# The stimulus bill includes a tax break for the 1%



## ChibiMofo (Mar 29, 2020)

You may have heard that the super rich don't get anything in this $1.2T stimulus bill. If so, you heard wrong. Trump and each of his family members will get far more than $1,200 from this. Now you know why the Republicans in Congress were so eager to get the 800 page bill passed quickly and claimed that the Democrats were dragging their feet. Vote for people who will repeal this handouts and make billionaires pay their fair share.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 29, 2020)

You're an idiot.

Pelosi is the one that held up the bill, until the DEMOCRATS got what they wanted. Impeach Trump for delaying money to the Ukraine, but it's perfectly fine to delay money for the USA. Don't like the bill, blame the democrats.
And before you even THINK about a retort, don't forget the theme of the impeachment: The HOUSE (read: DEMOCRATS) controls the purse. Not the President.


----------



## Chary (Mar 29, 2020)

ChibiMofo said:


> Trump and each of his family members will get far more than $1,200 from this.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...oney-senate-coronavirus-bill-schumer-n1168466



> President Donald Trump will not be eligible for any federal assistance for his businesses as part of the coronavirus stimulus package that the Senate agreed upon early Wednesday morning, text of the bill showed.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 29, 2020)

MSNBC.... always pro-Trump. NOT.

The HOUSE controls the purse. PERIOD. Stop being a sheep and learn how the government actually works.
Or are you going to stand back and say the impeachment was invalid? (it was, actually, since not a single republican in the house voted for it)

But then again... the article posted clearly proves your original assertion is false, so...


----------



## TimPV3 (Mar 29, 2020)

You guys clearly didn't read the article:

"Now here is what changed in the historic $2 trillion stimulus bill. Previously, if a married couple had depreciation deductions that exceeded their real estate business income, the couple could claim that "loss" to write off taxes on a maximum of $500,000 in income from other sources, like wages from a day job.
Under the change, our rich taxpayer couple -- and this applies only for individuals, not corporations -- can now deduct an unlimited amount of "excess losses" in real estate against income from other sources. So now real estate moguls with lucrative day jobs or bountiful capital gains from other investments can go back to living tax-free, the Kushner way, before limits were put in place as part of the 2017 tax reform bill."


----------



## Chary (Mar 29, 2020)

Fair enough. First post would definitely benefit from that quote in there, cuz that's the most relevant part. Reading the post itself just made me recall the nbc piece. If that's so, that's a pretty large loophole he's left for himself. Why does it apply retroactively as well, yikes? Hm.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 29, 2020)

Chary said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...oney-senate-coronavirus-bill-schumer-n1168466


Unfortunately that was before he put in a signing statement essentially overriding the entire part of the bill about congressional oversight.  Democrats could mount a legal challenge, but oops Bill Barr lol.  So basically Trump gets to spend the better part of $2 trillion however he pleases.  Gotta bailout those hotels, obviously.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 29, 2020)

Chary said:


> that's a pretty large loophole he's left for himself.


THE HOUSE WROTE THE FINAL BILL. Not Trump. Get that through your thick skulls. The ONLY thing you can pin on Trump is an executive order.


----------



## Chary (Mar 29, 2020)

urherenow said:


> THE HOUSE WROTE THE FINAL BILL. Not Trump. Get that through your thick skulls. The ONLY thing you can pin on Trump is an executive order.


Calm yourself. This whole mentality of people getting so overly irate in the politics section over nothing is why people think this section is so horrendous. I didn't even say anything worth fighting over.

I merely find it interesting that there's such a loophole in the first place, and that it applies for years previous, which would have nothing to do with the virus at all. Especially when it's so focused on real estate, which Trump totally has a stake in. Take a chill pill, man. Spare me the caps shouting and snark over the fact I'm not on my knees praising the president on all topics and rooting for him constantly on every front.


----------



## Flame (Mar 29, 2020)

urherenow said:


> THE HOUSE WROTE THE FINAL BILL. Not Trump. Get that through your thick skulls. The ONLY thing you can pin on Trump is an executive order.



You need to clam down.

what good is trump? is he not president? when things are good. its trumps. when the world goes to shit like now. "it was not an executive order!"


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

I like how this entire thread is about how taking 1% less of someone's money is considered a handout. Uhh, no - that's *their* money, the government is just going to take less of it because the stock market crashed. The "super-rich" don't sleep on bags of money - this isn't Looney Tunes. They don't actually have as much liquid assets as people imagine they do, most of their money sits in various capital investments, primarily stocks, which are now worth less than the paper they're printed on. The government came along and said "y'know, we see you have it rough right now, we're going to *take less* from you this time around" - that's not a "gift", that's the "rich" being allowed to keep more of their own money in order to remain solvent. The government isn't "handing out" anything to them, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what taxation is.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 29, 2020)

Flame said:


> You need to clam down.
> 
> what good is trump? is he not president? when things are good. its trumps. when the world goes to shit like now. "it was not an executive order!"


your point makes zero sense. The bill is done by congress. Not Trump. Trump didn't create the virus or this crises. He was called all the usual foul names when he wanted to close travel from China, and he was 100% right in wanting to do so. There would have been a bit less of a problem if Pelosi and her stooges would simply let him do his job. We are so close to an election, that I can't fathom why they keep obstructing him, when a failure on his part would be good for their cause. Same goes for just about every media outlet there is.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 29, 2020)

urherenow said:


> The HOUSE controls the purse. PERIOD. Stop being a sheep and learn how the government actually works.


Hey...didn't you say Trump intervened in that process just one post before? So...since you're so adament on hammering on that point, shouldn't he have been removed from office right now? 


But meh...I'll forego your personal insults, diversion and attempt that your opinion outweighs news channels and go along with it because on a ground level you're certainly right. It's the house who passes legislations and assign money, and since democrats hold the majority, you can correctly pin it on them.

But really: that only works if they can oversee it being handled well. If @Xzi is right and Trump overrides the oversight, then that "controls the purse PERIOD" thing is moot. My guess is that you'll disagree, which is okay (this is a forum after all), but before you make it personal about me as well...can we at least agree that IF @Xzi is correct, then the entire criticism from the OP is valid?


@Foxi4 : I know that's what it says, but is that really the plan? From my recollection, US already has quite a low overhead, and all these tax cuts Trump imposed (irrelavant of who benefitted the most) didn't help. If this all comes down to "okay, guys: because of this situation it's okay if y'all pay a total of 2 trillion dollars LESS than normal", will the government be able to afford it? Meaning: does the USA collect over 2 trillion dollars in taxes in the first place? 
(note: I always assumed the easy - but on the long run dangerous - solution: print extra money. It helps everyone in the short run, though it might undermine the position of the dollar in the long run)


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Hey...didn't you say Trump intervened in that process just one post before? So...since you're so adament on hammering on that point, shouldn't he have been removed from office right now?
> 
> 
> But meh...I'll forego your personal insults, diversion and attempt that your opinion outweighs news channels and go along with it because on a ground level you're certainly right. It's the house who passes legislations and assign money, and since democrats hold the majority, you can correctly pin it on them.
> ...


Fiat currency is not a zero sum game - you can print/mint more of the currency while devaluing what's already in circulation, you can manipulate debt, you can do all sorts of things. My point was that the government wasn't "giving" anything to the rich from the treasury, which seems to be how people are taking this. The "rich" are already paying the gross majority of taxes in America, the top 50% pays 97% of all income tax, out of which the top 1% pays over 36% - I think we should define what a "fair share" is, considering the "poor-er" half of the population pays 3% of the total.


