Update - 3/11/21 - America Rescue Plan Bill is signed!

[tshile]

Also I’m sick of Republicans/conservatives falling in the moral hazard crutch

 

a) you can never actually back it up

b) the policies you use it to pitch are demonstrably bad in a crisis (and normal policy doesn’t seem to do much better)

c) you don’t practice that in anything else you do

 

[goskins10]

3 hours ago, redskinss said:

cant say as I have any real data, but I know several people who are currently exercising that option. 

I covered the second part of your reply in my post, i said that as long as that applies then it won't be a problem. 

i was on unemployment for a few weeks at the beginning of this crisis and i benefited from the extra money, I'm not saying I didn't like it or that its being abused by everyone but I guarantee many are.

 

there are a lot of people who were making minimum wage and working part time who were probably making 2 to 300 dollars a week, now they're making regular unemployment plus 600 a week, why on earth would they put themselves in danger and go back to work while also taking a pay cut?

most wouldn't, it just doesn't make sense, and again if they are cut off unemployment then, the problem is solved but there's still a ton of confusion going on with unemployment and who's eligible and I'd bet my left arm there's rampant abuse.

 

This demonstrates that we have a living wage problem not a Covid 19 stimulus problem.

 

There is also a numbers problem. Not all states have the same maximum for unemployment. Assuming no limit, anyone making $50,000 or under could potentially make more with unemployment. But it's not all $600.00 more. It's on a scale. If you make say $40,000/yr, you would get roughly $150.00wk more depending on the state. The less you make the more over you could make - again only if you do not limit the amount that can be made in unemployment. For states like FL where the max benefit is $275.00, then $40,000 becomes the breakeven point, not where people start making money. So again, for me I see a living wage problem not a stimulus problem. People should be able to eat and have a place to live. 

 

More importantly to me, I don't care if people are taking advantage. You said "10s of 1000s". So that's multiple 100,000s. So let's just give you 10% of those collecting unemployment - currently estimated at about 17M. Let's say you are right and it's more than a few 1000. Let's say 10% (1.7M) - that means 1 in 10 Americans applying for unemployment benefits are lying thieves - yes that's what you are accusing them of. I do not think so but just for this exercise - let's say it's true.

 

You want to cancel support for >15M people who need it and are being 100% honest because maybe 1.7M people might be getting paid more to be unemployed and lying to stay home? That's the way it reads. Is that really what you want? 

 

For me, let the 1.7M get over for a while. We can deal with them once this thing is more under control. But right now I am more worrying about the people that need the help, not the ones who may be cheating the system - of which we are not sure what those numbers even are but it cannot be too high simply based on max benefits in many states. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by goskins10

[redskinss]

I get what everyone is saying a lot of very valid points, and I agree that wages are too low in this country.

I'm a strong union supporter and a strong supporter of the working class, I've always championed raising the minimum wage and lifting people out of poverty. 

the tens of thousands thing was just exaggeration, I have no idea how many people are abusing it and maybe it doesn't matter, that the pros of having that money flowing into the economy outweigh the cons.

 

multiple government stimulus packages don't seem to me like the proper way to increase living wages.

 

all I meant to suggest is that unemployment should have been increased to one hundred percent of wages that would have prevented most people from having a financial disincentive to returning to work.

[EmirOfShmo]

58 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I get what everyone is saying a lot of very valid points, and I agree that wages are too low in this country.

I'm a strong union supporter and a strong supporter of the working class, I've always championed raising the minimum wage and lifting people out of poverty. 

the tens of thousands thing was just exaggeration, I have no idea how many people are abusing it and maybe it doesn't matter, that the pros of having that money flowing into the economy outweigh the cons.

 

multiple government stimulus packages don't seem to me like the proper way to increase living wages.

 

all I meant to suggest is that unemployment should have been increased to one hundred percent of wages that would have prevented most people from having a financial disincentive to returning to work.

 

You're assuming people actually have a job to return to.

 

Take a look at the travel industry - there have been massive layoffs across this industry, from low scale workers all the way to the top earners. Car rental companies in bankruptcy, hotels/motels shuttered or running on thin staffs as nobody is staying in either, airlines with massive layoffs across the board (American Airlines 25k, United Airlines 36k), restaurants that cater to travelers at/near airports or in major tourist areas. And that's only partially considering all of the residual & downstream industries & workers who rely on people traveling to earn a living. Have we forgotten about the farmers that destroyed their crops earlier this year because they had nobody to sell to (hotels, airlines, cruise ships, etc.)?  I doubt airline pilots are refusing to go back to work so they can collect their $600/wk + State unemployment. There's no job for them to go back to! Same for the people who clean the planes between takeoff. 

