EPTBy the way. These kind of things are the reason I eyeroll so bad when people label Obama a neoliberal. That Clinton administration was part of the neoliberal sequence, and that many of his reforms were inspired by the neoliberal ideology makes little doubt. But labelling Obama neoliberal means that either you have no clue about what he has done or absolutely don't understand what neoliberal means.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3062
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
By the way. These kind of things are the reason I eyeroll so bad when people label Obama a neoliberal. That Clinton administration was part of the neoliberal sequence, and that many of his reforms were inspired by the neoliberal ideology makes little doubt. But labelling Obama neoliberal means that either you have no clue about what he has done or absolutely don't understand what neoliberal means. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25512 Posts
On January 30 2021 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote: Well to be totally fair, the first law separating retail and investment banking was the Glass Steagall act of 1933, following the great depression. It was weakened during the 1990's and abolished by Bill Clinton in 99. Those deregulations are partly the cause of the Crash of the late 2000's and the reason the governments had to end up bailing investment banks - since retail banks and by extension the rest of the economy were basically held hostage by that lack of separation between institutions. Obama's DF act was meant to end that era of deregulations. By all metric the US banking system under DF is MUCH more regulated and much less crazy than the European one (although steps have been made in the right direction here too - Brexit will probably help a lot). By the way. These kind of things are the reason I eyeroll so bad when people label Obama a neoliberal. That Clinton administration was part of the neoliberal sequence, and that many of his reforms were inspired by the neoliberal ideology makes little doubt. But labelling Obama neoliberal means that either you have no clue about what he has done or absolutely don't understand what neoliberal means. Will Brexit necessarily help or hinder in that regard? I would assume the will to do so and the opposition to doing so will be lessened considerably now the City of London isn’t in the bloc. On the other hand if the UK deregulates to flex a bit and spread its wings having fled the nest, will the EU financial sector have to emulate that to some degree, or continue down a path to more sensible regulation that they seem to want to go down. I’m not even sure if I want more regulation, or at least certain kinds of it when vast swathes of the sector participate in utter nonsense of little social value, if not being net negatives. More regulation if it’s not more sweeping in nature and you end up with only the huge institutions and hedge funds able to play the game, and they’ve a pretty storied history of not sticking to the rules anyway. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
I think that if we have learnt anything since the 1980's, it's that the banking and financial system need VERY strict regulations, or it turns into some giant casino shitshow because you can count as much on bankers, traders and financiers to be responsible as you can count on Tiger Woods to be a model of chastity. It's hard not to see 2008 as the direct consequence of two decades of deregulations, to which the democrats participated. The State should, of course, bail retail banks when they fail. There is no question about that. 1929 is a cautionary tail about what happens when it doesn't. But that's precisely why you want your retail and investment banks to be as clearly separated as possible, or you end up saving people that don't need and don't deserve saving with public money, and the worst thing is, you don't even have s choice. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7320 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 31 2021 00:52 Zambrah wrote: Has anyone heard anything about stimulus checks? The Senate finished their finagling with whatever power coordination they wanted to settle out, so we should be seeing that sometimes soon right? Stimulus is stuck in trying to pass it with zero Republican support and the free money checks are going to be in the same boat. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7320 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7320 Posts
On January 31 2021 01:17 LegalLord wrote: No, but the process is a slow one and all it takes is one defector to ruin it all. Munchkin might be the most famous but he really isn't the only "conservative Democrat" who is a Republican in all but name. Yeah, but given his turnaround when people started getting pissed over his initial statements I’d hope we’d see a smoother process. That being said, were likely not getting enough publicity on possible detractors. If any Democrats are looking to hold up, reduce, or tamper with the stimulus we should know about it and pressure them. Republicans too, it’s not like this stuff is entirely a partisan issue, I remember when seditious fuckwit Josh Hawley was calling for checks, there’s clearly a fair amount of bipartisan support for stimulus checks. I hope this isn’t something that’s going to get stalled for months or get ruined and cut to pieces entirely behind closed doors. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On January 31 2021 01:02 LegalLord wrote: Stimulus is stuck in trying to pass it with zero Republican support and the free money checks are going to be in the same boat. It doesn’t have my support either if they try to pass 2k monthly checks. The fact that it has as much support as it does is just insanely concerning. UBI looks like it’s going to happen, not to replace the welfare programs like many argue it should, but will happen on top of those existing programs. I hope we have enough rich people to tax. https://www.newsweek.com/progressives-renew-push-2000-monthly-stimulus-checks-economists-are-skeptical-1565515 | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4731 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21718 Posts
