[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Lisa Murkowski is the first GOP Senator to call for Trump's resignation and considers leaving the party.

https://www.newsandguts.com/lisa-mur...xNhFFLu_p359SU

[/INDENT]

Where was this courage and righteous indignation when the Senate was voting on having witnesses for Trumps impeachment? I believe her and Collins could have swung the tide with their critical votes. Seems to be right on time with other spineless cowards who have hitched their horse to the Trump-GOP wagon.

“But I will tell you, if the Republican Party has become nothing more than the party of Trump, I sincerely question whether this is the party for me." Ummmm, I have some really bad news, you have been the party of Trump for the last 4 years.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Sending out checks to everyone is a much fairer and easier process.

At the very least, doing so amounts to a tax break, or rebate, or reduction.

And providing more money to everyone—from those who pay six-plus figure amounts in federal income taxes to those who pay absolutely nothing—gets money into the economy and creates or maintains jobs for everyone.

If you want money in the hands of people now, then cut the roadblocks to doing so, which include any sort of means testing or targeting.

Looking around here, it seems there is plenty of money in the economy. Businesses that aren't impacted are thriving. The checks are just going to be spent on those industries and not on the industries that are hurting or the people who work in those industries.

If it happens, it happens. The Democrats promised it, so I guess it's better to follow through. But I don't agree with attacking D Senators who are suggesting that money needs to help the people who are out of work from COVID.

[bob-loblaw]

Better late than never for Murkowski say something or leave. Maybe she can sit as an independent and potentially give the Dems some wiggle room because of Manchin.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Unemployment covers all those cases. Funding should mostly be directed to further enhancing, extending and making it easier to get.

Give money back through tax returns this year to people who had a drop in income from 2019. Taxes will start to be done in the next few weeks.

At very least, make the income threshold a lot lower for who gets those checks and double the amount sent out. Lower income people were on average much more affected, so at least that would better target people affected, and not be sent to so many office workers working from home.

You keep saying means tested like it's an ugly word. I'm suggesting targeting to the people impacted. Blind Stimulus isn't needed this time around, we should helping the people who've been hurt financially by COVID.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Looking around here, it seems there is plenty of money in the economy. Businesses that aren't impacted are thriving. The checks are just going to be spent on those industries and not on the industries that are hurting or the people who work in those industries.

If it happens, it happens. The Democrats promised it, so I guess it's better to follow through. But I don't agree with attacking D Senators who are suggesting that money needs to help the people who are out of work from COVID.

The level of privileged gatekeeping oozing out of these posts is staggering.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Looking around here, it seems there is plenty of money in the economy. Businesses that aren't impacted are thriving. The checks are just going to be spent on those industries and not on the industries that are hurting or the people who work in those industries.

If it happens, it happens. The Democrats promised it, so I guess it's better to follow through. But I don't agree with attacking D Senators who are suggesting that money needs to help the people who are out of work from COVID.

Come to West Texas, where the unemployment rate has gone from around 2% to around 10% in a year.

There may be “money in the economy,” but it isn’t circulating very well there, even amongst industries not directly impacted by the virus.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The level of privileged gatekeeping oozing out of these posts is staggering.

Yep, that's it. You never really have come up with anything sounding like an intelligent argument. Just platitudes, and calling people names who don't agree to your simplistic solutions.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Come to West Texas, where the unemployment rate has gone from around 2% to around 10% in a year.

There may be “money in the economy,” but it isn’t circulating very well there, even amongst industries not directly impacted by the virus.

I guess the question would be, would those industries would see more people spending at them if everyone has an extra $2k? My whole argument is the money should go to the 10% unemployed, or people who've lost work, not everyone.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Yep, that's it. You never really have come up with anything sounding like an intelligent argument. Just platitudes, and calling people names who don't agree to your simplistic solutions.

What names did I call you?

[transplant99]

One of the talking heads on MSNBC just called Lindsay Graham

"Donald Trumps fluffer the last 4 years"


I literally LOL'd.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What names did I call you?

You can anyone privileged, corporate suck-up, whatever that disagrees on your stances instead of ever coming up with a thoughtful argument. It's just lazy.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I guess the question would be, would those industries would see more people spending at them if everyone has an extra $2k? My whole argument is the money should go to the 10% unemployed, or people who've lost work, not everyone.

In West Texas generally?

Sure, given that the economy there is mostly oil and gas, and more money in everyone’s pockets would likely lead to more travel or buying online, which results in more oil and gas being used, and so more oil and gas production.

And for the local economy, most who live there don’t believe in the virus anyway, so they’d use the money to eat out more or to buy more sporting goods, which would keep restaurants open (and jobs going) or businesses open (and jobs going).

