The Republican Utopia

[Scarlet]

So my Trumpster buddy just spun the Cruz fiasco on windmills being subsidized more than natural gas.   I kid you not.  I couldn't even follow the logic but supposedly if secessionist Texas' natural gas industry was subsidized as much as the windmill industry, Ted Cruz could have flown to Mexico and never have been drug on social media.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Archy1221]

22 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

You do understand the pandemic caused many people to lose their jobs and many businesses to close their doors and that is why people need stimulus checks, right? It isnt mental illness or any of the other crap he said. 

Yes and you do understand that $600 will not make a dent into the finances of someone who lost a job in March-Nov or will it change those job circumstances.      
 

Increased unemployment helps, opening the economy helps, a recurring source of income helps.  A one time $600 check will not change someone’s circumstance 

[funhusker]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes and you do understand that $600 will not make a dent into the finances of someone who lost a job in March-Nov or will it change those job circumstances.      
 

Increased unemployment helps, opening the economy helps, a recurring source of income helps.  A one time $600 check will not change someone’s circumstance 

We agree again! 

 

But if they are handing out $600, I have things I'd love to pay off.

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

We agree again! 

 

But if they are handing out $600, I have things I'd love to pay off.

Careful.  Others may deem you an undesirable for finding common ground with the likes of me.  Seriously though glad to find some common issues of agreement. 

[JJ Husker]

29 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

And (apparently?) conveniently forgetting that this is their own tax money being returned to them, not a gift or a handout.

 

18 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes and you do understand that $600 will not make a dent into the finances of someone who lost a job in March-Nov or will it change those job circumstances.      
 

Increased unemployment helps, opening the economy helps, a recurring source of income helps.  A one time $600 check will not change someone’s circumstance 

 

14 minutes ago, funhusker said:

We agree again! 

 

But if they are handing out $600, I have things I'd love to pay off.

This is an easy issue to have conflicting thoughts on.

 

On one hand, I look at it as a waste of taxpayer money. $600 is rather insignificant on an individual basis. It seems to me they could come up with a more targeted and substantial relief effort that would be a more efficient use of the large combined expenditure.

 

But on the other hand, in many cases, it is simply returning our own money to us. And I’m not opposed to gaining from anything our government wants to give back. I certainly pay in enough that I’m not going to feel bad in the least about getting some of it back. And surely $600 means a whole bunch more to people in dire straits than it does to those of us mocking it.

 

The catch 22 is, if they did target the recipients better and make the amount substantial enough to help longer term, I would likely then complain about them redistributing my money to those who haven’t contributed much to the kitty.

 

I view this as kind of the same as writing off student loan debt. I will be pissed if they go for the larger package of writing off $50k +/- of student debt. We just got done paying for my daughters education and previously paid handsome amounts for my son. So where is our education expense relief? Should we get punished for being proactive and responsible by paying those expenses as incurred?  But both our kids still have some (their relatively minuscule portions) student loan balances left so I would like to see Joe’s plan of up to $10k written off. I’m not ashamed to say I’ll take anything that benefits me or mine.  The middle and upper middle have been paying more than their fair share forever. Instead of these half-assed piecemeal efforts, what they need to do is get the top 5% actually paying their fair share. I’ll cite Trump’s lack of paying any meaningful taxes as evidence.

[Ratt Mhule]

43 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes and you do understand that $600 will not make a dent into the finances of someone who lost a job in March-Nov or will it change those job circumstances.      
 

Increased unemployment helps, opening the economy helps, a recurring source of income helps.  A one time $600 check will not change someone’s circumstance 

Nobody is saying it will, but it could help til they get back on their feet.  And its def not because of mental illness or having relationship problems whatever the f#&% that even means. 
 

Is the economy not opened? Businesses are still going belly up because people arent comfortable going out quite yet. I dont know about you, but I still dont go to restaurants as often as I used to and I know others that dont as well. Same with bars and movie theatres and ‘insert business here’. 

[Ratt Mhule]

2 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

 

This is an easy issue to have conflicting thoughts on.

 

On one hand, I look at it as a waste of taxpayer money. $600 is rather insignificant on an individual basis. It seems to me they could come up with a more targeted and substantial relief effort that would be a more efficient use of the large combined expenditure.

