Hilarious!!!!
Google CEO can’t pronounce “pandemic “.
Democrats lose again!!!
Hilarious!!!!
Google CEO can’t pronounce “pandemic “.
Democrats lose again!!!
L L wrote:
As far as incentives for not working:
When you close things down, you are telling people not to work.
So you do need to invectives for not working in order for a shutdown to work.
And there simply aren’t jobs to apply for in the current economy.
Forcing people to work by cutting off aid encourages the spread of the virus which causes more shutdowns.
On the other hand, you need the supply chains to continue for products to be sold, especially food. You need to plan for a safe way to do that.
The states have to be taken care of because they are on the front line of supplying unemployment benefits.
And none of this really pertains to Trump because he does not have the intellect to understand or communicate what’s needed on a macro economic level.
Congress will pass something and he will sign it - with no material input.
His only input has been for a payroll tax cut which both parties have said no to.
The $200 is on top of what they normally receive for unemployment insurance. Its just not a good model to pay people more not working than they were paid when they were working.
Honestly that seems obvious to me.
The states are in trouble and need help or there will be severe cutbacks to needed services. I'd rather the money go there.
Monkeys typing wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
Actually I would like the $200 with help to the states. $600 is way too high. 60% of the people made more being laid off than working. That's crazy. We should never provide incentives for not working.
My understanding is that the problem of the moment is a lack of work opportunities rather a lack of workers willing to fill jobs and that the infrastructure to do more a more targeted unemployment benefits simply isn't there in time to address the need.
Articles have been published arguing both sides. The situation is obviously extremely complex. Some employers are saying they can't find workers and they're blaming the extra $600 a week people are getting.
Those who are unemployed say they don't want to go back to work at a minimum wage job with little to no benefits and while that certainly sucks I'm inclined to think that's more the driving force behind the issue. People are willing to work hard and don't want to sit on the sidelines, but the jobs available aren't really fulfilling, they're done simply out of necessity.
Trollminator wrote:
agip wrote:
this just one more example of how money wrecks policy. Rs need to keep their corporate donors happy so they get all twisted up in knots. We need better leaders or spending caps on politics or something like that. Let lawmakers decide on the merits, not on balancing the good of the country with the good of your donors.
There is a pretty simple solution - make illegal all corporate donations and individual amounts above a certain threshold to candidates and serving politicians. If their main financial master is the voter then they will serve them instead of the ultra rich a$$holes, and the corporate and foreign interest groups. Super PACs and insane amounts of raised funds have not proven to help the public in any way whatsoever. Super pacs were one of the most damaging SC decisions ever. Eligible voters are likely to become a lot more motivated if they know their donation and vote will actually give them a return. The problem with the current system is that we are not masters of the politicians.
it's really corrosive...members of the house have to spend massive time fund raising. Which is really unpleasant and chases away a lot of potentially good leaders. Who wants to spend hours calling people and asking for donations? Not the people you want making political decisions.
No idea how to fix it given Citizens United and how politics work.
watched it on tv wrote:
Google CEO can’t pronounce “pandemic “.
The is "unpresidented".
-- Donald J Trump
Dan Kahneman wrote:
The $200 is on top of what they normally receive for unemployment insurance. Its just not a good model to pay people more not working than they were paid when they were working.
Honestly that seems obvious to me.
This was by design. It was meant to provide incentive to stay home and not work so you don't spread the virus, and because behind closed doors no one seriously believes the current minimum wage can sustain someone. If rents and utilities were going to get floated for three months then this was probably what was actually necessary given that the average American was leveraged to the absolute hilt.
agip wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
There is a pretty simple solution - make illegal all corporate donations and individual amounts above a certain threshold to candidates and serving politicians. If their main financial master is the voter then they will serve them instead of the ultra rich a$$holes, and the corporate and foreign interest groups. Super PACs and insane amounts of raised funds have not proven to help the public in any way whatsoever. Super pacs were one of the most damaging SC decisions ever. Eligible voters are likely to become a lot more motivated if they know their donation and vote will actually give them a return. The problem with the current system is that we are not masters of the politicians.
it's really corrosive...members of the house have to spend massive time fund raising. Which is really unpleasant and chases away a lot of potentially good leaders. Who wants to spend hours calling people and asking for donations? Not the people you want making political decisions.