----------



## qqq1 (Mar 29, 2020)

It's so funny when people think tax cuts equate to someone being given something. That's like saying the guy who held you up at gun point only took $80 of the $100 you had in your wallet so he gave you $20. He stole less of your money, he didn't give you anything. I don't care if you have $1 or $1,000,000,000. It's your money and the government shouldn't be stealing it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

qqq1 said:


> It's so funny when people think tax cuts equate to someone being given something. That's like saying the guy who held you up at gun point only took $80 of the $100 you had in your wallet so he gave you $20. He stole less of your money, he didn't give you anything. I don't care if you have $1 or $1,000,000,000. It's your money and the government shouldn't be stealing it.


Some forms of taxation are acceptable and non-controversial since they're payment for service rendered. Income tax is not one of them, it's a penalty for productivity. Long discussion to be had, but yes, you more or less captured the spirit of what happened here.


----------



## qqq1 (Mar 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Some form of taxation are acceptable and non-controversial...



Being a pretty hardcore libertarian I can not agree to this


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

qqq1 said:


> Being a pretty hardcore libertarian I can not agree to this


It's _"theft that we're okay with"_ for the purposes of defense from internal and external threats - it's what differentiates a libertarian from an anarchist. We collectively agree that:

Having laws only makes sense if someone can enforce them
Having borders only makes sense if someone can protect them
We only have rights that we are willing to fight for
Since those three are objectively true, we agree that some form of law enforcement, military and legislature is necessary, and thus requires some form of fair taxation. Notwithstanding we reserve the right to form militias, require fair representation _(no taxation without representation)_ et cetera, et cetera. We only really dispute on what the size of those three should be - most libertarians are somewhere between minarchism _(government so small that I can barely see it)_ and classical liberalism _(strong civil freedoms and a free economy under the rule of law)_. How does that sound like?


----------



## notimp (Mar 29, 2020)

Another example for why taxation is a must. You get all the money. You save for retirement. The house market collapses, or the stock market crashes.

There goes your plan for retirement.

In societies with a normal demographic progression you have the people currently working, pay for the retirement of people currently being retired. As the second sector (if normal demographic progression) is smaller - stuff suddely works out - stock market tanking or people loosing houses, doesnt matter - there is still money to attend to your elders.

Same argument with education.

Another argument for taxation are large infrastructure projects. Where investments needed are so high, that they arent recoupable within one generation of 'people' this goes for people heading companies as well - if upfront costs get too large, no one is investing.

Another argument is complexity. If you have to 'grassroots organize' from scratch on every issue that arises - your flexibility and response times tank. So if you dont want to pay people to do 'governing jobs' - you are about 200-500 years to late to even think that thats theoretically possible. 

How come, I havent met one libertarian yet that actually roughly knows what his tax money is mostly going to and why.... 


On topic - it is mostly a money infusion to stop the stock market from tanking.
Large companies, that are structurally 'necessary' boing, pretty much should always get saved, no matter what.
Why cruise line companies also are bailed out I have no freaking idea.

You need huge sums (at least announced), to keep the stock market from tanking (its more expensive to built economy back up from nothing), that both political sides agree on.

The issue as far as the left are concerned in this case is 'lack of oversight on spending'.

So to give you the example in Germany - three very big companies, with assets to get over more than six weeks of income drops, suddenly announced they would stop paying their leases/rent, as soon as government announced, that there will be a special - no termination clause for people that cant pay rent due to corona curfews. With the state picking up the difference.

So the fear is, that companies will optimize for getting most of that fund money - while still reducing workforce, and 'risk'. If there is little oversignt on looking after who gets what - the system will be abused.

On a very basic level, this money is handed out in an expectation, that companies will use it in ways so they dont have to let go of workers during mass curfews. It will never be micro managed where it goes (you simply open the hose), but some basic restrictions should be in place so it can have the intended effect.

Also if it needs to be 6 trillion in the end can be discussed as well - but basically no one knows. Still cheaper to rebuilding the economy from nothing.


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 29, 2020)

If you live in America, you are part of the 1% 
Don't @ me


----------



## SG854 (Mar 29, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Hey...didn't you say Trump intervened in that process just one post before? So...since you're so adament on hammering on that point, shouldn't he have been removed from office right now?
> 
> 
> But meh...I'll forego your personal insults, diversion and attempt that your opinion outweighs news channels and go along with it because on a ground level you're certainly right. It's the house who passes legislations and assign money, and since democrats hold the majority, you can correctly pin it on them.
> ...


How much control does Trump have though?

In 2019 he proposed a 1 billion dollar cut to the CDC but Congress didn't allow it to happen. They instead increased the CDC budget to 260 million.

In 2020 he proposed another cut of 750 million which is also a bad idea like the 2019 proposal and again Congress wouldn't let him have it. They then countered his proposal by instead increasing the budget to 420 million rather then decreasing it.

So when it involves money how much control does Trump have? Because it has to pass Congress, they are the checks and balances to bad idea's and have countered his bad idea's.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Another example for why taxation is a must. You get all the money. You save for retirement. The house market collapses, or the stock market crashes.
> 
> There goes your plan for retirement.
> 
> ...


Oh, I know where the money's going - I just don't want it to go there. The error you're making here is assuming that the number one priority for a libertarian would be security - that's an error straight from the outset. Many, if not most libertarians believe that all that is great comes from risk, not safety. We accept the reality of risk - some people will lose their life savings on the stock market, others will make ten times what they've put in, and that's okay too. The primary motivator for a libertarian is obviously liberty. We believe in personal freedoms and individual responsibility - that includes both responsibility for success and for failure. It's "Liberty or Death" for a reason - the kind of death isn't specified.

Money is the quantum of life - we exchange the limited amount of time we have in our lives for an arbitrary concept of value through labour. When you take something that is mine and give it to someone else without my enthusiastic consent, you're not taking away papers with numbers on them, you're taking a part of my life. If I'm taxed at 20%, I'm a slave for 20% of the year, there's no other way to put it.

You're also under the mistaken impression that libertarians are against *all* taxation whereas in reality they're against *some* of it, primarily the income tax. Most libertarians are okay with a sales tax and prefer it to an income tax since it involves a singular exchange of currency that the government has provided - that is a form of service rendered, so most find it inoffensive. Taxing me for working on the other hand is asinine, and taxing me for anything after income tax is taxing me twice on the same dollar, which is highway robbery.

Again, long discussion, not really within the scope of this thread.


----------



## notimp (Mar 29, 2020)

I didnt argue security once. 

I argued - need for base level of social care. ("If stuff goes wrong") Not so much only for their sakes, but for everyones (you dont want to live in a society, where a third of people have no money for retirement, because of a 'world event').
I argued - infrastructure project costs that would outspend returns within one human generation
I argued - education costs, that at a base level, probably shouldnt be left to "does the family have any money for any education of their children at all"

- and I argued response time in situations where you would have to prep up something like a government at least temporarily. (Think crisis of some sort.)


Because most of that is structural - costs are so high, that you could never, ever cover it with 'philantropic efforts' alone. Hence taxes.

While 'constant crisis' might be a great motivator (if its constant it isnt), there is a point, where society as a whole has decided, we cant have it.

Education is maybe the best example. It is stupid and selfharming behavior for societies, if we let your parents 'moxy' in life refute the chances of their childred to get even basic education.

So something has to be done here.
("Then make edication free" doesnt work, because yous till need teachers, and social mobility (mixing of children).)

Else - revolts.

In feudalism it was easier. You just had to make sure that the peasants horizon ended at the villages gates. (They thought churches were fancy..  )  There unrestricted libertarian ideals might still have worked.
--

This is by the way, why societies becoming 'wealthy' is strongly correlated with getting birth rates under control at first. It allows for planning aside from next generation 3x the people want food and perspective. Although I'm sure they'd be scrambling like champions..


