$2000 Individual Payments - where does this end?

[Just Joe]

I've always found the conflicts between different groups of Christians to be perplexing. Followers of JESUS? History's biggest hippy? Christians want to argue and fight about detail differences? Ridiculous...

[tooqk4u22]

I am so disgusted with american politics.  Trump throws a grenade to dismantle his party (party when convenient), dems jump on it bc citizens need want it (btw, who doesn't want free money but that doesn't make it prudent), and republicans are trying to figure out how to find a new way to fuck it all up in greater fashion.   I get relief fund for certain business and unemployed and very low income, but for fucks sake an individual making less than $75k or family making less than $150k - c'mon that's just throwing out bread to the masses to buy votes and both sides are guilty.   

Targeted support is what is needed.   Also, the Fed needs to stand down, we don't need continuation of bond buying and ultra low rates, which given my assets would hurt me but this shit needs to stop. 

Every day we inch closer to becoming a banana republic and having a worthless currency.   Is it too much to ask for some reasonableness - nevermind I know the answer.

Well we have the answer to the OP question about $2000 checks and such and where does it end?    With the GA runoffs almost set, it appears that it won't end and will likely get worse.   $2000 checks and more are probably a certainty.   There goes another x trillion dollars, but it will be offset by the tax increases (Biden's plan brings in extra $3.3trillion over next 10 years, so it won't offset anything). 

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

[ctuser1]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

[tooqk4u22]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

[OtherJen]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, only one party has spent the last two months trying to cancel my and millions of other Americans’ votes in several states to appease the whims and support the lies of their unstable, incompetent leader. I’m sure you’ll understand why I and many other Americans would prefer that they were not in charge of anything until this madness passes.

[Kris]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, only one party has spent the last two months trying to cancel my and millions of other Americans’ votes in several states to appease the whims and support the lies of their unstable, incompetent leader. I’m sure you’ll understand why I and many other Americans would prefer that they were not in charge of anything until this madness passes.

Yeah, when one party has spent the last four years condoning the rise of literal fascism, that is not the party I think should be “compromised” with.

[OtherJen]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, only one party has spent the last two months trying to cancel my and millions of other Americans’ votes in several states to appease the whims and support the lies of their unstable, incompetent leader. I’m sure you’ll understand why I and many other Americans would prefer that they were not in charge of anything until this madness passes.

Yeah, when one party has spent the last four years condoning the rise of literal fascism, that is not the party I think should be “compromised” with.

Fascists aren’t exactly known for their willingness to compromise.

[tooqk4u22]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, only one party has spent the last two months trying to cancel my and millions of other Americans’ votes in several states to appease the whims and support the lies of their unstable, incompetent leader. I’m sure you’ll understand why I and many other Americans would prefer that they were not in charge of anything until this madness passes.

Absolutely agree.  Senate would have stayed red if (1) Trump STF up and accepted the results, even late and (2) Loeffler and Purdue weren't buying into his nonsense, and don't get me wrong -they are corrupt as shit too, but so is everyone in Washington.

Yeah, when one party has spent the last four years condoning the rise of literal fascism, that is not the party I think should be “compromised” with.

It wasn't the whole party, but Trump at the top and some key members.  It was disgusting.   Still I

[ctuser1]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

I don't know where you live. If you get a chance, someday please visit the original America where American dream still lives. I live in a New England town where republicans did not field a candidate in most local races last time around. The "all-D" local government, FYI, has just announced our taxes would be lower next year. I don't plan on specifying which town it is (because I like to stay anonymous online). However, you can also google up some towns in MA (yes, that Commie hell-hole state), where I have some friends, and where the "R"s have not fielded candidates for a few decades. They are paragons of well run, fiscally disciplined local governments with some of the highest ranked schools in the country and all other parameters of HDI that you can think of.

"Compromise" does not work with ideology. You can not "compromise" with Joseph Stalin or Ayn Rand, or Ayn Rand's protégés that control the "establishment wing" of the republican party for that matter. It worked when Eisenhower implemented New Deal policies faithfully that he personally disagreed with!

The best outcome for America would be if the "establishment" (maybe 1/3rd of republicans today) and the "trumpists" (maybe 2/3rd) split. This establishment (I call this the "Charles Murrey" wing) is the real culprit for where we are today (look up when they ascended = Regan presidency and the divergence Human Development Index indicators in the US compared to other OECD). The majority of the working class trump voters do not strike me as malicious or ideological, and once their real issues (caused by the "Establishment" wing of the same party) are resolved, I am hopeful they will turn things around.

