Bucky wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:The other end is that millions default on all bills and then what? Further divide the rich from the poor?

The banks are the one entity that can probably withstand this

Banks are already getting screwed with the rate cuts. I think a debt freeze makes sense as long as the government is then pumping money into the banks.

money has got to be infused from the bottom- to people who are shut down. they can then keep their bills paid and the normal flow of commerce going.

freezing debt and keeping the banks afloat only helps the banks in the long run- once things lift the debts are the same and the banks have more $.

and yes, the payroll tax is NOT the way to do this- that only help the people who still have incomes, who currently are in a situation to keep commercing they way they've always been commercing. they won't- heck CAN'T- go spend more because there are very limited options to spend this day. even if they do take-out every day it doesn't help the servers, busboys, and dishwashers who are not included in the take-out model.

That’s fair, it’s just difficult to assess need when there are so many people facing current or potential hardships.

I’m just worried for the people making hourly wages, small business owners, and even large companies on which our economic system relies (banks and probably utilities).

Getting money is people's hands is the best option but I can't see it happening. We could give each household about 10k for what we spent so far and I think that helps the situation significantly more.

I think most banks would gladly allow people to skip a month or two of their mortgage payments rather than foreclose. I think the hope is that once things get back to normal, as long as everyone isn't bankrupt, pent up demand will boost the economy pretty rapidly. A v shaped recovery I think it's called. So, handing cash out to people might be just the ticket here.

Werthless wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:Every person out of a job will need a UBI that's higher than unemployment. All debts will need to be frozen.

That is a good way to actively initiate a banking crisis.

jamiethekiller wrote:The other end is that millions default on all bills and then what? Further divide the rich from the poor?

The banks are the one entity that can probably withstand this

Well, I think the UBI that you mentioned is the way to go.

Has anybody seen any details on the current bill? I have read that companies with 500 or more employees are exempt for the paid sick leave portion of A bill but I am not sure if it is THIS bill. I would also be very curious to see what the allocation of the $850 billion (not enough) is.

traderdave wrote:Has anybody seen any details on the current bill? I have read that companies with 500 or more employees are exempt for the paid sick leave portion of A bill but I am not sure if it is THIS bill. I would also be very curious to see what the allocation of the $850 billion (not enough) is.

I didn't get into details but this is what I was reacting when I posted "Not so fast on the house bill". My understanding is was companies with more than 500 employees and less than 50 employees were exempt. In the end it doesn't help nearly enough people but the exemptions were necessary for bipartisan support.

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/ ... 1231585286

Absolutely insane stuff. I thought this was a parody before I realized who posted it. These people should be tried for fucking war crimes.

lol Kamala proposing up to $500/mo/family. That should cover it for people not working and living paycheck to paycheck.

heyeaglefn wrote:

Augustus wrote:Members of both parties discussing a stimulus package got me thinking about 2009, when no House Republicans voted for Obama's stimulus bill and only three Senate Republicans (Collins, Snowe, and Specter) did. Pelosi needs to drive a very hard bargain and win real concessions.

2009 wasn't a presidential election year.

If the past ten years have taught us anything, it's that nothing we think matters actually matters. Remember when Merrick Garland was going to be the end of the Republican Party?

Get the House together, quickly pass a gigantic package that actually addresses the issue while the Senate Republicans and the White House argue about just how much of a payroll tax cut to give, and start applying real political pressure on these psychopaths.

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:Every person out of a job will need a UBI that's higher than unemployment. All debts will need to be frozen.

That is a good way to actively initiate a banking crisis.

jamiethekiller wrote:The other end is that millions default on all bills and then what? Further divide the rich from the poor?

The banks are the one entity that can probably withstand this

Well, I think the UBI that you mentioned is the way to go.

the one constant across all income levels is food costs. you basically have UBI to cover a families food costs for the month and freeze all debts after that. There's people with no rent or mortgage and there's people with over 4k a month in bills. you can't develop and push out a UBI that covers all income bases that are going to be affected by this.

The point of a UBI is not to cover all bills, my friend. It's to cover the essentials to live. $4k/month is not in the realm of possibility.

jerseyhoya wrote:She won him Minnesota

evidence? He seemed to win everything by big margins, not just minnesota. Could she help with WI? That's where the action is. If they lose minnesota, they will have already lost the election other places.

I like Klobuchar a LOT, but I would not be excited to have her on the ticket.

I'd be excited to have her as POTUS, for sure, she is very qualified. But I want someone to help nail down the victory; AK doesn't seem optimal there

Werthless wrote:The point of a UBI is not to cover all bills, my friend. It's to cover the essentials to live. $4k/month is not in the realm of possibility.

Yea, but it is also supposed to be implemented in normal times, not as a break in case of emergency action. I think viewing any emergency checks sent now through the lens of UBI's theories and goals misses the point a bit (I've been guilty of this, it is just easier to call short-term monthly checks as UBI).

Werthless wrote:The point of a UBI is not to cover all bills, my friend. It's to cover the essentials to live. $4k/month is not in the realm of possibility.

Call it what you will. But people making 100k a year are gonna lose their jobs, too, and they have significantly more monthly debt than someone making 30k a year.

You can't have a universal fix for this other than freezing debts and giving away money to people so they can buy food and gas.

slugsrbad wrote:

Werthless wrote:The point of a UBI is not to cover all bills, my friend. It's to cover the essentials to live. $4k/month is not in the realm of possibility.

Yea, but it is also supposed to be implemented in normal times, not as a break in case of emergency action. I think viewing any emergency checks sent now through the lens of UBI's theories and goals misses the point a bit (I've been guilty of this, it is just easier to call short-term monthly checks as UBI).

The real problem as I see it isn't really a solvable one if you want to get the money out quick--there's no way to develop and implement a means test.

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:She won him Minnesota

evidence? He seemed to win everything by big margins, not just minnesota. Could she help with WI? That's where the action is. If they lose minnesota, they will have already lost the election other places.

Biden was in single digits before she dropped out, and he almost got 40% of the vote.

Minnesota has not gone to a Republican since 1972

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:She won him Minnesota

evidence? He seemed to win everything by big margins, not just minnesota. Could she help with WI? That's where the action is. If they lose minnesota, they will have already lost the election other places.

Biden was in single digits before she dropped out, and he almost got 40% of the vote.

His numbers jumped up a crazy amount across the board. It wasn't just Minnesota. I'm not saying it didn't help him at all, but I don't see any evidence that she won him Minnesota. What really helped him was Sanders talking up communist regimes and the extremely intense desire to find the candidate that could beat Trump. It also helped that the early dem primary states are designed to get a moderate dem. Many areas that won't vote dem in the general get to decide who is the dem nominee.

Minnesota was close in 2016, but Bernie's success in the 2016 primary followed by Biden's win suggests a high degree of anti-Hillary sentiment. Minnesota voted 6.2% less Democratic than 2012, while at the same time voting .04% less Republican. Significantly more people voted in 2020's primary, although some of that is due to moving from a caucus in 2016 to a primary. There hasn't been much head to head polling in the state, but one done in October by the Star Tribune had Biden 50-38 over Trump.

So, it might help him shore up Minnesota, but it looks like he'll win that anyway. Given concerns about Biden's age, and the idea that this is a very consequential VP pick, I'm not sure how much it helps to pick someone whom almost no Democrats wanted to be president. Still wouldn't be as bad as Tim Kaine though.