Jump to content

lannarebirth

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    18,698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lannarebirth

  1. 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.

    • Like 1
  2. 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.  

     

    Quote

    Bernie Sanders calls for emergency $2,000 cash payments to every household in America every month for the duration of the crisis.

     

    • Like 2
  3. 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.

     

     

     

  4. 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.

    • Confused 1
  5. 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?

    • Like 2
  6. 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.

  7. 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

    • Like 1
  8. 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.

     

  9. 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.

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  10. 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/

     

     

     

  11. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...