|
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 January 15 2021 11:42 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 11:05 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 11:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 15 2021 10:58 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. So why didn't they say, "well you got 1200 in April last year, we just gave you 600 dollars, so to make sure we hit that 2000 dollar mark, heres 200 more." Theres no actual clear line here that should leave any person who wasn't intently following this 2,000 dollar check situation on very particular sources (ones that Im not aware of/dont follow, so probably cable news?) with the inclination that they were actually getting 2,000 dollars split into two payments of 600 dollars and 1400 dollars split across two bills. Because the check in April and the check in December are two completely different stimulus packages. I can't tell if you're serious about this or just enjoy inventing reasons to hate democrats. This stimulus package is also a different stimulus package. This is a new bill. This is two separate different stimulus packages. This is a new bill is meaningless. 2000 was promised. 600 was delivered by the last congress in the omnibus spending package. Democrats tried to amend that 600 to 2000 in a new bill called the CASH act, but McConnell never brought it to a vote in the senate. Bills disappear when the new congress is seated. Now there is another new bill. Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 11:05 StasisField wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. Holy shit do you need to be so condescending? I don't, but it was intentional. This is the person who a few weeks ago was telling people he would vote for Trump over Biden because Trump promised him $2000. Of course, he never delivered on that promise because he's Trump and the executive branch doesn't control the purse. Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 11:05 StasisField wrote:
Democrats' messaging definitely leaves room for misinterpretation. They could have said something like, "People need $2,000, so once we take the Senate, we will be sending out an additional $1,400" and their message would have been crystal clear and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. People can misinterpret whatever they want. Why would this not be the new congress passing the CASH Act now that McConnell can't block the vote in the senate?
Zambrah never said anything about voting for Trump. Zambrah said that they would probably rank Trump higher than Biden if Trump gave out $2k checks (and Zambrah made it abundantly clear that Trump and Biden were both on the bottom of their ranking, so it's almost pointless to point out that, post-election, Zambrah could be swayed to like Trump more than Biden).
Yes, people can misinterpret whatever they want, but people in charge of the messaging can also make things as clear as possible to avoid unnecessary confusion. Just because people can fail to understand what a message means doesn't mean the messaging itself can't be criticized.
|
On January 15 2021 12:28 Zambrah wrote:I will readily admit to not having read the text of the bill, and almost assuredly having a poor understanding of the nuances of this whole situation as it relates to the particulars of legislation, but that doesn't make this situation any less confusing to anyone who didn't read the bill but heard the multiple times Biden say he would send out 2,000 dollar checks. This bill says its amending the previous instances of 600 to 2000 dollars but when people got 600 dollars and then were told they'd receive 2000 dollar checks they're not being told "we're going to amend the 600 dollars in the previous bill to 2,000 dollars" by anybody, they're just seeing and hearing that they're going to get 2,000 dollar checks. The vast majority of people can't reasonably have been expecting that they wouldnt be getting new 2,000 dollar checks in this situation. I can't fathom why someone would work for Trump under the assumption he would be paying them, his history is littered with him not paying people for work, lol.
He wanted that limelight and hang on to that elite power position and privilege. Giuliani could have peaced out of public life and been a pretty respectable dude all things considered. Now all of his previous flaws pre-trump have been magnified and looks like a swamp rat sewer city.
|
The thing about 1400 vs 2000 is that it is easier and faster to get people on board for the former, since many senators on both sides had indicated they would vote for that amount. The extra 600 would take about another month of negotiations : at which point they would get pilloried for the extra delay.
Hopefully they push the 1400 through ASAP and start working on a more substantative benefits package along the lines of basically every other country on the planet.
