# US congressional leaders have reached agreement on COVID stimulus bill (UPDATE: signed into law)



## x65943 (Dec 21, 2020)

Bipartisan congressional leaders have agreed to the terms of a bill that would put a $600 check into the hands of most american workers. The bill also includes a $300 boost to unemployment payouts and an extension on the foreclosure moratorium. There are also provisions to increase aid to schools and provide for increased covid testing.

Voting is set to take place monday, and the bill is expected to pass both houses of congress and receive Trump's signature before tomorrow at midnight EST. This will be cutting it close as government funding expires tomorrow at midnight, and if the bill is not passed there will be a government shutdown.

So what do you guys think about the bill? Is it enough? For americans, any fancy plans with the $600 check?

Edit: Trump has signed the bill into law. It is not clear yet why he changed his mind.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-package-plans-votes-for-monday-idUSKBN28U061

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2910NA


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 21, 2020)

lol

Not enough, especially after this long, but better than nothing.


----------



## MaxToTheMax (Dec 21, 2020)

A PS5 eventually....


----------



## Flame (Dec 21, 2020)

The few people at the "top" are living a life of hedonism whilst people starve and the world was on the verge of financial ruin.

people are happy with $600 after how many months?


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 21, 2020)

Got to say, try to buy from small businesses, if you don't need the money.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 21, 2020)

Flame said:


> The few people at the "top" are living a life of hedonism whilst people starved and the world was on the verge of financial ruin.
> 
> people are happy with $600 after how many months?


absolutely, but I think Biden will try to push for more in January. It all rests on those Senate races in Georgia.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 21, 2020)

This is just kicking the can down the road, 14+ million US households are more than $5000 behind on rent and/or mortgage payments.


----------



## DarknessPlay3r (Dec 21, 2020)

Wow, that's it $600? Up here we have had the Canadian emergency relief benefit that for the large portion of people who lost work got like $500 per week for quite a while...


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 21, 2020)

Not sure handouts do much good as a general principle.

Though if you have got people addicted to them then that seems like a paltry sum, though if you are bracing for a shortfall then eh.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 21, 2020)

Flame said:


> The few people at the "top" are living a life of hedonism whilst people starve and the world was on the verge of financial ruin.
> 
> people are happy with $600 after how many months?


 I believe it's been what?
Over 4 months? Something like that?
Yeah no 600 isn't no where near enough considering the time frame


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 25, 2020)

So... Anyone going to be having fun knowing that it's been canceled by Trump?
Yes it's not enough, but people have been waiting for too damn long. If anything if they wanted to make changes or raise the amount of money sent. they could of done it later.


----------



## Minox (Dec 25, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So... Anyone going to be having fun knowing that it's been canceled by Trump?
> Yes it's not enough, but people have been waiting for too damn long. If anything if they wanted to make changes or raise the amount of money sent. they could of done it later.


Not that I am very well-versed in US politics, but my understanding was that they bundled a lot of other completely unrelated legislation with the deal.

CASE act being one of the nastier ones.
https://torrentfreak.com/us-passes-spending-bill-with-case-act-and-felony-streaming-proposal-201222/


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Dec 25, 2020)

How many times in the past 10 years has the government shut down?


----------



## Bladexdsl (Dec 25, 2020)

the voteflakes are going to have a field goal over this thread


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 25, 2020)

Minox said:


> Not that I am very well-versed in US politics, but my understanding was that they bundled a lot of other completely unrelated legislation with the deal.
> 
> CASE act being one of the nastier ones.
> https://torrentfreak.com/us-passes-spending-bill-with-case-act-and-felony-streaming-proposal-201222/


Trump specifically stated it was because he wanted it to be increased to 2,000 dollars for the reason of the veto. (which, I highly doubt he was doing it out of his kind heart. more so he realizes that people have voted him out, and now trying to get some appeal to the people he lost)
As of yesterday, that increase has been blocked by the senate.
So we get to stand on a stand still again.
Essentially it's all theatrics without any real care for the people.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Dec 25, 2020)

The stimulus check is supposed to *stimulate* the economy. If the government was giving out free money for the sake of giving out free money, it would be better to abolish taxes.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 25, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The stimulus check is supposed to *stimulate* the economy.


Right...meaning you give money to the people who have to spend it to survive, not the useless assholes who are just gonna add it to their personal hoard and forget about it.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 25, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The stimulus check is supposed to *stimulate* the economy. If the government was giving out free money for the sake of giving out free money, it would be better to abolish taxes.


So you don't like paved roads? Would you like to pay for those upfront? perhaps have some business make you pay access for each street you drive on.
education? Oh just throw it into the hands of the rich, they will certainty take care of everyone, by that I mean they'll make education paid with an upfront cost and probably even suck more than they do now. Since I mean, most for profit collages tend to prioritize football stadiums or things that aren't the main curriculum or not paying teachers.But instead paying the ceo who owns that school as a business, Because we all know that ceo must work so hard, getting to sit on the desk and make a couple of major decision on the desk while teachers scramble for supplies for their students paying out of pocket even more. since that's what we really need in life  we should really apply that system for the k-12 system! Sounds like a great idea! (cough cough sarcasm cough this is a horrible idea)


----------



## wartutor (Dec 26, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So you don't like paved roads? Would you like to pay for those upfront? perhaps have some business make you pay access for each street you drive on.
> education? Oh just throw it into the hands of the rich, they will certainty take care of everyone, by that I mean they'll make education paid with an upfront cost and probably even suck more than they do now. Since I mean, most for profit collages tend to prioritize football stadiums or things that aren't the main curriculum or not paying teachers.But instead paying the ceo who owns that school as a business, Because we all know that ceo must work so hard, getting to sit on the desk and make a couple of major decision on the desk while teachers scramble for supplies for their students paying out of pocket even more. since that's what we really need in life  we should really apply that system for the k-12 system! Sounds like a great idea! (cough cough sarcasm cough this is a horrible idea)


Kind of sounds like how schools are now *cough *cough. Im glad this bill got shot down. Hell they need to keep shooting them down. You want to eat or live in a house go get a fuckin job. There are plenty of jobs mcdonalds is hiring.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 26, 2020)

wartutor said:


> There are plenty of jobs mcdonalds is hiring.


Lol, taxpayers have to make up the difference for McDonald's wages in the form of food stamps and welfare.  That's not a solution, it's contributing to the problem.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 26, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Lol, taxpayers have to make up the difference for McDonald's wages in the form of food stamps and welfare.  That's not a solution, it's contributing to the problem.


So instead of tax payers "making up the difference" your suggestion is just fuck it tax payers can pay it all. Where are all these "tax payers" while everyone "cant work"


----------



## Xzi (Dec 26, 2020)

wartutor said:


> So instead of tax payers "making up the difference" your suggestion is just fuck it tax payers can pay it all. Where are all these "tax payers" while everyone "cant work"


Dude do you have any idea how much money we've given away to corporations throughout this pandemic?  On top of record profits?  If we gave even 1/10th of that money to the people that actually need it, this country could get back to working and some remote sense of "normalcy" as soon as most people are vaccinated.  Anything short of that is just an attempt to slow America's recovery from the damage this virus has done in a year.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 26, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Kind of sounds like how schools are now *cough *cough.


Hmm is that because Donald Trump put Betsy DeVos. A fucking supporter of paid schools, aka get rid of free education? Oh is that also because the fact schools are underfunded? It's the equivalent of putting ajit pai on the FCC.Schools have been underfunded for ages, and you think that perhaps putting someone who has a conflicted interest would be a bad idea.


wartutor said:


> Hell they need to keep shooting them down


Regarding specifically to the part that was clipped on? Or regarding stimulus? Because if it's the later, the 15 million Americans that have lost their jobs would like to word with you. Oh and, if it was handled better, this pandemic, not so many would have lost their jobs.


wartutor said:


> ou want to eat or live in a house go get a fuckin job.


Oh yeah just stop being depressed 4head. You got a depression? just stop being depressed. that's a easier answer. (Perhaps your really  ignorant, but there's no jobs in the market right now. or very few. Where I am, I'm looking for a different job. Getting my first job in the pandemic took four months. Daily, searching.. and it's similar in most states)


wartutor said:


> here are plenty of jobs mcdonalds is hiring.


Oh yeah let mcdonalds continue to go abuse the wealth-fare system. Just let them pay workers the bare minimum, and then have the workers be supplemented by wealth-fare. Just remove taxes, all those wealthfare people don't need it. it's not like by any chance it actually even ruin the economy more since you really do need a place to at least live to apply for a job. you know, you got to tell them your address. So... Kinda hard to apply for somewhere if you don't a home... like... the 40 million Americans that are about to loose their home next month

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> So instead of tax payers "making up the difference" your suggestion is just fuck it tax payers can pay it all. Where are all these "tax payers" while everyone "cant work"


oh but of course, it costs too much to make up the difference. that's why we bailed out banks.

here's a fun video.
It briefly mentions corporations. It's also funny. and accurate.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 26, 2020)

I'm for negative income tax or basic income, but just doing away with taxes altogether is just not the way to go.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 26, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Kind of sounds like how schools are now *cough *cough. Im glad this bill got shot down. Hell they need to keep shooting them down. You want to eat or live in a house go get a fuckin job. There are plenty of jobs mcdonalds is hiring.


“Go get a job!” You say in the middle of a pandemic where most people are struggling to both get a job and hold onto a job. Then you suggest a job that the tax payers make up a major difference for in wages or government subsidizing. That being said, there’s a pandemic and people are running out of money fast. The suggestion to just “get a job” isn’t helping anymore nor is going to make things better. It’s pretty obvious you are either unaware of the problems creating the need for stimulus bills or deliberately being obtuse.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Dec 26, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> “Go get a job!” You say in the middle of a pandemic where most people are struggling to both get a job and hold onto a job. Then you suggest a job that the tax payers make up a major difference for in wages or government subsidizing. That being said, there’s a pandemic and people are running out of money fast. The suggestion to just “get a job” isn’t helping anymore nor is going to make things better. It’s pretty obvious you are either unaware of the problems creating the need for stimulus bills or deliberately being obtuse.


Swine flu was deadlier.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Swine flu was deadlier.


Sources? There are reasons why Swine flu was bad but so easily taken care of compared to Covid. The bigger issues with Covid is the long-term damages not found with swine flu or really any flu.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 26, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Swine flu was bad but so easily taken care of compared to Covid.


correction:swine flu was bad, but  it was responsibly (and more easily) taken care of compared to Covid. (which really failed on the responsibly part)
(really I have no issue with your statement, it's just your statement doesn't entirely highlight how poorly it was responded to. at least in the states.)


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 26, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> correction:swine flu was bad, but  it was responsibly (and more easily) taken care of compared to Covid. (which really failed on the responsibly part)
> (really I have no issue with your statement, it's just your statement doesn't entirely highlight how poorly it was responded to. at least in the states.)


That’s fair, I feel that.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 26, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Hmm is that because Donald Trump put Betsy DeVos. A fucking supporter of paid schools, aka get rid of free education? Oh is that also because the fact schools are underfunded? It's the equivalent of putting ajit pai on the FCC.Schools have been underfunded for ages, and you think that perhaps putting someone who has a conflicted interest would be a bad idea.


