2020 US Election (Part Two)

[hobbsyoyo]

I haven't followed the story closely so I don't know what the hangup is in Congress. I'm not saying they don't have a legitimate gripe against the White House, just that I don't know what wrangling is going on between the branches right now.

The hang up is that a significant fraction of GOP senators will not vote for any stimulus whatsoever 'because the deficit'. They are acting as if Trump has already lost the election because typically the GOP only cares about deficits/national debt when a Democrat holds the presidency. For evidence, see the trillion dollar tax cut they passed that further cratered the budget and national debt which benefited the rich to the sum of about 80% of the total cut at a time when the economy didn't need a boost from a tax cut. And because it was structured primarily to favor the rich, it didn't actually do much to boost GDP to begin with but that's getting into the weeds.

McConnell has a red line that he will only support a stimulus deal if it includes lawsuit provisions to prevent meatpackers and other firms from being sued for forcing their employees to work in unsafe conditions as they are major Republican donors. It's unclear if this is one of the primary sticking points for the deal but the Democrats have opposed this provision consistently.

Another sticking point is that the GOP will not extend the unemployment benefit boost at $600/week because they are afraid it will lead to rising wages which will hurt the billionaire class. The other sticking point is that the GOP will not provide funding for state and local governments whose budgets have cratered because it would in their mind primarily help blue states. If this seems overly cynical, remember that the reason the US does not have a national testing strategy is that Kushner's plan was torpedoed by Trump's aids because at the time he put it together, it was mostly blue states that were in need of a testing strategy. Federal medical aid and PPE was also disproportionately distributed to red states, as was the first round of economic stimulus such as the paycheck protection program.

With the Trump administration it is important to recognize that cruelty is the point.

Is that before or after tax? More than the unemployed here get. Doesn't run out though.

Before tax.

1600$/month?
Isn't that above a living wage by itself?

Any prerequisites? (like having to have worked for x years/have no other sources of income/be legally a citizen) ^_^

It's below a living wage as it's less than $15/hr. With state benefits, it may just reach that. The original $2400/mo benefit boost was a living wage and when coupled with state benefits meant that many people actually saw their incomes rise while unemployed which provided a big boost to the overall economy.

 

[Zardnaar]

The hang up is that a significant fraction of GOP senators will not vote for any stimulus whatsoever 'because the deficit'. They are acting as if Trump has already lost the election because typically the GOP only cares about deficits/national debt when a Democrat holds the presidency. For evidence, see the trillion dollar tax cut they passed that further cratered the budget and national debt which benefited the rich to the sum of about 80% of the total cut at a time when the economy didn't need a boost from a tax cut. And because it was structured primarily to favor the rich, it didn't actually do much to boost GDP to begin with but that's getting into the weeds.

McConnell has a red line that he will only support a stimulus deal if it includes lawsuit provisions to prevent meatpackers and other firms from being sued for forcing their employees to work in unsafe conditions as they are major Republican donors. It's unclear if this is one of the primary sticking points for the deal but the Democrats have opposed this provision consistently.

Another sticking point is that the GOP will not extend the unemployment benefit boost at $600/week because they are afraid it will lead to rising wages which will hurt the billionaire class. The other sticking point is that the GOP will not provide funding for state and local governments whose budgets have cratered because it would in their mind primarily help blue states. If this seems overly cynical, remember that the reason the US does not have a national testing strategy is that Kushner's plan was torpedoed by Trump's aids because at the time he put it together, it was mostly blue states that were in need of a testing strategy. Federal medical aid and PPE was also disproportionately distributed to red states, as was the first round of economic stimulus such as the paycheck protection program.

With the Trump administration it is important to recognize that cruelty is the point.


Before tax.

It's below a living wage as it's less than $15/hr. With state benefits, it may just reach that. The original $2400/mo benefit boost was a living wage and when coupled with state benefits meant that many people actually saw their incomes rise while unemployed which provided a big boost to the overall economy.

Not really a sustainable IMHO. Hell it's generous for welfare.

$600/week in top of another benefit is a lot. $600 a week is around double the base rate of our pension and things are cheaper than here.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not really a sustainable IMHO.

It was not and is not meant to be. This is a short-term fix to avert economic collapse that is happening outside of a regular business cycle because of a pandemic. We're still in the middle of that, so it doesn't make sense to withdraw it now - especially when the justification for withdrawing it is complete non-sense and proven to be false.


I'm also having dejavu as I swear to god we've had the argument why comparing a pension to unemployment is completely off base before.

 

[innonimatu]

1600$/month?
Isn't that above a living wage by itself?

