Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

goskins10

By goskins10
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, HOF44 said:

They need to tell the Rep that they are going ahead with reconciliation. If a deal can be struck before that procedure is finished they will move forward without it.  If not it will be passed using it.  But it will not be delayed. 

 

HOF44 hows it going I haven't seen you around in awhile.   

 

If I was Biden I would set a hard deadline.  Basically explain that the numbers are on the Dems side plus the fact that everything in the proposed bill is popular with the people, not to mention the checks were literally part of the campaign promise from not only Biden but the 2 Dems in Georgia who tip the Senate,  so right now it is on the GOP to explain why the amounts should be less and what exactly are they proposing to be in the bill in place of the funds.   The Dems will find out really quick if the GOP as a party are being honest about negotiating a package that works for all Americans or if they are just there for aesthetics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Fergasun said:

 

There are all sorts of pragmatic reasons to provide more targetted payments.  Unfortunately, there is no good political reason to.  You guys all know political thinking is crazy, but here is the case that Biden would be insane to change the income thresholds or go for anything less than $1400 per person.

 


Um. Ok. 
 

but the leading economists disagree with you about the pragmatism of “targeted” payments and they disagree using economic reasons and logic

 

not politics or buying votes. 
 

as someone that loves to be cynical, it’s easy to like your post, but unfortunately theres more to it all. 

11 hours ago, HOF44 said:

They need to tell the Rep that they are going ahead with reconciliation. If a deal can be struck before that procedure is finished they will move forward without it.  If not it will be passed using it.  But it will not be delayed. 

I’m tired of the republicans bullying the political process whether they won the recent elections or not. 
 

time for Dems to show us what they’re made of. Either show us you’re willing to wield power or show us you’re a pathetic excuse of a major political party

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tshile said:


Um. Ok. 
 

but the leading economists disagree with you about the pragmatism of “targeted” payments and they disagree using economic reasons and logic

 

I don't have a strong opinion, but let's not pretend economists agree on the right action:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-27/larry-summers-trump-pelosi-2-000-stimulus-checks-are-a-mistake

 

"As my recent paper with Jason Furman argues, I am all for a far more expansive approach to fiscal policy. But that does not mean indiscriminate support for universal giveaways at a time when household income losses are being fully replaced and checking account balances (at least as of October) were above pre-Covid levels."

 

And it isn't like he's the only one.  I saw that from this blog:

 

https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/

Should the stimulus checks be raised from $600 to $2000?

 

Larry Summers makes a good case that, on this issue, Mitch McConnell is right, and Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are wrong.

 

Though one of the problems with "targeted" payments is how to target them.  It turns out unemployment isn't actually a good measure of if you need the money.  A lot of lower level service workers are working, but less and making less (i.e. tips are down).

 

So if you want to argue for target, you need a good way to target.

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/2000-covid-stimulus-checks-congress-larry-summers.html

 

But, pretty much no matter what you do if it doesn't work somebody is going to be able to come back in 5 years and tell you that they knew it wouldn't work.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't have a strong opinion, but let's not pretend economists agree on the right action:

 

Ok but we kinda agree trickle down and doing nothing arent good options. 
 

there’s so much ppp money just sitting still. 
 

you can argue over what to do and point out that sure down the road someone will be able to claim they were right one way or the other, but the idea that there’s no consensus on some general things (amongst objective people at least) is quite silly. 
 

in the scope of what republicans want to do and what democrats what to do, it’s not even debatable about where each side sits re: stuff proven to work vs stuff proven not to work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, tshile said:

Ok but we kinda agree trickle down and doing nothing arent good options. 
 

there’s so much ppp money just sitting still. 
 

you can argue over what to do and point out that sure down the road someone will be able to claim they were right one way or the other, but the idea that there’s no consensus on some general things (amongst objective people at least) is quite silly. 
 

in the scope of what republicans want to do and what democrats what to do, it’s not even debatable about where each side sits re: stuff proven to work vs stuff proven not to work. 

 

Just want to point out that Summers is generally considered a Democrat- working for both the Obama and Clinton administration.

 

Summer isn't arguing for trickle down, but for things like more aid to state and local governments.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Just want to point out that Summers is generally considered a Democrat- working for both the Obama and Clinton administration.

 

Summer isn't arguing for trickle down, but for things like more aid to state and local governments.

Yeah I wasn’t saying he’s a Republican doing nothing. I was speaking to the general topic. Yea. Reasonable people have different ideas. 
 

and yeah I guess in the very specific scope of targets vs sweeping relief that’s fine. 
 

I was more approaching it from the context of what republicans argue for. Trickle down and austerity and notions of who deserves what. And none of that is helpful. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tshile said:

Also @PeterMPthe post I was originally responding to basically wrote the opinions off as buying votes. So that was part of the context with which I was responding. 

 

I agree with much of what your saying.  Didn't mean my post to be taken as a complete correction or commentary on your post.  There are certainly a large number of economists that argue we need a large direct payment for economic and not political reasons (e.g. it is the fastest way to get money to people that need it, and yes, it gives money to people that don't need it, but getting money quickly to people that need it is more important).

 

Just wanted to point out that within the field of economists, there is nuance and some don't support the broader Democratic idea (without going to to Republican/austerity/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
techboy

techboy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't have a strong opinion, but let's not pretend economists agree on the right action:

 

"If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions."— Winston Churchill

 

 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fresh8686

Fresh8686

Posted
Posted

Reconciliation takes much longer than a week. There are multiple steps that include space for amendments and opportunity/risk for some small token bipartisanship that hopefully doesn’t dilute the core bill. 
 

It’s a good start, but we’ll see what happens. Biden seems to have hard lines he won’t budge from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

@tshile

I enjoy the characterization of "vote buying".  One man's "not pissing off voters" is another man's "vote buying".   I think we both agree on widespread aid, and my point was that it would be the dumbest thing ever to change income thresholds that Trump and the GOP established.  Phase them out differently if you want to provide less dollars in direct payments. 

 

Timeline for all this is first week in March.  There are already Dem Senators talking about changing income thresholds (dumbest thing ever).  Manchin already said he wants bipartisanship... I know he was lobbying for more state aid.  

 

A compromise that would make sense would be to provide the additional $1400 against the 2020 income thresholds.  But again, most voters will just compare who was most generous with the checks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simmsy

Simmsy

Posted
Posted

Biden is saying March 14th for covid relief, I can already tell that is going to be too little too late. People needed this money months ago, now they have to wait another month and half for $1400? If you were to give that amount to people now, it wouldn't last until March 14th (if they even get this done by March 14th). Add in the fact that I think impeachment will be a failure...I think the Dems are going to miss the dunk on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...