Schools have been shit in america way before trump was in office but just keep blaming him for everything, your side is good at that.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Regarding specifically to the part that was clipped on? Or regarding stimulus? Because if it's the later, the 15 million Americans that have lost their jobs would like to word with you. Oh and, if it was handled better, this pandemic, not so many would have lost their jobs.


I dont have a problem with the government "helping" people but quit adding shit that doesnt have anything to do with helping AMERICAN'S. No money to illegal immigrants (they are called illegal for a reason and should be incarcerated/deported) and quit giving money to businesses especially big businesses.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Oh yeah just stop being depressed 4head. You got a depression? just stop being depressed. that's a easier answer. (Perhaps your really  ignorant, but there's no jobs in the market right now. or very few. Where I am, I'm looking for a different job. Getting my first job in the pandemic took four months. Daily, searching.. and it's similar in most states)


You got 1 took 4 months did you take the first one offered, did you apply everywhere that was hiring or are you too good to do some jobs.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Oh yeah let mcdonalds continue to go abuse the wealth-fare system. Just let them pay workers the bare minimum, and then have the workers be supplemented by wealth-fare. Just remove taxes, all those wealthfare people don't need it. it's not like by any chance it actually even ruin the economy more since you really do need a place to at least live to apply for a job. you know, you got to tell them your address. So... Kinda hard to apply for somewhere if you don't a home... like... the 40 million Americans that are about to loose their home next month


This almost answers my question above. And goes right back to the fuck it make tax payers pay it all instead of the difference. And you say it in your sentance 40 million "about" to loose there homes. THEIR IS YOUR ADDRESS PUT THAT ON YOUR APPLICATION (holy shit im a genius i came up with the idea of putting the address of the house you still currently live in, even if it may be temporary.) I dont see how someone working for mcdonalds hurts the economy more than some lazy fuck staying home demanding money from the government. Maybe if they started a couple months ago they wouldnt be getting evicted. Its ok for a single mother to work there, support kids, and pay her rent all this time but guess everyone else is just too good for it.



monkeyman4412 said:


> oh but of course, it costs too much to make up the difference. that's why we bailed out banks.
> 
> here's a fun video.
> It briefly mentions corporations. It's also funny. and accurate.



Im not sure how any of this has to do with the price of tea in chine but the video was funny.

Long story short if they took that first 1.4 trillion and just used it for aid and stuff related to covid relief instead of all the other dumb shit they had within the bill their would still be plenty to help the american people with. We as taxpayers cant keep increasing the dept this recklessly


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 26, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Schools have been shit in america way before trump was in office



Not entirely related but a sample of favourite chapter from one of my big selection of propaganda books if that is to be the direction of discussion. 

https://www.worldcat.org/title/our-national-enemy-number-one-education-without-religion/oclc/4561115
1943, rabidly anti communist (this was before it was cool) and as the name implies finds itself pondering the lack of religion in schools as one of the chief failures of the nation.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 26, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Schools have been shit in america way before trump was in office but just keep blaming him for everything, your side is good at that.





monkeyman4412 said:


> schools have been underfunded for ages, and you think that perhaps putting someone who has a conflicted interest would be a bad idea.


Yeah keep misrepresenting my arguments buddy.
If you want, let me go ahead and just outright what I arguing
schools have been underfunded for ages, however, it's retarded for Donald Trump to put someone who has a conflict of interest regarding education, making the matter even worse than it needed to be.


wartutor said:


> . No money to illegal immigrants (they are called illegal for a reason and should be incarcerated/deported)


I'm snipping this part of your statement "and quit giving money to businesses especially big businesses."
As you'll see me use it against you in a moment.
I don't think illegal immigrants can file tax returns. Which you need that, for you know, the stimulus.
you do know what you need right to file a tax return? a birth certificate, and social security card. Do you guys just think they can just fly by undetected and rob people of money and file for benefits? I'll tell you now, no, they can't. This is one of the things the republican party has brainwashed their members to believe. That illegals  are bad evil people.(let's just be honest, that's a dog whistle. and I know it's a dog whistle because I was previously right-wing in my life) that dog whistle really being a stand in for  Mexicans. Since I do know what imagery comes to your mind. A rich Mexican with three cars and tatoos all over his face, a thick accent, doesn't speak English, and violent. Somewhere around this line of imagery likely comes to you. You get so angry at the idea, you forget to really ask if it's even real or the logistics.
You really should be more angry with businesses since they hire them knowing that they are illegal (i-9 form would prove that, and that's the only part of the process that can be easily broken)

moving on


wartutor said:


> You got 1 took 4 months did you take the first one offered, did you apply everywhere that was hiring or are you too good to do some jobs.


I applied literately everywhere where I was. I wasn't being picky. I tried doing everything that I qualified for. most didn't respond back. The first one that was offered, was literately the one that I have now. I tried remote work, I tried asking the local gas station, I tried asking the local fast food restaurants (scotty's) I also asked McDonald, Walmart. Like, name a business, and I've tried applying for it. And the list of places I could apply for wasn't expanding by much each week. maybe two to three job opening per week. That's how fucked the economy is right now.



wartutor said:


> This almost answers my question above. And goes right back to the fuck it make tax payers pay it all instead of the difference. And you say it in your sentance 40 million "about" to loose there homes. THEIR IS YOUR ADDRESS PUT THAT ON YOUR APPLICATION (holy shit im a genius i came up with the idea of putting the address of the house you still currently live in, even if it may be temporary.)


And you don't get the whole scope. What if your someone who doesn't live with family. what if your someone who has no place to stay. Then what? Do you just try to apply to jobs on the street? Already quite a few have lost their homes. You also can't actively lie about where you live. So I'm more speaking to those who already been fucked, and 40 million more are about to get seriously screwed if no action takes place.




wartutor said:


> dont see how someone working for mcdonalds hurts the economy more than some lazy fuck staying home demanding money from the government.


One problem:
Are you just telling me that there is 40 million people, who just got a home, without paying for it with a job?! Or needing a job?
Real sound logic you got there.
It's just like climate change deniers. Just go sell your home if your on a beach to someone else.
Problem, who is going to buy the fucking flooded home? Or know that in a couple of years it's going to be flooded.
further more. Mcdonalds has been relying on wealth fare for years. This whole relief thing is a one time. I'm pretty sure McDonald has siphoned millions of dollars per year. adding up into astronomical numbers. so yeah no, sending people money when they lost their damn jobs to no fault of their own isn't (and really shouldn't) be an issue.


wartutor said:


> Maybe if they started a couple months ago they wouldnt be getting evicted. Its ok for a single mother to work there, support kids, and pay her rent all this time but guess everyone else is just too good for it.


Look at my post above regarding this specific "oh just apply harder"
I'll state this again. 2 to three job positions opening per week. I wasn't being picky.



wartutor said:


> Im not sure how any of this has to do with the price of tea in chine but the video was funny.


Never did, that video has to deal with


wartutor said:


> and quit giving money to businesses especially big businesses.


If you watched the video, you would of known that 2.2billion dollars was spent bailing out banks. When that could of gone to, well, idk. Actually helping people out? Just food for thought.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 26, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Yeah keep misrepresenting my arguments buddy.
> If you want, let me go ahead and just outright what I arguing
> schools have been underfunded for ages, however, it's retarded for Donald Trump to put someone who has a conflict of interest regarding education, making the matter even worse than it needed to be.
> 
> ...


First problem with all this is im not republican. I dont give a fuck about either side not one of them are on our (the hard working tax payers) side. Im 100% with you on more should of went to helping people and not business's/banks. The government works for the corporations instead of the people and until people quit defending/blaming one side or the other nothing will ever change. All you democrats think your goin to change the world electing biden...it wont make a fuckin bit of difference their all political politics and are out to do one thing keep the rich rich. Not a one give a fuck about you (trump included i just like how he is everyones new fall boy.) Their is 0 evidence that any other person could of did any better than this to combat the virus because
1. The senate and house voted on bills with a SHIT TON OF STUFF NON COVID RELATED AND PASSED IT 1.2 TRILLION. Very little to the people.
2. No steps to stop big businesses that didnt need the money or business that kept open and didnt loose to the point that they would of went bankrupt to keep from dipping their greedy hands into the pot.
3. No plan from either side after the 2 weeks was up to simply take care of the people without dipping other shit into it.
And people just sit back and blame trump because he sees the bull shit laid in front of him. Hell i would of blocked the 1st one until shit was only about relief for the american people and no bull shit added. Every god damn tax payer should of stood up and demanded this.


----------



## magico29 (Dec 26, 2020)

Great-grandfather Biden is coming for more than that bs.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 26, 2020)

wartutor said:


> First problem with all this is im not republican. I dont give a fuck about either side not one of them are on our (the hard working tax payers) side. Im 100% with you on more should of went to helping people and not business's/banks. The government works for the corporations instead of the people and until people quit defending/blaming one side or the other nothing will ever change. All you democrats think your goin to change the world electing biden...it wont make a fuckin bit of difference their all political politics and are out to do one thing keep the rich rich. Not a one give a fuck about you (trump included i just like how he is everyones new fall boy.) Their is 0 evidence that any other person could of did any better than this to combat the virus because
> 1. The senate and house voted on bills with a SHIT TON OF STUFF NON COVID RELATED AND PASSED IT 1.2 TRILLION. Very little to the people.
> 2. No steps to stop big businesses that didnt need the money or business that kept open and didnt loose to the point that they would of went bankrupt to keep from dipping their greedy hands into the pot.
> 3. No plan from either side after the 2 weeks was up to simply take care of the people without dipping other shit into it.
> And people just sit back and blame trump because he sees the bull shit laid in front of him. Hell i would of blocked the 1st one until shit was only about relief for the american people and no bull shit added. Every god damn tax payer should of stood up and demanded this.


Trump is not doing it out of his kind heart or because it's right. The first one DID HAVE bullshit in it. Remember that bailing banks part? Yeah guess what. that was part of the first coronavirus relief bill that was passed.
In other words, no Trump didn't block the bill because he was sticking up for the people. If he did, he would of blocked the first. What's essentially happening is Trump is pissed that people voted him out, and now he is denying funds for people. That is really all it was. Remember?
he held covid relief as hostage
He said he wouldn't pass a relief bill until he was reelected.
And well he's following those words.
Yes that shit shouldn't be in the bill. but people are desperate and need help. denying to do so is going to tank the economy even more. it's a loose loose situation.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> All you democrats think your goin to change the world electing biden


If you read my posts before, you would know I'm not a huge supporter of Biden, more so don't like him.I agree that democrats and republicans are shit, i've stared that before.  However issue is that Trump has been much worse. and being better is a very low bar to pass. It's easier to figure out and do something while under a dementia ridden push over than a cry baby fascist who has access to the keys. (in other words, lots of lefties are preparing for the likely hood of the American government to collapse. Since Biden will try to establish status quo, and  it's going to bloody fail given the polarization. and multiple crises. And only make matters worse. I highly doubt the outcome of a civil war. Likely a revolution, which would be more of a class fight than a fight between families. Since the rich has been pissing on the poor people)


----------



## wartutor (Dec 27, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Trump is not doing it out of his kind heart or because it's right. The first one DID HAVE bullshit in it. Remember that bailing banks part? Yeah guess what. that was part of the first coronavirus relief bill that was passed.
> In other words, no Trump didn't block the bill because he was sticking up for the people. If he did, he would of blocked the first. What's essentially happening is Trump is pissed that people voted him out, and now he is denying funds for people. That is really all it was. Remember?
> he held covid relief as hostage
> He said he wouldn't pass a relief bill until he was reelected.
> ...