Any prerequisites? (like having to have worked for x years/have no other sources of income/be legally a citizen) ^_^

I strongly suspect that if this wasn't an election year there would be conditions attached (governments love conditions to let the plebs know their place...) and the payments would be smaller. Trump is managing to put the democrats in a bad light by forcing them to oppose those payments in the way he is having them done now.

An important but overlooked part of this is the moratorium on payments of debts. That's a favour to banks.

 

[Gorbles]

Not really a sustainable IMHO. Hell it's generous for welfare.

$600/week in top of another benefit is a lot. $600 a week is around double the base rate of our pension and things are cheaper than here.

I just want to point out that "around here" is not "living in the US".

 

[amadeus]

Trump is trying to pay out $400/week unemployment payments by executive order, which is completely unconstitutional but

I know I said “I don’t know” quite a bit in that post.

Is it unconstitutional in principle? It seems if the Congress has given the funds to the executive, then the EO to distribute those funds I think would be within the limits of the President’s powers. I’m thinking of the disaster relief fund, which I would say qualifies. But at $300/wk for millions of Americans, that fund is going to run out quickly.

The $100/wk by state governments, I don’t think the President has the power to decree how a state spends its funds. Given the way Congress can’t, say, mandate the 21 drinking age. Wisconsin refused to, but Congress couldn’t stop them. It could, however, suspend highway funding, and I believe they did exactly that if my history is right.

 

[Sommerswerd]

they would sacrifice the credibility of their news wing forever.

*shakes head* Gori, Gori, Gori, tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk

Have you learned nothing all these years? FOX doesn't have any credibility to sacrifice, and they know good and well that their viewers don't give a tinkers damn about it.

Trump is trying to pay out $400/week unemployment payments by executive order, which is completely unconstitutional but

Openly bribing voters for votes in unconstitutional? Since when?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Should not be an issue. Neither McCain nor Romney were born in the US. McCain was born in Panama and Romney was born in Mexico City. As the child of a US citizen, (and an active duty military one at that, as was McCain's dad), she is covered. I assume the GOP would mount a legal challenge - because of course they would - but it wouldn't have two legs to stand on.

Romney was born in Detroit per Wikipedia. McCain was born in Panama but per wikipedia it was at a US Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone which was US territory at the time, thus considered US soil. So parentage for both those guys is irrelevant because they have jus soli ("right of the soil").

And your joke wasn't that bad... Also, you don't need legs to mount a legal challenge... or a horse... Now that was a bad joke

And Cruz ran, even though he was born in Canada.

That's true, he ran... but he wasn't elected. I was actually very interested to see what mental gymnastics the birthers were going to go through to defend Cruz if he were nominated, but alas, he wasn't. Thus the legal challenge to his Presidency based on "natural born" status was unnecessary and thus untested.

This is where I fell out of the movement to disqualify Barack Obama. Even if he had been born in Kenya, "native-born" citizenship* would still be conferred to him and there was no legal grounds to challenge his candidacy unless it could be proven that his mother was not an American, which nobody had ever so much as even suggested.

Since Obama was, as you point out, native-born American, has jus soli, and is thus a "natural born" American for the purposes of serving as POTUS. If he was, as birthers claim, born in Kenya, then we would have had a test of whether jus sanguinis ("right of the blood") extends to make a person born abroad with only one US citizen parent a "natural born" American for the purposes of being POTUS. The birthers whole argument was that the answer was no. But since Obama was in-fact, native born, we never had a legal test of the argument. The question has never been tested in the SCOTUS. I think the answer should be yes, since you can gain automatic citizenship that way (with conditions), but until the SCOTUS actually rules on this, it remains an open question.

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before statehood

American territories count for the purposes of "natural born", so Goldwater has jus soli, however, since Goldwater was never elected POTUS, no legal challenge was even necessary.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't find AOC (edit: that) physically attractive. Her views are very good. The same for Nina Turner, I said here long ago she would be a great VP for Bernie.
Furthermore, I am sure it is a very bad idea to try to argue that your views are more logical. Your whole thing used to be/is that braindead politicians must be supported at all costs, just cause they are the democrat nomination. Now that I already said Biden must win, don't revert to other bizarre "but still" statements

Kyr, you should know me well enough by now to know that I was going to check your posting history. Prior to this conversation, you had a grand total of three (3) posts on Nina Turner, none particularly substantive... so trying to compare your supposed "support" of Nina Turner to the endless vitriol you have spilled against Harris and/or Hillary is laughable.

