![](https://assets.aseannow.com/forum/uploads/set_resources_40/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_pattern.png)
lannarebirth
-
Posts
18,698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by lannarebirth
-
-
1 minute ago, Berkshire said:
That would be fine. To be honest, I don't even need the money. But if it's my tax dollars going out to all Americans, I darn well deserve a piece of that.
Make it universal, slash administrative costs. Don't waste time vetting people based on income. Rich people are going to get sick too. Also, we going to set up an agency to see who's gaming their income to get the check? I know multi-millionaires who opt to take no incomein lieu of spending assets and capital gains, just so they qualify for Medicaid. All legal due to stupid regulations.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:
I do have concern about the national debt.
I used to also, until I realized it is never ever going to be paid and rolled over at even lower lower interest rates like the zombie companies.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, WalkingOrders said:
No calls for violence against the President of the united States, and Senate Majority leader please! Get a grip!
I'm not calling for it, I'm indifferent to it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:
Ah man, my head is spinning. Things happening so fast. A trillion stimulus? Thousand dollar checks? My only issue is that pork is added in to such packages.
Steven Mnuchin is someone I have a certain amount of trust in. He's been down a similar road before.
That's my concern. <deleted> like pork and tax credits totally unnecessary. Just send people the money. They'll know best what to do with it.
Bernie should have come out with this yesterday when Yang was imploring him and Biden to speak out.
QuoteBernie Sanders calls for emergency $2,000 cash payments to every household in America every month for the duration of the crisis.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:
Check in the mail to a verified address with in the USA or one of its territories or pick it up in person with valid federally recognized ID such as a driving license with the star and TSA endorsement..
Adapt post offices to include basic banking services.
-
6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:
One thing this crisis shows is the foolishness of touting the stock market as a reliable indicator of the health of the economy. Much of that rise was due to stock buybacks. In other words corporations like the airlines (96 percent of their cash used to buy back stock) burned through their cash in order to raise the price of their stock. Now they're going to need the government to bail them out. At the very least, the government should demand part ownership. So when presumably stock prices go back up, the American people should profit from it.
That's a good idea. Or just liquidate the stock and turn the companies over to the bondholders. Those people are smarter than people who buy stocks anyway.
-
39 minutes ago, bristolboy said:
Actually, you're forgetting that there is also an oil and gas price crisis. Yes, it's great for consumers. But not so good for banks that have lent money to producers.
Not as great as it could be given we can't actually go anywhere. If I were those poor airlines I'd be locking in some Futures contracts.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 minutes ago, jastheace said:I know you haven't but it's in the topic 'headline'. the topic is about that (headline)
Yeah, but he came up with it when Andrew Yangs Humanity Forward organization reached out to him with the data of the far greater costs that could be expected from not doing this. If this crisis lingers I expect to see further installments of this stumulus. I don't care if some people are pissedoff that it is Trump doing it. Trump got elected because the last president chose corporate interests over those of the millions losing their homes.
I can't believe Democrats let themselves be out maneuvered on this.
-
2
-
1
-
1 minute ago, tonray said:
Essentially it becomes a loan against future tax increases...there is no free ride. Now if they say "we are cutting programs X,Y,and Z to finance it" Ok...but as it stands either you will pay it back with interest in a future tax bill - or- it will add to deficit and and you will pay it back with extended low rates on savings.
Maybe we will follow the example of Europe and charge people to hold our debt. Could be a good earner.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, bristolboy said:Even if they're less effective and millions of people go under? Do you understand that the bottom 50% of Americans have virtually no savings? That they live paycheck to paycheck? That unless they are covered by Obamacare through Medicaid, they are not going to be able to afford health care?
I understand that very well, that's why I want them to receive these funds. Middle income people have mortgages too you know. 94% of new jobs in the past 10 years have been gig, part time or contract. No severance, no medical, no security at all. I'm happy these people aren't going to become homeless. I'm happy the homeless will receive funds. Maybe it will change their lives. Maybe it's a turning point for America and they regain their humanity which has been lost. Maybe people will realize we can eradicate poverty. Who knows?
-
3
-
1
-
4 minutes ago, jastheace said:
public finances Trump is happy to 'promise'. but when is he going to pay back those debts he owes to the common man now that he can afford to?
the 'American Dream' that is Trump. Get rich off the poor, make the poor poorer. how the <deleted> did you guys vote for him?
Why wouldn't you give the public back some of the public finances when they have an emergency?
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:Why exactly would you give money to people who still have their full time jobs. Obviously you want the cash to go to those who need it most: the unemployed and the underemployed $1000 per month is not going to keep the unemployed afloat.
To stimulate demand. There's no demand if everyone's broke, can't pay their bills, let alone anything else. Much easier and cheaper to administer if given to everbody and removes stigma of having received it. I like programs that are universal and don't pick perceived winners and losers.
-
4
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 minutes ago, champers said:Trump has morphed into Bernie Sanders. Mnuchin looked horrified. Compare to the UK where Boris is loaning £300 Billion to those in need.
