1. #24316
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainEurope View Post
    That's... trickle down. You're describing trickle down economy.
    That's not trickle down. Trickle down is the concept that the absolute wealthiest in the country get tax breaks and benefits and that if they do they will create more business opportunity for everyone else and it will raise all ships. Trickle down would be if the stimulus was designed to relieve all debt from the top 10% and then give them all massive loans (which these kinda do already on the part of the bills we aren't discussing) under the impression that they will keep people staffed and also maybe add jobs. That has already been proven to be a failure as many companies that got PPP loans were also laying people off as soon as they were able to.

    What the person you are replying to is talking about are the lower and middle class getting checks. The lower class is largely going to use this as a means pay off bills they already owe or might owe because they got laid off. It will basically be keeping the light on for them. For the middle class it will likely be giving them an incentive to go out and spend in the economy.... which is almost entirely the opposite theory of what supply side/trickle down economics is.

    It's literally the opposite.

  2. #24317
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    A lot can happen in 2 years and Americans have short memories.
    If you have to revert to "they might forget alot could happen", maybe it's not an idea you should be entertaining. Because a lot could happen. But it also could turn out that two years from now the world is still feeling the impacts of this since it's likely to be the most significant event in this country post 9/11 (honestly it's already bigger). So it's more likely than not going to be particularly relevant since it was the primary issue of a major runoff election that decided the balance of the Senate.

    To go a step further, they got as close to a mandate as possible for this. They are not saving anywhere near a significant amount of money next to the actual balance of the bill by doing this, it's not ensuring any needy people get the money, it's simply weeding out a good chunk of the middle class.

  3. #24318
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,472

    Default

    They are talking about individuals making $50,000 and married couples $100,000 and then phased out, not getting nothing. These are not unemployed people. The unemployed are also getting extra unemployment payments. And there is rent relief too. So yes the people who get this will spend it in the economy where they can. We are saving ours until the pandemic allows us to go out to eat, go to theaters and travel and spend it in those sectors.
    The bill is about dealing with COVID now and helping the economy come back when it is open.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  4. #24319
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    That's not trickle down. Trickle down is the concept that the absolute wealthiest in the country get tax breaks and benefits and that if they do they will create more business opportunity for everyone else and it will raise all ships. Trickle down would be if the stimulus was designed to relieve all debt from the top 10% and then give them all massive loans (which these kinda do already on the part of the bills we aren't discussing) under the impression that they will keep people staffed and also maybe add jobs. That has already been proven to be a failure as many companies that got PPP loans were also laying people off as soon as they were able to.

    What the person you are replying to is talking about are the lower and middle class getting checks. The lower class is largely going to use this as a means pay off bills they already owe or might owe because they got laid off. It will basically be keeping the light on for them. For the middle class it will likely be giving them an incentive to go out and spend in the economy.... which is almost entirely the opposite theory of what supply side/trickle down economics is.

    It's literally the opposite.
    I remember this being called "pump priming" when I learned about it in school.
    Dark does not mean deep.

  5. #24320
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    They are talking about individuals making $50,000 and married couples $100,000 and then phased out, not getting nothing. These are not unemployed people. The unemployed are also getting extra unemployment payments. And there is rent relief too. So yes the people who get this will spend it in the economy where they can. We are saving ours until the pandemic allows us to go out to eat, go to theaters and travel and spend it in those sectors.
    The bill is about dealing with COVID now and helping the economy come back when it is open.
    Again, if people are talking about targeting the relief for spending, this.

    1. Doesn't do anything to make sure people who need it get it. They would regardless.
    2. It doesn't signficantly impact the amount of spend in the bill and there are dramatically more relevant facets you could focus

    The bills is about both stimulating the economy and covid relief, businesses will need people spending in the market for a recovery.

    To go a step further... the Democrats campaigned on $2000 relief. That's what won them GA. When it went to $1400 and there was critcism of that and several people on here went "lol I guess they don't know math because 1400 + 600 = 2000". Well now that's a lie if the people that got $600 end up not getting the $2000 the Democrats campaigned and won on. And it mostly effects the middle class.

    I'm telling you right now as someone with no skin in this cause I am not going to qualify this round regardless, that is going to be a losing issue for Democrats that they will not be able to combat against if Republicans can say Trump was getting the middle class more.

  6. #24321
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    I remember this being called "pump priming" when I learned about it in school.
    It's sort of an indirect 3rd party pump priming

  7. #24322
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Again, if people are talking about targeting the relief for spending, this.

    1. Doesn't do anything to make sure people who need it get it. They would regardless.
    2. It doesn't signficantly impact the amount of spend in the bill and there are dramatically more relevant facets you could focus

    The bills is about both stimulating the economy and covid relief, businesses will need people spending in the market for a recovery.

    To go a step further... the Democrats campaigned on $2000 relief. That's what won them GA. When it went to $1400 and there was critcism of that and several people on here went "lol I guess they don't know math because 1400 + 600 = 2000". Well now that's a lie if the people that got $600 end up not getting the $2000 the Democrats campaigned and won on. And it mostly effects the middle class.

    I'm telling you right now as someone with no skin in this cause I am not going to qualify this round regardless, that is going to be a losing issue for Democrats that they will not be able to combat against if Republicans can say Trump was getting the middle class more.
    The storyline has moved to Biden holding firm at the $1400 while Republicans wanted less. I don't think the "Trump was better" line is a winning one for the GOP in 2022.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  8. #24323
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    The storyline has moved to Biden holding firm at the $1400 while Republicans wanted less. I don't think the "Trump was better" line is a winning one for the GOP in 2022.
    Storylines don't work in politics. What works is what people feel. Do you really want a bunch of people saying "the Republicans gave me $1800 and the Dems gave me less saying I make too much".

