EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3063
| 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 | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7384 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6255 Posts
On February 01 2021 06:17 Mohdoo wrote: 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 Except the checks go mostly to people who still have work and since it's a one time thing it mostly gets saved. It's fine to argue for stimulus but the checks are both too large and aren't an effective stimulus. It's good politics but bad economics. edit: an article for the 600bn number Earlier, a top White House economic adviser signaled willingness to discuss the ideas raised by the Republicans, who have floated a $600 billion alternative. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-congress-idUSKBN2A00H8 | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7384 Posts
Also how are these checks too large? Pandemics nearly a year in and people have gotten like 1800 dollars, thats almost nothing to live on. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
I think the Republicans have made clear enough that they were not a reasonable negotiation partner, for anything. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6255 Posts
On February 01 2021 15:39 Zambrah wrote: 600bn, that is quite the funny joke, I hope that Democrats dont downsize because of this. This might be the pivotal moment where we see a hard decision made to either be conciliatory and ineffectual or take a more adversarial hardball approach and maybe keep Congress in 2022. Also how are these checks too large? Pandemics nearly a year in and people have gotten like 1800 dollars, thats almost nothing to live on. It's too large for people who don't need it and too little for people who do. It's why it's ineffective. Better to use the money for targeted relief to those who are in need. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7384 Posts
On February 01 2021 18:02 RvB wrote: It's too large for people who don't need it and too little for people who do. It's why it's ineffective. Better to use the money for targeted relief to those who are in need. Thats great in theory, however the US' version of targeted aid is often more expensive and less helpful to the people it's meant to be aiding. Something like 2K monthly checks to people making less than 50K a year would be great, as an example, but when you start going into the specifics of how to target aid you're only going to exclude people in need and spend so much managing it that it creates pointless waste alongside preventing the needy from receiving aid. Its a once in a lifetime pandemic, if a few people get more than they need in order to make sure that the people who need it do receive aid so what? Its better to give everyone a little more than have people fall through the cracks. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4733 Posts
| ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2774 Posts
Jared Kushner has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize Among others nominated for the prize this year are Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, the World Health Organization and climate campaigner Greta Thunberg. All were backed by Norwegian lawmakers who have a track record of picking the winner. I don't think Greta should be on it either, but seriously, I will shit a brick if Kushner gets it. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6255 Posts
On February 01 2021 18:29 Zambrah wrote: Thats great in theory, however the US' version of targeted aid is often more expensive and less helpful to the people it's meant to be aiding. Something like 2K monthly checks to people making less than 50K a year would be great, as an example, but when you start going into the specifics of how to target aid you're only going to exclude people in need and spend so much managing it that it creates pointless waste alongside preventing the needy from receiving aid. Its a once in a lifetime pandemic, if a few people get more than they need in order to make sure that the people who need it do receive aid so what? Its better to give everyone a little more than have people fall through the cracks. It's not a few people getting more than they need it's a lot of them. And then you're not even helping the ones who actually need the help. There are many ways to help the poor by using systems already in place. You can expand the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, increase foot stamps, expand the earned income tax credit, expand child tax credit, increase rent and housing assistance and I'm sure there are more. All targeted measures which don't require much more bureaucracy than already in existence. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On February 01 2021 22:12 RvB wrote: It's not a few people getting more than they need it's a lot of them. And then you're not even helping the ones who actually need the help. There are many ways to help the poor by using systems already in place. You can expand the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, increase foot stamps, expand the earned income tax credit, expand child tax credit, increase rent and housing assistance and I'm sure there are more. All targeted measures which don't require much more bureaucracy than already in existence. Wait, you think expanding eligibility for programs that are usually state-administered, chronically starved for basic funding, and already barely keeping up (or failing to) with pandemic increases in volume is an efficient solution? Out of curiosity, have you actually looked into any of those things you list? The only two you mention that fall squarely within federal control are the tax credits, neither of which are nearly regular enough to serve as a consistent poverty mediator. The rest are joint or solely state administered, and if you're surprised to hear that the poorest states are also the states that have done some of the worst jobs managing a functioning welfare program, you shouldn't be opining on this whatsoever. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7384 Posts
On February 01 2021 22:12 RvB wrote: It's not a few people getting more than they need it's a lot of them. And then you're not even helping the ones who actually need the help. There are many ways to help the poor by using systems already in place. You can expand the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, increase foot stamps, expand the earned income tax credit, expand child tax credit, increase rent and housing assistance and I'm sure there are more. All targeted measures which don't require much more bureaucracy than already in existence. There will always be new facets to the bureacracy involved in expansion of these measures. Even stimulus checks aren't immune to it, plenty of people had problems getting their 600 dollar checks because of an issue at the IRS. They basically were just depositing money into the accounts they have on file when you file your taxes and they still managed to screw up something that you'd think would be relatively simple. The more specific and targeted stuff certainly wouldn't fare better, and would likely fare even worse. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On February 01 2021 21:57 EnDeR_ wrote: You have got to be kidding me: Jared Kushner has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize I don't think Greta should be on it either, but seriously, I will shit a brick if Kushner gets it. He was nominated by Alan Dershowitz, one of Trump's lawyers for his last impeachment and a notorious scumbag. This is about as surprising as when Trump himself got nominated for total nonsense reasons. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
On February 01 2021 21:57 EnDeR_ wrote: You have got to be kidding me: Jared Kushner has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize I don't think Greta should be on it either, but seriously, I will shit a brick if Kushner gets it. In 2020, far-right politician Tybring-Gjedde nominated Trump for the peace prize. I wouldnt be surprised if it's the same guy nominating Kushner this year. The guy is Trump's biggest fan over here. Navalny is an important person for his fearless work at illuminating the extent of the modern russian state totalitarianism and its eagerness at denying its citizens something so basic as habeas corpus. Thunberg is also important as unifying and engaging figure around the near-future consequences of global warming, as well as igniting passions for eco-causes in the young generation. Peace prize-worthy though? While Navalnys courage is incredible, would his cause of a democratic Russia make any change to the situation of conflicts and proxy wars around the world? And while Thunbergs cause could prevent wars of desperation and resources decades from now, does that put her work ahead of those working for peace and prosperity today? Peace prize awards often perplex me anyhow, with it's recipients sometimes having very tenuous connections to my assumption of the prize's intent. I guess it depends on wether one wants to reward those having made an impact already, or encourage and protect those who might make an impact in the future. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26070 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19299 Posts
On February 01 2021 23:28 LegalLord wrote: I believe the precedent would be to give the prize to Biden for his highly inspirational message of hope, change, and being anyone other than Trump. Not a Trump supporter, but he did keep our country out of war. That's a peaceful thing to have accomplished.  | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18124 Posts
On February 01 2021 21:57 EnDeR_ wrote: You have got to be kidding me: Jared Kushner has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize I don't think Greta should be on it either, but seriously, I will shit a brick if Kushner gets it. Not very surprising. There has been a bizarro nominee every prize for the last 20 years or so. Anyway, seems like a shoe-in for the WHO, right? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18124 Posts
On February 01 2021 22:51 WombaT wrote: I mean the issue with the peace prize is its by its very nature extremely political and arbitrary. You sometimes get recipients who most people will tend to agree were worthy of recognition as per the intent of the award, and you get some extremely whacky choices for whom the word ‘peacemaker’ does not seem applicable at all, your Kissingers of the world And you get prizes going to people who seem deserving of it, then get into a position of power and turn out to be just as genocidal as the guys they were initially combating (ahem, Aung Suu Kyi). | ||
| ||