The economy grinds to a halt because of covid. These checks are to keep people going doing a pandemic shutdown, nothing more. Are there other ways to do it? probably but that also runs into edge cases, exceptions and all sorts of things where you risk a lot of people falling between the cracks. Sending everyone a check is a simple broad approach that reaches everyone. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11531 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On January 31 2021 03:24 Simberto wrote: Free money check for people is at least better than free money for the superrich or large companies. Agreed, so long as it represents some level of improvement, check. We don't need perfect when so many families are going hungry. | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On January 31 2021 03:12 Gorsameth wrote: yeah there is no reality in which the US is even remotely close to UBI. The economy grinds to a halt because of covid. These checks are to keep people going doing a pandemic shutdown, nothing more. Are there other ways to do it? probably but that also runs into edge cases, exceptions and all sorts of things where you risk a lot of people falling between the cracks. Sending everyone a check is a simple broad approach that reaches everyone. Sending everyone a check monthly until the job market is where it was at precovid is ubi. What if takes two years to hit the number Democrats subjectively put in the bill? After two years, try telling someone they now need to budget around making 2k less a month. They will get angry and ask why they can’t keep it going after having it for so long. It’s the same statement someone made earlier about halting student loan payments. Come later this year, payments will resume and those with loans will be so used to budgeting around not having them that it will frustrate them if the loans return. The politicians will bargain with us to get more “free money” as long as keep them in office. | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On January 31 2021 04:10 Mohdoo wrote: Agreed, so long as it represents some level of improvement, check. We don't need perfect when so many families are going hungry. Why not let people apply for the check and others apply for a tax deductible like I would? For me, it’s not free money. I’m getting back my overtaxed income dollars. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
A once in a century pandemic should be an obvious exception to the standards about UBI/welfare. If you don't want to tie it to economic indicators, then tie it to covid vaccine rates. It has the same basic principle. If they use the same cutoffs as before then most people who would only use it as a deduction wouldn't be getting it. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 31 2021 09:53 BisuDagger wrote: Why not let people apply for the check and others apply for a tax deductible like I would? For me, it’s not free money. I’m getting back my overtaxed income dollars. Because the overhead on that is pointless. Tax credits are strictly better than tax deductions so I'd rather have the credit anyway. Republicans have a serious issue with spending more money on making sure the right people get help than just spending it on helping people. You're wasting your money means testing. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25512 Posts
On January 31 2021 09:52 BisuDagger wrote: Sending everyone a check monthly until the job market is where it was at precovid is ubi. What if takes two years to hit the number Democrats subjectively put in the bill? After two years, try telling someone they now need to budget around making 2k less a month. They will get angry and ask why they can’t keep it going after having it for so long. It’s the same statement someone made earlier about halting student loan payments. Come later this year, payments will resume and those with loans will be so used to budgeting around not having them that it will frustrate them if the loans return. The politicians will bargain with us to get more “free money” as long as keep them in office. Will they? I haven’t heard anyone complaining over about furlough payments not being permanent, because everyone knows they’re meant to compensate people who want to work but who are being prevented from doing so by the state. I would assume the same would hold in this hypothetical scenario, least for most people. Among other things I would assume Covid has disavowed many people of the notion that being unemployed and getting cheques is a desirable state of affairs from a mental health perspective. Especially in the American cultural perspective I’m not sure people want free money, the whole bootstrap mentality is pretty prevalent. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On January 31 2021 09:53 BisuDagger wrote: Why not let people apply for the check and others apply for a tax deductible like I would? For me, it’s not free money. I’m getting back my overtaxed income dollars. Because it isn’t only valuable as a lifeline. There’s wealths of data available showing economies greatly benefit from giving money to lower and middle class people because they spend it. If the government gives me 2k and I spend it remodeling a bathroom, that money paid people to do work, people to make materials etc. When the economy is hurting and people are being laid off, encouraging people to spend money is good for everyone. People with disposable income are the only reason restaurants exist. Poor people don’t eat out. I only ever ate at restaurants as a kid for birthdays. Stimulus payments have numerous benefits. People who are starving starve less from having more cash but they also starve less because they are more likely to be either directly or indirectly paid by middle class people | ||
| ||