----------



## SG854 (Mar 29, 2020)

Isn't the 1% also affected by the Corona Virus? Their businesses are shut down too.They are losing money. They are fearing of loosing their business when all of this is over. They need some help too.

And not all of the 1% is Amazon and McDonlads which are still open during this pandemic. Not all 1% is a fictional evil villains oppressing their workers.

There is too much bickering between Democrats and Republicans about money and who's benefiting from tax breaks and Democrats rejecting stimulus proposals when this is not the time to be doing that. Many people are out of work right now and really need that money soon especially since rent fees are coming up.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> I didnt argue security once.
> 
> I argued - need for base level of social care. ("If stuff goes wrong") Not so much only for their sakes, but for everyones.
> I argued - infrastructure project costs that would outspend returns within one human generation
> ...


Social care equals security - "if something goes wrong" is literally the definition of a safety net. In regards to infrastructure, that predates government - lighthouses for instance were built by trade companies that required safe passage for their ships, but if you want a "libertarian" explanation for why taxing for infrastructure would be legitimate, protection of the inalienable rights of its citizens is the main objective of the State. As such, the State must enable their exercise, this by extension means establishing an environment where commerce can be conducted. This includes roads and highways, common currency etc., *however*, none of those necessitate an income tax. Taxation should be payment for services rendered, so a simple sales tax on fuel would suffice. Those who use the roads the most would use the most fuel, and by extension pay a fair share for infrastructure. Without getting into the mess of education and other things you brought up, they're inconsequential in the context of income tax which was only enacted in 1861 as a temporary measure to fund the Civil War. It was later repealed and replaced in 1862, and then finally repealed completely in 1872. After two decades income tax returned in 1894 to fund a tariff dispute as part of the Tariff Act. It wasn't until the 16th Amendment (1913) came along that income tax became a constant in American life and whenever it creeper up, it was because of a war effort, not to fund any noble causes you mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States


----------



## SG854 (Mar 29, 2020)

For reference to reach the top 1% you need at least $500,000 a year which is not a whole lot of money when you consider how expensive it is to run a business. Any virus pandemic and country wide shut down will put your business in the danger zone. Top 1% Businesses are not just the Taco Bells and Walmarts of the country.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...ericans-now-need-at-least-500-000-a-year-to-e


----------



## notimp (Mar 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Social care equals security - "if something goes wrong" is literally the definition of a safety net.


Yes, but I argued for it not from the individuals perspective, but societys. (You dont want to live in a society where 1/3 of the population because of a sudden event has no money for retirement anymore.)

The costs to abandon a city and go away 'somewhere else' (as someone who still is affluent in such a scenario) are just too high - even economically for that individual.

Thats "too yolo". 

You can only do that in societies, that only needs a few logs of wood and clay bricks to build all their infrastructure. If you build something more technologically advanced, you need a buffer.

usually that comes from taxes (burde sharing by the working population), it also could come from natural ressources or empirialism.

But with the industrial revolution we decided to actually give workers some of the money that formerly was just profit so now society itself can sustain itself throughout (non existential) periods of crisis.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yes, but I argued for tt not from the individuals perspective, but societys. (You dont want to live in a society where 1/3 of the population because of a sudden event has no money for retirement anymore.)
> 
> The costs to abandon a city and go away 'somewhere else' (as someone who still is affluent in such a scenario) are just too high - even economically for that individual.
> 
> Thats "too yolo".


Most libertarians are individualists, so the "society" argument doesn't fly. Taking something from me and giving it to somebody else, for whatever reason, purely on the basis of me having more and them having less is political Robin Hoodism. I'm not responsible for the poor life decisions of 1/3rd of the society, I'm responsible for my own. The onus is on them to secure their own future, not on me to bail them out. I can *choose* to do so by being charitable, but I should not be coerced into it at the point of gun, which is what unfair taxation is. If you disagree with that notion, try not paying taxes for a while. 

Like I said, there is a sizable discussion to be had about this, but I don't think it belongs in this thread, so I'll do my best not to further derail. My initial point, which I stand by, is that "taking less" from someone does not equate to "giving" them anything - there is a fundamental difference between "giving" and "taking" that's not really debatable.


----------



## notimp (Mar 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Most libertarians are individualists, so the "society" argument doesn't fly.


Build me a skyscraper on your own.
Heck build me a smartphone on your own.

Again - libertarians live a few hundred years to late.. 

The ideology kind of works, if all you need can be created by lets say 300 people and a patch of land. Anything thats above that needs (complex) societal systems.

I say kind of - because you still have a big gap you fill with 'believe' of what to do if a structural crisis hit (sorrounding conditions change so fast, adaption, while sustaining becomes a problem for even 1/3 of your population (call it group, call it society, ..)). And you burn through individuals ('didnt make it' eh - next), pretty fast (under anarchy 'like' systems).


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Build me a skyscraper on your own.
> Heck build me a smartphone on your own.
> 
> Again - libertarians live a few hundred years to late..
> ...


The government doesn't build skyscrapers or smartphones - corporations do. Individuals come together to form groups by means of contractual agreement and choose to work together - the emphasis is on "choose" and "agreement". You mistake libertarians for hermits - we're not against cooperation, we're against coercion. You're not forced to work, but you will die if you don't, so circumstances put you on a path of labour - you choose to do so because eating is preferable to starving. People can do more when they work together, thus they come together in various forms, which in turn builds the backbone of the economy. All of your questions in regards to libertarianism seem to have pretty simple answers - I don't think you really discussed these issues with any libertarians before. Perhaps you should - we're really not as kooky as you'd think.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The government doesn't build skyscrapers - corporations do. Individuals come together to form groups by means of contractual agreement and choose to work together - the emphasis is on "choose" and "agreement". You mistake libertarians for hermits - we're not against cooperation, we're against coercion. You're not forced to work, but you will die if you don't, so circumstances put you on a path of labour. People can do more when they work together, so this they come together in various forms, which in turn builds the backbone of the economy. All of your questions in regards to libertarianism seem to have pretty simple answers - I don't think you really discussed these issues with any libertarians before. Perhaps you should - we're really not as kooky as you'd think.


Sometimes circumstances can take you off the path of labor like the virus epidemic. People can't work even if they want to, until the government says it's a ok. This epidemic has woken up alot of people and made them rethink issues and how to handle the tax system. Especially when a situation like this happens again in the future. We need a safety net if a situation like this again arises.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Sometimes circumstances can take you off the path of labor like the virus epidemic. People can't work even if they want to, until the government says it's a ok. This epidemic has woken up alot of people and made them rethink issues and how to handle the tax system. Especially when a situation like this happens again in the future. We need a safety net if a situation like this again arise .


I think you've answered your own query in the second sentence. That, and it's not entirely true - not all businesses are closed, certain businesses are considered essential commerce. Nothing is stopping you from a temporary change of career, and it's not your neighbour's fault that you didn't save for a rainy day. It's harsh, but so are most things in life.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I think you've answered your own question in the second sentence. That, and it's not entirely true - not all businesses are closed, certain businesses are considered essential commerce. Nothing is stopping you from a temporary change of career, and it's not your neighbour's fault that you didn't save for a rainy day. It's harsh, but so are most things in life.


But there isn't enough business open right now to hire everyone out of work.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2020)

SG854 said:


> But there isn't enough business open right now to hire everyone out of work.


Adaptation is key to economic success - companies with a robust online backend are operating perfectly fine, those that are still in the 20th century do not. That tells you which ones are on a path to success and which ones are on a path to failure.


