ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th July 2020, 10:47 AM   #1
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 295
Stimulus Package

What does everyone think of the stimulus package being discussed? Should we do away with the $600 federal unemployment boost? Another round of $1200 direct payments? Should there be protection from malpractice suits?

I can't see the Democrats caving to a reduction in the unemployment boost. And with the election right around the corner I think it would be stupid for Republicans to insist on it, which means they probably will lol.

While usually I support lower spending and fiscal policy, this is the first time I can remember that the gov't has actually shut down sections of the economy. No one is getting rich with these payments, they are spending it, which stimulates the parts of the economy which are still functioning. While not a "job" the effect is certainly "shovel ready."
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 11:33 AM   #2
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: It was Lothian's idea
Posts: 11,261
You and my wife have very different concepts of the Stimulous Package
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:00 PM   #3
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,608
I think it's not a bad idea, but the math needs refining. People like me who are still working their full-time jobs at full pay from home, with no new expenses due to the pandemic, don't need another thousand bucks. And the phasing out of the payment starts at $75K? Surely that's a little high. To someone making that much a financial crisis is going to be much more severe than $1200 could fix anyway, so it's either unnecessary or insufficient. The payouts should be limited to those who are actually in need of it, and should be phased out much lower than $75K in income.

The unemployment boost should definitely stay. By definition it's going to those without jobs, so it's already means-tested. The patronizing "concern" that people will choose not to work if they're making so much money from unemployment is ridiculous to cater to while we're still in the midst of the crisis we're doing it for! Yes, it would be socially irresponsible to pay people not to work in normal situation. This isn't normal yet, and wishing it were won't make it so. Nobody should have to choose between feeding their family or killing them from a disease for the sake of a small amount of money. Especially when money is also being thrown to those who definitely don't need it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:02 PM   #4
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,978
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
What does everyone think of the stimulus package being discussed? Should we do away with the $600 federal unemployment boost? Another round of $1200 direct payments? Should there be protection from malpractice suits?

I can't see the Democrats caving to a reduction in the unemployment boost. And with the election right around the corner I think it would be stupid for Republicans to insist on it, which means they probably will lol.

While usually I support lower spending and fiscal policy, this is the first time I can remember that the gov't has actually shut down sections of the economy. No one is getting rich with these payments, they are spending it, which stimulates the parts of the economy which are still functioning. While not a "job" the effect is certainly "shovel ready."
The biggest flaw in the anti-unemployment boost is that people who are unemployed, right now, aren't doing so out of their own choice, on the whole. It's not that they won't go back to work, but they can't because the government has shut down or restricted that industry.

While I'm not overall happy with the debt this will create, since the government caused it, they can damn well foot the bill.

I'd be OK with a limited liability protection for various actors. If they were following the guidance and mandates then sure. But if they were in open defiance, then they should be held accountable.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:05 PM   #5
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,413
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think it's not a bad idea, but the math needs refining. People like me who are still working their full-time jobs at full pay from home, with no new expenses due to the pandemic, don't need another thousand bucks. And the phasing out of the payment starts at $75K? Surely that's a little high. To someone making that much a financial crisis is going to be much more severe than $1200 could fix anyway, so it's either unnecessary or insufficient. The payouts should be limited to those who are actually in need of it, and should be phased out much lower than $75K in income.

The unemployment boost should definitely stay. By definition it's going to those without jobs, so it's already means-tested. The patronizing "concern" that people will choose not to work if they're making so much money from unemployment is ridiculous to cater to while we're still in the midst of the crisis we're doing it for! Yes, it would be socially irresponsible to pay people not to work in normal situation. This isn't normal yet, and wishing it were won't make it so. Nobody should have to choose between feeding their family or killing them from a disease for the sake of a small amount of money. Especially when money is also being thrown to those who definitely don't need it.
I never had any loss of working hours, and my wife's drop to part-time was covered entirely by the expanded unemployment protections, and I agree with you in principle. I've had 0 loss of income during the pandemic and people like me don't really need a stimulus check.

However, it's important that these payments are timely. Means testing inherently brings delays. Trying to figure out who doesn't need the payment could mean those in desperate need don't get the aid when they need it.