  9. #24324
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Storylines don't work in politics. What works is what people feel. Do you really want a bunch of people saying "the Republicans gave me $1800 and the Dems gave me less saying I make too much".
    That is a storyline. We are talking about the same type of thing. I'm saying it's now Democrats held fast while the Republicans didn't want relief passed. But we shall see in 2022. I doubt the $ difference will play a big roll in 2022. I think it will be something we haven't seen yet.

    There are too many unknowables. How will Biden's economy be? Will Trump still hold sway over the GOP? I won't hazard to guess. If this last year has taught us anything, it's that the future is unpredictable.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  10. #24325
    I am invenitable Jack Dracula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Slouching toward Bethlehem
    Posts
    5,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Again, if people are talking about targeting the relief for spending, this.

    1. Doesn't do anything to make sure people who need it get it. They would regardless.
    2. It doesn't signficantly impact the amount of spend in the bill and there are dramatically more relevant facets you could focus

    The bills is about both stimulating the economy and covid relief, businesses will need people spending in the market for a recovery.

    To go a step further... the Democrats campaigned on $2000 relief. That's what won them GA. When it went to $1400 and there was critcism of that and several people on here went "lol I guess they don't know math because 1400 + 600 = 2000". Well now that's a lie if the people that got $600 end up not getting the $2000 the Democrats campaigned and won on. And it mostly effects the middle class.

    I'm telling you right now as someone with no skin in this cause I am not going to qualify this round regardless, that is going to be a losing issue for Democrats that they will not be able to combat against if Republicans can say Trump was getting the middle class more.
    I'd like to see the direct line where Democrats campaigned on people getting $2000.00 in COVID relief and it somehow translated into winning Georgia.

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Storylines don't work in politics. What works is what people feel. Do you really want a bunch of people saying "the Republicans gave me $1800 and the Dems gave me less saying I make too much".
    If anyone is really saying or thinking that they're looking for reasons to complain and it's obvious nothing would satisfy them anyway.
    Last edited by Jack Dracula; 02-07-2021 at 10:09 AM.
    The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    “It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe

  11. #24326
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    I remember this being called "pump priming" when I learned about it in school.
    Just to be clear, it's not really ideal that we have an economic system that relies on frivolous and unnecessary spending to keep everyone employed, but you know this is the economy that we have so if we want to keep it going we need to be doing everything to encourage people to open up their wallets.

  12. #24327
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
    I'd like to see the direct line where Democrats campaigned on people getting $2000.00 in COVID relief and it somehow translated into winning Georgia.



    If anyone is really saying or thinking that they're looking for reasons to complain and it's obvious nothing would satisfy them anyway.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...hecks-n1252805

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbre...h=63f30a7d744d

    https://tjcinstitute.com/research/**...ulus-payments/

    Let's be very clear. The Democrats would not have the Senate if GA's system did not have a runoff. The Democrats lost their races in November. Democrats went all in on the relief checks and data shows that polls shifted in the Democrats favor as that became more and more a part of the discussion, and it was consisently an important issue in polls to them.

    If you want to play coy do your thing.

    When someone makes their whole campaign that they are going to do something and then they don't do it, that's not "looking for reasons to complain". That's very disengenous.

  13. #24328
    Ultimate Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    12,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post

    Wyoming GOP Censures Rep. Liz Cheney Over Impeachment Vote

    The censure document accused Cheney of voting to impeach even though the U.S. House didn’t offer Trump “formal hearing or due process.”
    They still don't get it. The House vote is like a Grand Jury, deciding if there is enough evidence to go to trial. Trump will get his formal hearing and due process when his trial in the Senate starts tomorrow.
    Watching television is not an activity.

  14. #24329
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...hecks-n1252805

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbre...h=63f30a7d744d

    https://tjcinstitute.com/research/**...ulus-payments/

    Let's be very clear. The Democrats would not have the Senate if GA's system did not have a runoff. The Democrats lost their races in November. Democrats went all in on the relief checks and data shows that polls shifted in the Democrats favor as that became more and more a part of the discussion, and it was consisently an important issue in polls to them.

    If you want to play coy do your thing.

    When someone makes their whole campaign that they are going to do something and then they don't do it, that's not "looking for reasons to complain". That's very disengenous.
    Never mind that Pelosi's entire case for sandbagging moving a stimulus package along was that Democrats would get a "Better..." package when they were in the driver's seat.

    Now, you have people talking about who should not be a part of a direct payment in the stimulus package they are behind.

    You've got to be kidding yourself if you think John/Jane Public will see deciding who should not get a check as a better stimulus package when they compare it to what was on the table before the election.

  15. #24330
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    20,624

    Default

    To the surprise of probably no one here...Roger Stone was seen with a couple of Oath Keepers as bodyguards on the morning of January 6th

    Longtime Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone was captured on a video obtained by ABC News flanked by members of the right-wing extremist Oath Keepers the morning of the storming of Capitol that cost five lives.

    In the video, Stone can be seen posing for photos and chats outside the Willard InterContinental hotel blocks from the White House. The men around him are in clothing typical of the Oath Keepers militia, and some wear the group’s insignia. Stone later told ABC the men were protecting him.

    At one point, someone off camera asks Stone: “So, hopefully we have this today, right?” Stone responds: “We shall see.”
    Last edited by Iron Maiden; 02-07-2021 at 12:10 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •