ruined this election for Republicans. Is this a widespread sentiment?

Because I’m quite unimpressed with the follow through of Republican politicians, I’m happy to get a genuine, sturdy Supreme Court ruling, rather than a wimpy Republican majority. I would prefer both; but if I had to pick between the SC we have, or a Republican House and Senate, I’ll take the bird in hand any day.

For myself, I don’t think it was the ruling alone that made the election day difference. But even if it did, I’ll still take it.

I think it was Trump/Maga that lost the Republican “red wave”. And if it wasn’t for Trump, we’d not have the SC that we have. So as far as I’m concerned, Trump gets credit for the SC and the blame for the election loss. But to me, his SC legacy out weighs the mid term loss.

I would strongly agree. The highest court in the land judging according to Christian and Catholic values seems like a very good thing. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

On the other hand, having a slim majority of Republicans in Congress doesn’t seem that important. What exactly did the Republican majority do in 2016-2018?

I think this puts it well:

Republicans Paid a Price for Overturning Roe. It May Have Been Worth It.
The Republicans’ under-performance in the midterm elections has been described a lot of different ways — a failure, a rebuke, a mistake, etc. — but rarely as a price. That is, however, exactly what happened.

Republicans took a hit at the polls because that’s the price to pay for a major policy gain, the one they got with the Dobbs decision earlier this year eliminating the national right to an abortion.

Politicians are sometimes described as behaving like, in political scientist David Mayhew’s famous words, “single-minded seekers of reelection.” That’s, of course, a simplification, but it explains a lot of what they do. Most of them aren’t particularly risk-seeking, and they’ll generally want to keep people happy if it means they can keep their jobs.

But when we throw parties into the mix, things become more complicated. Parties — and particularly the movements that support parties — have goals beyond just keeping their members reelected. They have a vision of what a better country looks like, and they look for opportunities to make that happen.

Overturning Roe v. Wade has been a core priority of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, if not earlier. Conservative organizations like Moral Majority, Focus on the Family and the Federalist Society worked to ensure overturning Roe was central to the GOP’s mission. Abortion has been prominent in the party’s platforms and the governing agenda of every Republican president for decades. Republicans have sought to put anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court and other federal courts, and through a series of untimely deaths and unprecedented power moves by Mitch McConnell, the unlikely figure of Donald Trump managed to place enough of them there to achieve the goal.

….

You could see a similar thing among Democrats in 2010. In enacting the Affordable Care Act, Obama and congressional Democrats were making good on something that had been a party goal for decades. Lyndon Johnson had fought for universal health care and settled for Medicare. Clinton fought for a version of it and lost. Obama actually got it into law. And his party paid a price for it, losing more than 60 seats in those midterms. According to one analysis, those Democrats voting for the ACA took a bigger political hit than those voting against it, and this may have been enough to cost Democrats their majority. But for those who’d been pushing the policy, that price may still have been worth it.

…

Republicans are understandably disappointed by the election outcome this year. But one of the core reasons is they secured a huge policy win, one that they’ve advocated for nearly half a century. And despite those self-imposed headwinds, Republicans still took the House, albeit narrowly. If that’s the cost, the GOP arguably got a good deal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans- ... 00389.html

[Josh]

If Democratic justices also repealed abortion I would rejoice too. This is a non-partisan issue for me.

[temporal1]

ADF / Alliance Defending Freedom
References to chemical abortion drugs / abortion pills:

Alliance Defending Freedom @ADFLegal
“The FDA approved chemical abortion drugs based on politics, ignoring the science.
That needs to change.”
Read more about our new case from @FDRLST
https://twitter.com/intent/like

thefederalist.com
Lawsuit Could Force The FDA To Rescind Its Abortion Pill Approval
The abortion pill is not treating 'illnesses,' but by approving it, the FDA has rubber-stamped the murders of countless unborn children.

[PetrChelcicky]

My impression was that the S.C. did not so much vote against abortion, but against a completely arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution. Roe v Wade relied on the Due Process Clause as a right of liberty or privacy for the woman. Roe v Wade only took into account a conflict between the woman's rights on the one hand and "governmental interest" in the securing of prenatal life on the other hand.
This all implies that there is only the woman concerned - as if the fetus did not exist or as if the fetus got any human rights exactly at the moment of his birth, not a second before or afterwards. (One could deliberately decide so, but the former S.C. did not even try it. And of course the Constitution said nothing about it.)
Roe v Wade was one of the most spectacular cases for juridical "overreach" and activism and one of the reasons why the Federalist Society, which defends a textual and originalist interpretation of the Constitution, became so strong.