 

This isn't about low wages or trying to increase living wages. It's about trying to get us through this pandemic. Yeah, let's not be short-sighted about it. But let's not cut off our nose to spite our face (as someone above has already stated) and not pay people who are unemployed. Some of the things done in the EU could have or should have been done here (suspending mortgage/rent/utility payments, etc.). But the fear of impacting the stock market got in the way of a solution that was both in the best interest of the individual and in the best interest in slowing the virus spread (pay people enough to keep them home if they are unemployed). Would that be 'fair' to those still working? No, but this isn't about being 'fair'. It's about doing what's right & trying to end the spread of this virus. 

 

The travel industry isn't returning if it's decided not to pay unemployed people $XXX extra per week. And it's not returning if we do pay them. Per usual, this is all about the political fallout of a decision which may or may not (probably not) be in the best interest of we, the people. 

 

[redskinss]

9 minutes ago, EmirOfShmo said:

You're assuming people actually have a job to return to.

I suggested that unemployment should be full wages.

wouldn't that make the people who don't have a job to go back to whole?

 

we can argue that wages should increase in this country all day, and I'll agree all day long, I'm just not entirely sure it should be done in the form of multiple (debt exploding) relief packages, but my opinion is definitely swaying based on some good points I've read.

 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, EmirOfShmo said:

 

You're assuming people actually have a job to return to.

 

Take a look at the travel industry - there have been massive layoffs across this industry, from low scale workers all the way to the top earners. Car rental companies in bankruptcy, hotels/motels shuttered or running on thin staffs as nobody is staying in either, airlines with massive layoffs across the board (American Airlines 25k, United Airlines 36k), restaurants that cater to travelers at/near airports or in major tourist areas. And that's only partially considering all of the residual & downstream industries & workers who rely on people traveling to earn a living. Have we forgotten about the farmers that destroyed their crops earlier this year because they had nobody to sell to (hotels, airlines, cruise ships, etc.)?  I doubt airline pilots are refusing to go back to work so they can collect their $600/wk + State unemployment. There's no job for them to go back to! Same for the people who clean the planes between takeoff. 

 

This isn't about low wages or trying to increase living wages. It's about trying to get us through this pandemic. Yeah, let's not be short-sighted about it. But let's not cut off our nose to spite our face (as someone above has already stated) and not pay people who are unemployed. Some of the things done in the EU could have or should have been done here (suspending mortgage/rent/utility payments, etc.). But the fear of impacting the stock market got in the way of a solution that was both in the best interest of the individual and in the best interest in slowing the virus spread (pay people enough to keep them home if they are unemployed). Would that be 'fair' to those still working? No, but this isn't about being 'fair'. It's about doing what's right & trying to end the spread of this virus. 

 

The travel industry isn't returning if it's decided not to pay unemployed people $XXX extra per week. And it's not returning if we do pay them. Per usual, this is all about the political fallout of a decision which may or may not (probably not) be in the best interest of we, the people. 

 

 

 

I agree with much of what you are saying but it's two different parts of the conversation. We were discussing very specifically the impact of the increased unemployment, not the stimulus checks. The fact that $600.00 a week more on top of unemployment can put some people making more money than if they went to work shows a living wage issue. It's doesn't solve the economic issues caused by the pandemic, but it was not caused by the pandemic either and that was the point. 

 

To your discussion on stimulus payments - I believed before and now they should have given a true UBI with no means testing. Start with $2000.00/month through December and then re-evaluate. If the Republicans had been smart they would have done this as it would have greatly curtailed the economic impact of the pandemic - and kept bunker boy in office and them in  power. There is a whole discussion to be had about why but I will keep it to the stimulus. There would still be an impact but not as drastic. And there would not be a need to rush states to reopen causes the resent significant increases in cases. Their approach has been let's just act like there really is no pandemic and it will go away on it's own - not completely but you get my point. Typical macho arrogance. 

 

Now we are here. I still think a UBI with no means testing is best. Everyone gets $2000.00 month, period. Make it through March 2021 and then reevaluate. If you are 18 or older and have a SS# you get a check. Yes there will be some extra payments, yes there will be some fraud. But look at the mess they had with the means tested stimulus and the issues at the unemployment offices. Leave unemployment alone. Just give the single monthly checks to all and it makes it a lot less complicated and you reach people who really need it.