|
|
|
On January 15 2021 12:33 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 11:42 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 15 2021 11:05 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 11:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 15 2021 10:58 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. So why didn't they say, "well you got 1200 in April last year, we just gave you 600 dollars, so to make sure we hit that 2000 dollar mark, heres 200 more." Theres no actual clear line here that should leave any person who wasn't intently following this 2,000 dollar check situation on very particular sources (ones that Im not aware of/dont follow, so probably cable news?) with the inclination that they were actually getting 2,000 dollars split into two payments of 600 dollars and 1400 dollars split across two bills. Because the check in April and the check in December are two completely different stimulus packages. I can't tell if you're serious about this or just enjoy inventing reasons to hate democrats. This stimulus package is also a different stimulus package. This is a new bill. This is two separate different stimulus packages. This is a new bill is meaningless. 2000 was promised. 600 was delivered by the last congress in the omnibus spending package. Democrats tried to amend that 600 to 2000 in a new bill called the CASH act, but McConnell never brought it to a vote in the senate. Bills disappear when the new congress is seated. Now there is another new bill. On January 15 2021 11:05 StasisField wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. Holy shit do you need to be so condescending? I don't, but it was intentional. This is the person who a few weeks ago was telling people he would vote for Trump over Biden because Trump promised him $2000. Of course, he never delivered on that promise because he's Trump and the executive branch doesn't control the purse. On January 15 2021 11:05 StasisField wrote:
Democrats' messaging definitely leaves room for misinterpretation. They could have said something like, "People need $2,000, so once we take the Senate, we will be sending out an additional $1,400" and their message would have been crystal clear and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. People can misinterpret whatever they want. Why would this not be the new congress passing the CASH Act now that McConnell can't block the vote in the senate? Zambrah never said anything about voting for Trump. Zambrah said that they would probably rank Trump higher than Biden if Trump gave out $2k checks (and Zambrah made it abundantly clear that Trump and Biden were both on the bottom of their ranking, so it's almost pointless to point out that, post-election, Zambrah could be swayed to like Trump more than Biden).
You're going to have to explain to me how Trump ranks higher than Biden means you wouldn't vote for Trump over Biden in an election. I'll admit that he didn't type out I will vote for Trump, but I think my interpretation is fair.
On January 15 2021 12:33 StasisField wrote:
Yes, people can misinterpret whatever they want, but people in charge of the messaging can also make things as clear as possible. Just because people can fail to understand what a message means doesn't mean the messaging itself can't be criticized.
I do expect to read a lot more democrat criticism and maybe I will be around to paste the text of the bill to clear up the confusion.
On January 15 2021 12:41 Nevuk wrote:
The thing about 1400 vs 2000 is that it is easier and faster to get people on board for the former, since many senators on both sides had indicated they would vote for that amount. The extra 600 would take about another month of negotiations : at which point they would get pilloried for the extra delay.
Hopefully they push the 1400 through ASAP and start working on a more substantative benefits package along the lines of basically every other country on the planet.
and this is the real issue. Congress is going to be hung up on passing the stimulus and the Trump trial stuck in 2020 instead of having a real message about the future.
|
To clarify I wouldn’t vote for Trump or Biden, I’m in a safe blue state and can safely write in whoever I’m comfortable voting for.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On January 15 2021 12:35 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 12:28 Zambrah wrote:I will readily admit to not having read the text of the bill, and almost assuredly having a poor understanding of the nuances of this whole situation as it relates to the particulars of legislation, but that doesn't make this situation any less confusing to anyone who didn't read the bill but heard the multiple times Biden say he would send out 2,000 dollar checks. This bill says its amending the previous instances of 600 to 2000 dollars but when people got 600 dollars and then were told they'd receive 2000 dollar checks they're not being told "we're going to amend the 600 dollars in the previous bill to 2,000 dollars" by anybody, they're just seeing and hearing that they're going to get 2,000 dollar checks. The vast majority of people can't reasonably have been expecting that they wouldnt be getting new 2,000 dollar checks in this situation. I can't fathom why someone would work for Trump under the assumption he would be paying them, his history is littered with him not paying people for work, lol. He wanted that limelight and hang on to that elite power position and privilege. Giuliani could have peaced out of public life and been a pretty respectable dude all things considered. Now all of his previous flaws pre-trump have been magnified and looks like a swamp rat sewer city.
Also looks like a complete fucking dumbass never mind the quite sickening sycophancy.
Rather disillusioning really. It’s quite breathtaking how many absolute morons are exceedingly wealthy. Not that I’m much a fan of capitalism in the abstract anyway, but I’d at least find it more palatable if a class of amoral Lex Luther ubermensch were the only ones who could rise to the top.
I mean pre-internet you could have made the argument that sure Donald Trump’s brash antics are obnoxious, but he’s playing a character or inhabiting a persona, when he’s doing business surely he puts his sensible hat on and he knows what he’s doing.
I mean the last 4 years have really disavowed that kind of nothing, he’s actually much more of an idiot than I’d previously have feared to imagine.
Obligatory it’s 2021, will Tasteless and Artosis be reunited soon?
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On January 15 2021 13:00 Zambrah wrote:
To clarify I wouldn’t vote for Trump or Biden, I’m in a safe blue state and can safely write in whoever I’m comfortable voting for.
Booooo fence-sitter!