----------



## notimp (Mar 30, 2020)

Sure. lets say corporations "produce" all the wealth. Corporations also are social structures. But they are structures that usually are unfit to plan long into the future for more than 30 years (usually even more than five).

Lets say it works out well - corporation flurishes, what does it do with their workers? Worker camp arrangements?

Lets say they build cities (and not just worker camps), who builds and maintains the roads, who buils the bridges, who makes sure basic education is a thing?

A company usually cant handle that complexity very well (It goes opposed to the way they are structured - ), so the answer becomes "we all do" (everyone that then lives in that city). And we need the means, so company pays for it. But through a revenue sharing agreement with us. So we influence societal planning decisions, and not company.

As soon as you get to 'and what about that bridge in 100 years' or 'and what about the workers children' - same logic applies.


Rough cut of "whats a company".

A company basically splits complex tasks into parts, and then seeks to replicate people that can perform those tasks. Thats narrow focused, efficiency driven, ... Those structures are unable to run societies (or large groups, or call it what you like.  ), because they care about position fulfillment and role replication, and see the entire rest as an externality.

Also companies can go bankrupt - and its better, that when they do - your city doesnt collaps as a result (destroyed wealth (the roads were still fine?!).
-

The basic point you need to understand is the 'who pays for infrastructure, education, ...' question, model wise. For centuries it wasnt the people in a state. It was corporations and the state. (They made all the money.)

With industrialization workers got a major share of that, and voting powers, but also had to pay for 'society maintenance'.

And they do it (especially in the US) mostly through (also taxes on) consumption (if demographics hold, and you can make them through PR). So to them it even seems fun.

You cant have both. (Pay increase that came after the industrial revolution, and not having to pay taxes.)
-

If we'd go back to libertarian models, you would earn much less, and company would pay for worker camps.  (Accommodation, infrastructure, ...)


Also it turns out - Infrastructure - also strongly correlated with how wealthy a country can become. (Synergy effects when stuff works) And we are back to the issue of "who builds them for 120 years and then maintains them"-

If you say "companies" at that point, they cant take risk and fail at the same rate - so you end up with corporate states. (Or oligopolies. Cartels.)



All you are doing is insisting "there is no structural cost" - while sticking your fingers in your ears at some point. 

(Corporations build skyscapers based on grants, or insurances that they 'own profits' for that spot for about 100 years (concessions). Those are only worth anything, if someone can convincingly argue, that they get returns back - hence, executive branch, legislative branch, overall structure that honors contracts even in 100 years) and thats 'just' Skyskrapers. If you are talking about highways or railway nets - the costs are a factor higher, and the risk is much harder to absorb by even one (or even a few) very rich individual(s).

And if youd then supplement a company - that company would have to be granted not to be able to fail for the reamortization period, effectively becoming 'state like' (systemic).) Just so that the investment makes sense to anyone.


----------



## Ravenhide23 (Mar 30, 2020)

My biggest issue with Trump is that he's a spineless moron. And that's all. With COVID-19 literally knocking on his door, he has the power to completely override Congress and whatever complaints they might have in regards to closing United States borders and attempting to prevent an influx of the virus. And then, since he did not take steps to prevent and/or limit the spread of the virus, he should have declared a National Emergency before it got as bad as it is. Unfortunately, our "esteemed" President, like nearly half of the American population, remains convinced that the virus isn't all that serious, so we still have a crisis on our hands that could have been avoided without this stooge in office.



Foxi4 said:


> Adaptation is key to economic success - companies with a robust online backend are operating perfectly fine, those that are still in the 20th century do not. That tells you which ones are on a path to success and which ones are on a path to failure.



I feel like this is pretty narrow-minded of you, honestly. Especially since said companies with a robust online backend are extremely unlikely to higher someone (even temporarily) with no experience with an online backend at all. That's kind of like asking a plumber to fix an electrical problem and expecting there to be no issues there. And lets not even get into the fact that changing careers (again, even temporarily) isn't nearly as easy or simplistic as you're making it sound.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

Ravenhide23 said:


> I feel like this is pretty narrow-minded of you, honestly. Especially since said companies with a robust online backend are extremely unlikely to higher someone (even temporarily) with no experience with an online backend at all. That's kind of like asking a plumber to fix an electrical problem and expecting there to be no issues there. And lets not even get into the fact that changing careers (again, even temporarily) isn't nearly as easy or simplistic as you're making it sound.


I think it's a fundamental mistake to assume that you have to be hired by someone in order to operate in commerce. The obstacles you're talking about are only obstacles because you perceive them as such - I don't have a recipe for success for you, if I did, I would've been a millionaire myself. What I do know is that you have a variety of options at your disposal, from changing careers through picking up a part-time job to becoming self-employed, nobody should be burdened with your troubles besides yourself. I'm not entirely heartless though - I do recognise that some calamities are unprecedented and thus I'm entirely fine with the current bill as the payouts are effectively returning the money taken from citizens back to them in a time of crisis. I was against taking that money in the first place, so I can only clap when it's returned.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Adaptation is key to economic success - companies with a robust online backend are operating perfectly fine, those who are still in the 20th century do not. That tells you which ones are on a path to success and which ones are on a path to failure.


It seems luck rather then on a path to success and a path to failure. People already with an online back end got lucky to still be functioning they weren't affected by the virus. But not everything can be done online only. We do need business that provide physical labor, even it they are not considerd essential now.  And even businesses considered essentially to our living had the whole factory shut down when a worker is discovered to have a virus.

Transfering quickly to an online business is easier said then done. You are not going to expect a factory worker to know how to run an online backend successfully, make enough money till the pandemic is over, especially when they are in the red already. Its takes experience and time to learn, and to build up.

And since they were workers in a different career and was considered a good business that will stay in function for a long time they didn't learn online skills to prepare for a day like this, it just wasn't neccessary because who would have predicted this would happen in the way it did? An outbreak like this in this way haven't happened before in modern times.

That answer seems too easy to say and to put the blame on the person for not preparing and maintaining the belief to limit the safety net. We sometimes need it for unexpected events like this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

SG854 said:


> It seems luck rather then on a path to success and a path to failure. People already with an online back end got lucky to still be functioning they weren't affected by the virus. But not everything can be done online only. We do need business that provide physical labor, even it they are not considerd essential now.  And even businesses considered essentially to our living had the whole factory shut down when a worker is discovered to have a virus.
> 
> Transfering quickly to an online business is easier said then done. You are not going to expect a factory worker to know how to run an online backend successfully, make enough money till the pandemic is over, especially when there are in the red already. Its takes experience and time to learn, and to build up.
> 
> ...


You're right, I am blaming someone for being unprepared. Not necessarily the worker, he's simply a cog in the works, but the business owner. Businesses involving physical labour such as construction or manufacturing are overwhelmingly essential commerce - buildings are still being built, many factories are still running. The business sectors primarily affected by the lockdown are 1) restaurants and 2) non-essential retail, both of which have effectively operated in the online space for years. Admittedly in times of pandemic you also have to deal with food preparation restrictions, but at that stage we're touching upon the question whether the government *should* restrict the free market in the first place. Let's stick to the bill being discussed rather than meander further away from the subject.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You're right, I am blaming someone for being unprepared. Not necessarily the worker, he's simply a cog in the works, but the business owner. Businesses involving physical labour such as construction or manufacturing are overwhelmingly essential commerce - buildings are still being built, many factories are still running. The business sectors primarily affected by the lockdown are 1) restaurants and 2) non-essential retail, both of which have effectively operated in the online space for years. Admittedly in times of pandemic you also have to deal with food preparation restrictions, but at that stage we're touching upon the question whether the government *should* restrict the free market in the first place. Let's stick to the bill being discussed rather than meander further away from the subject.