 

And before the deficit hawks come out, it's an investment in preserving our economy. When the dust clears from the pandemic we can work our way out of the debt caused. But right now people need to survive. BTW: They were more than OK adding $5.5T to the debt BEFORE the pandemic to give the rich a windfall. Time to figure out how to keep literally millions from being unemployed and homeless.  

[redskinss]

^^^^^^^ this is how I feel as well.

giving the stimulus equally both helps the people who need it and avoids any conflict of interest as far as employment is concerned. 

 

[Simmsy]

I don't understand why people are so worried about the everyman getting ahead for a bit during a pandemic. Why doesn't anyone care about all of the bailouts for companies that don't need help? I'm not usually the kind of person to do a "what about" or say "why do people care about this, they should be caring about that", but this irks me quite a bit. Why is it ok for a company to get over, get paid, fire workers to save a few grand and get a free pass because of the bottom line? Another reason why America cannot be run like a business...

[EmirOfShmo]

14 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

I agree with much of what you are saying but it's two different parts of the conversation. We were discussing very specifically the impact of the increased unemployment, not the stimulus checks. The fact that $600.00 a week more on top of unemployment can put some people making more money than if they went to work shows a living wage issue. It's doesn't solve the economic issues caused by the pandemic, but it was not caused by the pandemic either and that was the point. 

 

To your discussion on stimulus payments - I believed before and now they should have given a true UBI with no means testing. Start with $2000.00/month through December and then re-evaluate. If the Republicans had been smart they would have done this as it would have greatly curtailed the economic impact of the pandemic - and kept bunker boy in office and them in  power. There is a whole discussion to be had about why but I will keep it to the stimulus. There would still be an impact but not as drastic. And there would not be a need to rush states to reopen causes the resent significant increases in cases. Their approach has been let's just act like there really is no pandemic and it will go away on it's own - not completely but you get my point. Typical macho arrogance. 

 

Now we are here. I still think a UBI with no means testing is best. Everyone gets $2000.00 month, period. Make it through March 2021 and then reevaluate. If you are 18 or older and have a SS# you get a check. Yes there will be some extra payments, yes there will be some fraud. But look at the mess they had with the means tested stimulus and the issues at the unemployment offices. Leave unemployment alone. Just give the single monthly checks to all and it makes it a lot less complicated and you reach people who really need it. 

 

And before the deficit hawks come out, it's an investment in preserving our economy. When the dust clears from the pandemic we can work our way out of the debt caused. But right now people need to survive. BTW: They were more than OK adding $5.5T to the debt BEFORE the pandemic to give the rich a windfall. Time to figure out how to keep literally millions from being unemployed and homeless.  

Hmm...okay, but I purposely avoided the 'living wage' discussion because it really doesn't belong in this thread. In addition, there have been discussions (here & in the public, at large) that the extra $600/wk discourages people from returning to work. My point being there aren't jobs for people to return to regardless of their income levels. 

I agree with you on the UBI with no means testing. Would have been the right solution starting in April. Unfortunately, I think that ship has sailed. They - the GOP - is not going to sign off on anything close to this. Last I read they are talking only about an extra $400/MONTH or $100/wk for the unemployed. There has also been discussion about another stimulus check (for all, as before) but the details I've read are fuzzy on details. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by EmirOfShmo

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[goskins10]

54 minutes ago, EmirOfShmo said:

Hmm...okay, but I purposely avoided the 'living wage' discussion because it really doesn't belong in this thread. In addition, there have been discussions (here & in the public, at large) that the extra $600/wk discourages people from returning to work. My point being there aren't jobs for people to return to regardless of their income levels. 

I agree with you on the UBI with no means testing. Would have been the right solution starting in April. Unfortunately, I think that ship has sailed. They - the GOP - is not going to sign off on anything close to this. Last I read they are talking only about an extra $400/MONTH or $100/wk for the unemployed. There has also been discussion about another stimulus check (for all, as before) but the details I've read are fuzzy on details. 

 

I think maybe we are too concerned about a little cross over in threads. This stuff is all interwoven so some cross over is going to happen. Having said that, I was not really trying to have the living wage discussion here. I was making the point that if that many people make more money on unemployment that is is a living wage issue, not something created by the pandemic and the resulting stimulus. 

 

I agree about there not being jobs to go back to. Wasn't arguing against it. In fact I started with I agreed with most of what you said - just the it conflated what I saw as two different issues. Anyway, that's why I brought up the UBI. You solve a lot of issues but doing a non-means based UBI - something else I see we agree on. You can't go back to April for UBI (not sure I even suggested that) but you could do it right now and they should. I agree the GOP will not sign off on it. They are too narrow minded to see it could actually help them in Nov  - which is usually where their loyalties lie. It also will happen to help many others. Instead they want to make sure not a single poor person gets any real help. They all need to 'just suck it up and work harder!!"  Heaven forbid a stimulus actually provide help to those who really need it. Talk about cut off your nose despite your face. 