The middle class have a certain luxury in going with principles over pragmatism in this regard. If in hypothetical land it’s the 2000 dollar man Donald Trump vs I feel you’re stimulated enough right now Joe Biden and you’re a person who actually needs that 2000 dollars, then yes it’s a different calculus.
I couldn’t bring myself to do it, I have a real visceral hatred of him as an individual and the particular constituency he most resonates with.
Also I’m aware that Americans are confusing with how they use class signifiers vs us Brits. We are masters of class divisions and each of our categories has a million and one things subtly codified that we immediately understand. Middle and working class seem to have slightly different meanings in trans-Atlantic communication.
|
On January 15 2021 13:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 12:35 Husyelt wrote:On January 15 2021 12:28 Zambrah wrote:I will readily admit to not having read the text of the bill, and almost assuredly having a poor understanding of the nuances of this whole situation as it relates to the particulars of legislation, but that doesn't make this situation any less confusing to anyone who didn't read the bill but heard the multiple times Biden say he would send out 2,000 dollar checks. This bill says its amending the previous instances of 600 to 2000 dollars but when people got 600 dollars and then were told they'd receive 2000 dollar checks they're not being told "we're going to amend the 600 dollars in the previous bill to 2,000 dollars" by anybody, they're just seeing and hearing that they're going to get 2,000 dollar checks. The vast majority of people can't reasonably have been expecting that they wouldnt be getting new 2,000 dollar checks in this situation. I can't fathom why someone would work for Trump under the assumption he would be paying them, his history is littered with him not paying people for work, lol. He wanted that limelight and hang on to that elite power position and privilege. Giuliani could have peaced out of public life and been a pretty respectable dude all things considered. Now all of his previous flaws pre-trump have been magnified and looks like a swamp rat sewer city. Also looks like a complete fucking dumbass never mind the quite sickening sycophancy. Rather disillusioning really. It’s quite breathtaking how many absolute morons are exceedingly wealthy. Not that I’m much a fan of capitalism in the abstract anyway, but I’d at least find it more palatable if a class of amoral Lex Luther ubermensch were the only ones who could rise to the top. I mean pre-internet you could have made the argument that sure Donald Trump’s brash antics are obnoxious, but he’s playing a character or inhabiting a persona, when he’s doing business surely he puts his sensible hat on and he knows what he’s doing. I mean the last 4 years have really disavowed that kind of nothing, he’s actually much more of an idiot than I’d previously have feared to imagine. Obligatory it’s 2021, will Tasteless and Artosis be reunited soon?
I think there is an argument that Trump would have done far better before social media. But then the question is, could he have been President in the first place without it? Not to mention riding the wave of anti establishment amplified by social media.
As for Giuliani. I just imagine William Holden's character in Network, except someone with half the intellect and shame... and then replace UBS with Fox News.
|
Biden going for stimulus and minimum wage of $15 right out of the gate is great. I’m satisfied so far.
|
On January 15 2021 13:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 13:00 Zambrah wrote:
To clarify I wouldn’t vote for Trump or Biden, I’m in a safe blue state and can safely write in whoever I’m comfortable voting for. Booooo fence-sitter! The middle class have a certain luxury in going with principles over pragmatism in this regard. If in hypothetical land it’s the 2000 dollar man Donald Trump vs I feel you’re stimulated enough right now Joe Biden and you’re a person who actually needs that 2000 dollars, then yes it’s a different calculus. I couldn’t bring myself to do it, I have a real visceral hatred of him as an individual and the particular constituency he most resonates with. Also I’m aware that Americans are confusing with how they use class signifiers vs us Brits. We are masters of class divisions and each of our categories has a million and one things subtly codified that we immediately understand. Middle and working class seem to have slightly different meanings in trans-Atlantic communication.
My freedom to write in the Greens or whoever has less to do with class and more to do with the nature of the electoral system, my state is blue enough that there’s no risk of it going red really, so I can vote for anyone I want without it materially impacting the overall election. As opposed to someone in Pennsylvania where margins are slimmer and the state could be won on thin margins of votes.
