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

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think there's pretty obviously a reasonable debate to be had here about whether this policy is a good idea, and we have one side of that debate quoting news articles and making principled points while the other side accuses them of being "privileged" or "ghoulish" or "ignorant", other than Maritime Q Scout...

Personally I think means testing it is a bad idea simply because it creates a whole other bureaucracy at the front end that will be inefficient, but the way the people I'm agreeing with when I say that are conducting themselves here, I'm almost hesitant to say so.

Yeah, I'm just gonna own up to this and say I'm having a bad week and I'm cranky as hell. Apologies to everyone for how I'm going about this. Quit drinking for the month, stressful week at work, new meds, and then all this bull#### has me out of sorts.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

we have one side of that debate quoting news articles and making principled points while the other side accuses them of being "privileged" or "ghoulish" or "ignorant", other than Maritime Q Scout...

That's an extremely inaccurate summary of the discussion here. You're making rash generalizations and ignoring the nuances of what has been said.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How nice for you. I'm new-fashioned enough to believe that deficit-hawking on principle during a pandemic, when people are struggling to pay rent and put food, on the table is pretty ghoulish.

But that’s what he’s saying. To send those people the money. So he’s not being ghoulish. He’s saying don’t send the money to people who don’t need it.

People struggling to pay rent etc do. So he isn’t talking about those people.

[Ped]

I think if you told me that you're going to give $2000 to 100 people, of which say 50 might not need it and misuse it, and the other 50 desperately need it for food and rent and stuff because we're in a pandemic and everything's mess up, I'd be okay with trade-off.


On the other hand, if you told me you only want to give money to those that need it, but it takes so long to figure that out that they lose their homes or can't buy their meds, I'd probably just go with Option A.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How nice for you. I'm new-fashioned enough to believe that deficit-hawking on principle during a pandemic, when people are struggling to pay rent and put food, on the table is pretty ghoulish.

I guess I haven't made my point clearly enough. I want money going to people actually struggling to pay rent and put food on the table. Spraying it around to everybody may have been prudent when the initial shock of the covid contraction hit. But continuing to do so now will only fuel resentment when the smoke clears and governments try to get their finances in order.

But anyway, my main point was that around half of people are actually doing pretty well financially during the pandemic. Better, in many cases, than before. Around half are doing worse, some much worse. That's going to be a huge political issue in the coming years.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

But that’s what he’s saying. To send those people the money. So he’s not being ghoulish. He’s saying don’t send the money to people who don’t need it.

People struggling to pay rent etc do. So he isn’t talking about those people.

The issue here for me is that holding back the money while you sort out who needs it hurts the people who need it most. I'd much rather see 20 people who need it get it immediately, even if it means that 20 people who don't also get it, than see 15 people who need it get and 10 people who don't get it. Hopefully I wrote that clearly enough. It's worded a little wacky.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics. Isn't that the justification for cutting taxes for high-earners - they'll spend that money on home renos, restaurants, etc, and that's good for everybody?

The stock market is booming. Lots of comfortable white-collar earners plowing money into the market during covid. Is that good for everyone too?

The problem with the stimulus part of this, is it is just going to stimulate the businesses that are already doing well, and leave out the sectors that people aren't spending money on.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics. Isn't that the justification for cutting taxes for high-earners - they'll spend that money on home renos, restaurants, etc, and that's good for everybody?

The stock market is booming. Lots of comfortable white-collar earners plowing money into the market during covid. Is that good for everyone too?

Quite the contrary. IMO Trickle down is aimed at the rich, at people creating businesses, at a select few people. This is aimed at the masses and at consumers, attempting to create additional demand. It is vastly different to me.

Stock market is also for the rich. If you’re paycheck to paycheck or month to month like most poor and middle class people, they have few dollars for the stock market.

It very much appears that you’ve forgotten what it is like to be middle-to-poor class.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I guess I haven't made my point clearly enough. I want money going to people actually struggling to pay rent and put food on the table. Spraying it around to everybody may have been prudent when the initial shock of the covid contraction hit.

