House and Senate overwhelmingly pass atrocious relief bill. Trump slams it and says he'll veto.

[Trunkage]

It's all pathetic the numbers I hear. Everyone in Australia got 700 dollars, then they doubled the dole so every fortnight they were giving unemployed people an extra $500 on jobseeker, (now it's 250 I think) and jobkeeper was basically giving 1500 to employers and telling them to keep people on the books as employees even without work. Compared to that the American effort seems pathetic and they're the richest nation on earth....

You can’t just GIVE money to workers. That would make them lazy... (or some other superstition)

It also shows how conservatives in Australia are far more left than Sanders. Let alone Biden or Trump

ScoMo other achievement was working WITH the states for a national combined response. It wasn’t pretty sometimes but at least he tried

 

[Trunkage]

It wasn't even the stimulus bill they would be obstructing, it's the defense bill. We gotta make sure we have a fuck ton of money to bomb foreigners but not to help Americans.

It’s even worse when you think about the same people complaining that Foreign aid should be dropped to help poor Americans are the same people who want to bomb the same places instead of helping those same poor Americans

 

[MrCalavera]

I thought US have a presidential system. But this last few weeks i learned that whatever old man sits in the White House, he can be easily cockblocked by a different old man, or woman sitting in each of the two parliamentary houses.

Sure, if all you factor in is how much a mortgage cost versus how much renting cost, you're absolutely right, buying is cheaper than renting. But that's not what the real world cost actually is.

"A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

 

[tstorm823]

It's all pathetic the numbers I hear. Everyone in Australia got 700 dollars, then they doubled the dole so every fortnight they were giving unemployed people an extra $500 on jobseeker, (now it's 250 I think) and jobkeeper was basically giving 1500 to employers and telling them to keep people on the books as employees even without work. Compared to that the American effort seems pathetic and they're the richest nation on earth....

Well that's cause you're hearing incomplete information.

Everyone in Australia got 700. Everyone (under a wealth threshold) in the US got 1200. Point to the US.
Unemployed got an extra 500 each two weeks there. Unemployed in the US got an extra 600 per week (for the first 6 months I think before it ran out). Point to the US.
They gave 1500 to employers telling them to keep people employed. The paycheck protection program was $659 billion for the same purpose. I don't know who wins that point cause I'm too lazy to do the math.
Now you're down to $250 extra per fortnight, and we're passing $300 extra per week.

People acting like the US economic response was "here's $600, now shut up" are either ignorant or deliberately misleading you.

 

[Trunkage]

I thought US have a presidential system. But this last few weeks i learned that whatever old man sits in the White House, he can be easily cockblocked by a different old man, or woman sitting in each of the two parliamentary houses.



"A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

Look I don’t want to knock your Sam Vimes post, because it’s true. I don’t think that covers the problem

I’d dare say that Tippy was alluding to the fact that, for poor people, houses cost 2.5 times what it’s worth to purchase. I.e. a house worth a half million dollars actually costs the poor person $1.25 million

 

[tippy2k2]

Look I don’t want to knock your Sam Vimes post, because it’s true. I don’t think that covers the problem

I’d dare say that Tippy was alluding to the fact that, for poor people, houses cost 2.5 times what it’s worth to purchase. I.e. a house worth a half million dollars actually costs the poor person $1.25 million

I do think MrCalavera also makes a good point. My house is a great example of this actually.

I paid pretty below market value for this place (at least according to Zillow, this place is worth $30,000 more than I paid for it; though I don't know how trustworthy Zillow is but either way, I paid below what this house in this neighborhood should have gone for). This was basically all I could afford without really screwing up my budget. But that came at a cost as you saw in my post earlier (windows were shit, roof was shit, there was a huge fuckin hole in the foundation, my water heater exploded, etc)

This place was move-in ready but there was a LOT wrong with it and a lot that still needs to be fixed. However, I'm in a position where I have the money (for shit I can't fix) and time (for shit I can fix) and connections (for shit that my BIL can fix cause he's actually handy) to fix this place up. The point ultimately though is my lower price point got me into a house that needs a lot of love. If I didn't have the money or the time or the connections to give this house that love, this place would be in a world of trouble at this point. I saw plenty of houses that were in much better condition but they were outside of my price range.

TLDR; there is some truth in the "A poor person has to buy shit that will constantly break because they can't afford nicer shit where someone with money can buy higher quality stuff that will last far longer" when it comes to home buying.

 

[Shadyside]

I thought US have a presidential system. But this last few weeks i learned that whatever old man sits in the White House, he can be easily cockblocked by a different old man, or woman sitting in each of the two parliamentary houses.

The true Republican president is Mitch McConnell. Donald Trump was his bottom ***** to be honest. Now Mitch is dumping Trump since he got what he wanted out of him.

