American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

It is the latter. And it doesn't make any sense at all. No idea why they would even contemplate it, good way to tick off millions of voters.

But Bernie just said 'some Dems' so I don't think it's a majority or anything. Still pretty dumb for any Dem to think it's a good idea.

It makes a lot of sense to anyone with any sense. I guess giving away free money to everyone for no reason is popular, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

It makes a lot of sense to anyone with any sense. I guess giving away free money to everyone for no reason is popular, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing.

It's not to everyone at all. And it's not for no reason. And if AOC and Bernie are correct that lowering it would mean less people would get money under that plan than versus under Trump it would look really bad.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

It's not to everyone at all. And it's not for no reason. And if AOC and Bernie are correct that lowering it would mean less people would get money under that plan than versus under Trump it would look really bad.

The first stimulus under Trump was needed to get money back in the economy quickly and made sense to get it out in a brute force way. At this point, there is a lot of stability in the overall economy, but certain sectors were hit very hard.

People making less than 50k or couples under 100k are all much more likely to have had their jobs affected by COVID. People making more are far more likely to have not had financial impacts. If there is not going to be a better effort to focus on people actually affected, it makes a lot more sense to direct it to the income brackets affected, and it should be a higher amount or a regular payment.

The government is piping more money into the economy than was reduced by COVID at this point. The correct solution to be to help the people affected, not to send money to everyone.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

It's not to everyone at all. And it's not for no reason. And if AOC and Bernie are correct that lowering it would mean less people would get money under that plan than versus under Trump it would look really bad.

This is exactly it. When the average voter gets to the ballot box in 2022, they're just going to remember that Trump and the Republicans cut them a bigger cheque than the Democrats did.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

People making less than 50k or couples under 100k are all much more likely to have had their jobs affected by COVID.

So the people in those ranges who have had their jobs affected by COVID shouldn't get help because they're in a bracket where those outcomes were less likely?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The first stimulus under Trump was needed to get money back in the economy quickly and made sense to get it out in a brute force way. At this point, there is a lot of stability in the overall economy, but certain sectors were hit very hard.

People making less than 50k or couples under 100k are all much more likely to have had their jobs affected by COVID. People making more are far more likely to have not had financial impacts. If there is not going to be a better effort to focus on people actually affected, it makes a lot more sense to direct it to the income brackets affected, and it should be a higher amount or a regular payment.

The government is piping more money into the economy than was reduced by COVID at this point. The correct solution to be to help the people affected, not to send money to everyone.

Haven’t we already had this discussion?

[rubecube]

Honestly this is where Biden needs to show some leadership and get people like Machin and Hickenlooper to fall in line. If you can't get an easy win like this one done, it doesn't really inspire a lot of optimism for the rest of the term.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Haven’t we already had this discussion?

Everyone keeps coming in like this is an obvious solution. It's really a terrible solution and that's why there's resistance in congress. It's a bad idea that will have bad consequences, and solve no problems. Calling Democrats idiots for not pushing through with a clearly flawed plan is not an argument for why this is a good thing.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Everyone keeps coming in like this is an obvious solution. It's really a terrible solution and that's why there's resistance in congress. It's a bad idea that will have bad consequences, and solve no problems. Calling Democrats idiots for not pushing through with a clearly flawed plan is not an argument for why this is a good thing.

I don't know why some are pretending that the cheques won't help those affected by the pandemic. The cheques will undoubtedly help those in need, and stimulate the economy at the same time.

"People getting money who don't need it" is such a tired argument. It hardly seems like something worth lamenting over. As discussed earlier, the tax system can be used to recoup the funds from those deemed to have not needed them in the first place.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I don't know why some are pretending that the cheques won't help those affected by the pandemic. The cheques will undoubtedly help those in need, and stimulate the economy at the same time.

"People getting money who don't need it" is such a tired argument. It hardly seems like something worth lamenting over. As discussed earlier, the tax system can be used to recoup the funds from those deemed to have not needed them in the first place.

The overall economy doesn't need stimulus. Saying it does is a tired argument. Certain portions do, and certain people need help. Why waste 3/4 of a massive amount of money giving it to people who aren't affected that will be redirected to sectors that don't need it? There has been no proposal to count these as taxable income and none of the previous checks were taxable. Sending out 2000 and then giving some people a surprise 2000 bill at tax time is not going to go over well either.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Everyone keeps coming in like this is an obvious solution. It's really a terrible solution and that's why there's resistance in congress. It's a bad idea that will have bad consequences, and solve no problems. Calling Democrats idiots for not pushing through with a clearly flawed plan is not an argument for why this is a good thing.

