|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 30 2020 08:47 BisuDagger wrote:
Why does anyone want a 3 trillion dollar bill? The first one hasn’t been completely spent afaik and some of it was spent poorly. I’m looking for the link, but the was an article discussing how Big 10 colleges received millions of COVID relief from the first bill for canceling their season of football. Then they resumed their football season anyway months later. I want those who need the money to get the money, but I don’t trust the next 1-3 trillion to be spent well at all.
We need to make sure the wealthy and well-connected do well in these trying times. And if we throw maybe 20% of that money at the most vulnerable, it’ll keep the general populace happy.
There was a time when giving a lopsided stimulus like this involved a lot of public campaigning; people had to be convinced that “we have to save Wall Street to help Main Street.” The need to do that is long gone, and no one will bat an eye at just one more $3 trillion slush fund.
|
|
|
On October 30 2020 09:43 plasmidghost wrote:
It's been really interesting to see this election cycle not really having much volatility in terms of projections when compared to the 2016 election and its frequent swings of predicted support. Something also strikes me as odd, which is that the national polls have Biden at around 8-9 points ahead on average, but the swing state polls are all within a couple of points. What would be causing this discrepancy in the values, if anyone knows?
I assume that it's a matter of compounding the slight advantages for Biden across multiple states. The chance of Trump winning nationally shrinks proportionally to the number of swing states that are all leaning towards Biden, as more and more states would need to be incorrectly predicted (i.e., swing to Trump instead of swing to Biden, nearly every time) for Trump to win. Biden just has so many more winning combinations of swing states that are currently leaning in his favor, compared to Trump.
|
|
|
On October 30 2020 09:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 08:47 BisuDagger wrote:
Why does anyone want a 3 trillion dollar bill? The first one hasn’t been completely spent afaik and some of it was spent poorly. I’m looking for the link, but the was an article discussing how Big 10 colleges received millions of COVID relief from the first bill for canceling their season of football. Then they resumed their football season anyway months later. I want those who need the money to get the money, but I don’t trust the next 1-3 trillion to be spent well at all. We need to make sure the wealthy and well-connected do well in these trying times. And if we throw maybe 20% of that money at the most vulnerable, it’ll keep the general populace happy. There was a time when giving a lopsided stimulus like this involved a lot of public campaigning; people had to be convinced that “we have to save Wall Street to help Main Street.” The need to do that is long gone, and no one will bat an eye at just one more $3 trillion slush fund.
To everyone critical of relief bills, what alternative should the government be doing? Or is it just a matter of more fair and transparent distribution? Because businesses in my area are dropping like flies and I think state government jobs will be next. And the lines for food banks keep getting longer. People do need help but I don't know what alternatives there are to relief spending.
|
On October 30 2020 10:29 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 09:41 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2020 08:47 BisuDagger wrote:
Why does anyone want a 3 trillion dollar bill? The first one hasn’t been completely spent afaik and some of it was spent poorly. I’m looking for the link, but the was an article discussing how Big 10 colleges received millions of COVID relief from the first bill for canceling their season of football. Then they resumed their football season anyway months later. I want those who need the money to get the money, but I don’t trust the next 1-3 trillion to be spent well at all. We need to make sure the wealthy and well-connected do well in these trying times. And if we throw maybe 20% of that money at the most vulnerable, it’ll keep the general populace happy. There was a time when giving a lopsided stimulus like this involved a lot of public campaigning; people had to be convinced that “we have to save Wall Street to help Main Street.” The need to do that is long gone, and no one will bat an eye at just one more $3 trillion slush fund. To everyone critical of relief bills, what alternative should the government be doing? Or is it just a matter of more fair and transparent distribution? Because businesses in my area are dropping like flies and I think state government jobs will be next. And the lines for food banks keep getting longer. People do need help but I don't know what alternatives there are to relief spending.
