Looks like we're not getting another stimulus payment

[Alpinista]

It’s ‘OK now...we have a new president’: Pelosi willing to make smaller Covid-19 relief deal, is accused of having played politics

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being accused of having spent months blocking Covid-19 relief to help Joe Biden and hurt Donald Trump, after she said a smaller bill is now possible thanks to a lack of “other considerations.”

www.rt.com

"The new bipartisan bill being negotiated reportedly includes funding for liability protections and support for businesses and an extension of unemployment aid. It does not, however, include direct payments to citizens as the first round of stimulus did."

As heartily as I dislike Trump, he did at least do his best to get us all another $1200, but Pelosi has apparently decided we don't need that. Whatever happened to the Democrats being the party of the people?

Just out of curiosity (I am not American, so this doesn't affect me at all): how would you justify this payment from an American taxpayer perspective? Why would it help the US in any way, especially if the recipients of the subsidies are living abroad? And further: if it is a good thing: why should it be limited to USD 1'200, why not let's say USD 5'000? And why should it be limited to COVID, why not establish it as a regular, monthly payment?

What you kind of disclose is a planero mentality: you hand me out a plan, a regalito, and I give you my vote (not to say that you voted for Trump, but at least you factor this in)

 

[Dougie]

Just out of curiosity (I am not American, so this doesn't affect me at all): how would you justify this payment from an American taxpayer perspective? Why would it help the US in any way, especially if the recipients of the subsidies are living abroad? And further: if it is a good thing: why should it be limited to USD 1'200, why not let's say USD 5'000? And why should it be limited to COVID, why not establish it as a regular, monthly payment?

What you kind of disclose is a planero mentality: you hand me out a plan, a regalito, and I give you my vote (not to say that you voted for Trump, but at least you factor this in)

Obviously it's not going to benefit the US economy if the payment gets sent to an American living abroad that just spends it in the local economy. Social programs are usually only popular when they are universal, once there is a means test attached to them it becomes less popular. They also wanted to get the payments out as quickly as possible without going through the administrative effort of qualifying everyone.

Why a once off of $1200 versus $5000? That's a good question. Trump argued the same thing, that most of it would come back to the US anyway. Clearly there has to be some kind of limit or you'll start to jeopardize the US reserve status at a point. 60% of USD bank notes are held by foreigners, so a good portion of the inflation hits them when you increase velocity. Plus the Fed is actually making money on it since they are receiving interest on the notes that are backing the currency. This is why the US doesn't have to play by the same rules as every other country when it comes to budgeting.

Is it a planero mentality if I pay $50,000 in taxes a year to the US and not even get health care while I'm visiting? If I want free health care instead of the money being spent on the military industrial complex that is being a planero? I pay taxes, besides the fact that I want to stay out of jail, because I'm suppose to get something back for that.

Anyway, the $1200 is just crumbs compared to the PPP. Harvard received $9 million in the PPP when they have a endowment fund of 40 billion. They are a massive hedge fund at this point. I think they finally gave it back after much outrage, but that is one of many examples.

 

[Renzi]

Just out of curiosity (I am not American, so this doesn't affect me at all): how would you justify this payment from an American taxpayer perspective? Why would it help the US in any way, especially if the recipients of the subsidies are living abroad? And further: if it is a good thing: why should it be limited to USD 1'200, why not let's say USD 5'000? And why should it be limited to COVID, why not establish it as a regular, monthly payment?

What you kind of disclose is a planero mentality: you hand me out a plan, a regalito, and I give you my vote (not to say that you voted for Trump, but at least you factor this in)

That's a very privileged perspective you have there.

 

[Renzi]

Obviously it's not going to benefit the US economy if the payment gets sent to an American living abroad that just spends it in the local economy. Social programs are usually only popular when they are universal, once there is a means test attached to them it becomes less popular. They also wanted to get the payments out as quickly as possible without going through the administrative effort of qualifying everyone.