No idea how to fix it given Citizens United and how politics work.
Political campaigns cost money to run.
"Corporations and super PACs shouldn't be allowed to donate money!!!!!" - OK, can I trouble you for a $5 donation to the campaign fund for arguably the most important office in the world?
"Uhhh, errrm, uhhh, sorry I don't have any cash on me but maybe next time."
Dan Kahneman wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
The Rs don't even really agree on the $200, so this proposal was dead before arrival. Also, any amount makes a big difference to the little guy, but the reality is they are going back and forth on essentially peanuts out of the total they gave away to corporations (their friends and owners). What a racket.
Actually I would like the $200 with help to the states. $600 is way too high. 60% of the people made more being laid off than working. That's crazy. We should never provide incentives for not working.
What if providing incentives for not working saves a lot of lives? Not even then?
Trollminator wrote:
agip wrote:
this just one more example of how money wrecks policy. Rs need to keep their corporate donors happy so they get all twisted up in knots. We need better leaders or spending caps on politics or something like that. Let lawmakers decide on the merits, not on balancing the good of the country with the good of your donors.
There is a pretty simple solution - make illegal all corporate donations and individual amounts above a certain threshold to candidates and serving politicians. If their main financial master is the voter then they will serve them instead of the ultra rich a$$holes, and the corporate and foreign interest groups. Super PACs and insane amounts of raised funds have not proven to help the public in any way whatsoever. Super pacs were one of the most damaging SC decisions ever. Eligible voters are likely to become a lot more motivated if they know their donation and vote will actually give them a return. The problem with the current system is that we are not masters of the politicians.
Not sure if the answer is so simple. This only seems to address campaign contributions.
However, a great many politicians get mighty rich while in office. It seems that this phenomenon might have an impact on the actions of those in office as well.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
L L wrote:
As far as incentives for not working:
When you close things down, you are telling people not to work.
So you do need to invectives for not working in order for a shutdown to work.
And there simply aren’t jobs to apply for in the current economy.
Forcing people to work by cutting off aid encourages the spread of the virus which causes more shutdowns.
On the other hand, you need the supply chains to continue for products to be sold, especially food. You need to plan for a safe way to do that.
The states have to be taken care of because they are on the front line of supplying unemployment benefits.
And none of this really pertains to Trump because he does not have the intellect to understand or communicate what’s needed on a macro economic level.
Congress will pass something and he will sign it - with no material input.
His only input has been for a payroll tax cut which both parties have said no to.
The $200 is on top of what they normally receive for unemployment insurance. Its just not a good model to pay people more not working than they were paid when they were working.
Honestly that seems obvious to me.
The states are in trouble and need help or there will be severe cutbacks to needed services. I'd rather the money go there.
Don't folks on unemployment typically receive substantially less than what they made at their job? If so, the extra $200 (or $600) does not necessarily result in them making more to not work than to work.
At any rate, if we are serious about getting control of the pandemic then it seems that the notion that people should be incentivized to go to work (temporarily) no longer applies. We should want people to stay home as much as possible and have no incentive to go to work.
1100 wrote:
Don't folks on unemployment typically receive substantially less than what they made at their job? If so, the extra $200 (or $600) does not necessarily result in them making more to not work than to work.
At any rate, if we are serious about getting control of the pandemic then it seems that the notion that people should be incentivized to go to work (temporarily) no longer applies. We should want people to stay home as much as possible and have no incentive to go to work.
You are assuming that most of the people who are out of work are making low wages. That is not the case. $600 per week is $31k per year which sounds rich when added to regular unemployment but that money is not enough to make someone who lost a $50k/yr job "whole".
$600 is an easy to implement, one size fits all number. Of course some people will wind up ahead. Of course some people will wind up behind. But with a one size fits all number there is no need to wait to implement it. No special calculations are involved. The Republican's "plan" to limit the payments to 70% of "prior" income is a disaster in the making. "Prior" at what point? Who does the math? Who approves that the math is right? It will take months to implement such a plan and then it is far too late.
The Republicans have no one to blame except themselves for proposing an unworkable plan this late in the game. Their plan is unworkable because it creates havoc whether it was accepted (months to do the math and approve it) or it is rejected (look it is the Democrats fault we willing chose to sit on our hands for over two months). It is my opinion that the Republicans intentionally waited and intentionally created an unworkable plan as a way to damage the government.
