THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY

**bsbll4** · 01.22.21, 10:50 AM

EDIT: Delete.

I think I misinterpreted a comment and wrote a whole thing and then realized I just read it wrong. Lol.

**CaboChris** · 01.22.21, 10:51 AM

And handouts from the federal government is wrong? Oh that's right. Only to people who pay the bills it's wrong.

When Republicans stop handing out welfare to corporations (yes both do but Republicans are worse at it) then I'll say handouts are wrong.

Could not give the people a measly $2000.

**CaboChris** · 01.22.21, 10:53 AM

Republicans will bail out big business in a fucking nanosecond before it will the average Joe.

THAT'S lacking empathy.

**rocknblues81** · 01.22.21, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by CaboChris

Republicans will bail out big business in a fucking nanosecond before it will the average Joe.

The Dems love big business also... It's not that dems hate big business... It's that they just want big business to work for them.

Same goes for the Cops, Military and most anything else.

**bsbll4** · 01.22.21, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by CaboChris

And handouts from the federal government is wrong? Oh that's right. Only to people who pay the bills it's wrong.

When Republicans stop handing out welfare to corporations (yes both do but Republicans are worse at it) then I'll say handouts are wrong.

Could not give the people a measly $2000.

They don't give "handouts" to corporations (unless it's in the form of a no-bid government contract, and that generally only happens in the defense industry). There's a fundamental difference in tax breaks (i.e. you get to keep more of your money than you would have otherwise paid in taxes), and a hand out (getting money that was never yours in the first place).

The $2000 thing I find comical. We're basically throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks. Why $2000? Why not $3000? Why not $10,000? Why are we sending large checks to people that are gainfully employed? Wouldn't it be better to get the money to the people that actually need it? They are handing out money they don't even have.

As for bailing out big businesses, TARP was passed when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

**CaboChris** · 01.22.21, 11:09 AM

Why not $3000? I'm down. I like handouts.

**bsbll4** · 01.22.21, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by CaboChris

Why not $3000? I'm down. I like handouts.

Exactly. So you should blame the heartless Democrats for not proposing it (sarcasm, obviously). They're just picking random round numbers out of their asses. If we're going to have crushing debt, fuck it, let's just give everyone $50,000 checks and have a giant ass party.

**CaboChris** · 01.22.21, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by bsbll4

Why are we sending large checks to people that are gainfully employed? Wouldn't it be better to get the money to the people that actually need it? They are handing out money they don't even have.

Is that you McConnell?

Why not. Working people deserve stimulus too.

**CaboChris** · 01.22.21, 11:13 AM

I'm working and I need it.

**fudd** · 01.22.21, 11:13 AM

I love tomato soup made with milk. A sleeve of ritz crackers. Mmmmmmm.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**fudd** · 01.22.21, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by CaboChris

I'm working and I need it.

Then work harder. This constant need to get shit free is what’s gonna ruin our country.

Entitlement=laziness.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**CaboChris** · 01.22.21, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by fudd

Then work harder. This constant need to get shit free is what’s gonna ruin our country.

Entitlement=laziness.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Free shit? The taxes that rape my paycheck is anything but free but don't give me that work harder bullshit Fudd..

**CaboChris** · 01.22.21, 11:20 AM

Fuck outta here with that Republican line.

**lovemachine97(Version 2)** · 01.22.21, 11:30 AM

This is where competitive ideas can sprout innovation. I remember when Obama and Paul Ryan presented competitive budgets and despite tax receipts averaging 19% of GDP since WWII, Obama's budget was, like, 25% of GDP and Ryan's was 23%. And the criticism of Ryan's was how draconian and mean it was in its cuts. Which, btw, weren't actually cuts but smaller increases. But the left deftly calls decreases to expected increases (that don't yet exist) "cuts," and the Republicans don't defend that charge very well.

And that's important with things like Social Security and Medicare headed towards insolvency in the 2030s.

But they're talking about the same damn programs and different funding levels. They aren't talking about anything new. It's kind of like arguing over whether the top tax rate should be 36% or 40% when there are other possible policies that aren't income tax.

There are other ways to help people that would cut out fraud and encourage jobs and getting raises or a better job, as opposed to people who ask for fewer hours because then it ends their assistance.

Things like the negative income tax, a form of a UBI, could be offered as a potential replacement for our assistance programs, and the Republicans could sell it as choice. They say they are the party of choice. WE want you to be able to choose where you send your kid to school. Want to send them to a better school? We will let you do it. WE want you to be able to choose what you do with your assistance. We're going to give you cash.

But no, it's whether or not the same old system that gets defrauded will get X amount of money or Y amount of money and X is virtuous and Y is the devil. It gets old.

**lovemachine97(Version 2)** · 01.22.21, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by bsbll4

They don't give "handouts" to corporations (unless it's in the form of a no-bid government contract, and that generally only happens in the defense industry). There's a fundamental difference in tax breaks (i.e. you get to keep more of your money than you would have otherwise paid in taxes), and a hand out (getting money that was never yours in the first place).

The $2000 thing I find comical. We're basically throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks. Why $2000? Why not $3000? Why not $10,000? Why are we sending large checks to people that are gainfully employed? Wouldn't it be better to get the money to the people that actually need it? They are handing out money they don't even have.

As for bailing out big businesses, TARP was passed when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

As far as the number goes, I don't know where it comes from (kind of like $15/hr), but if there is one situation where I am not going to rabidly oppose the government giving out money it's when government tells you to stay home and you can't earn a living, like in a pandemic.

(Which is, of course, why you shouldn't go $25 trillion in debt. You have a balanced budget with a surplus and then go into debt if necessary in emergencies like this)

So IF we are going to do it, what is the best way? Well, I think the worst way is to carve out a bunch of money for special interests where airlines get it and then lay people off anyway, or the Lakers get their hands on money, etc., etc.

The best, most efficient way, would be to take the money and split it evenly and then encourage people who don't need it to give it to people or charities who will make sure it gets to people who need it. The debate on who should get it and who shouldn't inevitably leaves the floor open to get more towards a bill that looks like what we got as opposed to a clean bill that hand out money.

I wish we could be that targeted, but I just think it would take too long and end up more convoluted. With this, Republicans (and libertarians) can practice what they preach, private action. If you don't need it, get it to someone who does.