Well from what i see what is $600 goin to do pay half a months rent then what they are still in the same boat besides isnt everyone thats unemployed getting $600 extra a week? On top of the $300 a week of unemployment thats $900 a week if you cant live off that than fuck ya. I know single moms working 2 of those jobs most these people thank they are to good for and dont even bring home $900 a week and these are the people society deemed essential. The government is taking care of the wrong people. Take care of the essential instead of the unneeded fluff that thinks they are better than they are.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 27, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Well from what i see what is $600 goin to do pay half a months rent then what they are still in the same boat besides isnt everyone thats unemployed getting $600 extra a week?


false, not everyone that's unemployed. You have to meet specific standards, mostly that you were fired or laid off for covid related reasons. if you weren't you do not qualify. In other words, it specifically targets those who previously had a job, and lost it because of covid, which a no fault to their own scenario.Unless of course your going to argue that those people are just lazy slackers. Which I really doubt.


wartutor said:


> I know single moms working 2 of those jobs most these people thank they are to good for and dont even bring home $900 a week


1.
It's not a matter of "being too good"
As I stated before I was looking for any job I qualified for. I didn't want to take a position that I was lacking in needed skills for. If the job demanded something I can't provide, I'm not going to waste employers  time.
edit: also if anyone was desperate for a job, I don't think they would be "oh I'm too good" most would take the job opportunity
2.Minimum wage should be increased, you shouldn't be paid less than 1,000 dollars when you have 2 jobs. (per month) This proves that really the American job system is slave labor with extra steps. if you  want to continue in a capitalist system, at least have minimum wage increased to what it actually should be (following production) which about 15-20 dollars. That would cover necessities easy. You shouldn't need a second job, or a second person to keep a roof over your head and somewhat okay food.
minimum wage should cover needs, not wants. Which currently, it barely covers needs. (especially 7.25 dollar federal minimum wage)


wartutor said:


> Take care of the essential instead of the unneeded fluff that thinks they are better than they are.


You showed your ignorance regarding the topic. I'm sure if you knew that you have to qualify for those weekly benefits your tune would be a lot different.


----------



## notimp (Dec 27, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Not entirely related but a sample of favourite chapter from one of my big selection of propaganda books if that is to be the direction of discussion.
> 
> https://www.worldcat.org/title/our-national-enemy-number-one-education-without-religion/oclc/4561115
> 1943, rabidly anti communist (this was before it was cool) and as the name implies finds itself pondering the lack of religion in schools as one of the chief failures of the nation.
> ...


You really ought to learn the virtues of OCR... 



> CHAPTER VI
> 
> Weakness Of System Apart From Lack Of Religion
> 
> ...


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (Dec 28, 2020)

Our glorious president signed the bill!
Or maybe this is a fluke? I dunno.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 28, 2020)

yummycake said:


> Our glorious president signed the bill!
> Or maybe this is a fluke? I dunno.


Yeah he signed

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2910NA

So the $600 is on


----------



## Lacius (Dec 28, 2020)

yummycake said:


> Our glorious president signed the bill!
> Or maybe this is a fluke? I dunno.


You mean the feckless president?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 28, 2020)

x65943 said:


> Yeah he signed
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2910NA
> 
> So the $600 is on


Lmao you mean it went back down from $2000 after Republicans blocked it for the amount Trump requested?


----------



## x65943 (Dec 28, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You mean the feckless president?


Let's not devolve into discussion about Trump's character which (of course) we all know much about


Xzi said:


> Lmao you mean it went back down from $2000 after Republicans blocked it for the amount Trump requested?


Semantics, it's signed. Of course Rs don't want to send out bigger checks, but I don't know why you wrote your reply that way - I never made any claims about why or why not it's still 600.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 28, 2020)

x65943 said:


> Let's not devolve into discussion about Trump's character which (of course) we all know much about
> 
> Semantics, it's signed. Of course Rs don't want to send out bigger checks, but I don't know why you wrote your reply that way - I never made any claims about why or why not it's still 600.


I'm specifically referring to how he handled this bill.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 28, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm specifically referring to how he handled this bill.


Well admittedly it would be nice to make that more clear. The politics section too often falls into bickering - so it's important to stay on topic. 

But yeah I agree he waffled and basically accomplished nothing. Now if we want bigger checks we will have to hope the GA races have a favorable outcome.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Dec 28, 2020)

magico29 said:


> Great-grandfather Biden is coming for more than that bs.



You've made these lame comments before. Are you aware that Biden is only 3 and a half years older than great-grandfather Trump? Nope? Didn't think so.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 28, 2020)

Well everyone gets there $600 now blame trump because it was so late and isnt enought to do shit with. Dont worry im sure they are already coming up with a new way to screw tax payers with another trillion or so bill that gives u $300 more in 6 months.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Well everyone gets there $600 now blame trump because it was so late.


still reasonably so since
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/06/trump-kills-stimulus-talks/
since back in October he stated he wouldn't pass a stimulus bill until he was reelected.
Effectively taking it hostage, even if house and senate finally agreed.
“I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business,” Trump wrote




wartutor said:


> Well everyone gets there $600 now blame trump because it was so late and *isnt enought to do shit with.*


As for that part, most are going to blame Mitch McConnell for that. Since really democrats and even Trump wanted to play ball with actually paying people what they needed. (only after trump lost the election like a sore looser. and even then it could be argued the veto was more meant to be fuck you to stall, which I would lean into since he has a child like mindset) But well, you know what happened.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 28, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> still reasonably so since
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/06/trump-kills-stimulus-talks/
> since back in October he stated he wouldn't pass a stimulus bill until he was reelected.
> Effectively taking it hostage, even if house and senate finally agreed.
> ...


That doesnt state only if he wins god put more words in his mouth. You hate when someone else takes shit out of context to make their point yet you do it all the time. Just keep bashing trump he will go back to banging supermodels and spending his vast fortune meanwhile you can watch an 80+ year old smell and grope underage girls. (Was all that taken out of context?) If i remember back in november he said he was ready to sign a bill that would put $2000 in your hand then and democrats didnt want his name on your check.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> That doesnt state only if he wins god put more words in his mouth.


...request, and looking to the future of our Country. I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business. I have asked...— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020


----------



## Xzi (Dec 28, 2020)

x65943 said:


> Semantics, it's signed. Of course Rs don't want to send out bigger checks, but I don't know why you wrote your reply that way - I never made any claims about why or why not it's still 600.


I was asking a genuine question, I didn't know whether $2000 was off the table yet or not.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> That doesnt state only if he wins god put more words in his mouth. You hate when someone else takes shit out of context to make their point yet you do it all the time. Just keep bashing trump he will go back to banging supermodels and spending his vast fortune meanwhile you can watch an 80+ year old smell and grope underage girls. (Was all that taken out of context?) If i remember back in november he said he was ready to sign a bill that would put $2000 in your hand then and democrats didnt want his name on your check.


for someone who says your not a republican, you often simp for Trump it really feels like. Since even blatant things he stated your now trying to deny
he says
"I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business. I have asked..."
He defines him winning the election specifically. It is not "when the election is over"


----------



## wartutor (Dec 28, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313551795646541824


Still doesnt say only if i win just when i win. God fault the guy for being cocky time to just drop talkin to you because apparently u see what you want. Quit reading between line and taking shit out of context.



monkeyman4412 said:


> for someone who says your not a republican, you often simp for Trump it really feels like. Since even blatant things he stated your now trying to deny
> he says
> "I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business. I have asked..."
> He defines him winning the election specifically. It is not "when the election is over"



WHEN I WIN NOT ONLY IF I WIN


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> WHEN I WIN NOT ONLY IF I WIN


 "negotiations end until after I win..."
That is his statement boiled down. He is effectively saying

"If you don't reelect me, I won't negotiate or pass" That is not a accident.
defining the condition of only when he wins, and not anything else, is a only argument.
Holy crap simp mode engaged



Also saying that he didn't say "only" is really grasping for straws.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> ust keep bashing trump he will go back to banging supermodels and spending his vast fortune meanwhile you can watch an 80+ year old smell and grope underage girls. (Was all that taken out of context?) If i remember back in november he said he was ready to sign a bill that would put $2000 in your hand then and democrats didnt want his name on your check.


Oh interesting, do you believe in Qanon? Since I have no idea why your suddenly now trying to compare a current president who intentionally was holding covid relief. To "80+ year olds smell and grope underage girls"
Is this because you believe that Trump will save everyone from all the pedophiles? I mean it makes you sound just and noble. Even though he has a sketchy record himself, but of course you would want to ignore that.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 28, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I was asking a genuine question, I didn't know whether $2000 was off the table yet or not.


Pelosi said she will pass legislation in the house separately to increase the payout to 2k but it is unclear if McConnell will even allow the senate a vote

My guess is no. So for now it's 600 unless a later bill is passed - as this bill is now law


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Dec 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Just keep bashing trump he will go back to banging supermodels and spending his vast fortune meanwhile you can watch an 80+ year old smell and grope underage girls. (Was all that taken out of context?) If i remember back in november he said he was ready to sign a bill that would put $2000 in your hand then and democrats didnt want his name on your check.



1) I'm glad you look for such great qualities in a President. How many sexual assault accusations has Trump had vs Biden? Another hypocrite Trumper with crickets about their Orange Jesus. Trump has actually admitted to sexual assault, yet crickets. Bragged about it, and crickets. Stated how he could just walk into young girls dressing rooms at the Miss America pageants just because he could. Has made sexual comments about his own daughter. Was buddies with Epstein and Maxwell. Yet you want to make some "smell and grope" comment. If one single parent or women in the world felt he did something to their child... they are more than welcome to bring on the lawsuits.

2) 80+ yr old man? He's 78. A WHOPPING 3 and a half years older than Trump. As you were saying? Why do Trumpers always act like Biden is so old & that Trump is in his 50's or something?

3) Your entire bit about Dems not approving $2000 cuz they didn't want Trumps name on the check is a complete load of bullshit. Know what actually did happen though? First stimulus checks held back because Trump insisted his name get added to them first. Like the money came from him or something. What's really sad is that enough of his supporters actually think that. He must be proud to be able to so easily fool the uneducated he loves so much.


----------



## morvoran (Dec 28, 2020)

What?  Was Reuters the least biased "news" source you could find?  Maybe you could go on Teen Vogue next time to get a less biased, teenager "mean girl" style article.  This story even starts out with a jab - "Trump, who leaves office on Jan. 20 after losing November’s election to President-elect Joe Biden".  This is just an assumption as Biden's presidency has not been confirmed by the electorate, yet. 

After painfully reading the story in the second link, I can clearly see how people can be so (wrongfully) hateful towards a president and be completely brainwashed to not think for themselves in order to make their own opinions.

They even gave Pelosi credit for the stand alone bill they will try to pass this week which Trump was asking for since early October:

Move Fast, I Am Waiting To Sign! @SpeakerPelosi https://t.co/RYBeWWuPC2— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2020



To add some clarification to the opinion piece linked in the OP, here is a statement from President Trump:

"I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill.

I am signing this bill to restore unemployment benefits, stop evictions, provide rental assistance, add money for PPP, return our airline workers back to work, add substantially more money for vaccine distribution, and much more.