 

[sherr]

... Loeffler and Purdue weren't buying into his nonsense, and don't get me wrong -they are corrupt as shit too, but so is everyone in Washington.

False equivalence. Fake both-siderism with an intent to dodge responsibility for that fact that it's almost exclusively your team.

The Senators who were caught illegally insider-trading after they were briefed on the COVID situation are:
Kelly Loeffler, R-GA
David Perdue, R-GA
Richard Burr, R-NC

Republicans also tried to accuse Feinstein (D-CA) in an attempt to "both sides" it and Inhofe (R-OK) was also accused, but of course it wasn't nearly the same thing in either case and was quite easy so see through.

Democrats may not be pure as the driven snow, but they don't hold a candle to how corrupt the Republicans are.

[frugalnacho]

The republican party is appallingly corrupt and rotten to the core.  I have no idea what the future holds, or which way the tides are going to eventually turn, but I feel like I can safely check out of politics because I will never vote for a republican for the rest of my life.  Merely being associated with the party is an automatic hard no from me.   It would be similar to putting a candidate from the nazi party on the ballot - I'm not even going to check into your individual views and record, voting nazi or republican are just hard nos. 

[American GenX]

The republican party is appallingly corrupt and rotten to the core. 

You could say this about most politicians, in both parities.  It not appallingly corrupt, at least unethical and looking out mostly for their own interests than that of us American citizens.

[sherr]

You could say this about most politicians, in both parities.  It not appallingly corrupt, at least unethical and looking out mostly for their own interests than that of us American citizens.

Empty both-siderisms are easy, actually demonstrating that both are equally bad is a lot harder. Can you do it?

It is of course pure coincidence that Republicans have a vested interest in getting as few people to participate in democracy as possible (because low-turnout elections tend to favor them and high-turnout elections tend to favor Democrats) and have a demonstrated goal of decreasing faith in government (which plays into their "government is bad and should be destroyed" narrative) and "both-sides" propaganda serves to lower turnout and decrease faith in the government.

And provide cover for their sins every time they're caught doing something corrupt of course, because they know that a huge chunk of their base are single-issue voters. "Well both sides are equally corrupt, so I guess I might as well vote for the pro-life candidate (or guns or whatever)."

[frugalnacho]

The republican party is appallingly corrupt and rotten to the core. 

You could say this about most politicians, in both parities.  It not appallingly corrupt, at least unethical and looking out mostly for their own interests than that of us American citizens.

Stop with the both-siderism.  They are not comparable and if you don't see that you are part of the problem.

[Kris]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, only one party has spent the last two months trying to cancel my and millions of other Americans’ votes in several states to appease the whims and support the lies of their unstable, incompetent leader. I’m sure you’ll understand why I and many other Americans would prefer that they were not in charge of anything until this madness passes.

Absolutely agree.  Senate would have stayed red if (1) Trump STF up and accepted the results, even late and (2) Loeffler and Purdue weren't buying into his nonsense, and don't get me wrong -they are corrupt as shit too, but so is everyone in Washington.

Yeah, when one party has spent the last four years condoning the rise of literal fascism, that is not the party I think should be “compromised” with.

It wasn't the whole party, but Trump at the top and some key members.  It was disgusting.   Still I

Basically no one in the party did a damn thing about it. That’s condoning. I meant what I said, and I stand by it.

[OtherJen]

The republican party is appallingly corrupt and rotten to the core. 

You could say this about most politicians, in both parities.  It not appallingly corrupt, at least unethical and looking out mostly for their own interests than that of us American citizens.

Stop with the both-siderism.  They are not comparable and if you don't see that you are part of the problem.

^^^ This. Only one party is openly calling for the illegal overturning of a democratic election because it didn’t end in their favor. At this point, both-siderism is intellectually lazy and morally cowardly.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I've always found the conflicts between different groups of Christians to be perplexing. Followers of JESUS? History's biggest hippy? Christians want to argue and fight about detail differences? Ridiculous...

If Christians were really so intolerant, then why did a whole ton of Christians in vastly Protestant Majority Georgia vote for a Catholic for President and a Jewish guy for Senator? The “conflicts” between Christians and other Christians and Christians and people of other faiths are vastly overblown, especially in the 21st century. It’s mostly a lot of certain folks saying weird things when they read too much Richard Dawkins.