Im not sure there are options, I think we're mostly just mad at the naked transfer of wealth upwards during this pandemic, via relief spending or otherwise.
|
|
|
On October 30 2020 10:34 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 10:30 Zambrah wrote:On October 30 2020 10:29 Starlightsun wrote:On October 30 2020 09:41 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2020 08:47 BisuDagger wrote:
Why does anyone want a 3 trillion dollar bill? The first one hasn’t been completely spent afaik and some of it was spent poorly. I’m looking for the link, but the was an article discussing how Big 10 colleges received millions of COVID relief from the first bill for canceling their season of football. Then they resumed their football season anyway months later. I want those who need the money to get the money, but I don’t trust the next 1-3 trillion to be spent well at all. We need to make sure the wealthy and well-connected do well in these trying times. And if we throw maybe 20% of that money at the most vulnerable, it’ll keep the general populace happy. There was a time when giving a lopsided stimulus like this involved a lot of public campaigning; people had to be convinced that “we have to save Wall Street to help Main Street.” The need to do that is long gone, and no one will bat an eye at just one more $3 trillion slush fund. To everyone critical of relief bills, what alternative should the government be doing? Or is it just a matter of more fair and transparent distribution? Because businesses in my area are dropping like flies and I think state government jobs will be next. And the lines for food banks keep getting longer. People do need help but I don't know what alternatives there are to relief spending. Im not sure there are options, I think we're mostly just mad at the naked transfer of wealth upwards during this pandemic, via relief spending or otherwise. The government shouldn't be providing trillions to massive fucking corporations while small businesses and people get told to go fuck themselves
Wholeheartedly agree, I mean fuck, even if the money was spent on actual average americans it'd still wind up in the hands of the corporate fucksticks anyways, that they cant even offer mild relief by waiting for it to get spent by average people is dogshit.
Its why I just can't put faith in American politicians anymore.
Corporations have been winning for just far, far too long...
|
On October 30 2020 10:29 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 09:41 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2020 08:47 BisuDagger wrote:
Why does anyone want a 3 trillion dollar bill? The first one hasn’t been completely spent afaik and some of it was spent poorly. I’m looking for the link, but the was an article discussing how Big 10 colleges received millions of COVID relief from the first bill for canceling their season of football. Then they resumed their football season anyway months later. I want those who need the money to get the money, but I don’t trust the next 1-3 trillion to be spent well at all. We need to make sure the wealthy and well-connected do well in these trying times. And if we throw maybe 20% of that money at the most vulnerable, it’ll keep the general populace happy. There was a time when giving a lopsided stimulus like this involved a lot of public campaigning; people had to be convinced that “we have to save Wall Street to help Main Street.” The need to do that is long gone, and no one will bat an eye at just one more $3 trillion slush fund. To everyone critical of relief bills, what alternative should the government be doing? Or is it just a matter of more fair and transparent distribution? Because businesses in my area are dropping like flies and I think state government jobs will be next. And the lines for food banks keep getting longer. People do need help but I don't know what alternatives there are to relief spending.
I think relief spending is fine as long as we actually couple it with real action to stop the spread of coronavirus. I guess we're assuming that an actual, permanent UBI plan wouldn't pass quickly enough? Temporary UBI then? If the entire country was shut down for one full month (say, last March) + families were still financially supported by the government for that month, then the summer and fall would have been reasonably safe inside the country (just need to pay attention to international flights) and we wouldn't have anywhere near the monumental loss of business and the economic downfall that has happened in aggregate over the past 6 months. But instead we have all this collapse anyway without the upside of being almost coronavirus-free.
Half-assed quarantines aren't cutting it. We either keep the population financially stable and isolated in the short-term, or we ride this out until a vaccine is mass distributed. If we had an adult in the White House, we could have had 1-3 months of frustrating isolation with the trade-off of a minimal death toll and things back to normal. That would have been the best strategy. Given that a universally available vaccine is still months away, it's probably still the best move to make, with the past 6 months being completely avoidable collateral damage.
Shut the country down, entirely, for a month or two, and help out Americans financially. It'll suck, but we'd still come out way ahead in the long term (both economically and medically).