On Monday the House will vote to increase payments to individuals from $600 to $2,000. Therefore, a family of four would receive $5,200. Additionally, Congress has promised that Section 230, which so unfairly benefits Big Tech at the expense of the American people, will be reviewed and either be terminated or substantially reformed.

Likewise, the House and Senate have agreed to focus strongly on the very substantial voter fraud which took place in the November 3 Presidential election.

The Senate will start the process for a vote that increases checks to $2,000, repeals Section 230, and starts an investigation into voter fraud."


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

It definitely had the hallmarks of a stall tactic, one-sided and without coordination, which then backfired.
From what I can see the past years, every time a controversial and negative course of action is to be taken, it needs a fall guy and room for the top to claim ignorance.

This didn't have that, and so it folded like a house of cards.

The biggest problem is what happens when the majority of the country are the Working Class but almost half would vote away their security just so multinational corporations gain more profit; there is no merit in Trickle-Down Economics yet the vote results are so close.

Representatives are elected and few can actually hide their true personalities, so it's hard to argue Voter ignorance either, especially during COVID-19 and its economic fallout.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 28, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> "negotiations end until after I win..."
> That is his statement boiled down. He is effectively saying
> 
> "If you don't reelect me, I won't negotiate or pass" That is not a accident.
> ...


Ok so UNTIL AFTER I WIN not ONLY IF I WIN. like i said you can read the shit out of context if you want and try to say what you think he means but him being confident he was goin to win is a lot different than what your saying. And again the ONLY ONES INTENTIONALLY HOLDING RELIEF PAYMENTS were polosi and the rest of the democrats because they didnt want trump to get votes for it. 

Then you got this as an excuse. 2 months later look what we got in the bill.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> And again the ONLY ONES INTENTIONALLY HOLDING RELIEF PAYMENTS


Are you broken?
...request, and looking to the future of our Country. I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business. I have asked...— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020

"I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election..."
No where in my statements have I stated polosi or mitch have not stalled covid relief.
also, that breaks your only statement, since trump has.


wartutor said:


> Ok so UNTIL AFTER I WIN not ONLY IF I WIN.


Again, your grasping straws, go cry some more.
I've already told you, saying after, is a very intentional word choice. Hell, he could of just said "after the election is over"
But he SPECIFICALLY said "after I win"


wartutor said:


> like i said you can read the shit out of context if you want and try to say what you think he means but him being confident he was goin to win is a lot different than what your saying.


Oh I'm sorry, I forgot. I need to baby you.
First off, "like I said you can read the shit out of context"
what context am I somehow excluding? I am directly linking the president's fucking twitter
Second off "if you want and try to say what you think he means but him being confident he was goin to win is a lot different than what your saying."
Here's how it's a only statement.
What does he NOT tell you. The devil is in the details of what is not stated.
He does not tell you if he doesn't win. He does not state that.
Also he can't say only. since putting only between his statement
"until after the election when, immediately (only) after I win"
because it would sound wrong, and because people would get even more pissed.
Is it by any chance because he originally wanted to block covid relief?
Given how he whined and whined and whined about widespread election fraud, despite going 1-59 in court cases. and courts are supposed to impartial, and even then the lower courts are stacked in his favor.
I highly doubt it's in his personality to want to be nice. He does things strictly only for his benefit. We can conclude this when he asked Russia to find Hillary's emails and other situations that only strictly benefits him.
So we can apply that same logic back over here. He thought it was a benefit to holding covid relief like a bargaining chip, to get people on to his side. it obviously backfired


----------



## wartutor (Dec 28, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Are you broken?
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313551795646541824
> "I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election..."
> No where in my statements have I stated polosi or mitch have not stalled covid relief.
> ...


You are linking his fucking twitter then adding words and telling me what he ment and read between the lines. No where does he say no negotiations if he looses you imply it. He was simply being cocky in believing he won. Keep adding shit after you post the exact words he said doesnt mean he said it or ment to. Case in point how many times did i hear "huhuhu trump told us to inject bleach in our veins dumb ass huhuhu." People like you and the media tryin to make him look bad (added he dont need your or their help doing that) adding words into what he said and playing partial clips of the talk. I can see your one that just jumps to conclusions and believes the shit taken from "between the lines" you came up with or read somewhere else.
As morovan said earlier where was pelosi here

Move Fast, I Am Waiting To Sign! @SpeakerPelosi https://t.co/RYBeWWuPC2— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2020


They didnt want his name on the check before election. Holding it hostage so he didnt get credit

Dont get me wrong im not a trump supporter but im definatly not a biden supporter and pelosi and half them all need to be hung in public. Things wont change until the people stand up and make the government for the people again instead of themselfs.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> You are linking his fucking twitter then adding words and telling me what he ment and read between the lines. No where does he say no negotiations if he looses you imply it. He was simply being cocky in believing he won. Keep adding shit after you post the exact words he said doesnt mean he said it or ment to. Case in point how many times did i hear "huhuhu trump told us to inject bleach in our veins dumb ass huhuhu." People like you and the media tryin to make him look bad (added he dont need your or their help doing that) adding words into what he said and playing partial clips of the talk. I can see your one that just jumps to conclusions and believes the shit taken from "between the lines" you came up with or read somewhere else.
> As morovan said earlier where was pelosi here
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313829415730786305
> ...


Do you think that by any chance that tweet your linking has some correlation to my tweet?
Ahem.
October 6th:
...request, and looking to the future of our Country. I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business. I have asked...— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020

and then that tweet happened on the next day...
Trump tells his team not to negotiate.
Then the next day, it's suddenly willing to.
Do you think by any chance you realize he got backlash?
Further more, if it's somehow pelosi issue in this specific case.
then that's some real bad case of double think.
Because literately the day before and I quote
"...request, and looking to the future of our Country. I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating "
And now suddenly he wants to sign the bill, but it's apparently pelosi's problem? on October 7th? the next day?
Yeah your going to have to explain that to me.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 28, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Do you think that by any chance that tweet your linking has some correlation to my tweet?
> Ahem.
> October 6th:
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313551795646541824
> ...


He said he would sign a bill to put money in americans hands told her to get it going. She didnt want to "put his name on a check before the election" doesnt matter when he tweeted that or if he did because of backlash he still flat said he would and was waitin on her. Where did it go. Government working for themselves instead of the people. Its ass backwards


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> He said he would sign a bill to put money in americans hands told her to get it going. She didnt want to "put his name on a check before the election" doesnt matter when he tweeted that or if he did because of backlash he still flat said he would and was waitin on her. Where did it go. Government working for themselves instead of the people. Its ass backwards


So you have no argument to refute my point.
Since essentially you just goal posted moved.
it was trump who was holding up the discussion.
(Again, he stated he wouldn't continue negations. and then a day later said he would. If that's not realizing you got backlash, I don't know what is)
Your end statement is correct It is the government working for themselves and not the people.
. your reason why it's correct is wrong.
Now to be clear it wasn't just trump. I'm pretty sure afterwords we got close at one point, if I recall correctly, but then Mitch said no, and then became the next person to stall

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

also further on, why would trump need to put his name on the check?
like what purpose does that serve?
So if we entertain this whole idea that it was nancy holding things up. I would consider it really fucking stupid to have an argument about putting someones name on something when people's livelhoods are at stake. In other words, trump shouldn't have asked for that, it's stupid and pointless and only can help lengthen the process.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Dec 28, 2020)

Great news!

Here, have your 600$! That will fix your burdens! (Now please ignore the billions of dollars in pork/earmarks slapped on the bill that would have served better in the hands of the general public).

And yet I come on here and the discussion is about *Trump*? Gaw, what silly distraction.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 28, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Great news!
> 
> Here, have your 600$! That will fix your burdens! (Now please ignore the billions of dollars in pork/earmarks slapped on the bill that would have served better in the hands of the general public.).


2020 in a nutshell regarding covid in the united states.


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> that would have served better in the hands of the general public


Depends. Helicopter money usually isnt very efficient. Or at least there isnt much research on it being very efficient. 

If you can save a bunch of jobs (prevent people from getting fired) short term (by giving free money to companies and employers), you save a bunch, because not only is it higher efficiency (you deal with one guy, that has a bunch of employees), but when people drop out of job markets, that creates additional costs.

Just remember, that for the purpose of prepping up economies, corruption(industry access to government money), nepotism, and so on = good.

Roughly.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 28, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So you have no argument to refute my point.
> Since essentially you just goal posted moved.
> it was trump who was holding up the discussion.
> (Again, he stated he wouldn't continue negations. and then a day later said he would. If that's not realizing you got backlash, I don't know what is)
> ...


Yes it was democrats wanting this outrageous amount with this amount of fluff for this, and republicans wanting this amount with this fluff for that, and neither one willing to work with the other to make a deal. When democrats blamed trump and the republicans for saying no and trump recieved backlash (for something that wasnt his fault alone) he simply stated he would sign a bill to put $1200 in americans hands that day yet republicans refused to saying they wouldnt have him put his name on the checks (i assume this means get the credit for it because everyone i know got the money deposited straight to their banks. Also i dont know why they was worried about this anyway when they blamed trump for not signing the other bills to help the struggling american families and was given the offer to directly help them they refused.) Now your finally starting to see my point that its not trumps fault (even though everyone, especially democrats, blames him) its all the government. It needs a drastic change or just totally tore down and reassembled "for the people" like it was originally intended.


----------



## magico29 (Dec 28, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You've made these lame comments before. Are you aware that Biden is only 3 and a half years older than great-grandfather Trump? Nope? Didn't think so.


He looks like s.... no matter what Trump age is and this is a free country, get lost.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 29, 2020)

The House voted to raise stimulus checks to $2,000.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/28/politics/house-vote-direct-payments-2000/index.html


----------



## wartutor (Dec 29, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The House voted to raise stimulus checks to $2,000.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/28/politics/house-vote-direct-payments-2000/index.html


Did they cut something else or just tack on more to the total.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 29, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Did they cut something else or just tack on more to the total.


.. no it includes everything Democrats, Republicans, and the White House counsel agreed upon.. yea you know   ..the..*White House counsel..*


----------



## wartutor (Dec 29, 2020)

djpannda said:


> .. no it includes everything Democrats, Republicans, and the White House counsel agreed upon.. yea you know   ..the..*White House counsel..*


I dont know why you have to bold "white house counsel." Its not like that is a new thing they just made up


----------



## djpannda (Dec 29, 2020)

wartutor said:


> I dont know why you have to bold "white house counsel." Its not like that is a new thing they just made up


because people tend to forget that the President gave the ok for 600$  .. that's why it was approved in the first place.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 29, 2020)

djpannda said:


> because people tend to forget that the President gave the ok for 600$  .. that's why it was approved in the first place.


Apparently you have already forgotten if he didnt say anything you would only get $600 instead of $2000. Instantly take all credit away from him good job. Does 1 thing guaranteed right and for the average person and you still cant give him credit. What is that trump syndrom?


----------



## Redhorse (Dec 29, 2020)

considering how much of this money will go into (foreign-made) electronics, I suspect most will funnel down to other countries besides the U.S. ...way to stimulate that economy... pft.

Regarding Schools, counting each state and the multiple lotteries each state collects (daily, weekly, monthly), the monies each is supposed to pay to schools, and the fact that many winners don't collect in one lump sum (therefore their winnings are the interest on the collected monies...), and the fact that the total collected isn't given out as a payment....no school should ever need for pencils, paper etc, in the US. 

