Politics So, how's that "government is the enemy' thing going for ya?

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Oh noes!!!!. They don't get to die WITH us? Racist

 

[yankeesince59]

Something like this:

The overall homeless population on a single night represents 0.2 percent of the U.S.

What?

Umm, you're evidently in the wrong thread. Where in this thread was the convo about the "homeless" only? This thread is about the stimulus package, which does not apply to only the homeless. In fact. I don't think "homeless" was even mentioned in this thread till you just brought it up.

 

[Lanny]

The problem I have with this half baked case of political gymnastics is that none everyone really needs this stimulus monopoly money.

I know that I for one, certainly don't need it.

What we need the most is help medically and especially with development of an effective vaccine. Then, we need help getting people through this economically. We need help getting things produced and distributed that people need the most. This has got to be done while we protect those doing the production and distributing from the virus. We should be on a war time footing.

Edit:
Oh, and we need effective leadership from our President. He should be out front telling it like it is.

 

[yankeesince59]

What we need the most is help medically and especially with development of an effective vaccine. Then, we need help getting people through this economically. We need help getting things produced and distributed that people need the most. This has got to be done while we protect those doing the production and distributing from the virus. We should be on a war time footing.

Edit:
Oh, and we need effective leadership from our President. He should be out front telling it like it is.

Agreed, some people will obviously need help financially but not all...use some of the allocated money for supplies/food for those who need help and more tests/screening for the virus and make sure hospitals are properly funded/equipped/staffed, etc., I'm not convinced that "cash" is the only way to go because you just know there are many folks who will spend it frivolously.
But yeah, some actual leadership from the POTUS would be nice for a change...but Trump still thinks this is about him.

 

[ABM]

What?

Umm, you're evidently in the wrong thread. Where in this thread was the convo about the "homeless" only? This thread is about the stimulus package, which does not apply to only the homeless. In fact. I don't think "homeless" was even mentioned in this thread till you just brought it up.

You're correct. I misread Minstrel's post. The context, though, was the definition of Socialism and at what point that exists. Minstrel appeared to relate that Socialism, as a whole, begins with even the insignificant of helps. I believe the nation (us) should help the poor and needy, but, arguably, that doesn't necessarily qualify it as Socialism. Moreover, there's a wide spectrum between Bernie's Green New Deal, free healthcare and schooling, etc. for all, and helping those truly in need.

In terms of this stimulus package, there are always gonna be one-offs and should he handled accordingly. Not Socialism. Naturally, those decisions involve the House, Senate, and President, collectively.

 

[ehizzy3]

One-offs will not be sufficient for this crisis

 

[donkiez]

Andrew Yang dropped out too early........

 

[Minstrel]

You're correct. I misread Minstrel's post. The context, though, was the definition of Socialism and at what point that exists. Minstrel appeared to relate that Socialism, as a whole, begins with even the insignificant of helps. I believe the nation (us) should help the poor and needy, but, arguably, that doesn't necessarily qualify it as Socialism.

That's because you see "socialism" as a black/white system...either we're capitalist or socialist, so something small can't qualify as "socialism." The whole concept of socialism, at least as it's used internationally today, is using the resources of the society to help those in society who need it--which in practice acts as a wealth transfer downwards; disproportionately from richer disproportionately to poorer.

The US is, and has been for many generations, a mix of capitalism and socialism. We have some free market principles and we have some programs that are funded by richer people for poorer people. Even a one-time check to keep people most at risk afloat is not particularly different conceptually from social security, which was intended to keep the poorest elderly afloat. Obviously, it's not the commitment that social security is, but I don't think that changes the ethic behind it.

 

[barfo]

Andrew Yang dropped out too early........

Arguably, everyone dropped out too early, as the pandemic might change the electoral landscape entirely. Although, for the moment, it seems to play to Biden's strengths, so maybe it would wind up in the same place anyway.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

Arguably, everyone dropped out too early, as the pandemic might change the electoral landscape entirely. Although, for the moment, it seems to play to Biden's strengths, so maybe it would wind up in the same place anyway.

barfo

If Joe wins Yang will be in his cab.

 

[barfo]

If Joe wins Yang will be in his cab.