I had considered myself middle class growing up though, and then I discovered the poverty line in the US and learned I grew up under it lol. Further expanding my class consciousness was going to college with people with gross wealth. My ex girlfriend in college could just call up her dad and ask for thousands of dollars to deposit into her American bank account, and her roommate’s mom flew in from Hungary every weekend and stayed in one of the expensive hotels. Back and forth every week. In college I learned what wealthy and rich people were. My ex girlfriend didn’t even consider herself rich either, she considered herself to be more middle class, lol
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On January 15 2021 13:42 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 13:14 WombaT wrote:On January 15 2021 13:00 Zambrah wrote:
To clarify I wouldn’t vote for Trump or Biden, I’m in a safe blue state and can safely write in whoever I’m comfortable voting for. Booooo fence-sitter! The middle class have a certain luxury in going with principles over pragmatism in this regard. If in hypothetical land it’s the 2000 dollar man Donald Trump vs I feel you’re stimulated enough right now Joe Biden and you’re a person who actually needs that 2000 dollars, then yes it’s a different calculus. I couldn’t bring myself to do it, I have a real visceral hatred of him as an individual and the particular constituency he most resonates with. Also I’m aware that Americans are confusing with how they use class signifiers vs us Brits. We are masters of class divisions and each of our categories has a million and one things subtly codified that we immediately understand. Middle and working class seem to have slightly different meanings in trans-Atlantic communication. My freedom to write in the Greens or whoever has less to do with class and more to do with the nature of the electoral system, my state is blue enough that there’s no risk of it going red really, so I can vote for anyone I want without it materially impacting the overall election. As opposed to someone in Pennsylvania where margins are slimmer and the state could be won on thin margins of votes. I had considered myself middle class growing up though, and then I discovered the poverty line in the US and learned I grew up under it lol. Further expanding my class consciousness was going to college with people with gross wealth. My ex girlfriend in college could just call up her dad and ask for thousands of dollars to deposit into her American bank account, and her roommate’s mom flew in from Hungary every weekend and stayed in one of the expensive hotels. Back and forth every week. In college I learned what wealthy and rich people were. My ex girlfriend didn’t even consider herself rich either, she considered herself to be more middle class, lol
Tell me about it lol, one of my last arguments with my ex was on Christmas present budgets and I went rather low in my suggestion as I’m broke. ‘Well I’m broke too.’ ‘You own a house, your broke isn’t quite my broke.’ As you can tell by my use of the word ex that wasn’t a particularly fruitful discussion. Also the amount of money you spend on someone correlates to your depth of feeling or something.
Yeah no I get what you’re coming from, my point was more the visceral reaction to even countenancing giving Trump credit for at least saying (ok it’s the biggest bullshitter alive) a bump in stimulus that I’ve seen comes from positions of luxury where the stimulus isn’t a matter of eviction or mortgage default.
Not to actually think he was serious but the reaction I’ve seen on various forums at the time to it was silly, and seemed to skirt over the pesky idea that some people don’t have the luxury to have highfalutin principles.
If you didn’t write WombaT in btw I’ll be disappointed.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On January 15 2021 13:21 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 13:03 WombaT wrote:On January 15 2021 12:35 Husyelt wrote:On January 15 2021 12:28 Zambrah wrote:I will readily admit to not having read the text of the bill, and almost assuredly having a poor understanding of the nuances of this whole situation as it relates to the particulars of legislation, but that doesn't make this situation any less confusing to anyone who didn't read the bill but heard the multiple times Biden say he would send out 2,000 dollar checks. This bill says its amending the previous instances of 600 to 2000 dollars but when people got 600 dollars and then were told they'd receive 2000 dollar checks they're not being told "we're going to amend the 600 dollars in the previous bill to 2,000 dollars" by anybody, they're just seeing and hearing that they're going to get 2,000 dollar checks. The vast majority of people can't reasonably have been expecting that they wouldnt be getting new 2,000 dollar checks in this situation. I can't fathom why someone would work for Trump under the assumption he would be paying them, his history is littered with him not paying people for work, lol. He wanted that limelight and hang on to that elite power position and privilege. Giuliani could have peaced out of public life and been a pretty respectable dude all things considered. Now all of his previous flaws pre-trump have been magnified and looks like a swamp rat sewer city. Also looks like a complete fucking dumbass never mind the quite sickening sycophancy. Rather disillusioning really. It’s quite breathtaking how many absolute morons are exceedingly wealthy. Not that I’m much a fan of capitalism in the abstract anyway, but I’d at least find it more palatable if a class of amoral Lex Luther ubermensch were the only ones who could rise to the top. I mean pre-internet you could have made the argument that sure Donald Trump’s brash antics are obnoxious, but he’s playing a character or inhabiting a persona, when he’s doing business surely he puts his sensible hat on and he knows what he’s doing. I mean the last 4 years have really disavowed that kind of nothing, he’s actually much more of an idiot than I’d previously have feared to imagine. Obligatory it’s 2021, will Tasteless and Artosis be reunited soon? I think there is an argument that Trump would have done far better before social media. But then the question is, could he have been President in the first place without it? Not to mention riding the wave of anti establishment amplified by social media. As for Giuliani. I just imagine William Holden's character in Network, except someone with half the intellect and shame... and then replace UBS with Fox News.