Billions are collected daily, where are the transparent payments to the schools? 

Check your politicians' pockets, that's where. Remember that when they ask for a raise.

Fact according to (Source Washington Post)... a certain president collected 200 million USD to investigate Biden election results, only 1.79 million was used for said purpose. (my second number may be off by up to half a million but that is all, to the best of my recollection.... just an example of said corruption... and they're worried about a measly $600 dollars. Hell $2000. is still a piss hole in the snow IMO.

sorry for the wall - o - text
but it IS better than Trumps wall.... lol


----------



## djpannda (Dec 29, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Apparently you have already forgotten if he didnt say anything you would only get $600 instead of $2000. Instantly take all credit away from him good job. Does 1 thing guaranteed right and for the average person and you still cant give him credit. What is that trump syndrom?



.. oh I'm sorry... I 4got to give you your ...





...there you feel better?


----------



## wartutor (Dec 29, 2020)

djpannda said:


> .. oh I'm sorry... I 4got to give you your ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your the one butt hurt about all this. Maybe u should just send ur check back.


----------



## omgcat (Dec 29, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Apparently you have already forgotten if he didnt say anything you would only get $600 instead of $2000. Instantly take all credit away from him good job. Does 1 thing guaranteed right and for the average person and you still cant give him credit. What is that trump syndrom?



i'd give him credit if his delay in signing didn't cause 13 million American's (my wife's included) unemployment to lapse. the guy fucked everyone over. sure, we get $600 each, but it fucked my wife out of 11 weeks of $519. get bent. for the record, she works as a care giver for the disabled, and those jobs have disappeared because there is no way to keep the disabled safe during a fucking pandemic. we'd be in a better situation if the president ordered more vaccine doses when he had the chance, but he didn't so we're all double fucked.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 29, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Your the one butt hurt about all this. Maybe u should just send ur check back.


... oh I apologize  if I gave you the impression that I was an American....and made under $150,000..


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Dec 29, 2020)

wartutor said:


> It needs a drastic change or just totally tore down and reassembled "for the people" like it was originally intended.



It is "for the people" because they are all elected by the people. If people want change they need to start voting these old timers out. But they don't. What is your master plan for reassembly since voting seems to not work out for you?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

One thing History has shown us is that anarchy never works as intended.

Having lived in countries where political uprisings took place, when they actually happened, the only thing it changes is which corrupt circle holds power. The downside is that the older corruption is usually already better-fed and full, so they have calmed down; new corruption on the back of revolution is practically starving and will eat away more from an already-dysfunctional state of affairs.

Our ancestors weren't kidding when they coined the adage, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

So if you actually want change, work from within the system; it isn't as flashy as pointing fingers from the outside and blaming people and won't win you Social Media Cookie Points, but it's the most effective way to see results. As always, Politics is about finding common ground, so no one side's policy will ever fully win; that's just the asinine rhetoric they sell emos to get them triggered into anarchy.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

tomasowa said:


> So if you actually want change, work from within the system;


Well... let me riddle bullet holes into that.
If the current system is so broken, then how are you supposed to work within it?
Take climate change, for example. It's been widely agree on shit needs to get done. I think most with in my generation, and the ones before me would agree that climate change needs to be dealt with, ASAP. But the government, the current system. does not care. Biden might help, but we need deep changes NOW. We don't have another 8 years to waste.
If it was also the case, that it can be worked within. why hasn't a solution came up yet?
At this point there has been consensus that both parties are shit. Both are out to line their pockets.
So why hasn't that been solved?
A lot of  people argue that the system is broken to a point that it has to be redone from the ground up.


Further more lobbying exists, why hasn't that been dealt with?
I think both sides of the isle can agree that it shouldn't be legal. As long as that also continues to exist, where cooperation change the law by shilling a fuck ton of money to go speak for them, the general public, in any capacity , quickly begins to not matter

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also healthcare, which I know is contentious in the states. But it really shouldn't be, every single country does not let healthcare be privatized. What about worker unions? The government body that's supposed to protect them had their budget slashed. While the body that is supposed to crack down on them was increased. Essentially disproportionately winging things into company favor


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Well... let me riddle bullet holes into that.
> If the current system is so broken, then how are you supposed to work within it?



The same way we deal with life.

You don't kill yourself just because you have a bad start in life, you work at it to get better.
Backseat Politics and The Internet will always have something to say; there are 7 Billion people on this planet with 7 Billion opinions.

There are always good, honest, hard-working Politicians behind the scenes in every side, which in this current climate are called the Adults in the Room.

Resetting everything will get you the exact outcome, because Politics isn't as simple as finding new people; Politicians and Diplomats take years to hone their skills, especially in inter-cultural Diplomacy. The only place a one-trick pony works is for local consumption, and even then they're riding on the back of Career Politicians.

If you take away the existing body of work and diplomacy you will have to renew them and that takes time, alongside a shift in Bargaining Power. Those things are often discounted when people stand on their anarchistic soapbox, because they do well when you're less informed of Politics as an Art form and Science.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

tomasowa said:


> You don't kill yourself just because you have a bad start in life, you work at it to get better.


So if complete network of  broken gears exist, you keep trying to spin the gear? knowing it's broken as it continuously slips?
I've alluded to it in a thread a made a while ago.
The capitalistic economic system is broken. Or more accurately broken towards the people. it's inherit nature is to exploit, for nothing but profit.
You cannot fix that.



I am still be in large favor for a democracy, but the economic system we have, is inherently conflicting with democratic values.
I'll go as far as saying that, capitalism needs to go.



To be clear, capitalism is better than feudalism, however as we replaced feudalism, we now need a system  to replace capitalism. It had a role it did it's job, but it does not suite our needs right now.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> You cannot fix that.



Actually, History shows you can but it may not be in the time-frame you want.
Many philosophers have contemplated the Human Condition, since Time Immemorial and your take is as old as their opinions based off it.

Change has to come in at a gradual pace and it has to be grassroots, not from war nor anarchy.
What you get from those two alternatives is a different system altogether, and something that cannot be predicted.

If that is the goal then so be it; they have changed History multiple times.
But one thing is for sure, if anyone is promoting anarchy for the sake of the people then they are delusional, more so with our advanced technologies in warfare.

Anarchy benefits the local powerful and foreign vested interests.

There is a traditional saying in Asia, "Elephants fight, ants get trampled."
That is ancient wisdom.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

tomasowa said:


> Actually, History shows you can but it may not be in the time-frame you want.


Dude, you can't fix a thing that's inherit to a system.
That is capitalism's main goal, profits.
This can be substantiated from the fact companies prioritize stock holders over the consumers. Or the fact that our government has prioritized businesses over people.Or, a topic that hits closer to me. Companies like EA and others, hiring people to research and exploit people's psychology to buy lootboxes


tomasowa said:


> Anarchy benefits the local powerful and foreign vested interests.


Democracy is not anarchy.
If you don't know the difference between a economic system and a government system then you don't know what your talking about.
Capitalism referes to economics. I am vouching for that to be replaced.
I am not vouching for democracy to go in place of anarchy. anarchy only creates a power vacuum.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Dude, you can't fix a thing that's inherit to a system.



I doubt you have enough experience nor competency to talk on this subject.

You can fix a broken system by augmentation, or is that an alien concept to you.
If so then my first sentence here is why.

Dissolving any Government by an uprising is an anarchical state of affairs.
If you can't distinguish between political systems and the lack thereof then, again, sentence number one is your answer.

To get what you want out of a Government is to augment broken policies; they, in turn, will transition with time.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

tomasowa said:


> Actually, History shows you can but it may not be in the time-frame you want.


further more, we don't have much time. I'd hate to be a doomer
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-on-climate-and-the-risk-of-societal-collapse
But I really don't like this. And Biden will not solve it to the extent it needs to be dealt with.
Why?
Because he told his investors, those that backed him. that nothing will effectively change.


tomasowa said:


> You can fix a broken system by augmentation, or is that an alien concept to you.


Again, you can't fix something that is inherit to that system.
I'll go use a really bizarre example, but it will suffice.
The specter and meltdown exploits are inherit to those vulnerable CPU's. You cannot fix the issue, it is at hardware level. you can augment and create a bandaid with a software patch, but the issue still remains, festering.
This is what I'm getting at.
Capitalism's main goal is profit beyond all else. You cannot fix that. it's inherit to it. You can try to reel it in with government, but you cannot fix it's issues entirely.


tomasowa said:


> Dissolving any Government by an uprising is an anarchical state of affairs.


However it's not total anarchy, as you were stating earlier. 
Let me go back to the climate change issue then.
We've known it's a problem for multiple decades. However instead of doing something ,politicians, banked off it and had a conflict of interest versus the people.

If this issue could of been fixed, when literately there has been scientific data for decades about it. Why has it not been solved. Are you telling me people haven't been vocal enough?


voting is a replacement for a guillotine. Effectively right now people's voices, aren't getting listened to. since they have to pick between worse or worser. (which is why there is a lot of unrest) Which comes back to capitalism. You can argue
"well it's possible to get someone who has people's actual values"
and to that I say their chances of getting in there is completely fucked because again, capitalism.  It also allows for the stupidly rich to solve their problems by throwing a fuck ton of money with no real effort. Any candidate that those people may of want quickly gets overshadowed, since those that would have interests for the people, are more likely to not be rich/not from the top 10%


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

I understand your angst, so I'll answer with that in mind.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Because he told his investors, those that backed him. that nothing will effectively change.


There are several ways to look at this promise as it stands, so I won't bore you with explaining what you already know.
The most effective solution is always a grassroots majority mandate, which unfortunately isn't there; but hope is not lost because the economic viability of Green alternatives is also rising, so I would recommend waiting to see where the intersection is.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Again, you can't fix something that is inherit to that system.


As I mentioned, there are many examples of augmentation, or Hybrid systems if that fits your vocabulary more; we always start with hybrids and let the grassroots decide from its benefits where the road takes the country. 

A simple example is how Social policies for Welfare can fit into many self-proclaimed Capitalist countries, especially in Europe, if we're looking for Western counterparts. Conversely, Asian countries have also adopted Capitalist hybrids to their economic model; all these take into account local grassroots flavours and they are, by definition, neither here nor there and contrary to your statement.



monkeyman4412 said:


> However it's not total anarchy, as you were stating earlier.


This is more than just a Semantics issue; the moment someone enters Politics, they become a Politician.
It can be hard to understand until you become one yourself, mostly because few understand the Job Description.

It isn't about a particular Economic System per se because all Systems are political and have the conflicts of interest you're talking about.
The point is about getting the majority of the grassroots sentiment to agree with you, otherwise no policy can survive longer than a Term.

This goes back to augmentation, gradually showing the country benefits to override fears and disinformation.
In the end, being vocal has very little to do with it and will create diminishing returns as people become saturated with the Media shouting, pessimistic and desensitised to the whole affair.