Much better to just cut the checks and do the means testing later. There's nothing preventing congress from passing a law that results in taxing back the money at a later date for those that weren't in need, and a little extra consumer spending now is probably good for the economy which is very shaky.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:05 PM   #6
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,978
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think it's not a bad idea, but the math needs refining. People like me who are still working their full-time jobs at full pay from home, with no new expenses due to the pandemic, don't need another thousand bucks.
Hey, the RTX 3000 series cards come out in September? Free money will go a long way into my rig upgrade.


The GOP originally had it blocked at 40K a year, but that seems to have died.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:09 PM   #7
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,805
Some support for the unemployed and for small business is in order but this isn’t the time for stimulus. The goal of stimulus is get the economy moving but that can’t happen until the pandemic is under control. Any stimulus applied to the US economy is wasted resources IMO.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:11 PM   #8
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,413
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Some support for the unemployed and for small business is in order but this isn’t the time for stimulus. The goal of stimulus is get the economy moving but that can’t happen until the pandemic is under control. Any stimulus applied to the US economy is wasted resources IMO.
Sure, but direct payments is probably one of the most important anti-pandemic measures we have. Direct payments keep people in their homes and out of the workplaces and streets, a necessary component of social distancing. Forcing people to either return to unsafe workplaces or face eviction would be a disaster in the effort to control the spread of disease.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 30th July 2020 at 12:17 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:16 PM   #9
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,981
It's maintenance pure and simple, for quality of life. Giving people money now will head off the tidal wave of evictions that's starting to wash ashore next month.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:23 PM   #10
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,423
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Sure, but direct payments is probably one of the most important anti-pandemic measures we have. Direct payments keep people in their homes and out of the workplaces, a necessary component of social distancing. Forcing people to either return to unsafe workplaces or face eviction would be a disaster in the effort to control the spread of disease.
I just don't see it. The only way you can do that is if the direct payments are enough to live on, and how do you provide people enough to live on if no one is working?

Forget dollars for a moment. If everyone stays home, there's no stuff.

We saw that a little bit during May or thereabouts, when food factories were shutting down and supplies were short at grocery stores. That's what keeping people at home looks like.

I am against borrowing money for "stimulus". It's just vote buying with newly printed money. Inflation here we come.


ETA: I am not against giving money to people who have been thrown out of work by the pandemic. How much money ought to be given is something that the policy makers can argue about. I don't mind being more generous than usual. Even then, we ought to be paying for it as much as we can. Of course what people want is lots of spending and low taxes. At least, they think that's what they want. It turns out that doesn't work. If you give stuff to people who aren't working, it means there is less stuff being produced, and it's being spread among more people. Do whatever you want to balance the books, in the end it means people have less stuff. Trying to pretend that money = stuff, while producing less stuff, means that the money becomes less valuable.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 30th July 2020 at 12:27 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:28 PM   #11
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,413
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I just don't see it. The only way you can do that is if the direct payments are enough to live on, and how do you provide people enough to live on if no one is working?

Forget dollars for a moment. If everyone stays home, there's no stuff.

We saw that a little bit during May or thereabouts, when food factories were shutting down and supplies were short at grocery stores. That's what keeping people at home looks like.

I am against borrowing money for "stimulus". It's just vote buying with newly printed money. Inflation here we come.
Ideally such a shutdown would be brief, but given the total failure of commitment and good governance here in the US, the pandemic drags on and on.

Some industries are too essential to shut down and shouldn't. The way I see it, people who work in jobs so essential that it's worth staying open to risk their lives deserve the stimulus bonus on top of their ordinary wages. Unfortunately for our country, many areas were absurdly broad with what should be considered "essential" resulting in far too many people not social distancing, another of the many failures that has lead to the endless pandemic here.

I see no reason why there's a rush to open nonessential retail, restaurants, and other service sector economy jobs other than the government isn't willing to spend the money necessary to keep the citizens safe.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 30th July 2020 at 12:30 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:37 PM   #12
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,423
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Ideally such a shutdown would be brief, but given the total failure of commitment and good governance here in the US, the pandemic drags on and on.

Some industries are too essential to shut down and shouldn't. The way I see it, people who work in jobs so essential that it's worth staying open to risk their lives deserve the stimulus bonus on top of their ordinary wages. Unfortunately for our country, many areas were absurdly broad with what should be considered "essential" resulting in far too many people not social distancing, another of the many failures that has lead to the endless pandemic here.