Why a once off of $1200 versus $5000? That's a good question. Trump argued the same thing, that most of it would come back to the US anyway. Clearly there has to be some kind of limit or you'll start to jeopardize the US reserve status at a point. 60% of USD bank notes are held by foreigners, so a good portion of the inflation hits them when you increase velocity. Plus the Fed is actually making money on it since they are receiving interest on the notes that are backing the currency. This is why the US doesn't have to play by the same rules as every other country when it comes to budgeting.

Is it a planero mentality if I pay $50,000 in taxes a year to the US and not even get health care while I'm visiting? If I want free health care instead of the money being spent on the military industrial complex that is being a planero? I pay taxes, besides the fact that I want to stay out of jail, because I'm suppose to get something back for that.

Anyway, the $1200 is just crumbs compared to the PPP. Harvard received $9 million in the PPP when they have a endowment fund of 40 billion. They are a massive hedge fund at this point. I think they finally gave it back after much outrage, but that is one of many examples.

Kanye, Reese Witherspoon Among the Celebs Who Got PPP Loans Meant For Small Business

Kanye West, whose Yeezy brand is worth $3 billion, applied for a PPP loan between $2 million and $5 million.

observer.com

 

[Dougie]

Kanye, Reese Witherspoon Among the Celebs Who Got PPP Loans Meant For Small Business

Kanye West, whose Yeezy brand is worth $3 billion, applied for a PPP loan between $2 million and $5 million.

observer.com

Great examples. Interesting how people question the crumbs to keep the peasants happy, but then overlook the real transfer of wealth that takes place facilitated by government and fed policy.

“This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor” as MLK said.

 

[Ries]

I think my opinions are because my mother was a politician, a feminist, and not too dissimiar to Pelosi- I have seen the process from the inside, and grew up around actual (state level) politicians. So my opinions on the sausage making are based on knowing a lot of people who actually did it for decades. What Pelosi has "done" is manage the house- a daily job that is enormously complicated, full of compromises, and much like the work that women do around the world, unappreciated. Its hard, slow, and doesnt have action movie endings.

 

[QuilmesSlo]

I think my opinions are because my mother was a politician, a feminist, and not too dissimiar to Pelosi- I have seen the process from the inside, and grew up around actual (state level) politicians. So my opinions on the sausage making are based on knowing a lot of people who actually did it for decades. What Pelosi has "done" is manage the house- a daily job that is enormously complicated, full of compromises, and much like the work that women do around the world, unappreciated. Its hard, slow, and doesnt have action movie endings.

The movie has a nice ending for Pelosi and her husband who have built a dynastic fortune off of the people's house.

 

[QuilmesSlo]

Just out of curiosity (I am not American, so this doesn't affect me at all): how would you justify this payment from an American taxpayer perspective? Why would it help the US in any way, especially if the recipients of the subsidies are living abroad? And further: if it is a good thing: why should it be limited to USD 1'200, why not let's say USD 5'000? And why should it be limited to COVID, why not establish it as a regular, monthly payment?

What you kind of disclose is a planero mentality: you hand me out a plan, a regalito, and I give you my vote (not to say that you voted for Trump, but at least you factor this in)

Not enough Americans live abroad for it to be on the radar screen.

Some day, Medicare will offer x-US health insurance deals to get people to retire outside of the country.

 

[Dougie]

I appreciate your perspective and realize that our opinions are based off of many factors like upbringing, life experiences, education, and so on.

I'm sure Pelosi is an impressive women who is competent. I just don't agree with her political priorities. She is a corporatist and corrupt.

Same goes for Nikki Haley. She is a woman of color who became governor of South Carolina, an old white boys club, at the age of 38. Very impressive, however, I don't agree with her politics. I assume you think the work that she does goes unappreciated too?

 

[Ries]

The movie has a nice ending for Pelosi and her husband who have built a dynastic fortune off of the people's house.

more trumpian propaganda.
Just like mitch Mcconnell, she married up.
Her husband has been a weathy real estate investor for decades, and his money is easily traceable.
Both she and Mitch would be worth much much less if they hadnt married millionaires.
But hey- at least her husband earned it. Turnip inherited a half billion, and Mitch's wife is from a very wealthy mainland Chinese family of billionaire shipping company owners.