Restaurants are still open for take out here in the U.S. but you can't eat inside.

On the question of should government shut down the free market in times like these. Well hospitals are being over run by Corona Virus patients. They are running out of supplies. They need to limit the amount of people getting the virus. Even people that don't have to corona virus are affected. People that are in a car accident, people that need cancer treatment, and other types of illnesses, if the hospital is over run by corona virus patients and not enough doctors and supplies to go around who's gunna help these people when they need help?

Shutting down business and having social distancing helps so that hospitals are not over run. Sometimes government needs to take these actions like these and shut down/restrict the free market.

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

@Foxi4 none essential retail also includes clothing stores. Not essential now but will be later on. That can't be done online.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Restaurants are still open for take out here in the U.S. but you can't eat inside.
> 
> On the question of should government shut down the free market in times like these. Well hospitals are being over run by Corona Virus patients. They are running out of supplies. They need to limit the amount of people getting the virus. Even people that don't have to corona virus are affected. People that are in a car accident, people that need cancer treatment, and other types of illnesses, if the hospital is over run by corona virus patients and not enough doctors and supplies to go around who's gunna help these people when they need help?
> 
> Shutting down business and having social distancing helps so that hospitals are not over run. Sometimes government needs to take these actions like these and shut down the free market.


I'm not saying that it doesn't help - I'm saying that an outsized government response that tramples on previously fundamental civil liberties sets a dangerous precedent as there is no scale which you could apply to a crisis that measures whether it's acceptable to temporarily suspend constitutional rights. In case it's unclear why I say this, the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of assembly - right now in many states you no longer have that, or it's severely limited. Constitutional right to Freedom of Movement has also been restricted. Now, just to be clear, I'm sitting on my ass at home because I'm not an idiot, but with that said, I can think of a number of things that cause loss of life that could be subject to a similar response, none of which should be restricted. The question of "where is the line?" is very valid and prescient.

EDIT: What? You can't buy clothes online? It's a multimillion dollar business, that's crazy talk. 


notimp said:


> Sure. lets say corporations "produce" all the wealth. Corporations also are social structures. But they are structures that usually are unfit to plan along into the future for more than 30 years (usually even more than five).
> 
> Lets say it works out well - corporation flurishes, what does it do with their workers? Worker camp arrangements?
> 
> ...


That's a really long way to say "I didn't understand the premise". I'm not against taxation in its totality, I'm against the income tax. The government would still impose a variety of fair taxes and have other revenue streams. That's neither here nor there - the arguments you've presented are aimed at windmills since I'm not against the existence of the state, rather I would like to see a diminished degree of state interference in the private lives of its citizens. Once again, a government doesn't build bridges - private companies compete for contracts and build said bridges. Those bridges are designed by architects, and on a more macro scale cities are planned out by city planners. In all factuality, there are some privately ran cities, or cities that are for the most part privatised, both in the U.S. and abroad. The idea that a corporation can run a multinational franchise, but can't run city services is a little silly.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not saying that it doesn't help - I'm saying that an outsized government response that tramples on previously fundamental civil liberties sets a dangerous precedent as there is no scale which you could apply to a crisis that measures whether it's acceptable to temporarily suspend constitutional rights. In case it's unclear why I say this, the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of assembly - right now in many states you no longer have that, or it's severely limited. Constitutional right to Freedom of Movement has also been restricted. Now, just to be clear, I'm sitting on my ass at home because I'm not an idiot, but with that said, I can think of a number of things that cause loss of life that could be subject to a similar response, none of which should be restricted. The question of "where is the line?" is very valid and prescient.
> 
> EDIT: What? You can't buy clothes online? It's a multimillion dollar business, that's crazy talk.
> That's a really long way to say "I didn't understand the premise". I'm not against taxation in its totality, I'm against the income tax. The government would still impose a variety of fair taxes and have other revenue streams. That's neither here nor there - the arguments you've presented are aimed at windmills since I'm not against the existence of the state, rather I would like to see a diminished degree of state interference in the private lives of its citizens. Once again, a government doesn't build bridges - private companies compete for contracts and build said bridges. Those bridges are designed by architects, and on a more macro scale cities are planned out by city planners. In all factuality, there are some privately ran cities in the United States too.


Can you try clothing online? Clothing is very inconsistent with their sizes. I would have to buy send back by mail, buy again send back again till I find a size that isn't to tight and too big that'll fall off my body. Trying before you buy isn't something that can be replicated in online stores which is why I never buy online.

The problem is that theres always a precedent, give them some power now and pretty soon they'll have alot more power later on. Same like there is a precedent of having a completely open and free market now will be precedent of the rich that will take advantage of the poor. But in practice will these these happen? Or is it a slippery slope argument for this case, every case and situation is different and arguments will need to be adjusted accordingly. But I'm sure in your belief the free market corrects for abuse of the market.

As people believe that government restrictions won't be abused also because people will riot to go back to work like what's happening in some countries. Government doesn't want that and will have to follow the progress of the virus and plan how to handle this situation the best they can.

This is a new type of argument whether or not our constitutional rights are being violated on a situation like this and sometimes they need to be violated for the better of society. Like you said where should the line be drawn?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Can you try clothing online? Clothing is very inconsistent with their sizes. I would have to buy send back by mail, buy again send back again till I find a size that isn't to tight and too big that'll fall off my body. Trying before you buy isn't something that can be replicated in online stores which is why I never buy online.
> 
> The problem is that theres always a precedent, give them some power now and pretty soon they'll have alot more power later on. Same like there is a precedent of having a completely open and free market now will be precedent of the rich that will take advantage of the poor. But in practice will these these happen? Or is it a slippery slope argument for this case, every case and situation is different and arguments will need to be adjusted accordingly. But I'm sure in your belief the free market corrects for abuse of the market.
> 
> ...


Since I have no objections with anything else you've said, I will say that you absolutely can try clothes online these days - many companies offer this as a service and guarantee either a different pair or a refund if the fit isn't right. In fact, many also allow you to input your own measurements, or offer bespoke items at a slightly higher price. The online marketplace has evolved tremendously in the last decade, there are few things I can think of that would absolutely require a brick and mortar establishment of some kind. Other than that, yes, "you give them an inch, they'll take a mile", "you only have rights if you're willing to fight for them" and so on, and so forth. There is a golden mean somewhere in-between running around like headless chickens spreading the plague and welding people's apartments shut China-style, it's a good debate topic. I personally err on the side of more freedom, not less - within reason.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Since I have no objections with anything else you've said, I will say that you absolutely can try clothes online these days - many companies offer this as a service and guarantee either a different pair or a refund if the fit isn't right. In fact, many also allow you to input your own measurements, or offer bespoke items at a slightly higher price. The online marketplace has evolved tremendously in the last decade, there are few things I can think of that would absolutely require a brick and mortar establishment of some kind. Other than that, yes, "you give them an inch, they'll take a mile", "you only have rights if you're willing to fight for them" and so on, and so forth. There is a golden mean somewhere in-between running around like headless chickens spreading the plague and welding people's apartments shut China-style, it's a good debate topic. I personally err on the side of more freedom, not less - within reason.


China is a much different country then the U.S. I don't think welding people doors shut here till they die will happen. We take pride in freedom of speech and our other freedoms, annoying to other countries that always calls us crazy, but it's what prevents total Gov control. Even if we give them an inch that inch won't turn into a mill because the U.S. is too prideful for that. 