I see no reason why there's a rush to open nonessential retail, restaurants, and other service sector economy jobs other than the government isn't willing to spend the money necessary to keep the citizens safe.
Aye, there's the rub.

However, I disagree with your last statement. It's not that the government is unwilling to spend the money. It's that they are unwilling to collect the money.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:46 PM   #13
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,250
I see that neither side is saying who will pay for this stimulus bill.
I
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 12:54 PM   #14
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,608
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I see that neither side is saying who will pay for this stimulus bill.
I wonder if anybody in charge has considered reviving the old notion of war bonds? That would be one way to raise some money to pay for this stuff, and would have the added advantage of giving nervous investors something safe to invest in rather than risking the current market.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:01 PM   #15
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,413
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I see that neither side is saying who will pay for this stimulus bill.
I
What's the cost of not doing it? What's the cost of mass evictions, a massive boom in covid cases and deaths, and a free-falling economy.

Spending this money may be the cheapest option available.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:12 PM   #16
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post

I am against borrowing money for "stimulus".
Deficit spending is where the stimulus effect comes from. If you donít borrow money itís not stimulus.
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It's just vote buying with newly printed money. Inflation here we come.
Itís not ďprinting moneyĒ and even when you do print money (which the Fed is doing regardless of government spending) it does not mean the M2 money supply will increase. In fact with the downturn and resulting slowdown in the velocity of money the Fed has itís hands full just to keep M2 from shrinking. M2 is the measure of money most closely related to inflation so the immediate danger isnít inflation itís deflation.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:21 PM   #17
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,978
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I see that neither side is saying who will pay for this stimulus bill.
Millennials and those that follow. Same as every other dollar spent.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:28 PM   #18
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You and my wife have very different concepts of the Stimulous Package
How so?
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:29 PM   #19
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think it's not a bad idea, but the math needs refining. People like me who are still working their full-time jobs at full pay from home, with no new expenses due to the pandemic, don't need another thousand bucks. And the phasing out of the payment starts at $75K? Surely that's a little high. To someone making that much a financial crisis is going to be much more severe than $1200 could fix anyway, so it's either unnecessary or insufficient. The payouts should be limited to those who are actually in need of it, and should be phased out much lower than $75K in income.

The unemployment boost should definitely stay. By definition it's going to those without jobs, so it's already means-tested. The patronizing "concern" that people will choose not to work if they're making so much money from unemployment is ridiculous to cater to while we're still in the midst of the crisis we're doing it for! Yes, it would be socially irresponsible to pay people not to work in normal situation. This isn't normal yet, and wishing it were won't make it so. Nobody should have to choose between feeding their family or killing them from a disease for the sake of a small amount of money. Especially when money is also being thrown to those who definitely don't need it.

Agreed.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:32 PM   #20
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 295
[quote=Leftus;13174154]The biggest flaw in the anti-unemployment boost is that people who are unemployed, right now, aren't doing so out of their own choice, on the whole. It's not that they won't go back to work, but they can't because the government has shut down or restricted that industry.

While I'm not overall happy with the debt this will create, since the government caused it, they can damn well foot the bill.

I'd be OK with a limited liability protection for various actors. If they were following the guidance and mandates then sure. But if they were in open defiance, then they should be held accountable.[/QUOT

Same here on the debt. If you are going to have the ability to overspend in times of crisis, this is one of those times.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:32 PM   #21
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,423
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Deficit spending is where the stimulus effect comes from. If you donít borrow money itís not stimulus.


Itís not ďprinting moneyĒ .
Unless the Fed is buying the debt.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:33 PM   #22
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
What's the cost of not doing it? What's the cost of mass evictions, a massive boom in covid cases and deaths, and a free-falling economy.

Spending this money may be the cheapest option available.

Exactly, the reality of not doing it is far worse.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:33 PM   #23
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: It was Lothian's idea
Posts: 11,261
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
How so?
She only discusses hers on Penthouse Forum
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:44 PM   #24
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,978
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I wonder if anybody in charge has considered reviving the old notion of war bonds? That would be one way to raise some money to pay for this stuff, and would have the added advantage of giving nervous investors something safe to invest in rather than risking the current market.
They still exist. The WW2 bonds were Series E savings bond. You now have a choice between Series EE, Series I bonds and Series HH bonds.

https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/ans...gsbondhtm.html
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:50 PM   #25
surrogate
Critical Thinker
 
surrogate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere within the Orion Arm (aka NJ, USA)
Posts: 394
I'm all for continuing the extra $600, as I've gone from ~35 hours a week to ~10 after being furloughed for 2.5 months.
surrogate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 02:06 PM   #26
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,818
One of the problems with the stimulus proposals is that the Republican plan includes military spending unrelated to Covid-19.