Racket wrote:
agip wrote:
it's really corrosive...members of the house have to spend massive time fund raising. Which is really unpleasant and chases away a lot of potentially good leaders. Who wants to spend hours calling people and asking for donations? Not the people you want making political decisions.
No idea how to fix it given Citizens United and how politics work.
Political campaigns cost money to run.
"Corporations and super PACs shouldn't be allowed to donate money!!!!!" - OK, can I trouble you for a $5 donation to the campaign fund for arguably the most important office in the world?
"Uhhh, errrm, uhhh, sorry I don't have any cash on me but maybe next time."
you ok with Representatives spending almost half their day at a phone bank dialing for dollars? Maybe you think their time would be better spent governing the nation? Maybe that desperation for dollars corrupts many of them?
//
"Rep. David Jolly: The House schedule is actually arranged, in some ways, around fundraising.
Norah O'Donnell: You're telling me the whole schedule of how work gets done is scheduled around fundraising?
Rep. David Jolly: That's right. You never see a committee working through lunch because those are your fundraising times. And then in between afternoon votes and evening votes, that's when you can see Democrats walking down this street, Republicans walking down that street to spend time on the phone making phone calls.
By law, members of Congress cannot make fundraising calls from their offices. So both parties have set up "call centers" just a few blocks away. This is where the Republicans have theirs.
Norah O'Donnell: So can I go in there?
Rep. David Jolly: I don't think they would let either one of us in here, at this point. Remember I stopped paying my dues.
What Jolly means is that in addition to raising money for their own campaigns, members are supposed to raise thousands of dollars for their parties. That's their dues. If Republican members don't pay up, they can't use the party's call suites. No photos exist of the inside of either the Democratic or Republican centers. But with the help of a staffer, we were able to get into the Republican center with a hidden camera."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers/Ultra Violet wrote:
1100 wrote:
Don't folks on unemployment typically receive substantially less than what they made at their job? If so, the extra $200 (or $600) does not necessarily result in them making more to not work than to work.
At any rate, if we are serious about getting control of the pandemic then it seems that the notion that people should be incentivized to go to work (temporarily) no longer applies. We should want people to stay home as much as possible and have no incentive to go to work.
You are assuming that most of the people who are out of work are making low wages. That is not the case. $600 per week is $31k per year which sounds rich when added to regular unemployment but that money is not enough to make someone who lost a $50k/yr job "whole".
$600 is an easy to implement, one size fits all number. Of course some people will wind up ahead. Of course some people will wind up behind. But with a one size fits all number there is no need to wait to implement it. No special calculations are involved. The Republican's "plan" to limit the payments to 70% of "prior" income is a disaster in the making. "Prior" at what point? Who does the math? Who approves that the math is right? It will take months to implement such a plan and then it is far too late.
The Republicans have no one to blame except themselves for proposing an unworkable plan this late in the game. Their plan is unworkable because it creates havoc whether it was accepted (months to do the math and approve it) or it is rejected (look it is the Democrats fault we willing chose to sit on our hands for over two months). It is my opinion that the Republicans intentionally waited and intentionally created an unworkable plan as a way to damage the government.
I made no such assumption.
Next time, try reading the post to which you are responding before formulating your response.
1100 wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
The $200 is on top of what they normally receive for unemployment insurance. Its just not a good model to pay people more not working than they were paid when they were working.
Honestly that seems obvious to me.
The states are in trouble and need help or there will be severe cutbacks to needed services. I'd rather the money go there.
Don't folks on unemployment typically receive substantially less than what they made at their job? If so, the extra $200 (or $600) does not necessarily result in them making more to not work than to work.
At any rate, if we are serious about getting control of the pandemic then it seems that the notion that people should be incentivized to go to work (temporarily) no longer applies. We should want people to stay home as much as possible and have no incentive to go to work.
In many area's its fine for people to go back to work if it's done smartly. So we don't want to incentivise everyone not to work.
At the extra 600 dollar level about 60% of the people made more than their salary. 600 dollars is too much. It creates a bunch of problems for business owners deciding when to open.
State s like New York are in huge financial debt and will cut back many needed services. Some of that money should go to the states.