[dividendman]

The republican party is appallingly corrupt and rotten to the core. 

You could say this about most politicians, in both parities.  It not appallingly corrupt, at least unethical and looking out mostly for their own interests than that of us American citizens.

Stop with the both-siderism.  They are not comparable and if you don't see that you are part of the problem.

^^^ This. Only one party is openly calling for the illegal overturning of a democratic election because it didn’t end in their favor. At this point, both-siderism is intellectually lazy and morally cowardly.

While I do think the Republican party in its present form is very bad, they're not calling for the "illegal" overturning of a democratic election, they're trying to do it through legal avenues.

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

[frugalnacho]

The republican party is appallingly corrupt and rotten to the core. 

You could say this about most politicians, in both parities.  It not appallingly corrupt, at least unethical and looking out mostly for their own interests than that of us American citizens.

Stop with the both-siderism.  They are not comparable and if you don't see that you are part of the problem.

^^^ This. Only one party is openly calling for the illegal overturning of a democratic election because it didn’t end in their favor. At this point, both-siderism is intellectually lazy and morally cowardly.

While I do think the Republican party in it's present form is very bad, they're not calling for the "illegal" overturning of a democratic election, they're trying to do it through legal avenues.

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Did you not hear about the phone call to georgia a few days ago? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

Indefensible.  I'm not even going to bother posting additional evidence, but they are clearly trying to seize power through illegal and (illegitimate) legal avenues. 

[dividendman]

The republican party is appallingly corrupt and rotten to the core. 

You could say this about most politicians, in both parities.  It not appallingly corrupt, at least unethical and looking out mostly for their own interests than that of us American citizens.

Stop with the both-siderism.  They are not comparable and if you don't see that you are part of the problem.

^^^ This. Only one party is openly calling for the illegal overturning of a democratic election because it didn’t end in their favor. At this point, both-siderism is intellectually lazy and morally cowardly.

While I do think the Republican party in it's present form is very bad, they're not calling for the "illegal" overturning of a democratic election, they're trying to do it through legal avenues.

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Did you not hear about the phone call to georgia a few days ago? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

Indefensible.  I'm not even going to bother posting additional evidence, but they are clearly trying to seize power through illegal and (illegitimate) legal avenues.

Oh, yeah, Trump is definitely a criminal and trying to stay in office legally or illegally, the rest of the sycophants are mostly trying to do it through illegitimate legal avenues.

[mm1970]

Nope. Just because some Protestants don’t understand Catholicism, that doesn’t change the requirements for being Christian.

Apologies to everyone else for continuing to beat this horse even though it's obviously dead, but I'm just so insatiably curious.

What are these "requirements for being a Christian"? Where is the canonical list? Which commands and theologies made that cut, and who made that decision?

You should reread the thread. We’ve been discussing this all day today.

Ah yes, the vague "1800 years of scholarship". Well The Reformation was only 500 years ago, so the majority of those years were Catholic, no? mm1970 I have good news, you have a convert! You might want to ease him in to the fact that Catholics have a different Bible though, he takes issue with added books.

@sherr, it may come to no surprise that I'm an atheist.  I went through the motions (confirmation and married by a priest!), but even at age 11 and 12, in Sunday school - "wow, people believe this huh?"  My mother went to her death bed praying for my poor son's soul because he wasn't baptized.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, only one party has spent the last two months trying to cancel my and millions of other Americans’ votes in several states to appease the whims and support the lies of their unstable, incompetent leader. I’m sure you’ll understand why I and many other Americans would prefer that they were not in charge of anything until this madness passes.

Absolutely agree.  Senate would have stayed red if (1) Trump STF up and accepted the results, even late and (2) Loeffler and Purdue weren't buying into his nonsense, and don't get me wrong -they are corrupt as shit too, but so is everyone in Washington.

Yeah, when one party has spent the last four years condoning the rise of literal fascism, that is not the party I think should be “compromised” with.

It wasn't the whole party, but Trump at the top and some key members.  It was disgusting.   Still I

In the arena of politics access to  enormous sums of money and the legitimate power to allocate them  (steer them) invites rife corruption that is infrequently  indictable.

As a body of insiders Congress enjoys this lucrative, dual advantage.


The power of this access to "easy money"  is at the root of  Congress' typical mendacity: "They'll say anything to get reelected."

Consider all the members of Congress who retired as multimillionaires though they didn't have much money when first elected.