Furthermore, nothing in your post refutes anything I've said. In fact, the post itself serves to underscore the truth of exactly what I've pointed out. In fact, the fact that you thought that your post would contradict, rather than clearly illustrate exactly what I pointed out about you, just further underscores how true it is. Its so ingrained in your thought process that you're completely oblivious to it.

On a related note... why didn't you just say "I don't find Nina Turner attractive, but I still support her"? Why did you instead post a picture of her? Is it because you think she is ugly and you wanted to show us all how ugly she is? Why was that necessary, in your mind? Also, please explain why you feel she is unattractive. What is unattractive about her?

See Kyr, the thing is... posting pics of women you think are ugly, who you nevertheless choose to grace with your "support" doesn't prove anything. Link/quote some posts on these threads where you have repeatedly savagely attacked and/or insulted a female politician who you consider very physically attractive, the way you attack Hillary and Harris. You can't, because there are no such posts... and that's the point. That's the proof of what I and others are fully aware of, regarding how you think about female politicians.

 

[Farm Boy]

I just want to point out that "around here" is not "living in the US".

Almost a 50% increase before benefits for a lot of people who don't collect a lot of benefits. In a Trew Blew state.

Not implying anything in particular for an argument, I haven't sorted it out myself, but to put it in context.

 

[RobAnybody]

I know I said “I don’t know” quite a bit in that post.

Is it unconstitutional in principle?

Nowadays, yes, saying "I don't know" is Unconstitutional (in the USA). Practically speaking, that is. You must *know*, & *know* fervently. Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is Teh Enemy. And against the Founding Fathers &/or democracy. Depending on what fits the argument. Parody, of course, but unfortunately too close to the truth. Nuance is the real enemy.

It seems if the Congress has given the funds to the executive, then the EO to distribute those funds I think would be within the limits of the President’s powers. I’m thinking of the disaster relief fund, which I would say qualifies.

But seriously, it is Constitutional, exactly how you explained (I snipped some of your post but the whole thing is accurate). But the further provisions say the states must 1) request the aid, 2) match 25% (or else nothing), & 3) establish the mechanism of distributing those funds. So it's a cheap end around, that most states really can't fulfill. Which is kinda the goal. It's a way to say "OMG, I tried to give you $400, but the Governors failed. Bigly. The Democratic Governors are terrible and couldn't do what I wanted for you." Ignoring that states are not, legally, allowed to operate at a deficit. They cannot manufacture money out of thin air like they Feds can.

So the strategy is that those states already in the red (big, mostly blue states) can't do it while those less impacted (smaller, red states) can. I don't think they've factored in that red states are the ones currently getting hit the hardest by Covid right now (b/c Trump doesn't like hearing bad news & is now surrounded by sycophants who don't tell him that) so doesn't know, & thinks this is a winning strategy, rather than one that's going to result in people around the country, in both blue AND red states, in a few weeks going "wait, didn't Trump say we were gonna start receiving $400/week? why aren't we getting it?1?1?one?1?"

Now, who they blame is an open question, but Trump promised it & it didn't happen. Something that can't be dismissed as Fake News because it affected them personally.

 

[amadeus]

Thanks for adding the further provisions, @RobAnybody. It seems written to just barely touch the line of where the President's executive power stops.

 

[Patine]

McCain was born in Panama but per wikipedia it was at a US Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone which was US territory at the time, thus considered US soil. So parentage for both those guys is irrelevant because they have jus soli ("right of the soil").

Actually, to be pedantic, McCain was BORN in Panama City, in Panamanian sovereign territory (their capital city, in fact) because a hospital had not yet been built in the Panama Canal Zone at the time he was born.

 

[Hrothbern]

Nowadays, yes, saying "I don't know" is Unconstitutional (in the USA). Practically speaking, that is. You must *know*, & *know* fervently. Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is Teh Enemy. And against the Founding Fathers &/or democracy. Depending on what fits the argument. Parody, of course, but unfortunately too close to the truth. Nuance is the real enemy.
But seriously, it is Constitutional, exactly how you explained (I snipped some of your post but the whole thing is accurate). But the further provisions say the states must 1) request the aid, 2) match 25% (or else nothing), & 3) establish the mechanism of distributing those funds. So it's a cheap end around, that most states really can't fulfill. Which is kinda the goal. It's a way to say "OMG, I tried to give you $400, but the Governors failed. Bigly. The Democratic Governors are terrible and couldn't do what I wanted for you." Ignoring that states are not, legally, allowed to operate at a deficit. They cannot manufacture money out of thin air like they Feds can.