Of course freedom and not less within reason which is always the crux of the arguments. Right now people are talking when we should go back to work. So the conversation is out there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

SG854 said:


> China is a much different country then the U.S. I don't think welding people doors shut here till they die will happen. We take pride in freedom of speech and our other freedoms, annoying to other countries that always calls us crazy, but it's what prevents total Gov control. Even if we give them an inch that inch won't turn into a mill because the U.S. is too prideful for that.
> 
> Of course freedom and not less within reason which is always the crux of the arguments. Right now people are talking when we should go back to work. So the conversation is out there.


I would like to think that, but you would have to come up with a convincing argument why the "gun epidemic" doesn't warrant the suspension of 2A or why the increase in global temperature by 3 degrees over the course of the next 100 years doesn't warrant putting the economy on hold, just like this crisis has, considering all three are based on "future casualties". Ideally I would like to see the government to have only as much power as absolutely necessary to run the bare minimum functions and as little money as humanly possible so that it doesn't spend it frivolously. I operate from the assumption that the government is terrible at everything it does and inefficient by definition as it is elected, it does not have a profit incentive, it only has a big mallet to whack people with and free reign for the duration of its term. This assumption is supported by evidence - the difference between the state and the private sector is the difference between the DMV and the convenience store - one has everything I need, the other has queues. I'll let you figure out which is which.  All jokes aside, the situation certainly warrants caution, but I would be very careful about praising the federal government for doing things we should accept reluctantly, not with glee.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I would like to think that, but you would have to come up with a convincing argument why the "gun epidemic" doesn't warrant the suspension of 2A or why the increase in global temperature by 3 degrees over the course of the next 100 years doesn't warrant putting the economy on hold, just like this crisis has, considering all three are based on "future casualties". Ideally I would like to see the government to have only as much power as absolutely necessary to run the bare minimum functions and as little money as humanly possible so that it doesn't spend it frivolously. I operate from the assumption that the government is terrible at everything it does and inefficient by definition as it is elected, it does not have a profit incentive, it only has a big mallet to whack people with and free reign for the duration of its term. This assumption is supported by evidence - the difference between the state and the private sector is the difference between the DMV and the convenience store - one has everything I need, the other has queues. I'll let you figure out which is which.  All jokes aside, the situation certainly warrants caution, but I would be very careful about praising the federal government for doing things we should accept reluctantly, not with glee.


The reason has to do with human nature. Humans don't respond well to long term effects. Maybe an evolutionary negative. But immediate danger that happening right now they respond faster then the speed of light. 

Something like the world being flooded by melting ice caps and become hotter is a future event, what's happening  now isn't enough for people to respomd like they are for corona virus. But Hospitals being over run is happening now. That is actually a criticism that many scientists have about dealing with global warming, people don't respond quick enough till the danger actually happens and it's too late.

Government isn't allowed to do whatever they want. People are already questioning about the lock down and the only reason we are locked down is because they have to convince people with reasoning why lock down should happen. If they had a bad reason then people will say fuck you can't tell me what to do. They cant go far with an unconvincing argument people will riot. 

They can lie but in this day in age with the internet and memes spreading information quickly, and with more people at home without work with nothing to do but browse the web it won't last long.


----------



## morvoran (Mar 30, 2020)

It's better that the rich folks and corporations that make the US economy so great get some of the money rather than some crappy solar panel companies that will go bankrupt and run off with the money in a couple of months.

I find it funny in a scary way how people (even those from other countries such as Canada with their own wasteful spending issues) will always judge how money is spent in the US without looking into the matter themselves to see the benefits of how that money is being spent.  Shame on the OP and the liberal writer of the article whom happens to work for the fake news org CNN (going on the title of this thread, I could have guessed).


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

SG854 said:


> The reason has to do with human nature. Humans don't respond well to long term effects. Maybe an evolutionary negative. But immediate danger that happening right now they respond faster then the speed of light.
> 
> Something like the world being flooded by melting ice caps and become hotter is a future event, what's happening  now isn't enough for people to respomd like they are for corona virus. But Hospitals being over run is happening now. That is actually a criticism that many scientists have about dealing with global warming, people don't respond quick enough till the danger actually happens and it's too late.
> 
> ...


That's all nice and dandy, but just about anything can be called a national emergency given enough support. You're talking with me right now, and we both know the things you've mentioned to be true, but you go on ahead and convince someone who thinks that the sky is falling and they're going to drown in their lifetime - good luck.

Naturally there are checks and balances in place when it comes to tyranny, however emergency powers of the government should not only be used sparingly, but also be closely monitored and criticised as needed, as there is very little legal redress of grievances when the local courthouse is closed due to a pandemic and you can't file suit, or even get arraigned should you be found in violation of the "too long of a walk" policy. "People dying from a disease" is very much a "future event", the efforts right now are focused on isolating the infected and telling people to stay at home - they're aimed at future, potential casualties. The exact same rule could apply to Chicago - people are dying to gun violence in turf wars all day everyday - is that an emergency? How about school shootings? How about an environmental disaster, like in Michigan? What is the number of people affected that is cause for concern and what isn't? Between 2009 and 2010 H1N1 affected 60.8 million people in the United States, out of whom 274,000 required hospitalisation and 12,469 ultimately died - I don't remember a nation-wide lockdown. Now, admittedly, COVID-19 has a much, much higher mortality rate, but the point stands.

It's easy for you to say that "it's going to be okay", but you're forgetting that the constitution wasn't written for when everything is honkey dory - it was written *for* times of crisis, it lays down fundamental rights that the government *cannot* infringe. It shouldn't be treated lightly, and if we're going to suspend any particular section, such a decision needs overwhelming support of "we, the people" and it should come with specific caveats - how long will the suspension last and what are the exact specifics. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that kind of transparency, "we're forgetting about Amendment X because crisis" is a bad policy.

This is of course all hypothetical legal mumbo jumbo. Everyone absolutely should stay safe and follow guidelines to minimise their risk of infection - I can't stress that enough. This is more of a civil rights concern than an invitation to start licking doorknobs.


----------



## urherenow (Mar 30, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Hey...didn't you say Trump intervened in that process just one post before?


No, I did not. I said that it was the theme used for the impeachment. He didn't change the value, or fail to honor it. He delayed the payment for... reasons. I'm just throwing the Democrat's words back in their face, that's all.



Ravenhide23 said:


> My biggest issue with Trump is that he's a spineless moron. And that's all. With COVID-19 literally knocking on his door, he has the power to completely override Congress and whatever complaints they might have in regards to closing United States borders and attempting to prevent an influx of the virus. And then, since he did not take steps to prevent and/or limit the spread of the virus,


Hold it right there, tiger. First off... spineless? You come off as one of the people who (even to this day) calls Trump a puppet for Putin. He's the only president since the cold war to be responsible for operations that caused the death of Russian soldiers. And while the rest of the world (and Media) is bowing down to China about the virus' origin, Trump is NOT backing down and he's calling a spade, a spade. To be honest, he's pretty darn arrogant. Doesn't fit anywhere near the definition of "spineless".

Done nothing? He tried barring travel from China a mere 10 days after the problem hit the US. Tell me what administration has EVER acted faster? He was called every name in the book for it too, like Biden saying he is xenophobic... Where is Biden now, I wonder? He also placed travel bans on European countries... look how the infection is spreading around there (especially Italy).

He is trying to balance his power, with the power of the individual States. He is in direct communication with the GOVERNORS and urging them to act. Would you be happier if he declared martial law and told the entire country to stay indoors, with military enforcement? No you wouldn't.  If not enough is being done in your State, you need to look at what your governor is doing.