"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."  Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune

[FIPurpose]

The republican party is appallingly corrupt and rotten to the core. 

You could say this about most politicians, in both parities.  It not appallingly corrupt, at least unethical and looking out mostly for their own interests than that of us American citizens.

Stop with the both-siderism.  They are not comparable and if you don't see that you are part of the problem.

^^^ This. Only one party is openly calling for the illegal overturning of a democratic election because it didn’t end in their favor. At this point, both-siderism is intellectually lazy and morally cowardly.

While I do think the Republican party in its present form is very bad, they're not calling for the "illegal" overturning of a democratic election, they're trying to do it through legal avenues.

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Obviously not even American. Caught you troll!

[PDXTabs]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

They are "liberal" now because the US Republican party tacked right during the Reagan administration, then again during the Clinton administration (with Clinton's full support), then again during the Bush II days, then arguably (at least on tax and spending policy) again during the Trump era. I would happily vote for a Nixon era Republican, if we ever saw one again.

[FIPurpose]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

They are "liberal" now because the US Republican party tacked right during the Reagan administration, then again during the Clinton administration (with Clinton's full support), then again during the Bush II days, then arguably (at least on tax and spending policy) again during the Trump era. I would happily vote for a Nixon era Republican, if we ever saw one again.

To be fair, I think you could say about 2 out of the 52 GOP Senators could probably fit that definition ;P

[PDXTabs]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

They are "liberal" now because the US Republican party tacked right during the Reagan administration, then again during the Clinton administration (with Clinton's full support), then again during the Bush II days, then arguably (at least on tax and spending policy) again during the Trump era. I would happily vote for a Nixon era Republican, if we ever saw one again.

To be fair, I think you could say about 2 out of the 52 GOP Senators could probably fit that definition ;P

Nixon advocated for the EPA, NixonObamacare, and a negative income tax. Is there a single GOP Senator left that would say the same?

Furthermore, when Nixon claimed to be above the law the GOP threw his ass out.

[tooqk4u22]

Trump's temper tantrum worked and he has succeeded in completely blowing everything up. Divided government is a better government.  One party controlling on either side is not good, especially when there is such divisiveness and spitefulness.

This part is true ONLY when one of the two sides is NOT a bunch of seditious lunatics. If the "right" was the "right" from before "southern strategy", you would of course be 100% correct!

Context is important in the *real* world! We don't live in your make-believe world.

Trumps and the group that backed his nonsense, especially in since the election, definitely fall into that category, but bc the house was democrat controlled it was better than it could have been.   It is always better when divided, forces compromise or nothing.   A free for all of cutting taxes, raising taxes, cutting regulations, increasing regulations, etc unfettered is not good, and for the democrats all it means is that one or more will turn over again in 2-4 years like it has for both parties in modern history.

I don't know where you live. If you get a chance, someday please visit the original America where American dream still lives. I live in a New England town where republicans did not field a candidate in most local races last time around. The "all-D" local government, FYI, has just announced our taxes would be lower next year. I don't plan on specifying which town it is (because I like to stay anonymous online). However, you can also google up some towns in MA (yes, that Commie hell-hole state), where I have some friends, and where the "R"s have not fielded candidates for a few decades. They are paragons of well run, fiscally disciplined local governments with some of the highest ranked schools in the country and all other parameters of HDI that you can think of.

"Compromise" does not work with ideology. You can not "compromise" with Joseph Stalin or Ayn Rand, or Ayn Rand's protégés that control the "establishment wing" of the republican party for that matter. It worked when Eisenhower implemented New Deal policies faithfully that he personally disagreed with!

The best outcome for America would be if the "establishment" (maybe 1/3rd of republicans today) and the "trumpists" (maybe 2/3rd) split. This establishment (I call this the "Charles Murrey" wing) is the real culprit for where we are today (look up when they ascended = Regan presidency and the divergence Human Development Index indicators in the US compared to other OECD). The majority of the working class trump voters do not strike me as malicious or ideological, and once their real issues (caused by the "Establishment" wing of the same party) are resolved, I am hopeful they will turn things around.

Town politics can be very different bc generally you are voting for things in your town, so if everyone is aligned its great.  I am sure there are all R towns that feel similarly.   

[tooqk4u22]

... Loeffler and Purdue weren't buying into his nonsense, and don't get me wrong -they are corrupt as shit too, but so is everyone in Washington.