But I tell you what. If you don’t want your stimulus check, I’ll take it. I haven’t received one yet, and I’ve been unemployed since March.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

You can anyone privileged, corporate suck-up, whatever that disagrees on your stances instead of ever coming up with a thoughtful argument. It's just lazy.

Really? You can't see why someone might think the below sounds privileged?

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Looking around here, it seems there is plenty of money in the economy. Businesses that aren't impacted are thriving.

It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. It's your general attitude/outlook that rubs me the wrong way when you post something like that. It comes across as tremendously out of touch and insensitive.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I guess the question would be, would those industries would see more people spending at them if everyone has an extra $2k? My whole argument is the money should go to the 10% unemployed, or people who've lost work, not everyone.

I actually dont disagree with you in principle but in practice unemployment in the US is designed to be incredibly difficult to get onto so the 10% doesnt even come close to covering those in need and to actually come up with a plan to direct the payment to those that need it will take months and likely be stalled in the courts and politics forever, handing out 2 grand to everyone is about the only way to do anything quickly enough to help and the vast majority of Americans that get the money, even if they dont need it, will spend in the local economy on basics so it will create a real trickle down and around effect beyond those that have the money

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

In West Texas generally?

Sure, given that the economy there is mostly oil and gas, and more money in everyone’s pockets would likely lead to more travel or buying online, which results in more oil and gas being used, and so more oil and gas production.

And for the local economy, most who live there don’t believe in the virus anyway, so they’d use the money to eat out more or to buy more sporting goods, which would keep restaurants open (and jobs going) or businesses open (and jobs going).

But I tell you what. If you don’t want your stimulus check, I’ll take it. I haven’t received one yet, and I’ve been unemployed since March.

I don't really think stimulus is enough to turn around the oil and gas market.

I tried not to get too into my personal situation, but I don't get one either. Because of our unusual tax situation my wife does and she's just been giving them to her adult children who have been out of work for some or all of this. So I guess it kind of works in our case to filter to the people who need it. I don't see this stimulus helping any of the industries they're in. The unemployment boosts were much more helpful for them.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The article says he said he loves his daughter and doesn't get involved in her business

The correct response from him would have been: "I love my daughter, but I'm deeply disturbed by her business decision in this case. I can't and won't defend it."

The answer he gave was massively different from that; he praised her in glowing terms and didn't criticize her decisions at all. Hence, maybe it's not so surprising when people are deeply disappointed in him.

and doesn't agree with a bad stimulus plan that you believe in.

It is objectively reality that people are in dire straits right now due to the pandemic and its effect on the economy over the past 9 months. This senator is blocking the desperately needed aid. Hence, maybe it's not so surprising when people are deeply disappointed in him.

Therefore he is a corporate nut-hugging republican.... and you say the left is not like the crazy right wingers.

Ignorant comment. Maybe put some thought into what you're saying before posting next time.

[rubecube]

I guess I should clarify something. I'm generally not a massive fan of means-tested programs for many reasons, but I can live with them if they're managed in a way that does get the services out to the people who need them in quickly and effectively.

The issue with demanding the stimulus cheques be means-tested now is that we're long past that point. People can't wait to do their taxes or go through a bureaucratic approval process. They have rent, mounting bills, etc., etc. The longer they have to wait, the worse it's going to get.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really? You can't see why someone might think the below sounds privileged?



It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. It's your general attitude/outlook that rubs me the wrong way when you post something like that. It comes across as tremendously out of touch and insensitive.

Aid should go to the people that have it, not people making $150,000 working from home in their office job. I don't know why that strikes you as privileged.

You strike me as just going with what you think suits your ideology, and just want your side to get a victory with little care whether it helps the people who need it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really? You can't see why someone might think the below sounds privileged?



It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. It's your general attitude/outlook that rubs me the wrong way when you post something like that. It comes across as tremendously out of touch and insensitive.

Regardless of how it makes you feel, it’s absolutely true. Most people with secure white-collar jobs are doing better financially from all of this. Savings rates have shot up. Home renos are booming. It might be unseemly to openly talk about, but it’s a reality that those in charge of our public finances have to recognize.

When we’ve moved on from the pandemic as health crisis to the pandemic as economic and financial crisis, the extremely uneven distribution of who took the hit from all this has the makings of a political firestorm. Sending billions of government dollars to people who will use it to put in marble countertops and pad out their pension plans won’t be a good look.

[ResAlien]

There’s a wide gulf between objective truth and what you believe is “absolutely true”, cliff.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Aid should go to the people that have it, not people making $150,000 working from home in their office job. I don't know why that strikes you as privileged.

That's an argument for raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle class. Trying to specifically target only certain people for the relief cheques sounds like a great idea in theory, but in practise it can lead to some of the people in need not actually receiving a cheque.