I don't know about that. Andrew may indeed end up driving a cab, but Joe will have secret service to drive him.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

I don't know about that. Andrew may indeed end up driving a cab, but Joe will have secret service to drive him.

barfo

lol...I put cab knowing you would play with it. Im off, to the shores of Detroit Lake at noon. Have a good one Capt. Barfchips

 

[barfo]

lol...I put cab knowing you would play with it. Im off, to the shores of Detroit Lake at noon. Have a good one Capt. Barfchips

It's my sworn duty to make every lame joke I can. Have fun at Detroit!

barfo

 

[ABM]

The whole concept of socialism, at least as it's used internationally today, is using the resources of the society to help those in society who need it--which in practice acts as a wealth transfer downwards; disproportionately from richer disproportionately to poorer.

It would occur to me, then, that pure socialism, semi-socialism, or communism accounts for virtually every 1st or 2nd world country in existence today.

 

[crandc]

As far as spending frivolously, well, who decides? Is my buying yarn frivolous, since I don't really need another sweater but just like to knit? Is buying ice cream frivolous? Regardless of what is purchased, money spent goes into economy.

 

[Minstrel]

It would occur to me, then, that pure socialism, semi-socialism, or communism accounts for virtually every 1st or 2nd world country in existence today.

Every developed nation is a mix of capitalist and socialist policies. There are no "purely capitalist" or "purely socialist" nations, that I can think of. The question has never been "capitalism or socialism?" The question has always been, "What mix of the two should we have?"

 

[ABM]

Every developed nation is a mix of capitalist and socialist policies. There are no "purely capitalist" or "purely socialist" nations, that I can think of. The question has never been "capitalism or socialism?" The question has always been, "What mix of the two should we have?"

K, that all makes sense.

I've never felt the "Bern" (SCARY!) and I doubt the majority of our country has, either. That said, as the pundits keep reminding us, our nation appears to be veering more and more to left of center....towards to socialized side of the spectrum. Am I wrong in that assessment?

 

[yankeesince59]

As far as spending frivolously, well, who decides? Is my buying yarn frivolous, since I don't really need another sweater but just like to knit? Is buying ice cream frivolous? Regardless of what is purchased, money spent goes into economy.

Under the current circumstances with many people out of work who have families to feed and clothe them, pay for medications, and utilities, and other essential things, yes, IMO, ice cream and knitting yarn should take a back seat for the time being, and as I said the stimulus package is as much about Trump's ego as it is helping the ones who need help the most.
And again, instead of giving people money willy nilly even to people who don't really need it, why not instead re-channel that money and use it in other ways to counter the virus?

 

[andalusian]

and as I said the stimulus package is as much about Trump's ego as it is helping the ones who need help the most.
And again, instead of giving people money willy nilly even to people who don't really need it, why not instead re-channel that money and use it in other ways to counter the virus?

Trump's reelection effort was built on the idea of the economy is good. Since the stock market is now at pre-Trump administration levels and we are likely heading into a recession - he is doing whatever he can to try and prop the economy or he will lose in a landslide. Frankly, there are only so many people who vote for him because of his stance on abortions.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Under the current circumstances with many people out of work who have families to feed and clothe them, pay for medications, and utilities, and other essential things, yes, IMO, ice cream and knitting yarn should take a back seat for the time being, and as I said the stimulus package is as much about Trump's ego as it is helping the ones who need help the most.
And again, instead of giving people money willy nilly even to people who don't really need it, why not instead re-channel that money and use it in other ways to counter the virus?

It does sound like the money they're sending out will be by income / family size, and so to some extent it's good I guess.

 

[Minstrel]

K, that all makes sense.

I've never felt the "Bern" (SCARY!) and I doubt the majority of our country has, either. That said, as the pundits keep reminding us, our nation appears to be veering more and more to left of center....towards to socialized side of the spectrum. Am I wrong in that assessment?

No, I don't think you're wrong. On a host of (but not all) issues, the world in general moves more towards the left--like racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, how we think about feminism, etc. To be sure, there are "local swings"--sometimes things temporarily swing back towards the right. But over the decades, a lot of things have been moving to the left and I think what "the rich" owe to society and what, therefore, society owes to every participant in that society is one of those issues.

The US is center-right relative to the world, so the US has moved slower on those types of topics, but the US isn't immune to that leftward drift.