False equivalence. Fake both-siderism with an intent to dodge responsibility for that fact that it's almost exclusively your team.

The Senators who were caught illegally insider-trading after they were briefed on the COVID situation are:
Kelly Loeffler, R-GA
David Perdue, R-GA
Richard Burr, R-NC

Republicans also tried to accuse Feinstein (D-CA) in an attempt to "both sides" it and Inhofe (R-OK) was also accused, but of course it wasn't nearly the same thing in either case and was quite easy so see through.

Democrats may not be pure as the driven snow, but they don't hold a candle to how corrupt the Republicans are.

I don't get the false equivalency as I explicitly said those individuals are corrupt as shit.   And I feel that all of washington is in varying degrees of actual crimes or complicity - there is a reason they come out with a lot more money or lucrative gigs. Lobbying works!

[American GenX]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Take away social programs from the most needy, take away rightly earned social security, raise taxes on everyone including the most needy, then give the same UBI to everyone including the wealthy.   The poor people end up worse off with higher taxes, and rich people get a bunch of free extra money.  The wealth gap widens.

UBI is the worst idea.

[JLee]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Take away social programs from the most needy, take away rightly earned social security, raise taxes on everyone including the most needy, then give the same UBI to everyone including the wealthy.   The poor people end up worse off with higher taxes, and rich people get a bunch of free extra money. The wealth gap widens.

UBI is the worst idea.

lol $2k/mo is nothing compared to the tax breaks the super wealthy just got.

[FIPurpose]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

They are "liberal" now because the US Republican party tacked right during the Reagan administration, then again during the Clinton administration (with Clinton's full support), then again during the Bush II days, then arguably (at least on tax and spending policy) again during the Trump era. I would happily vote for a Nixon era Republican, if we ever saw one again.

To be fair, I think you could say about 2 out of the 52 GOP Senators could probably fit that definition ;P

Nixon advocated for the EPA, NixonObamacare, and a negative income tax. Is there a single GOP Senator left that would say the same?

Furthermore, when Nixon claimed to be above the law the GOP threw his ass out.

Well Obamacare basically was a copy paste of Romneycare in Mass. So you have Romney and let's call Collins and Murkowski each .5. I would've said McCain when he was still living, but of course both R Ariz. Senators were replaced by D's because at least Arizonans can recognize that moderate R's are of little value when they back someone like McConnell

[PDXTabs]

... Loeffler and Purdue weren't buying into his nonsense, and don't get me wrong -they are corrupt as shit too, but so is everyone in Washington.

False equivalence. Fake both-siderism with an intent to dodge responsibility for that fact that it's almost exclusively your team.

The Senators who were caught illegally insider-trading after they were briefed on the COVID situation are:
Kelly Loeffler, R-GA
David Perdue, R-GA
Richard Burr, R-NC

Republicans also tried to accuse Feinstein (D-CA) in an attempt to "both sides" it and Inhofe (R-OK) was also accused, but of course it wasn't nearly the same thing in either case and was quite easy so see through.

Democrats may not be pure as the driven snow, but they don't hold a candle to how corrupt the Republicans are.

I don't get the false equivalency as I explicitly said those individuals are corrupt as shit.   And I feel that all of washington is in varying degrees of actual crimes or complicity - there is a reason they come out with a lot more money or lucrative gigs. Lobbying works!

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of these Banana Republicans.

[American GenX]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Take away social programs from the most needy, take away rightly earned social security, raise taxes on everyone including the most needy, then give the same UBI to everyone including the wealthy.   The poor people end up worse off with higher taxes, and rich people get a bunch of free extra money. The wealth gap widens.

UBI is the worst idea.

lol $2k/mo is nothing compared to the tax breaks the super wealthy just got.

Why pile on?  I would prefer to actually help those in need.

[JLee]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Take away social programs from the most needy, take away rightly earned social security, raise taxes on everyone including the most needy, then give the same UBI to everyone including the wealthy.   The poor people end up worse off with higher taxes, and rich people get a bunch of free extra money. The wealth gap widens.

UBI is the worst idea.

lol $2k/mo is nothing compared to the tax breaks the super wealthy just got.

Why pile on?  I would prefer to actually help those in need.

Yes, pull back those tax breaks and then the wealthy won't just be getting "a bunch of free extra money."