There is resistance in Congress because some people there like to pretend that deficits matter and that they care about spending money.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. I’m on unemployment and won’t get a stimulus check unless the income cut off goes way higher or is based on 2021 income. Would I like a check? Sure. Would it help me? Sure. Do I pay a ton in taxes and think that I deserve a check? Absolutely.

It isn’t my place to say who should or shouldn’t get a check and the fastest way by far to get money out to those who truly need it is to just give one to everyone.

If someone doesn’t want the money or think that they need it or deserve it, then they can donate it or blow it on alcohol. I don’t care. But any attempt to fine-tune who you think should or should not get a check is likely to slow the entire process down and end up hurting a lot more people.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Not everyone who went to the Capitol was an extremist. If you research immigrant communities and media, you will see many reasons why people went from being Republican, to anti-socialist, to thinking the election was stolen. TorqueDog's uncle is in this range.

Being a "gullible old man" needs to be one of the options if you are going to try and use my uncle as any sort of example.

[Yamer]

It's so cool to see a party hold themselves accountable.

At the same time, it's so upsetting to see a party hold themselves accountable when the opposition just continuously falls in line, no matter the absurdity.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The overall economy doesn't need stimulus. Saying it does is a tired argument. Certain portions do, and certain people need help. Why waste 3/4 of a massive amount of money giving it to people who aren't affected that will be redirected to sectors that don't need it? There has been no proposal to count these as taxable income and none of the previous checks were taxable. Sending out 2000 and then giving some people a surprise 2000 bill at tax time is not going to go over well either.

Straight up, which worries you more; people who need a cheque not getting one or people who don't need one getting one?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Straight up, which worries you more; people who need a cheque not getting one or people who don't need one getting one?

They have one real shot to spend 2 trillion dollars. The problem that needs solving is helping people and businesses who have been hurt financially by COVID. The best solution is the solution that can direct the most of
that money to those people. A solution that only sends somewhere between a quarter and a third of that money to the people affected does not strike me as a good.

So yeah it is bothering me that money is being sent to people not affected that takes away from money that can help people affected.

You keep saying “need” but I don’t use that word. The pout of this plan is to help people who have had deep financial impacts from COVID. If direct payments cannot be better targeted to those impacted, then it is probably not a good solution.

Yeah Biden and the Democrats promised the money and I get the argument they should follow through. That doesn’t make it a good policy though.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

They have one real shot to spend 2 trillion dollars. The problem that needs solving is helping people and businesses who have been hurt financially by COVID. The best solution is the solution that can direct the most of
that money to those people. A solution that only sends somewhere between a quarter and a third of that money to the people affected does not strike me as a good.

So far I don’t think it is deciding who gets what share of the 2 trillion, it is more about do they spend 2 trillion or 1 trillion. There would be no extra money going to the lower income or hard hit businesses. The money not going out just plain would not be spent.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Honestly this is where Biden needs to show some leadership and get people like Machin and Hickenlooper to fall in line. If you can't get an easy win like this one done, it doesn't really inspire a lot of optimism for the rest of the term.

He cant, they will do what ever the hell they damn well want, what ever the hell they think will get them re elected to be precise.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The pout of this plan is to help people who have had deep financial impacts from COVID. If direct payments cannot be better targeted to those impacted, then it is probably not a good solution.

What you don't seem to be realizing is that it's very hard (perhaps impossible) to precisely discern exactly who has been financially affected by Covid and by what amounts, and then send out cheques on a person-by-person and business-by-business basis to precisely match the financial impact on each person and business.

Is this simulus plan perfect? Far from it. But it's far better than what you are suggesting, which is to not send out assistance at all.

[chemgear]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...-19-ron-wright

The Republican lawmaker is the first sitting member of Congress to die after getting COVID-19.

Wright's last vote in Congress was against impeaching Donald Trump on the charge of inciting a riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, CNBC reported. He was also one of 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election results by objecting to certify the Electoral College votes for Joe Biden after the riot.

[chemgear]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/08/trum...anel-says.html

The Trump administration sought to suppress Covid-19 testing in the United States last year by softening guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on who needed to be tested, a House panel said Monday.

In September, the CDC quietly reversed the guidance, saying that anyone, even those without symptoms, who has been in close contact with an infected person needs a Covid-19 test.

Alexander is at the center of the ongoing investigation into whether the administration of President Donald Trump or his appointees allowed politics to shape the nation’s response to the pandemic. In December, Clyburn released a trove of emails from Alexander and Caputo that showed “a pernicious pattern of political interference by Administration officials,” according to Clyburn.