 

[donkiez]

Arguably, everyone dropped out too early, as the pandemic might change the electoral landscape entirely. Although, for the moment, it seems to play to Biden's strengths, so maybe it would wind up in the same place anyway.

barfo

Im kind of wondering how it will affect the election in general. I think that logic says that as the stock market fails, it will be the nail in the coffin for Trump but there is still a lot of time for a lot of things to happen. Maybe we get over the virus by then and Trump calls himself a superhero and people believe it? Maybe the cash stimulus is so popular that Trump goes all in on the UBI before the elections? It could really affect voter turn out also, which traditionally helps republicans but the virus is worse for old people (who are usually more conservative) so they could be turn out less than other groups. Maybe more states adopt vote by mail which helps democrats? So many variables and the only thing for sure is that it will fundamentally change a lot about how our society operates.

 

[ABM]

But over the decades, a lot of things have been moving to the left and I think what "the rich" owe to society and what, therefore, society owes to every participant in that society is one of those issues.

On a percentage basis, I don't think "the rich" owe more to society than any other class. The masses as a whole will cover the needs. That said, I also believe our tax system ought to be overhauled to some degree as there are far too many write-offs and abuses in that regard.

 

[yankeesince59]

It does sound like the money they're sending out will be by income / family size, and so to some extent it's good I guess.

But that's part of the problem I have with it...income or not, IMO, any help doled out should be based on whether or not someone is actually working or not. Example, someone making 150K with no children/family should not receive any "cash"....on the other hand, someone making 50K with a wife and 3 kids who's out of work?...off course they could use the money and should be on the top of the list.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

But that's part of the problem I have with it...income or not, IMO, any help doled out should be based on whether or not someone is actually working or not. Example, someone making 150K with no children/family should not receive any "cash"....on the other hand, someone making 50K with a wife and 3 kids who's out of work?...off course they could use the money and should be on the top of the list.

Isn't that sort of what they're doing though at least from what I read. People with higher incomes won't receive anything. People with lower incomes will, people with large families on medium incomes will receive something, people out of jobs will too. I don't know how I feel about it, but it seems like they're planning to do what you're saying.

 

[yankeesince59]

Isn't that sort of what they're doing though at least from what I read. People with higher incomes won't receive anything. People with lower incomes will, people with large families on medium incomes will receive something, people out of jobs will too. I don't know how I feel about it, but it seems like they're planning to do what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that regardless of income, most of those who are still working probably have not been hit financially...only those who are now out of work and those who have the virus should get money. Any other stimulus money should go to hospitals and small businesses.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

But that's part of the problem I have with it...income or not, IMO, any help doled out should be based on whether or not someone is actually working or not. Example, someone making 150K with no children/family should not receive any "cash"....on the other hand, someone making 50K with a wife and 3 kids who's out of work?...off course they could use the money and should be on the top of the list.

The problem with this line of thinking, is you are rewarding people who are getting in over their heads or living a more extravagant lifestyle than others do. Or don't have the suggested 6 months of living expenses saved up.

To many people, this doesn't seem very fair. Therefore, an equal distribution is the only way you'll not get too much blowback from.

People make their own decisions, whether they want to get a big house, start a family, drive a nice car, etc. These cost money and are expensive. They do get some reward from that though through satisfaction. Those that forgo those things make sacrifices, so they can keep their expenses low and their lives simple. Why should they miss out on free money while people are living past their means or don't have an emergency plan?

Its like this whole College debt thing. A lot of people don't want to pay peoples student loans off because they already paid theirs off. I mean it really doesn't affect them, but it just doesn't seem fair, as they made the sacrifices to pay off their student loan debts.

They feel they are getting cheated.

 

[yankeesince59]

The problem with this line of thinking, is you are rewarding people who are getting in over their heads or living a more extravagant lifestyle than others do. To many people, this doesn't seem very fair. Therefore, an equal distribution is the only way you'll not get too much blowback from.

People make their own decisions, whether they want to get a big house, start a family, drive a nice car, etc. These cost money and are expensive. They do get some reward from that though through satisfaction. Those that forgo those things make sacrifices, so they can keep their expenses low and their lives simple. Why should they miss out on free money while people are living past their means or don't have an emergency plan?

Its like this whole College debt thing. A lot of people don't want to pay peoples student loans off because they already paid theirs off. I mean it really doesn't affect them, but it just doesn't seem fair, as they made the sacrifices to pay off their student loan debts.

They feel they are getting cheated.

That's what I said or implied...not at all. And sorry, but the "college debt" reference is a very poor analogy

 

[crandc]

Better not tell me cat food is frivolous.

 

[yankeesince59]

Better not tell me cat food is frivolous.

Ha !...no way. My cats would kill me in my sleep. One will only eat canned tuna in vegetable oil...and the other one only eats dog food...I shit you not.