Helping citizens with their own money is exactly the right thing to do. Helping companies a waste of time. There are other processes tokeep companies alive. Liquidate shares and give it to the bondholders. The government totally unnecessary to the process.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Thank You Andrew Yang! He implored both Bernie and Biden to get in front of this. Too bad Bernie and Biden demurred. I expect this will morph into $1,000/mo for each American adult resident for the duration of this emergency. This is what Americans need. Forget about the major corporations. They can always print more stock and dilute shares to raise money or have bond holders take out stock holders in bankruptcy. The planes and airports won't cease to exist. So what if the operator goes under?
-
7
-
1
-
1
-
5 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:
I have yet to see a downside to Amy. I recall she had let it slip out he selected her. So I speculate that Warren knows it and she gets to even up that dig where Bernie told her a woman could not win the Presidency.
Amy's only downside is her incrementalist approach in a time of massive rapid transformation. Anything she gets into law will already be too little too late.
-
The two Democrat frontrunners asleep at the switch as Republicans are about to take credit for implementing emergency UBI which their Democrat cohorts had been imploring them to get out in front of. Yang policy. Gabbard bill. There will be Republican co-sponsors and not a peep from Biden and Bernie. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/andrew-yangs-moment-economic-costs-pandemic-mean-time-ubi-now
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:I’ll give you my call.
The virus, the economic crisis and the inability of this President to lead will have very profound political consequences.
My call. The Republicans will have a new candidate (Romney?) after their convention. There will be electoral problems, either during the primaries, the general election or both.
-
1
-
2
-
2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
Thanks for that. I remember watching this after 9/11. I'm generally against bailouts. Let the weak die off and strong pick up the pieces. In this case, those left standing may not have enough capital. I'm struggling with my non-interventionist principles and the airlines being a pretty vital industry. More than that, the overhead involved is so high. From the US domestic view, we have Southwest, Fedex and UPS that are really solid. Other than those three, the rest can't last long. Obviously, Southwest can't take over the entire US passenger industry. So do we prop up these clowns like United, Delta and American who've already screwed the pooch? I don't like it. I also know I don't have all the answers.
Buffet will buy at least one of the airlines.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
4 minutes ago, chrisandsu said:I really don’t think you guys get how much of a dire situation this is . The stock market is tumbling there is going to be some huge businesses that are going to go down the pan with millions of jobs with it . Along with that will be defaults on pensions . And world debt !! This is going to get very bad as panic and hysteria have kicked in big time .
There is a significant lack of demand for the products and services businesses will produce, given that many millions of Americans will be without financial resources beyond caring for their own family's sustenance and many many without even that. If any sort of "normality" is to be re-established it will have to start with the economic security of the citizenry and let that "trickle up" to businesses and industry. It seems to me there's been a serious misallocation in stimulus measures thusfar.
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, tifino said:
any 'stimulus' should be aimed at going straight to the consumer.
The idea is to give funds out to the end user, for them to then go out and Spend it ( to assist the Economy, through supporting manufacture)
Problem is that most won't Spend, but Hoard it...
- defeating the whole purpose.
Millions and millions of people who live paycheck to paycheck are about to lose their jobs. They are going to spend it all and it won't be enough, but it will help them to survive. I don't need mine, but I'll send it to my kids who will need it. Not sure how anyone's going to be collecting unemployment insurance, what with offices shuttering and even if they were open, massive crowding.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:Why is testing a federal responsibility? Isn't it a state responsibility?
Creating the test and making it available to states is a federal responsibility. Administering of the tests will be carried out by states, counties, municipalities.
-
4
-
Democrats making a huge mistake here. This "Stimulus Bill" is rife with tax credits and other junk that does not help average Americans who are about to be sidelined from earning a living income. Mitt Romney, who runs to the right of Trump on economic issues, get's it, so why don't these Democrat frontrunners who are about to be made irrelevant get it?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-romney-yang-money/608134/
-
5 hours ago, Why Me said:
I don't disagree. The Trump Admin botched their response. And putting the bootlicking God-nut Pence in charge doesn't inspire confidence. And even earlier slashing funding to agencies like the NSF and NHS, not to mention disbanding the pandemic office, didn't help either.
But the problem is seeing this the Dems think they have the man by the short hairs and can ride the pandemic to the Oval O. This is cynical and objectionable.
Worse the US press has split into two camps, one shrieking apocalypse now and the other feigning a yawn. Who to believe?
You won't know till the numbers are crunched well in the future. One side will have lower numbers of infections and death from infections. The other side will point out that's because they have no idea how many people were infected and subsequently died as a result. When this is all over, deaths exceeding seasonal norms for flu will probably be swept back into the coronavirus count. It's a short term political calculation in lieu of a medical response.
Trump wants to send Americans $1,000 checks to cushion virus economic shock
in World News
Posted
It doesn't include people whose income is unearned income and it does not include those who live in a foreign country who earn their money in the US.