It's always good to remember that you need to appeal to those for and against your idea, and the only way to do that in Politics is to go slowly, augment and show results afterwards.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2020)

tomasowa said:


> As I mentioned, there are many examples of augmentation, or Hybrid systems if that fits your vocabulary more; we always start with hybrids and let the grassroots decide from its benefits where the road takes the country.
> 
> A simple example is how Social policies for Welfare can fit into many self-proclaimed Capitalist countries, especially in Europe, if we're looking for Western counterparts. Conversely, Asian countries have also adopted Capitalist hybrids to their economic model; all these take into account local grassroots flavours and they are, by definition, neither here nor there and contrary to your statement.


sigh
you don't get the underlying point though.
You need to elect people into the government, that will do the above yes?
If you want a economic reform within, you elect your choices.
Problem, your choices are already selected. Because the other candidates, who would hold you view
CAN NEVER BE ELECTED.
Why do you think Bernie was screwed over?
Was it because perhaps Bernie even with his more watered down view this year was still a threat to those in power?
They will always be out supported if they don't follow behind the massive corporations. Along with having those corporations help advertise against you. It's not that people wouldn't support them, it's that corporation voices are able to weigh in so much more.
Currently our system is broken.
I know you have this noble idea that it can be solved within. But it can't.
Maybe a couple decades ago. But not anymore.
America's problem is a lot more specific. At least with Europe it's not a strict two party system. And with Europe's case people's voices are heard way more often and have protections for the people (compared to the US)
US has none of that. Over time policies that would of protected have been stripped away. 
Money in the United States right now speaks more than the people, and it has reached the point where the people can't fix it.


----------



## weatMod (Dec 29, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Not sure handouts do much good as a general principle.
> 
> Though if you have got people addicted to them then that seems like a paltry sum, though if you are bracing for a shortfall then eh.


over 70% of the money is NOT going to the people
 just like last time , just another bailout for you know whos over on Wall St, just like in 2008
they get trillion while we get $600... and  hyperinflation


----------



## DJPlace (Dec 29, 2020)

600 is not enough you assholes.

but still when are people getting these checks?


----------



## Lacius (Dec 29, 2020)

*McConnell blocks effort to quickly increase direct stimulus payments*

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday blocked an effort to quickly pass a measure to increase direct stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000, though the legislation could be voted on at a later time or date if McConnell so chooses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/republican-senator-reject-2000-stimulus-increase/index.html


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 30, 2020)

I was going to leave this, but then I realised if I would be doing you a disservice if I didn't reply; what you do with your political angst is on you, but how I explain or leave things unexplained is on me. I just hope you don't get yourself hurt in the future.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Problem, your choices are already selected. Because the other candidates, who would hold you view CAN NEVER BE ELECTED.



This is Democracy, in a nutshell and you're not the first to feel that it's not going as you'd hoped; Socrates himself was executed by a democratic vote, so what can I tell you.

You complain about how the people you want voted are not; that's basically a minority wanting majority power. This will never happen and if you feel you deserve that right, then as a minority your train of thought and subsequent actions are in violation of the Democracy you hold dear. 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you get your way and your minority voice grabs power; the only way that happens is outside of Democracy and obviously through Anarchy. In the subsequent power struggle, the chances of your minority maintaining power are slim to none; the Military will always win. 

Your little exercise in futility will have cost the innocent lives of many, most likely including your family and loved ones.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Currently our system is broken.



The saddest part is that you don't realise this is not from a broken system but from the country's Democracy. People voted for these Politicians; this should tell you that you don't even understand the people living in the same country as you. 

You definitely don't understand immigrants from Socialist countries, their backstory and distrust of anything labelled Socialism.

Long story short, get the majority to think like you and you'll have your change. It's not going to be a quick turnaround and it might even last your whole lifetime; but if you believe your cause is righteous then it's a lifetime well-spent creating a better future for your countrymen.

Who knows, the next time we chat you might become a Politician yourself.


----------



## danver (Dec 30, 2020)

Wow y'all must love to argue over politics huh. This is why i have stopped watching the news all together. The reason being is because all people want to do is put there two cents in. Then proceed to argue who's right to me that is just damn pointless. Sure we can be angry about whats going on, and whats not being done right, or what we think is right. The fact of the matter is we are not in congress we are not in any position to tell the senate what the hell to do, or better yet president elect Biden, or president Trump.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 30, 2020)

danver said:


> Wow y'all must love to argue over politics huh. This is why i have stopped watching the news all together. The reason being is because all people want to do is put there two cents in. Then proceed to argue who's right to me that is just damn pointless. Sure we can be angry about whats going on, and whats not being done right, or what we think is right. The fact of the matter is we are not in congress we are not in any position to tell the senate what the hell to do, or better yet president elect Biden, or president Trump.


The answer isnt to just ignore the outside world and live in your own little bubble. It is natural to argue points back and forth between one another or nothing would of ever got accomplished or will ever get changed. With your mindset u may as well lay in a ditch and just wait for death.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 30, 2020)

Lacius said:


> *McConnell blocks effort to quickly increase direct stimulus payments*
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday blocked an effort to quickly pass a measure to increase direct stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000, though the legislation could be voted on at a later time or date if McConnell so chooses.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/republican-senator-reject-2000-stimulus-increase/index.html


I really hate that this turtle has so much power and Kentucky continues to vote for him. Mitch is literally one of the biggest contributors to the Covid mess we’ve found ourselves in thanks to him constantly blocking every bill and being impossible to work with. Admittedly, both sides have been trying to use Covid as a means of injecting bullshit into bills, but Mitch has just been the worst. Instead of doing anything good, he’s just been doing everything possible to stall and block any efforts to making things better. Seriously, how does he still have supporters?


----------



## danver (Dec 30, 2020)

Well like i always say in life there are people who are good. Then there are people who are just shit, but i try to show that chivalry is not dead. By helping those that need help, and hoping it gets passed on.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 30, 2020)

tomasowa said:


> You complain about how the people you want voted are not; that's basically a *minority *wanting majority power.


Oh I didn't know it was a minority a to not want the top 1% corporation rule to rule the 90%
It's not my personal views.
If I pull myself out from my own politics, outside looking in.
The Republican party doesn't match up those who vote for them.
Same with the democratic party.
The one clear uniting issue.
Is corporation, over people
There's a massive dissonance occurring. People only vote for them, because that's the only option they've been provided. A pick between of lesser of evils. Nothing truly aligning with what they want.
They are giving up voting for their conscious since they feel that voting third party is a waste of a vote.
Again, capitalism controlling essentially who you get to elect.
If they were to find a candidate they want, it would be out campaigned for the status quo, by those who want to keep it. Aka the rich.


tomasowa said:


> You definitely don't understand immigrants from Socialist countries, their backstory and distrust of anything labelled Socialism.


And I bet you don't know anything about those who would wish the USSR was back.
I'd imagine the reason of that distrust in anything socialism comes back to multiple issues
Primarily the red scare. Which in the United States heavily lobbied against anything socialist to essentially flex and show that capitalism is better.
No, really, that's the entire reason. (also not to forget to mention the reason why we went to war with Vietnam was because they became communist.)
combined with countries naming themselves socialist or communist while not actually being (cough cough china. China is more closer to capitalist than actual socialist or communist in the modern day. Even though the main controlling party has Communism in the name)
I hope your not confusing your economic systems and social scale systems. Since if your thinking socialism is inherently authoritarian or same for communism. Congrats, you fell for the red scare propaganda.
You can have a country that is democratic and also socialist/communist. You can have authoritarian capitalism. (china)
I say that now since, well, due to the red scare, essentially, it's created a situation that conflates economic and social scale systems, that has been deeply rooted/impacted American politics and culture.


tomasowa said:


> he saddest part is that you don't realise this is not from a broken system but from the country's Democracy.


It is broken systems.
Capitalism has a incentive, that incentive is money over people.
Nothing more nothing less. As long as that incentive remains, corruption will too.
Democracy doesn't live in a vacuum. it Lives with the system along side it. If the system along side it allows and enables corruption, so too will it, even in the most perfect images of a democratic system.


tomasowa said:


> Long story short, get the majority to think like you and you'll have your change.


The majority of people already agree with my sentiment that the current system we have. Is not working.
We may come to different reasons as to why it's not working. We may come to different solutions to fix it.
However we all know at this point it's blatantly, not working, it is favoring the rich, there is no equality in that. And as a result, people's voices are going unheard.
I may not have agreement with the people on the other side of the isle about what do to do. But we both agree it's a serious issue. from what I can tell.


tomasowa said:


> Who knows, the next time we chat you might become a Politician yourself.


Most politicians are rich, own a profitable business or is capable of investing in stocks along with knowledge likely the public won't know.
I consider that highly unlikely, I would be out lobbied. Unless I drank the poison that would be accepting donor money and having to give up my values in order to keep competing.


----------



## danver (Dec 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Most politicians are rich, own a profitable business or is capable of investing in stocks.
> I consider that highly unlikely, I would be out lobbied. Unless I drank the poison that would be accepting donor money and having to give up my values in order to keep competing


 I agree with you monkey for one i rather live, and work a honest life then a dishonest one. that's just how i am. Meaning i want to work for what i want, still be able to be my self with my own goals, and my own as you said values. Because to me that's far better then any position in power.


----------



## notimp (Dec 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Most politicians are rich, own a profitable business or is capable of investing in stocks along with knowledge likely the public won't know.
> I consider that highly unlikely, I would be out lobbied. Unless I drank the poison that would be accepting donor money and having to give up my values in order to keep competing.


Again - imho you havent understood too much here.

First, there is the electoral system - which in the US is pretty effed, because in order to get a political position you need investor money. You cant finance nationwide two years of 'election circus' with anything else than large scale institutional or private investor money. Money thats specifically out there to garner favors and influence. Some short term (lobbying), some longer term (buy yourself the good graces of an entire party - also lobbying).

Two points. a. You couldnt even run an election without - pretty much structural corruption (just named differently (election "packs" allowed to accept unlimited donations, as long as they dont associate too closely with a candidate - but buying their entire election campaign, their ads...))
b. A politician doesnt have to be 'rich' (depends what their goals are - if they are institution oriented, many of them arent close to 'getting rich'.)

But you are touching on a relationship between money and institutional knowledge, and structural power (not in the same person, but people meeting and talking), that certainly isnt inversly correlated with 'becoming rich'. Insider trading, still a crime - btw. But if the drive is there - you can make your wife, or your friends hold the assets you arent allowed to.

Most of this doesnt exceed the status of petty crime, btw.

If you take a step back, and look how this is set up, facilitating 'business' or 'investments' and something we can call 'public needs' (free to interpretation btw, as in the outloks of different parties differ), with 'the good will of people'.

- So many senators being 'rich' - if you want to see that as a problem (I tend to btw) is a peoples problem, because they tend to 'stick to voting for their senator' even if they are old and senile, because 'structural embeddedness' gives structural rewards. And if their senator is perceived as bringing back many 'rewards' (by f*ck others over btw), they like them even more.

- The structural corruption (relationship with company leaders) issue, by design is solved by people holding that politician in his/her position. Its not those companies - at least not directly, they have to do PR - while the system actually favors people voting based on their daily needs.
If that doesnt function (for example, because people 'recognize' that 'structural embededness' brings back most benefits), what can you do?
But maybe stress a higher moral instance, or NGO work.

Which can become political movements by themselves - but in doing so, largely use the same tactics of 'mass persuation' as everyone else. So the issue, and the motivation differes - but people arent less -- well 'people'.
------------------

Also, the overall lesson one might learn currently, why everything stays the same, and democrats are more engaged in talking about issues of skincolor, than classissues, replacing social mobility once more - with were you in the correct crazy clubs in college...btw. Is simply - millenials interests dont matter at scale - politically. There are other interest groups (as in people that vote), that are larger in size, more loyal, less confused, less angry - and only interested in coasting their lifestyle into the grave, and maybe some vague 'responsibility notion' for their grandchildren, if the are looking cute and are visiting often.