And whatever your choice of news source is, STOP listening to the peanut gallery. Trump, and the professionals he's working with to base his decisions off of, have been on the news (most all major networks, I believe) every day now. Listen to THEM, to know what they are doing, and not opinions and "interpretations" of the reporters.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's all nice and dandy, but just about anything can be called a national emergency given enough support. You're talking with me right now, and we both know the things you've mentioned to be true, but you go on ahead and convince someone who thinks that the sky is falling and they're going to drown in their lifetime - good luck.
> 
> Naturally there are checks and balances in place when it comes to tyranny, however emergency powers of the government should not only be used sparingly, but also be closely monitored and criticised as needed, as there is very little legal redress of grievances when the local courthouse is closed due to a pandemic and you can't file suit, or even get arraigned should you be found in violation of the "too long of a walk" policy. "People dying from a disease" is very much a "future event", the efforts right now are focused on isolating the infected and telling people to stay at home - they're aimed at future, potential casualties. The exact same rule could apply to Chicago - people are dying to gun violence in turf wars all day everyday - is that an emergency? How about school shootings? How about an environmental disaster, like in Michigan? What is the number of people affected that is cause for concern and what isn't? Between 2009 and 2010 H1N1 affected 60.8 million people in the United States, out of whom 274,000 required hospitalisation and 12,469 ultimately died - I don't remember a nation-wide lockdown. Now, admittedly, COVID-19 has a much, much higher mortality rate, but the point stands.
> 
> ...


Even if they are both a future events the virus spreading and hospitalizing people happens at a faster rate then global warming, it's slow and gradual. The threat of it is immediate while global warming isn't, that's the difference between the two.

It could be for past diseases doctors didn't respond to it quick enough and regret they did nothing but this time wanted to handle this current situation better. This is just a guess of mine.

Places with high gun violence just happens in certain areas it isn't a state wide issue that happened in every city. There maybe a shooting here and there but won't reach the high crime rates some areas do. It's a big part of the gun advocates argument that shootings isn't everywhere and it's why we shouldn't ban it, and instead find what causes them in these areas and prevent it.

Same with environmental disasters, when they happen they happen in some areas and not the whole country. Corona virus is like a hurricane hitting many countries at once causing disaster in the human body and is a world wide issue. That is the difference between them.

And despite all you said you still believe social distancing should be a thing. So my question is how do you think this situation should be handled? Should we open all businesses now and hope people will stay apart from each other and not infect one another? You can argue about the constitution being infringed all day but the virus how should that be handled? How should we handle other viruses that are as disastrous as this one that come along? What should be done about these situatuons?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Even if they are both a future events the virus spreading and hospitalizing people happens at a faster rate then global warming, it's slow and gradual. The threat of it is immediate while global warming isn't, that's the difference between the two.
> 
> It could be for past diseases doctors didn't respond to it quick enough and regret they did nothing but this time wanted to handle this current situation better. This is just a guess of mine.
> 
> ...


I would like to say that I trust people not to be stupid, but I don't. Sadly, I don't have an answer for you. There are two extremes that I've mentioned - Mad Max-level liberty that would very likely kill large swathes of the population and absolute lack of liberty that would probably save lives, but they wouldn't be worth living. The solution is somewhere in the middle, and I don't necessarily disagree with the steps taken so far, I'm simply worried about their long-term effects. I think there were some sensible precautions that could've been implemented that effectively limit the spread without putting the economy on-hold. It's nice to think of this in the context of "saving lives", but you also have to consider long-term effects - how many people are going to suffer or die because they work hourly and now suddenly don't have an income? How many people instantly lost their healthcare coverage due to being laid off, all because some idiot in Washington came up with the brilliant idea of employer-based health insurance? There's more to it than just the virus, there are other factors besides the virus that impact everybody. For now, it's good to see an emergency "Trump Bux" package that allows tax payers to get some of that tax money back, that should at the bare minimum tide them through the rough. Here's for hoping vaccine development is fast tracked and we can all get immunised as quickly as humanly possible.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I would like to say that I trust people not to be stupid, but I don't. Sadly, I don't have an answer for you. There are two extremes that I've mentioned - Mad Max-level liberty that would very likely kill large swathes of the population and absolute lack of liberty that would probably save lives, but they wouldn't be worth living. The solution is somewhere in the middle, and I don't necessarily disagree with the steps taken so far, I'm simply worried about their long-term effects. I think there were some sensible precautions that could've been implemented that effectively limit the spread without putting the economy on-hold. It's nice to think of this in the context of "saving lives", but you also have to consider long-term effects - how many people are going to suffer or die because they work hourly and now suddenly don't have an income? How many people instantly lost their healthcare coverage due to being laid off, all because some idiot in Washington came up with the brilliant idea of employer-based health insurance? There's more to it than just the virus, there are other factors besides the virus that impact everybody. For now, it's good to see an emergency "Trump Bux" package that allows tax payers to get some of that tax money back, that should at the bare minimum tide them through the rough. Here's for hoping vaccine development is fast tracked and we can all get immunised as quickly as humanly possible.


Didn't you have an answer earlier that people not making money from this shut down that could suffer and die from not affording to eat should move to online. Basically in your view if they don't adapt then they deserve to die, I'm assuming. So shut down and making money shouldn't be an issue right. Only peoples freedom of this shut down is the issue?

Let's just say the top paragraph is something you don't believe in and a middle ground is something you want. The fear is the power being abused by the Gov. Since the way this virus spreads makes it hard to contain people aren't relied on to keep distance and not be infected, it's just isn't feasible the way some businesses run.

And many workers still working right now are putting their lives in danger to provide for things we need so that we can function somewhat. There is still much we don't know about the virus because even young healthy people are being affected by it too, we have no idea who it's going to negatively affect and it's changing the way people are thinking about the virus.

So giving Gov a few feet is necessary there is just no way around it to stop the spread. And of course I'm thinking about the negative impact it has on the economy if shut down for too long, I made a thread about it a few days ago. Trump is talking about it right now, he knows we cant be shut down too long.

Do you think Gov will be evil and make us not work ever as part of their evil plan? Or weld peoples doors in the U.S? We aren't a 3rd world country where these things slide. We can use our phones record and post a video on YouTube to cry for help when that happens. It's guaranteed to go viral.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Didn't you have an answer earlier that people not making money from this shut down that could suffer and die from not affording to eat should move to online. Basically in your view if they don't adapt then they deserve to die, I'm assuming. So shut down and making money shouldn't be an issue right. Only peoples freedom of this shut down is the issue?
> 
> Let's just say the top paragraph is something you don't believe in and a middle ground is something you want. The fear is the power being abused by the Gov. Since the way this virus spreads makes it hard to contain people aren't relied on to keep distance and not be infected, it's just isn't feasible the way some businesses run.
> 
> ...


Reductio ad absurdum - you're caricaturising what I said. What I actually said was that, as a general rule, being able to adapt to changing circumstances is the key to success. What I also said was that if this is long-term and you find yourself out of work, you must necessarily consider a career change as you can't simply rely on assistance from others. I specified that I don't mind the stimulus package because it effectively returns tax money back to the tax payers, and as a staunch critic of the income tax I can't help but approve of that. What I didn't say is that people "deserve to die" due to unfortunate circumstances - that's something you wrongly inferred. I would give you a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" routine, but that's a little silly - the point is that even in times of uncertainty and calamity people should be incentivised to take their own destiny by the reins and find ways to monetise their talents and contribute. The economy can't be stopped indefinitely, we have to start functioning normally at some point, and by all available measurements it's looking like we'll have to long before we have a vaccine and effective treatments, so what's step two? You have step one nailed - everyone's in their houses and all major events are cancelled, now what? The function of the lockdown, and it is a lockdown not a "stay at home", or whatever they want to call it, is to spread infections out a little bit to lower the burden on the system. You don't want 20% of the population to require hospitalisation all at once, that's what this is for. Now that we're at this stage, we have to start thinking about how to proceed. As for liberty, and its potential loss, government overreach via the use of emergency powers or executive order can have long-lasting ramifications for every emergency that follows, and since we have no exact definition of what constitutes an emergency, it's dangerous by definition. It's not really a matter of what I imagine could happen in the future - that's unknowable. All things considered, I think we have a very similar opinion on how this crisis was addressed - not too shabby. I'm simply less enthusiastic about the possible repercussions that may come later.