[PDXTabs]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Take away social programs from the most needy, take away rightly earned social security, raise taxes on everyone including the most needy, then give the same UBI to everyone including the wealthy.   The poor people end up worse off with higher taxes, and rich people get a bunch of free extra money. The wealth gap widens.

UBI is the worst idea.

lol $2k/mo is nothing compared to the tax breaks the super wealthy just got.

Why pile on?  I would prefer to actually help those in need.

How? Clinton and Trump have almost completely abolished the modern welfare state, and I'm not sure if non-parents ever got cash assistance at any point in US history.

[American GenX]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Take away social programs from the most needy, take away rightly earned social security, raise taxes on everyone including the most needy, then give the same UBI to everyone including the wealthy.   The poor people end up worse off with higher taxes, and rich people get a bunch of free extra money. The wealth gap widens.

UBI is the worst idea.

lol $2k/mo is nothing compared to the tax breaks the super wealthy just got.

Why pile on?  I would prefer to actually help those in need.

How? Clinton and Trump have almost completely abolished the modern welfare state, and I'm not sure if non-parents ever got cash assistance at any point in US history.

How?  By directing assistance only to those that need it, of course.  That was in response to sending thousands of dollars extra to wealthy people that don't need it through UBI while taxing poor people more and taking away any other assistance they might have gotten.

[PDXTabs]

How?  By directing assistance only to those that need it, of course.  That was in response to sending thousands of dollars extra to wealthy people that don't need it through UBI while taxing poor people more and taking away any other assistance they might have gotten.

So, by your own logic wouldn't a UBI makes sense if:

1. Benefits for the poor do not decrease
2. Taxes for the poor do not increase
3. Taxes for the rich increase more than the UBI benefit they get

[FIPurpose]

Back to the cheques.... let's see that UBI. Cancel all social programs and give everyone 2k/mo forever! That used to be a conservative idea by the way, like many decent ideas that are now somehow liberal...

Take away social programs from the most needy, take away rightly earned social security, raise taxes on everyone including the most needy, then give the same UBI to everyone including the wealthy.   The poor people end up worse off with higher taxes, and rich people get a bunch of free extra money. The wealth gap widens.

UBI is the worst idea.

lol $2k/mo is nothing compared to the tax breaks the super wealthy just got.

Why pile on?  I would prefer to actually help those in need.

How? Clinton and Trump have almost completely abolished the modern welfare state, and I'm not sure if non-parents ever got cash assistance at any point in US history.

How?  By directing assistance only to those that need it, of course.  That was in response to sending thousands of dollars extra to wealthy people that don't need it through UBI while taxing poor people more and taking away any other assistance they might have gotten.

Ok so how about we just hand out the $2k and then raise the 22% bracket to be 24% to balance it out. Easy peasy. No gift to rich people and no need to add expense for means testing and administration.

[tooqk4u22]

Ok so how about we just hand out the $2k and then raise the 22% bracket to be 24% to balance it out. Easy peasy. No gift to rich people and no need to add expense for means testing and administration.

The 22% bracket tops out at $85k for individuals and $171k for couples.  Based on many comments throughout this thread many feel that these levels should get the $2k per person, I think you will have a hard time selling this because if the want the bonus payments now they won't want to pay for it on the back end.   Need to attack higher up the income scale.  :) 

[FIPurpose]

We're comparing this to means testing money for people, so you'd have to also consider the savings of not doing the means testing and administration of that method. (hint, likely Billions of dollars.)

But assuming otherwise Ok 22%->26%. And then UBI $2k year to everybody. It would effectively be canceled out for anyone making 85k or more or couples making more than 170k. And the tax scheme means that it scales evenly for all rich people, and the administration of that money would be easier, and more importantly it would be harder for politicians to remove it when the benefit is universal rather than means tested.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

A fundamental question is whether we want these payments to solely or primarily be to help individuals in financial dire straits or whether we want to use them as some sort of stimulus/redistribution program.

I'm fine with welfare i.e. the first aim

I see no good reason for stimulus/redistribution at large

[American GenX]

A fundamental question is whether we want these payments to solely or primarily be to help individuals in financial dire straits or whether we want to use them as some sort of stimulus/redistribution program.

I'm fine with welfare i.e. the first aim

I see no good reason for stimulus/redistribution at large

Agreed.  I've yet to see any UBI plan I could support, and I have done quite a bit of reading on it.  I linked to some references in this post in a thread about UBI:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/do-mustachians-support-universal-basic-income/msg2755155/#msg2755155