The Trump campaign has stopped spending money on ads. Trump has directed the RNC to stop giving money to any republicans seeking election to the House.
Trump is hoarding cash. Trump is still demanding donations. Something is very wrong here. Is the money being set aside for a November coup? Or is he planning on pocketing the money before he vacates the WH.
BTW: Also of note is that Trump is trying to sneak into the HEALS Act (it should be called the HEELS Act) money to renovate the White House. Why is this important? Because the work will take several years to complete (Trump will be gone) and major parts of the White House cannot be moved into until the work is done. The Oval Office will take a year to renovate (old structure replacement, enhanced security walls, etc.). That would deprive Biden of the use of the Oval Office for at least a year. And Melania wants to rip up the Rose Garden to "redo" it. That too is a long term redo and won't be done before Trump leaves. The Rose Garden may end up being torn up by Trump and left as a dirt field for Biden to enjoy. You can't plant in winter, you know.
1100 wrote:
I made no such assumption.
Next time, try reading the post to which you are responding before formulating your response.
Grow up, little man. "Don't folks on unemployment typically receive substantially less than what they made at their job? … We should want people to stay home as much as possible and have no incentive to go to work."
You got an answer and cried "I did not type that."
Learn to write. Thanks.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
I never really care what Rigged says about anything except now. Will the Trump minions believe that Trump is right and if he feels the democrats are "stealing" the election Trump should postpone it (even without constitutional right).
Or will the minions fall back on the old standard escape clause, "Oh he was just triggering the liberals and the media"?
agip wrote:
FOUNDER of the Federalist Society.
Right wingers and libertarians all.
Calls for the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump.
The times they are a-changing.
Rs are pushing back, now that primary season is over and it's clear trump will lose.
///
I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, including voting for Donald Trump in 2016. I wrote op-eds and a law review article protesting what I believe was an unconstitutional investigation by Robert Mueller. I also wrote an op-ed opposing President Trump’s impeachment.
But I am frankly appalled by the president’s recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/opinion/trump-delay-election-coronavirus.html
The answer is the same as for this question: would tzees be ok with anything as long as it owns the libs?
Ultra Violet wrote:
1100 wrote:
Next time, Wahhhhhahhahahh
Learn to write. Thanks.
Provide a list of all the jobs previously employed people can go back to?
State how people who are umemployed with children will go back to work with schools and daycare centers closed? Go to work and leave you kids to fend for themselves? Or stay home and go broke and face getting evicted? Those are the solutions Republicans are offering. Get a job! What job? Force your kids to go to schools? What school?
Racket wrote:
agip wrote:
it's really corrosive...members of the house have to spend massive time fund raising. Which is really unpleasant and chases away a lot of potentially good leaders. Who wants to spend hours calling people and asking for donations? Not the people you want making political decisions.
No idea how to fix it given Citizens United and how politics work.
Political campaigns cost money to run.
"Corporations and super PACs shouldn't be allowed to donate money!!!!!" - OK, can I trouble you for a $5 donation to the campaign fund for arguably the most important office in the world?
"Uhhh, errrm, uhhh, sorry I don't have any cash on me but maybe next time."
Politicians still ran effective campaigns before super pacs, gimme a break
Ultra Violet wrote:
The Trump campaign has stopped spending money on ads. Trump has directed the RNC to stop giving money to any republicans seeking election to the House.
Trump is hoarding cash. Trump is still demanding donations. Something is very wrong here. Is the money being set aside for a November coup? Or is he planning on pocketing the money before he vacates the WH.
BTW: Also of note is that Trump is trying to sneak into the HEALS Act (it should be called the HEELS Act) money to renovate the White House. Why is this important? Because the work will take several years to complete (Trump will be gone) and major parts of the White House cannot be moved into until the work is done. The Oval Office will take a year to renovate (old structure replacement, enhanced security walls, etc.). That would deprive Biden of the use of the Oval Office for at least a year. And Melania wants to rip up the Rose Garden to "redo" it. That too is a long term redo and won't be done before Trump leaves. The Rose Garden may end up being torn up by Trump and left as a dirt field for Biden to enjoy. You can't plant in winter, you know.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-campaign-pauses-tv-ad-spending-review-messaging-strategy-n1235376
Barr and Jared are setting up the scheme to divert it all. Nobody will care once they’re gone.