Take them, the easily religiously malleable, the hopefulls with - in our age the right skincolor to become 'first' person with that ethnicity in said position. And thats it - thats popular politics today. Tell everyone they achieved what they did because of merit. But also tell your intellectual classes, that they cant be so openly proud anymore, because otherwise people would revolt.

Make sure the economy doesnt falter, and call it a day.
-------------------

None of this starts with 'but politicians also are richt and...' thats just a factor of being in those circles for as long as the public lets them, and so much investor money floating arround prior to elections, that FUNDRAISING becomes your entire jobdescription. Before you are allowed become anything at the party level.

See Buttigieg.

Fundraising would also work at the 'crowdfunding level'. But not sustained at that scale. (Two years of election circus - where more than half of US americans dont know what is going on, and vote by 'felt' affiliation in para psychological relationships, and whose face they like better.)

So the filters are not only 'are you rich, and do you have a company', but also 'can you motivate a bunch of people to support you', or 'are you such a sellout, that we can literally buy you', or 'are you a storyteller that can sell anything to anyone' -- and yes, there is a large institutional bias to retain the status quo, for as long as its workable.

And yes workable means, more than half of the population manipulated by PR tactics, alsmost exclusively. (All the Trump cruisaders in here are outrageously dumb, but tell that to their faces, and they become energized to no end..  )
--

Continued from that point on, 'preaching morals' wont help fix this, if you arent doing it in a way, that isnt massaging peoples peoples selfimages, and catering to their notions of the world. Even if you are for educated decision making, you have Joe Bumblebun against, you who also feels, their worldview is important, and also wants to be recognized for the views they provide, and hold deer - and thats it. Your voice counts just as much as theirs, and they are easier to mobilize.

Even corruption (first is more than just corruption, but secondly), people find great, and honor profusely, if that means, their 'community' derives any benefit from it. And thats not going to change.

Its 'corruption, where I'm on the loosing end' they find so highly problematic and amoral, and worth toppling governments for.


----------



## DJPlace (Dec 30, 2020)

Lacius said:


> *McConnell blocks effort to quickly increase direct stimulus payments*
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday blocked an effort to quickly pass a measure to increase direct stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000, though the legislation could be voted on at a later time or date if McConnell so chooses.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/republican-senator-reject-2000-stimulus-increase/index.html



there delaying to give us more money? that's odd... and nice i think?


----------



## Lacius (Dec 30, 2020)

DJPlace said:


> there delaying to give us more money? that's odd... and nice i think?


No, McConnell doesn't want to increase the amount of money in the stimulus checks, and he's doing everything he can to stop it while shielding Republicans from the political repercussions of voting against the increase. For example:

*McConnell moves to combine Trump asks in potential 'poison pill' for stimulus checks*

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced legislation Tuesday to combine two additional demands from President Donald Trump to an expansion of direct stimulus payments as part of the Covid-19 relief package, raising Democratic concern the pathway for expanded stimulus payments would soon be short-circuited.

The Kentucky Republican, shortly before adjourning the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, introduced a bill that would combine increased direct payments with a repeal of the online liability protections known as Section 230 and the establishment of a commission to study voter fraud. The latter two issues have been significant drivers of Trump's ire in the wake of his general election loss -- the latter of which with zero evidence presented to this point.
While the move doesn't guarantee McConnell will bring the bill up for a vote, it provides a substantive option should time -- and the political winds -- press the chamber in that direction. It's also one that would be all but certain to fail to garner the votes for passage."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/mcconnell-poison-pill-attached-to-bill/index.html


----------



## nero99 (Dec 30, 2020)

our own government would rather see us all dead than giving us a way to survive.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 30, 2020)

nero99 said:


> our own government would rather see us all dead than giving us a way to survive.


It's specifically and predominantly the Republicans, but yes.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> ...



I could go to town pointing out all the things you don't understand about Politics, but a good chunk of that has been taken care of.
The bigger question is, if your history of Comments leads people to need to explain these things to you, what are you doing trying to argue Politics. 

That said, people tend to not be able to see the forest for the trees, because Politics can be as complicated as you want it to be; my goal is to explain things in a simple form, because every complicated theory is talked about in abstraction. 

But to do this, you need to have prerequisites, so rather than sound like a broken record, here.


tomasowa said:


> I doubt you have enough experience nor competency to talk on this subject.


----------



## DJPlace (Dec 30, 2020)

i need to keep updated with news i guess or don't bother with it. so there trying to prevent the $2000 dollars and only give $600 or no check at all... if it's no check at all that congressional leader can go fuck himself.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> Again - imho you havent understood too much here.


I think your failing to seriously grasp my point.


notimp said:


> - So many senators being 'rich' - if you want to see that as a problem (I tend to btw) is a peoples problem, because they tend to 'stick to voting for their senator'


I wouldn't classify it as a people's problem, if you noticed I already touched on that specific idea.


monkeyman4412 said:


> They are giving up voting for their conscious since they feel that voting third party is a waste of a vote.
> Again, capitalism controlling essentially who you get to elect.


So if it's some how unclear somehow let's go spell it out.
As I've already stated a million times by this point, capitalism's main goal is profits beyond all else.
If a candidate where to say, go against status quo, in the system we have, it literately is a battle of who has more money. Don't have money? Accept donor money, do those industry bidding. failure to comply will mean you will more than almost guaranteed not get a chance. It will inevitably, and ALWAYS boil down to a pick of a worse or worse candidates who have been backed by status quo. People cannot go vote third party, and expect to have even a chance. In other words, a lot of people would call it a wasted vote.
It is not a matter of "well they'll get though by word of mouth"
It is "how much can I cram and advertise this person"
You can talk to people, try to let them know that there is a candidate they may like that has their interests. But money speaks louder.






notimp said:


> - The structural corruption (relationship with company leaders) issue, by design is solved by people holding that politician in his/her position.


Yeah good luck with that, when the system dis proportionally weighs in on corporations/rich side. I'm going to elaborate to you below why your explanation doesn't work here. Simply put, you can't hold those positions properly accountable, because you will not be able to find a not corrupt candidate.


notimp said:


> So the filters are not only 'are you rich, and do you have a company', but also 'can you motivate a bunch of people to support you'


Wrong
So if we really want to play with those filters, you would also need one important thing, which is the WHOLE thing I've been trying to get at this whole time.
Advertising and being in the minds eye.
How much does advertising cost?
I think you know that answer.

Also further more, due to that cost, it again weighs in favor to those who already have a large business, even more so once you consider donors. Essentially,
your going to have to do a lot of dick sucking and your going to have to mute your message, and replace it in the words with the businesses. Or else they will not help elect you. they will not be your donors. And failure to do so, failure to comply, leads to corrupt individuals taking place, they'll happily do it for the money, and that's when it goes from being a person issue, to a system issue, again. Even if you hold corrupt billy bob, accountable, and vote him out, due to the capitalist system due to money being put before the people.
Corruption, will always win. You'll just get another corrupt candidate.
This inherently blocks discoverability. If there was a candidate who appealed to the majority of people who went against businesses or status quo
They would never know. Those people would not know that person exists, and would be forced to again, vote between two evils.

You will not be able to speak your conscious.

It is by design, I've been calling it broken. But really this is what that specific system leads to. It is working as intended.
it's working as intended for politicians to go bail out banks, put more weight behind companies, than actually help the people. It is by design that fucking water here can cost four times the amount, when in the local area there is no safe to drink tap water.
And if you response is that this is the way it has to be, I challenge that with why does it need to be this way?
if you continue to fail to grasp it's a system issue, not a person issue (which is what it seemed to me with your emphasis on being a people's issue)
then really there is no point in continuing this point of discussion. Since we'll just start looping at some point.


----------



## notimp (Dec 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> I wouldn't classify it as a people's problem, if you noticed I already touched on that specific idea.


Havent read it, will do.

Tentatively it is a peoples problem imho. Maybe you could classify it as a 'people dont believe in a common goal' anymore problem (so they are looking at politics somewhat cyniacally). As is currently the trend by the way (to see that as an issue, and give people more 'group identity' offerings) - but even then your 'solutions' become motivational movements, or religious movements. And then you select for 'believes', and then people must follow the right ones to get a good paying job, ...

Also - really not quite perfect.

So if you are doing a breakdown 'where democracy might be failing right now' - imho you end up at structural problems like 'young people dont get enough say', or 'end of growth narratives', or post democracy narratives (oligopolies).

But the main problem usually isnt 'corruption' and even where it might be, the proposed solution, might be more 'idealistic' than the ideals you are confronting.

We might move into societies, where the main problem becomes corruption (usually you dont care so much about 'rich folks' because many of them loose their fortunes after three generations, if you 'cement' whose influence is important, it becomes more of an issue --), but currently - imho thats not the case. There are more obvious explanations for 'why things dont change' as much as younger people might want them to change.

On top of that, the entire USD economy basically is built on the concept, that US companies can make profits everywhere in the world - actually, primarily outside of the US, then not get taxed for it, but that trickle down still floats the boat. If you say - thats not working anymore, also fine, but the main issue here also isnt corruption.
--

Dont get me wrong, I dont want you to 'love' the concept of 'moneyed influence', neither do I want you to accept 'corruption' as a motive at the political stage. I just employ you to also look at other, structural reasons, why some stuff might not work right now,
-

edit:

Also gaining 'public attention', can be very cheap at times, if there is a shared consensus in a subgroup of something - see Greta. You dont have to 'own media' to get your cause featured necessarily. (It sure helps if you do, but even that gives you nothing, if you cant connect with a popular sentiment. (ie. "For the future of the children." or "Uk people first".))


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> Also gaining 'public attention', can be very cheap at times, if there is a shared consensus in a subgroup of something - see Greta.


Greta shouldn't have to go out of her country, further more, it took multiple decades of non stop ignoring from politicians,
I wonder if that's because their donors were part of the fossil fuel industry?
We're already fairly late, and were going to suffer some of the worst consequences.
Many people have protested, it shouldn't take a 13 year old to finally get shit moving, it's fucked up, and it's completely and utterly broken.
And even then shit hasn't been moving all that much.


notimp said:


> So if you are doing a breakdown 'where democracy might be failing right now' - imho you end up at structural problems like 'young people dont get enough say', or 'end of growth narratives', or post democracy narratives (oligopolies).


false. Again, your conflating. To me it seems your conflating a governing system with economic systems.
I am targeting specifically the later.
  I'm not looking into "where democracy might be falling right now"
Democracy can have many pitfalls through it's various implementations, but that would lead you astray really fast. At it's core, when not considering economic systems. Democracy,  can work without corruption.
However, a governing scale, is built partially on the economic scale. If your economic scale is corrupt, then that democracy, that governing scale, will inventively become corrupt as well.
So really we should be asking does capitalism enable corruption. To that it should be an easy answer of yes.
If you want a government that fits with the people for the people, you cannot have a economic scale that betrays that. Doing so will allow that betrayal to bleed into the govern part of the system.
What I'm specifically been pointing at, is the corruption that has bleed from capitalism inherit nature into the democracy we have. 
People are not inherently corrupt, have a system that promotes it, and your going to get exactly that.