From: Business Insider
The Senate Republicans' version of a $1 trillion stimulus bill released on Monday includes billions of dollars for defense spending — including funds that were previously allocated to military projects but later redirected to President Donald Trump's controversial barrier along the US-Mexico border.

A rather disgusting move by Moscow Mitch and the rest of the Trump boot-licker brigade in congress.

The republican party could have acted to try to block Trump's "state of emergency/border wall" declaration, but failed to do so, and as a result they saw military spending diverted to the Trump wall. Now they should be willing to own it.... Not one more extra cent for military spending until the state of emergency is over. If the republican party thinks the military can get along without the money diverted to building Trump's wall, they should put up with the spending the way it is.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 02:20 PM   #27
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,608
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
They still exist. The WW2 bonds were Series E savings bond. You now have a choice between Series EE, Series I bonds and Series HH bonds.

https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/ans...gsbondhtm.html
Meh. Those aren't sexy. They need to market something as VIRUS BONDS! War bonds were sold by emotional appeal, not by boring people.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 02:23 PM   #28
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,423
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Millennials and those that follow. Same as every other dollar spent.
Anecdote time: (I've told this before, so apologies to those for whom this is a repeat.) Back when George W. Bush was "stimulating the economy" by mailing checks to people, my son was about four years old. He was just getting this concept that there was stuff called money, and it mattered. We had played some games where play money was exchanged, so he had the concepts down.

So one night, the following dialog occurred as a I came home from work and set to picking up the daily mail.

Wife: Anything interesting in the mail?
Me: Looks like George Bush sent us some money.
Son: Who's George Bush?
Me: He's the President.
Son: Why did he send you money.
Me: Because he wants us to vote for him to get re-elected. The problem is that you have to pay it back.
Son: (starts crying) Why do I have to pay it back??!!
Me: Oh, I'm sorry. I was making a joke. You don't really have to pay it back.

And of course, I was lying. He really does have to pay it back.


I have no problem with enhanced unemployment coverage during these times, and I know that some deficit spending is necessary. I just hate these "Send money to everyone" programs. I don't need the money. I'm working. There's a certain point where it does no good to pretend that the supply of borrowable money is limitless.

If you want to stimulate the economy, how about hiring people to do contact tracing and to build N95 masks. I would much rather see that than throwing money about randomly.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 30th July 2020 at 02:25 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2020, 06:52 AM   #29
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Unless the Fed is buying the debt.
Since the fed doesnít buy debt directly from the treasury, this isnít an issue. Even if accurate it would still have be a red herring. Government spending has no barring on how much money the Fed prints, and in spite of the money the Fed is printing M2 money is likely to go down not up, which would result in lower inflation not higher inflation.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2020, 07:07 AM   #30
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,978
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Meh. Those aren't sexy. They need to market something as VIRUS BONDS! War bonds were sold by emotional appeal, not by boring people.
I agree that the marketing of those products is terrible. The thing of it is, the fed was selling war bonds to generate cash. Cash they did not have. That is not the case anymore. The instruments for generating the ledger entries have changed.

Also, the people have changed. Holding out 20 to 30 years for a mild gain is not the world we live in anymore.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2020, 07:26 AM   #31
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,978
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
One of the problems with the stimulus proposals is that the Republican plan includes military spending unrelated to Covid-19.

So does the Heros act. Including such covid 19 related student loan forgiveness and shoring up the Post office (which was in trouble before Covid).

Let's not forget the bonus money, beyond the 1200, to essential workers. Hell, it would grant me 13 bucks more an hour. Despite not actually being essential nor adding any risk. But for the act of not coming into the office 1 day a week. I'm so brave. Sadly, only backdated from passage and not from day 1 of the evacuation order.

Never waste a crisis, the saying goes, there is plenty of pork in the Heros act too.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.