So the strategy is that those states already in the red (big, mostly blue states) can't do it while those less impacted (smaller, red states) can. I don't think they've factored in that red states are the ones currently getting hit the hardest by Covid right now (b/c Trump doesn't like hearing bad news & is now surrounded by sycophants who don't tell him that) so doesn't know, & thinks this is a winning strategy, rather than one that's going to result in people around the country, in both blue AND red states, in a few weeks going "wait, didn't Trump say we were gonna start receiving $400/week? why aren't we getting it?1?1?one?1?"

Now, who they blame is an open question, but Trump promised it & it didn't happen. Something that can't be dismissed as Fake News because it affected them personally.

I saw in an earlier post that that $400 is before tax... some part of that $400 comes as tax income for the state
If the state needs to pay $100 (that 25%) and gets per receiver $400 back into the state... a net of $300... then it needs only to borrow $100 minus state income tax on $400 and minus sales tax on that part of the $400 spent in that state.
Even crowdfunding the state by the state citizens would trigger the overall benefit.

Do I overlook something ?

 

[RobAnybody]

It depends. The extra money under the CARES Act, i.e the earlier +$600, was not taxed. Regular Unemployment is taxed (for some weird reason). I don't know which this would be. Google says: "Section 139 of the Code generally provides that 'qualified disaster relief payments' made by an employer to an employee are excluded from gross income and are not subject to any federal payroll taxes" [bolding is Google's] I don't know in this case. This is unprecedented, unsurprisingly.

EDIT: If I had to guess, the Google thing applies since that's the circular hole Trump is trying to shoehorn this square peg into. Further EDIT: It says subject to payroll tax, so maybe excluded from regular income tax, but included in the "balloon payment" deferred payroll tax people are going to owe at the end of the year, like all payroll taxes he's deferring. But that also says "by an employer to an employee". Unemployed employees? How does "disaster relief" even apply to them?!? I've confused myself at this point. This is yet another reason why the Executive Orders are so poorly thought out.

 

[Kyriakos]

Kyr, you should know me well enough by now to know that I was going to check your posting history. Prior to this conversation, you had a grand total of three (3) posts on Nina Turner, none particularly substantive... so trying to compare your supposed "support" of Nina Turner to the endless vitriol you have spilled against Harris and/or Hillary is laughable.

Furthermore, nothing in your post refutes anything I've said. In fact, the post itself serves to underscore the truth of exactly what I've pointed out. In fact, the fact that you thought that your post would contradict, rather than clearly illustrate exactly what I pointed out about you, just further underscores how true it is. Its so ingrained in your thought process that you're completely oblivious to it.

On a related note... why didn't you just say "I don't find Nina Turner attractive, but I still support her"? Why did you instead post a picture of her? Is it because you think she is ugly and you wanted to show us all how ugly she is? Why was that necessary, in your mind? Also, please explain why you feel she is unattractive. What is unattractive about her?

See Kyr, the thing is... posting pics of women you think are ugly, who you nevertheless choose to grace with your "support" doesn't prove anything. Link/quote some posts on these threads where you have repeatedly savagely attacked and/or insulted a female politician who you consider very physically attractive, the way you attack Hillary and Harris. You can't, because there are no such posts... and that's the point. That's the proof of what I and others are fully aware of, regarding how you think about female politicians.

I think you just reminded me why I had in the past put you on ignore: you are drowning in a sea of projection.
Continue behaving like this if you must, I won't follow you.

 

[amadeus]

Since you won't answer the question, I will!

Also, please explain why you feel she is unattractive. What is unattractive about her?

The hairstyle and glasses make it look like they cast Sally Jessy Raphael for Wesley Snipes' part in Demolition Man.

Spoiler much better :

edit: Obama’s tan suit was also good. See, I’m bipartisan on fashion!

 

[Kyriakos]

Wesley Snipes is cool, and so is Nina ^_^
As if one needs evidence that you can like someone without wanting to sleep with them.

 

[Socrates99]

Looks pretty good for 52...

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think you just reminded me why I had in the past put you on ignore:

Yeah, truth hurts. Anyway, don't talk about it, be about it.

Actually, to be pedantic, McCain was BORN in Panama City, in Panamanian sovereign territory (their capital city, in fact) because a hospital had not yet been built in the Panama Canal Zone at the time he was born.

Since we're "being pedantic" Per Wikipedia:

United States Senator John McCain was born in 1936 at a small Navy hospital at Coco Solo Naval Air Station

As an aside... the idea that a freaking US Naval Base built in 1918 (the year of the Spanish Flu global pandemic, incidentally) didn't have a hospital by 1936 is... well... Let's just say... they had a hospital at the Naval base.​