----------



## notimp (Dec 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Greta shouldn't have to go out of her country, further more, it took multiple decades of non stop ignoring from politicians,
> I wonder if that's because their donors were part of the fossil fuel industry?
> We're already fairly late, and were going to suffer some of the worst consequences.
> Many people have protested, it shouldn't take a 13 year old to finally get shit moving, it's fucked up, and it's completely and utterly broken.
> And even then shit hasn't been moving all that much.


On the other side you see my reluctance to believe in a world where people neglect personal motives in favor of higher goals, and and also my deep disturbance, that this is seen as 'whats needed currently''.

On the structural political level the risks are clear, so why do you (not you personally) act like this is part of the responsibility of every individual? To tell politics to 'listen to science'? Rly?

The answer to a gametheory problem (prisoners dilemma), cant be to mount a NGO vanguard to convince political leaders, yet public pressure (what comes as a result of this) arguably is what is needed. individual responsibility - to combat a structural issue -- its madening.

Metaphysics ("leave it in the ground" chants against coal extraction) and religious motives to combat the profit motive... Metaphysics and religious motives, that hurt individual interests, to combat the profit motive.

And I'm the first person, that looking at this stage of 'increasing energy efficiency' with no private investors biting, but the Blackrock CEO giving lipservice to 'oh, but it ought to be done' is looking for alterior motives.

Yet very cheap to establish in the public mindset. As soon as Boomers are on the way to the grave. But not a second earlier.


monkeyman4412 said:


> So really we should be asking does capitalism enable corruption. To that it should be an easy answer of yes.


Somewhat agree. But there are positives to capitalism as well. You probably have to weigh them against the negatives.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 30, 2020)

nero99 said:


> our own government would rather see us all dead than giving us a way to survive.


Relevant picture




Lacius said:


> It's specifically and predominantly the Republicans, but yes.


Even though the Dems are trying, they’ve also allowed shit to be put into bills that didn’t need to be there or ignore dangerous shit in the bills. Both parties would rather let us die than stop playing politics.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 31, 2020)

notimp said:


> Somewhat agree. But there are positives to capitalism as well. You probably have to weigh them against the negatives.


That has as much meaning to saying there is positives to feudalism and you have to weigh it against the negatives. My point being saying a general statement like that adds nothing to the conversation.


notimp said:


> On the structural political level the risks are clear, so why do you (not you personally) act like this is part of the responsibility of every individual? To tell politics to 'listen to science'? Rly?


What part don't you get?
It can no longer be attributed as a "individual" or person issue. People have been yelling and doing to make their voice heard regarding the subject for years, decades, thousands of scientists off and on. It's not about the individual at this point. It's about systems. If you cannot grasp that, then your not worth my time.
If a system is broken, it does not matter what the individual does. And if that said system is the only thing at creating change, and that's broken, no amount of individuals would be able to get the problem resolved through that system.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 31, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Relevant picture
> View attachment 239942
> 
> Even though the Dems are trying, they’ve also allowed shit to be put into bills that didn’t need to be there or ignore dangerous shit in the bills. Both parties would rather let us die than stop playing politics.


It's not a "both sides are at fault" issue. That's a false equivalency.

Democratic members of the House passed an up/down vote on $2,000 checks. The Republicans are largely against it, and that's why it's being blocked by the Republican majority leader in the Senate. If Republicans cared, there are several ways they could bypass McConnell.

Change the subject to any number of issues related to income inequality, health care, etc., and Democratic members of congress generally fight for people, and Republicans don't.


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> It can no longer be attributed as a "individual" or person issue. People have been yelling and doing to make their voice heard regarding the subject for years, decades, thousands of scientists off and on. It's not about the individual at this point. It's about systems. If you cannot grasp that, then your not worth my time.
> If a system is broken, it does not matter what the individual does. And if that said system is the only thing at creating change, and that's broken, no amount of individuals would be able to get the problem resolved through that system.


No, the PR based solutions angle of "We need you to be in the vanguard of making the changes we need. I count on you to come to my climate summit prepared to inspire the world with your actions and your plans and influence your own Governments." src: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2019-05-28/remarks-r20-austrian-world-summit

You have a major structural issue. Where as it looks today (US Ist doing jack (individual states within the US are), neither is brasil). So you finance and foster an army of individuals, that you tell "you are the vanguard" we need you to influence governments all over the world. And as a result they go out and shout random people in the face, that what is needed is their individual abstinence in certain fields.

Structurally - none of this makes sense. Apart from 'you need public pressure' and you have no better way to get it.

From an individuals perspective - following those sets of rules in absence of state action - makes zero sense.

So the question comes down to - do you need this issue to be decided at the public stage first, to force action. Because its structural. People are not only talking about it, countries are pivoting on action paths (probably with the 2 degree goal in mind). While you are announcing, that you need people on the streets to convince governments to 'listen to the science', which is BS.

Or the other way around show me one policy planner that recognizes, well - I guess suburbs arent sustainable anymore for the next 20 years, I guess we should close them down, the mob convinced me to listen to the science. I would have never thought I should...

You basically made 'caring for the afterlife' an actionable public political issue. This isnt how public politics is supposed to work. Taking action for 'an individual' doesnt make sense, unless it is for public pressure. Or for their public facebook page to boast - I guess.

You cant pronounce, to poor people to get 'f*cked faster' you cant pronounce to rich people 'all that is needed, is for you to act like you cant offset your carbon outputs through payments, and change nothing in your life'. Yet, thats exactly whats happening. For middle classes and below, the impact is not just 'a little inconvenient' it is significant (if you do it with a zero emissions 2050 goal). So whats a 'bottom up' PR approach doing in here.
--

So from my perspective, most of what the PR angle is, is for people to convince themselves not to rise up, when state action gets put into place - because, dont you remember Greta? And yes, I am that cynical.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 31, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's not a "both sides are at fault" issue. That's a false equivalency.
> 
> Democratic members of the House passed an up/down vote on $2,000 checks. The Republicans are largely against it, and that's why it's being blocked by the Republican majority leader in the Senate. If Republicans cared, there are several ways they could bypass McConnell.
> 
> Change the subject to any number of issues related to income inequality, health care, etc., and Democratic members of congress generally fight for people, and Republicans don't.


I actually referring to the fact that both parties either added or ignored other parts of these bills before trying to rush them out. This is what I mean by both sides were busy playing politics. Now of course I can’t deny nor even pretend that most of this doesn’t fall onto the shoulders of the Republicans, most of them have been the problem since the start. Nonetheless, I am still going to throw some shade the Dems as well for wanting to hastily push out any bill with disregard of what’s in the bills. This is more an issue with me not happy to see government bloat. These bills don’t need to be crazy long and need to be more transparent. It’s one thing to cover all of their bases, it’s another to be make a bill so long that it’s impossible to cover everything in it within the short period of time they are given. This is same complaint I have always had with the government, but I am more annoyed because this isn’t the time for this nonsense. Both parties need to stop playing politics, stop pushing crazy ass big bills, and just start helping the people. In short, I really hate government bullshit, especially in a time when we don’t need their bullshit. They aren’t both equally guilty, clearly more blame falls on the shoulders of Republicans, but they are still both wasting time and being part of the problem.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 31, 2020)

nero99 said:


> our own government would rather see us all dead than giving us a way to survive.



You think $600 or even $2000 is a 'way to survive?' Handouts aren't a way to survive, they're a way to keep the serfs placated. Dropping all the lockdown rules, opening up the economy and letting people have the freedom to assume or avoid risk at their own discretion is a 'way to survive.'

You know the $600 stimulus payments only accounts for about 10% of the money being borrowed, right? Even if they bump it to $2000, it'd still be under 20% of the total. The relief bill, if one should be passed at all, should be direct payments to the people of the USA and nothing else. That would accomplish the task of helping those in need, _and_ stimulating the economy. Corporations should get their compensation by getting peoples' business, not by kissing the government's ass. If they kept it limited to direct payments to individuals, i.e. no corporate welfare, no funding projects full of kickbacks, no $25 million to Pakistan for gender studies, no $700 million to Sudan, and etc., they could be giving every single person at least $10k for the same total cost. Instead, they're covering up the biggest grift in history by dangling a $600 morsel in our faces and teasing with it.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 31, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You think $600 or even $2000 is a 'way to survive?' Handouts aren't a way to survive, they're a way to keep the serfs placated. Dropping all the lockdown rules, opening up the economy and letting people have the freedom to assume or avoid risk at their own discretion is a 'way to survive.'
> 
> You know the $600 stimulus payments only accounts for about 10% of the money being borrowed, right? Even if they bump it to $2000, it'd still be under 20% of the total. The relief bill, if one should be passed at all, should be direct payments to the people of the USA and nothing else. That would accomplish the task of helping those in need, _and_ stimulating the economy. Corporations should get their compensation by getting peoples' business, not by kissing the government's ass. If they kept it limited to direct payments to individuals, i.e. no corporate welfare, no funding projects full of kickbacks, no $25 million to Pakistan for gender studies, no $700 million to Sudan, and etc., they could be giving every single person at least $10k for the same total cost. Instead, they're covering up the biggest grift in history by dangling a $600 morsel in our faces and teasing with it.


Considering the economic hardships people are dealing with, there absolutely should be a relief bill. Unless you think mass evictions are okay, for starters.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 31, 2020)

I don't understand why this is such a big deal when most of 1st world countries already provided direct payment and help to its citizens
https://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-...sinesses-in-coronavirus-emergency-11586263242
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adviso...omparing-uk-and-us-covid-19-support-packages/
but not in American because you listened to Rich government people (that don't benefit from relief programs) who whispered "socialism" and now you are fighting against your own self  interest.
its sad how people are easily scared by ideas that are "different"


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 3, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> You think $600 or even $2000 is a 'way to survive?' Handouts aren't a way to survive, they're a way to keep the serfs placated. Dropping all the lockdown rules, opening up the economy and letting people have the freedom to assume or avoid risk at their own discretion is a 'way to survive.'
> 
> You know the $600 stimulus payments only accounts for about 10% of the money being borrowed, right? Even if they bump it to $2000, it'd still be under 20% of the total. The relief bill, if one should be passed at all, should be direct payments to the people of the USA and nothing else. That would accomplish the task of helping those in need, _and_ stimulating the economy. Corporations should get their compensation by getting peoples' business, not by kissing the government's ass. If they kept it limited to direct payments to individuals, i.e. no corporate welfare, no funding projects full of kickbacks, no $25 million to Pakistan for gender studies, no $700 million to Sudan, and etc., they could be giving every single person at least $10k for the same total cost. Instead, they're covering up the biggest grift in history by dangling a $600 morsel in our faces and teasing with it.


A 600$ or even 2000$ stimulus isn’t going to help. A universal income, waving mortgages/rent, and giving a shit about the people to keep them properly quarantined is what the country needs.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 5, 2021)

Update: Millions of people who used an intermediary bank to subtract filing fees from their tax refunds are getting their payments delayed by days, possibly for months, even if their first stimulus payment went through without issue. Some companies, like H&R Block and the bank they use are passing the payments on to their customers in an expedited manner, others like Taxslayer and their bank Santa Barbara Tax Group are opting to simply return the payments to the IRS instead of helping their paying customers, who now have to hope they receive their paper checks or debit cards by the 15th or else be forced to claim the funds on their tax return and possibly not see any relief until March or April.

Guess which group I am lucky enough to be in.


----------