 

But on the other hand, in many cases, it is simply returning our own money to us. And I’m not opposed to gaining from anything our government wants to give back. I certainly pay in enough that I’m not going to feel bad in the least about getting some of it back. And surely $600 means a whole bunch more to people in dire straits than it does to those of us mocking it.

 

The catch 22 is, if they did target the recipients better and make the amount substantial enough to help longer term, I would likely then complain about them redistributing my money to those who haven’t contributed much to the kitty.

 

I view this as kind of the same as writing off student loan debt. I will be pissed if they go for the larger package of writing off $50k +/- of student debt. We just got done paying for my daughters education and previously paid handsome amounts for my son. So where is our education expense relief? Should we get punished for being proactive and responsible by paying those expenses as incurred?  But both our kids still have some (their relatively minuscule portions) student loan balances left so I would like to see Joe’s plan of up to $10k written off. I’m not ashamed to say I’ll take anything that benefits me or mine.  The middle and upper middle have been paying more than their fair share forever. Instead of these half-assed piecemeal efforts, what they need to do is get the top 5% actually paying their fair share. I’ll cite Trump’s lack of paying any meaningful taxes as evidence.

And do you want your kids to go through what you went through with their kids to pay student loans?

 

once again, progress isnt about me doing something so everyone should have to. Its about doing something but wanting better for your kids and grandkids. 

[JJ Husker]

18 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

And do you want your kids to go through what you went through with their kids to pay student loans?

 

once again, progress isnt about me doing something so everyone should have to. Its about doing something but wanting better for your kids and grandkids. 

My preference would be a thorough fix that makes higher education more affordable but also would benefit those that choose another path. Random one time debt write offs are a temporary band-aid approach to a much more complex issue.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

 

 

It looked to me like you replied to the comment "Rush Limbaugh made America worse by being on the radio."

 

"He didn't". 

 

As in Rush didn't make America worse by being on the radio.

 

I'll take your word for it.  Apologies if I misread your quote.

 

 

Correct, he didn’t 

[RedDenver]

11 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

My preference would be a thorough fix that makes higher education more affordable but also would benefit those that choose another path. Random one time debt write offs are a temporary band-aid approach to a much more complex issue.

I'm completely in favor of that, but it doesn't fix the issue of everyone that already has that debt.

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I'm completely in favor of that, but it doesn't fix the issue of everyone that already has that debt.

I’m not overly concerned with solving existing debt. The people that incurred that debt knew what they were getting into. Nobody had a gun to their head forcing them to go to college. They weighed the pros and cons of taking on that debt and freely made a choice. A choice mind you that a whole bunch of other people alternately decided to not incur that expense and debt.

 

I’m not opposed to providing some limited transitional relief but the much larger basic problem is that higher education needs to be more affordable and the people that still will choose to forego that education should not be paying the bill for those that do elect that path. Plenty of people can do what they want and function in life without having attended college. It is not the necessity so many make it out to be. In fact, I would say it is no more than a huge waste for most people.

[Archy1221]

36 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm completely in favor of that, but it doesn't fix the issue of everyone that already has that debt.

Nor should it outside of changing BK laws. 

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

The vast majority of people on social media or those who have been interviewed about their financial struggles related to coronavirus just want to pay simple bills and afford themselves some stability.

Will a 1 time $600 check provide just that if they have lost jobs.  What Dave is actually saying, it’s that something structurally needs to change in their lives for that person/‘s to change their situation.  New job, job stability, increased pay, enhanced short term unemployment,etc. 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

And (apparently?) conveniently forgetting that this is their own tax money being returned to them, not a gift or a handout.

Not necessarily. 

[Enhance]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

What Dave is actually saying, it’s that something structurally needs to change in their lives for that person/‘s to change their situation.  New job, job stability, increased pay, enhanced short term unemployment,etc. 

I think he could have said that if that's what he meant.

 

I'm guessing he doesn't seem to mind those folks so much when he drives through a McDonald's or stops by his local Target. In a perfect world, a $600 stimulus check wouldn't make a difference to a lot of people. That's not the world we live in, particularly the world that's been reshaped by coronavirus.

 

Are most of the people waiting on a stimulus check expecting it to be a "life-changing" event? No. The notion is asinine.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

 

I'm guessing he doesn't seem to mind those folks so much when he drives through a McDonald's or stops by his local Target

I’m guessing he never thought these people were a nuisance in the first place so I don’t see the point in that comment