Except the U.S. didn't do this at first and now people are effed because of it. You have to stop the bleeding somehow and the delay in setting up a bureaucratic process to determine who does and doesn't qualify is going to make a world of difference for the most hardest hit. Not to mention that more people will likely fall through the cracks if you do.

But continuing to do so now will only fuel resentment when the smoke clears and governments try to get their finances in order.

I honestly don't see this, but there are remedies you can implement on the backend if it's such a concern. The main priority should be to get money into people's hands immediately.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

But that’s what he’s saying. To send those people the money. So he’s not being ghoulish. He’s saying don’t send the money to people who don’t need it.

People struggling to pay rent etc do. So he isn’t talking about those people.

Please explain to us how the US government can, in a timely fashion, determine exactly who needs the money and who doesn't, in such a way that makes sure that all of the people who need it actually get it, and that none of the people who don't need it end up getting it. I'll wait.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Ped

I think if you told me that you're going to give $2000 to 100 people, of which say 50 might not need it and misuse it, and the other 50 desperately need it for food and rent and stuff because we're in a pandemic and everything's mess up, I'd be okay with trade-off.


On the other hand, if you told me you only want to give money to those that need it, but it takes so long to figure that out that they lose their homes or can't buy their meds, I'd probably just go with Option A.

I see it probably being closer to 25% need it, and 75% aren't financially impacted. I would rather give 8000 to the 25%, even if it took a couple extra months, then 2000 now.

Is Canada even doing this?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The problem with the stimulus part of this, is it is just going to stimulate the businesses that are already doing well, and leave out the sectors that people aren't spending money on.

I wish I had your crystal ball.

Restaurants are doing well? They sure aren’t in my neck of the woods. Extra money to people who could eat out has been business-saving for them and their employees.

Select businesses (big box mostly) are doing ok and in some cases like Amazon amazing. A lot of others are not, small businesses especially.

IMO, giving people more spending money can only be a good thing for all businesses, those that need the shot in the arm and those that don’t.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I see it probably being closer to 25% need it, and 75% aren't financially impacted. I would rather give 8000 to the 25%, even if it took a couple extra months, then 2000 now.

Is Canada even doing this?

We had CERB and some other programs that got people through the tough times. There was an application process for it, but most people who applied were approved immediately. This one wasn't really means tested, but you had to prove you were unemployed and there were various other qualifying criteria. It was a bit of a ####show at first and there's a lot of debate up here on the merits of it.

I personally think it was a good idea, but executed not as well as it should have been. Probably give the feds a 3/5 for it.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Please explain to us how the US government can, in a timely fashion, determine exactly who needs the money and who doesn't, in such a way that makes sure that all of the people who need it actually get it, and that none of the people who don't need it end up getting it. I'll wait.

Use last years tax returns and a threshold based on income?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics. Isn't that the justification for cutting taxes for high-earners - they'll spend that money on home renos, restaurants, etc, and that's good for everybody?

It's good for the home reno contractors and the people who work at / own the restaurants. That's probably good for everybody.

Trickle down economics is predicated on the notion that if you focus economic relief, aka tax cuts, on the people who create wealth by starting or funding businesses (which has usually just been interpreted as "rich people") they'll do more of that, which is good for the economy.

This is just a relief package slash stimulus, which is predicated on the idea that if you give everyone some money, they'll spend it. You hope they spend as much as possible on the right things, like local businesses, because that's good for the economy. It's kind of the opposite of trickle down economics, the cash injection comes from the bottom up.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I see it probably being closer to 25% need it, and 75% aren't financially impacted. I would rather give 8000 to the 25%, even if it took a couple extra months, then 2000 now.

Is Canada even doing this?

Even if those extra few months mean people can't pay their rent or buy groceries?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Use last years tax returns and a threshold based on income?

Bad idea, IMO. Say you make the threshold $70k. What do you with the people who made $70k in 2019 but have been laid off since April?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Use last years tax returns and a threshold based on income?

You're going to use how people were doing pre-covid as a gauge for how they are doing now?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Has anyone come up with a reason why afc's "claw it back next year when people file their tax returns" thing isn't reasonable?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Use last years tax returns and a threshold based on income?

so Trump gets a cheque?