|
So it is not as exiting but dems just passed 240 house seats on 538 predictions. Even with there best case scenario they are not going to be able to gerrymander as hard as they could in 2010 and it is looking so much worse. How are they going to gain like 50 seats in a fair map when they are struggling with a map that is about 20 to 25 seats in there favor. We could see the house in control of the dems for a long long time. Texas byself would be such a huge blow if dems can take back the texas house since it is gerrymandered to all hell
|
|
|
Early voting Texas numbers are absolutely nuts. And when we think about how much more likely republicans are to vote one election day, this whole situation is just weird. What if that really is this enormous democrat surge? I'm not convinced yet, but its crazy to imagine Texas democrats basically going super saiyan lol
|
|
|
On October 30 2020 12:01 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 11:55 Shingi11 wrote:
So it is not as exiting but dems just passed 240 house seats on 538 predictions. Even with there best case scenario they are not going to be able to gerrymander as hard as they could in 2010 and it is looking so much worse. How are they going to gain like 50 seats in a fair map when they are struggling with a map that is about 20 to 25 seats in there favor. We could see the house in control of the dems for a long long time. Texas byself would be such a huge blow if dems can take back the texas house since it is gerrymandered to all hell That has a great chance of happening here. Lots of Dem enthusiasm this year, especially from young voters, who are turning out in much larger numbers than 2016. Our governor Abbott did away with straight-ticket voting after the GOP got their asses handed to them in the midterms, but I really do think that we're going to flip our House (also we could tell Dan Crenshaw to go fuck himself during the next election when his district isn't an abomination before the eyes of God)
Hay I think your district is very artistic. You can't tell me you would rather have a more boxey district lol.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TzMsyAG.png)
I imagine it must be so frustrating for all the cities in texas. You guys are as blue as california but have some of the most ass backwards reps with how surgical you are broken up.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 30 2020 10:29 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 09:41 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2020 08:47 BisuDagger wrote:
Why does anyone want a 3 trillion dollar bill? The first one hasn’t been completely spent afaik and some of it was spent poorly. I’m looking for the link, but the was an article discussing how Big 10 colleges received millions of COVID relief from the first bill for canceling their season of football. Then they resumed their football season anyway months later. I want those who need the money to get the money, but I don’t trust the next 1-3 trillion to be spent well at all. We need to make sure the wealthy and well-connected do well in these trying times. And if we throw maybe 20% of that money at the most vulnerable, it’ll keep the general populace happy. There was a time when giving a lopsided stimulus like this involved a lot of public campaigning; people had to be convinced that “we have to save Wall Street to help Main Street.” The need to do that is long gone, and no one will bat an eye at just one more $3 trillion slush fund. To everyone critical of relief bills, what alternative should the government be doing? Or is it just a matter of more fair and transparent distribution? Because businesses in my area are dropping like flies and I think state government jobs will be next. And the lines for food banks keep getting longer. People do need help but I don't know what alternatives there are to relief spending.
Ideally we'd be in a situation where "no stimulus" is at least an option (because it isn't always a good idea), but the reality is that Keynesianism is so ubiquitous that that's off the table. So at the very least, a relief bill that solves the right problems would be decent. But right now, the entire strategy of the relief bills seems to be "inject money to maintain the status quo" - keep businesses and people exactly where they were pre-pandemic, maybe add a bit of debt that can be repaid "later," and maybe help out the well-off and wealthy by inflating the price of assets a little further. The $3 trillion in QE, and the lion's share of the $3 trillion of fiscal spending, went into this very concept.
The entire approach is an exercise in futility. The virus was never going to go away quickly, nor is there enough stimulus in the world to save an entire economy. For all that spending, it bought some people a few months' respite from abject poverty, a huge number of zombie companies another year worth of "burn rate," and some serious asset price inflation. Just add it to the debt.
A smarter approach would have realized that it is neither possible nor desirable to save much of what was pushed over the edge by the coronavirus pandemic, and would have instead focused on protecting the vulnerable, stopping the spread, and to a much milder extent cushioning the blow for the healthy-but-overwhelmed businesses that could still be saved. Hell, there's enough money there to fund something truly radical like universal healthcare which is "too expensive to implement" in normal times, were such a thing politically tenable right now. This approach would lead to more short-term damage but has the potential to build a fundamentally healthier economy in the longer term.
In choosing to prop up the status quo via stimulus, we're left with an unhealthier version of what existed before, with the wealthy making out like bandits and everyone else being in even deeper trouble. Another stimulus will do the same thing, and a few months later we'll be right back to needing more stimulus because neither the core economic nor healthcare problem has been resolved. That's exactly how the decade following 2008 has played out, so it's not hard to see that more of the same will have the same result.
|
Anyone who sees this election as anything other than corporate interests winning is naive.
|
|
|
Doesn't high inflation decrease wealth inequality, rather than increase it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