 

I heard the $400 (the expected compromise number) and the $100 (rep number although they have been a bit all over the place). I also heard about a payroll tax cut. Trump wants that but almost no Rep want it. I agree with them on that. That could devastate things like SS and Medicare. It will be interesting to see what they all end up with. 

[Mooka]

Im not up on the current stimulus bills but are there still no Federal incentives to work right now? (work, not hire)

 

There's no tax breaks for PPE or incentives to be an essential worker? 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

 

And who is politicizing this? And why is it a package???  The GOP wants to provide cover for businesses who force employees back "or else" and if they get sick on the job, too ****ing bad!! Pelosi needs to stand her ground on this one. She is offering a UI extension by itself which is what it should be since they cannot agree on a bigger deal. GOP trying to screw people over and then blame the Dems!!  Low life scum every one of them. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by goskins10

[NoCalMike]

1) Making policy around the small % of people who abuse or attempt to abuse the system is a bad idea. You end up punishing the masses who legitimately do need the help. 

 

2) If you are making more on unemployment than you were at your actual job then it isn't unemployment that should be targeted as the problem. Furthermore, just another reason that we really need to reject the idea/GOP talking point that the economy was roaring along great prior to Covid. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by NoCalMike

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[China]

Former Scientologists Sound Off on the Church Collecting COVID-19 Relief Money

 

Scientology, the religion that’s got everything from space warlords to brain audits and Tom Cruise, now has your tax money too. According to federal data released earlier this month, the Trump administration awarded the tax-exempt, celebrity megachurch Paycheck Protection Program loans of up to $350,000 for its sites in New York, Florida, and Washington D.C., even though the PPP funds were meant to help small businesses weather the coronavirus pandemic, the Daily Beast Reports.

 

The church reportedly claims that the disaster funds will go toward the support of 137 employees, but critics of Scientology point out that the religion’s various projects are almost entirely carried out by unpaid “volunteers” purely for the love of L. Ron…or something. The loudest voices among these whistleblowers are those of ex-Scientologist Leah Remini and former church spokesman Mike Rinder.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[HoustonSkin]

25 minutes ago, China said:

 

The church reportedly claims that the disaster funds will go toward the support of 137 employees, but critics of Scientology point out that the religion’s various projects are almost entirely carried out by unpaid “volunteers” purely for the love of L. Ron…or something. 

 

This is not how the PPP works. The loan was specifically for paying employee payroll costs and allowed 10% to go towards rent and utilities.  To get the loan you have to show proof of your monthly employee wages, rent and utilities.  Multiply that times 2.5 and that is your loan amount.

 

You then have to submit proof that you paid those expenses in the 8 weeks after getting the loan (now extended to 24 weeks).  If you do, theoretically your loan will be forgiven.  Otherwise, you will have to pay it back with interest.

 

 

[Renegade7]

Elon thinks like an IT person, some of these welfare programs need to run like scripts that kick in automatically versus needing the legislative and executive branch to be on the same page.

 

One idea I've seen floating around is automatically giving SNAP and Medicare to folks on UI, stop having to get in different lines for different programs.

 

I can see the arguement we have the framework cor UBI if we start consolidating our social welfare programs.

[CobraCommander]

8 minutes ago, HoustonSkin said:

 

This is not how the PPP works. The loan was specifically for paying employee payroll costs and allowed 10% to go towards rent and utilities.  To get the loan you have to show proof of your monthly employee wages, rent and utilities.  Multiply that times 2.5 and that is your loan amount.

 

You then have to submit proof that you paid those expenses in the 8 weeks after getting the loan (now extended to 24 weeks).  If you do, theoretically your loan will be forgiven.  Otherwise, you will have to pay it back with interest.

 

 

 

They probably do have people on payroll, they most likely don't do any work and delegate everything to these unpaid volunteers. Basically "Church" admin will pay themselves.

[Springfield]

Nobody sucks the government tit more than Elon Musk. **** that guy.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

Nobody sucks the government tit more than Elon Musk. **** that guy.

 

I'll hear you out if you can explain it.

[TradeTheBeal!]

The economy is gonna crash.

 

 

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'll hear you out if you can explain it.

He built Tesla on government subsidies and wants to complain about the government subsidizing people who are out of work due to the pandemic.