 

[Trunkage]

The true Republican president is Mitch McConnell. Donald Trump was his bottom ***** to be honest. Now Mitch is dumping Trump since he got what he wanted out of him.

McConnell’s trying to take power back off Trump. I don’t know who to root for.

 

[Shadyside]

Is there any way the leaders of the Dems and Republicans not have so much power as to cockblock a bill even though most of their party members are fine with the bill? Nancy and Mitch are just 2 sides of different toxicity and they keep clogging the process.

 

[Shadyside]

McConnell’s trying to take power back off Trump. I don’t know who to root for.

I'm rooting for covid to get rid of all the boomers who have been holding back progress for decades.

 

[tippy2k2]

 

[tstorm823]

I'm rooting for covid to get rid of all the boomers who have been holding back progress for decades.

If I might "technically" you for a moment, those two aren't actually boomers. That's how old they are.

 

[Worgen]

I thought US have a presidential system. But this last few weeks i learned that whatever old man sits in the White House, he can be easily cockblocked by a different old man, or woman sitting in each of the two parliamentary houses.

Are you actually interested in how things work or just memeing?

We have checks and balances with the 3 branches of government here. In a broad sense congress makes the laws, the president passes the laws and the courts determine if the laws are constitutional. If the president doesn't like a law he can veto it, but if congress disagrees they can override the veto with a 2/3 majority vote, if the supreme court decides a law is unconstitutional then congress needs to try rewriting the law or just accept its gone.

 

[Gergar12]

This may be old news but Biden used to want to lower the stimulus from 1200 to 600. He says he wants this to bring McConnell to the table, but we don't know what goes on in those private meetings, and we don't know what goes on in his head, where he's gamed everything out like most leaders.

When Josh Hawley is more liberal on cash payments than Barack Obama, and Joe Biden that is a problem.

Now the reason they may hate cash payments is that they are afraid that people would pay off bills, debt, and save vs spend. the problem with that is it ignores the second-order effects of saving and focuses on the first order. Yes people won't buy go out and buy a refrigerator, and that could cost a job or two in the short-term, but the decreased stress, lower suicide rate, and fewer evictions, and fewer children starving more than make up for it.

Yes, the cash multiplier effect will be lower, less cash will be exchange from one set of hands to another, but businesses are not going to spend either.

I mean the problem with America is that we ignore the medium to long term.

 

[Shadyside]

I mean the problem with America is that we ignore the medium to long term.

That basically applies to the majority of people. We aren't good at thinking long term. We just want band aid solutions and not think hard of future consequences.

If I might "technically" you for a moment, those two aren't actually boomers. That's how old they are.

More reason to get rid of them.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Senate Democrats Could Have Defied Mitch McConnell on $2,000 Checks. They Chose Not to.

Democrats and Beltway pundits helped Mitch McConnell undermine Bernie Sanders’s push for direct aid to millions of Americans facing eviction, starvation, and bankruptcy through $2,000 checks. Even for a party that is constantly disappointing, Democrats’ complete capitulation to McConnell and...

www.jacobinmag.com

Senate Democrats rolled over and died. Let's roll them into a ditch next time.

Democrats are not your friends. They will never be your friends. They hate you.

 

[tippy2k2]

Senate Democrats Could Have Defied Mitch McConnell on $2,000 Checks. They Chose Not to.

Democrats and Beltway pundits helped Mitch McConnell undermine Bernie Sanders’s push for direct aid to millions of Americans facing eviction, starvation, and bankruptcy through $2,000 checks. Even for a party that is constantly disappointing, Democrats’ complete capitulation to McConnell and...

www.jacobinmag.com

Senate Democrats rolled over and died. Let's roll them into a ditch next time.

Democrats are not your friends. They will never be your friends. They hate you.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ironically, since the Dems want to disown Sanders whenever he does something like this, it means more Republicans voted against the NDAA than Democrats.

And if you want to know what leadership looks like, Kamala Harris voted to override the veto, killing her own legislation. Warren somehow has more of a spine than our soon-to-be-vice president.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You can’t just GIVE money to workers. That would make them lazy... (or some other superstition)

It would give them more bargaining power such that they might not accept the terrible conditions capitalists currently offer.

 

[tippy2k2]

Ironically, since the Dems want to disown Sanders whenever he does something like this, it means more Republicans voted against the NDAA than Democrats.

And if you want to know what leadership looks like, Kamala Harris voted to override the veto, killing her own legislation. Warren somehow has more of a spine than our soon-to-be-vice president.

Well Bernie actually (seems to at least) attempts to fight for things that are good for the common person and not just good for people with Trust Fund Money or Corporations so it makes sense that they keep trying to drop Bernie off at the orphanage and hoping he doesn't find his way back home.