Nah I just can’t see it.
I feel he needed social media engagement to bridge the gap in conventional fundraising and advertising to even make a dent, I mean I really don’t see how he does it otherwise. The expressed feelings of the GOP and other ‘establishment’ types in early Trump campaign times I think accurately reflects their actual opinions of him.
On a positive sense (to my sensibilities) this also does allow a competitive Sanders campaign, that I also don’t think would have been possible in the pre-internet age.
If Trump wasn’t retarded and had rode Twitter into the White House, then departed and offloaded PR to people who knew what they were doing, maybe that would have worked for him in getting a second term. I think severing the cord while talking bollocks about his solemn duty would have played fine.
|
On January 15 2021 13:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden going for stimulus and minimum wage of $15 right out of the gate is great. I’m satisfied so far.
Noticeably he mentioned checks, unemployment, foreclosures, and so on... but student loans weren't part of the magic bailout package.
|
On January 15 2021 15:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 13:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden going for stimulus and minimum wage of $15 right out of the gate is great. I’m satisfied so far. Noticeably he mentioned checks, unemployment, foreclosures, and so on... but student loans weren't part of the magic bailout package.
Everything I’m hearing indicates pushed back til September. Gives them time to figure out what to do.
|
On January 15 2021 15:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 13:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden going for stimulus and minimum wage of $15 right out of the gate is great. I’m satisfied so far. Noticeably he mentioned checks, unemployment, foreclosures, and so on... but student loans weren't part of the magic bailout package.
I'm all in favour of free education but cancelling student debt right now is NOT a left wing measure.
Everyone is hurting right now and what you ask is for the country to make an absolutely gigantic effort - and to its leaders to spend an unprecedented amount of political capital - for a measure that will ONLY benefit the college educated folks, whose level of income is far superior to people without a college degree.
Essentially you want to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to the pocket of the wealthiest and leave on the side of the road everyone else.
15$ minimum salary is much more urgent. That targets the folks who work at Wall Mart and Mc Donalds, and those should be the priority to a progressive.
I understand that cancelling the student debt resonated in Sanders campaign because educated young people are the base of progressives and the measure benefits them immensely.
And again. Student debt will have to be addressed and education should be free or affordable. But I'm happy that Biden spends his political capital and the ressources of the country to the working class.
|
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but for the sake of clarity, I believe LL is opposed to student loan forgiveness and is bringing it up as a gotcha. The person you're actually arguing with is mohdoo.
|
I see. Hard to follow sometimes.
|
Alright well, since the Americans have gone to bed, I'll bite.
My understanding is that loan forgiveness is not really meant to be a fully fleshed out policy. It got attention because it was one of the things that Biden could do via EO, at least in practice if not de jure, and would have functioned as a weak and crappy stimulus package for when the Republicans suddenly rediscovered fiscal conservatism.
Now that he has a senate that just might pass a bill at some point in his term, it's not surprising that it's been shelved. It's not worth the middle finger to Manchin and the swinging Rs when he can get actual legislation on the table later instead. I do hope he revisits it at some point in future, as the cost of higher education in the states is a national embarrassment, but it would presumably be part of some larger reform package for the sector.
LL has pointed out in the past, and I agree, that just forgiving the loans does nothing to address the underlying problem, which is that the tertiary fee structure in the US is broken beyond all comprehension. In fact loan forgiveness would make it even worse, as the institutions would be free to crank prices even higher in the expectation that uncle Sam will take the bag in the end.
|
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's a mistake to assume student debt forgiveness only benefits young educated people. Many of those folks at the bottom of the ladder, the ones that work at McDonalds and Target, also have pernicious student loan debts leftover from a failed try at community college or the like, and for folks like that, an interest-bearing debt of 5-15k is extraordinarily burdensome, even if only as a massive weight on a credit score calculated using basically no other inputs given how expensive consumer credit is for the poor. That's why Biden has floated the 10k forgiveness plan, it would be a lifesaver for folks like that.
Loan forgiveness only works to exacerbate the fees on loans incentives if it becomes a regular, expected thing and there are no changes made to the federal loan system. The latter must happen, but holding up or ignoring the value of one time forgiveness is not the way to go imo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