----------



## rrdein (Mar 30, 2020)

Not sure about it targeting the 1% specifically, but it would make sense for the bill to provide some kind of tax break to those making, say, over $120,000/yr, since they will bear most of the cost of the bill through their tax dollars, but also do not get the money that most people are getting from the bill.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Reductio ad absurdum - you're caricaturising what I said. What I actually said was that, as a general rule, being able to adapt to changing circumstances is the key to success. What I also said was that if this is long-term and you find yourself out of work, you must necessarily consider a career change as you can't simply rely on assistance from others. I specified that I don't mind the stimulus package because it effectively returns tax money back to the tax payers, and as a staunch critic of the income tax I can't help but approve of that. What I didn't say is that people "deserve to die" due to unfortunate circumstances - that's something you wrongly inferred. I would give you a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" routine, but that's a little silly - the point is that even in times of uncertainty and calamity people should be incentivised to take their own destiny by the reins and find ways to monetise their talents and contribute. The economy can't be stopped indefinitely, we have to start functioning normally at some point, and by all available measurements it's looking like we'll have to long before we have a vaccine and effective treatments, so what's step two? You have step one nailed - everyone's in their houses and all major events are cancelled, now what? The function of the lockdown, and it is a lockdown not a "stay at home", or whatever they want to call it, is to spread infections out a little bit to lower the burden on the system. You don't want 20% of the population to require hospitalisation all at once, that's what this is for. Now that we're at this stage, we have to start thinking about how to proceed. As for liberty, and its potential loss, government overreach via the use of emergency powers or executive order can have long-lasting ramifications for every emergency that follows, and since we have no exact definition of what constitutes an emergency, it's dangerous by definition. It's not really a matter of what I imagine could happen in the future - that's unknowable. All things considered, I think we have a very similar opinion on how this crisis was addressed - not too shabby. I'm simply less enthusiastic about the possible repercussions that may come later.


Reductio ad absurdum while people see as a negative logical fallacy is a step for me to understand your perspective more. I can say, so this is what you believe in? Then you can reply well not really it's actually this way I think of this. Since your beliefs isn't all too clear to me on certain areas I have to make assumptions which then you can clear up in another post. It helps bring out what you really think. I could be spot on in my assumptions or not. I even left that as a possibility in my post that it might be not what you believe in.

But let's be honest in a normal circumstance I'm sure you believe that if you want to eat you have to work for it. People that don't work don't deserve to eat. And I'm sure you don't want them to die and will say they have to pull up their boot straps but if they don't do that well then death will happen. In a unexpected situation with the corona virus you agree to help and a stimulus which is basically returning our money we worked for back to us.

I think Democrats should stop blocking aid. They are too concerned about what the 1% will get when getting money out to people as quickly as possible should be the biggest concern. Forget the 1%. We don't have all day to be bickering. We need this money now.

So how do we define what constitutes to an emergency? Any ideas on defining it?


----------



## notimp (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a really long way to say "I didn't understand the premise". I'm not against taxation in its totality, I'm against the income tax.


Ok - then we have most of the problem eliminated. 

Why is income tax needed -

Because of the retirement issue. Its harder to argue it today - where you dont have the base model of "young working population pays for old people" (who are few) anymore in countries, where the older population becomes much larger demographically, where you then have pension funds, that are only allowed to invest money by a very conservative set of investment strategies.

Because that, basically, could also be you. (Giving them the money. To do so, out of your own will.) You basically pay for your retirement structurally anyhow at that point.

The issue we are then coming up against is "people taking risks". So if you've accumulated wealth up to a point in your life you are willing to take more risk to look for a return (interest > better retirement), and from a certain point more towards retirement you become more risk averse.

There will be people taking 50:50 bets on 'winner takes all' configurations - and they will not know that they are making those bets, because they are bad at modelling economic development the same way pension funds do. (Heck even they are bad at it..  )

So the issue really becomes - what do you do with those people.

So if you are not taxing work, you need to progressively tax - "whoever 'all the wealth' ends up with", with the problem being, that thats, very, very hard to do - short term (because they have all the money).

Long term its easier. (Very rich people usually got very rich not from investing in generational trends, but in big structural changes, those dont come along as (company driven) investment opportunities very often.) The others mostly 'loose' their wealth within three generations.

Also the issue with consumption based taxing is, that people can chose not to consume. Then accumulate more money, thats then out to look for returns, that then floods the housing or the stock market, mostly in search for highest returns, ...

Hence the system becomes more unstable.

If you solve the 'old people' problem (look at how land ownership and family structures worked in feudalism), you might have it your way, but its hard to do so without taxing work.

And workers becoming more wealthy just was a result of them realizing that they dont need king and church, when they have the means of production. So they got 'wealthy', but with that also came structural responsibility.

(Todays stock market works entirely differently - and arguably has primacy over the political system - while workers got more and more replacable (machines, globalization), so something broke..  (Might not be "bad necessarily" - depends.) I'm not arguing that the system is perfect.)


----------



## Xzi (Mar 30, 2020)

Not referencing any comment here in particular, but I love the ridiculous absurdity of the argument that America can't have decent/universal healthcare coverage because we've got "too much freedom."  Seems to apply to every other form of social safety net we could possibly implement, too.  The truth is that the number of freedoms you enjoy in the US is directly tied to how many zeroes are in your bank account balance.  If you're poor you're barely even considered human, and given the pandemic we're dealing with, we're about to generate a whole lot more poor people and whole lot of epiphanies related to class consciousness.


----------



## Pipistrele (Mar 30, 2020)

So, there's 1 in 100 chance that I'll get tax break? Gotta cross my fingers D:


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> Ok - then we have most of the problem eliminated.
> 
> Why is income tax needed -
> 
> ...


Everything you've said is completely untrue - the fact that I'm against public retirement plans/healthcare aside, Social Security is funded by the payroll tax, not by the income tax. The payroll tax is another terrible penalty on productivity which deflates on-hand wages, but that's besides the point. Other retirement options include 401(K), Simple IRA and SEP IRA, all of them have one thing in common - they're tax-deferred. You *do not* pay income tax on earnings saved towards your retirement. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the government should provide *0* retirement options as your savings are your business, but at the very least under the current system they're not taxing you for thinking ahead, which is a pretty good incentive. As far as stability is concerned, that's a matter of your individual perspective - to some it's desirable, to others instability is precisely how you multiply your savings. Your assumption is that everyone must necessarily be a winner - I don't subscribe to that principle. I'd rather have unequal outcomes that are generally good than have equal incomes and live together in squalor. While we're on the subject of Social Security, since the system is ran by the government, it's extremely inefficient and on track to run out of money by 2035. Your Social Security contributions are not funding *your own* safety net at this stage, you're paying into the pot for other people. The entire system has to be restructured in the foreseeable future or it will go bankrupt, which you claim is unheard of for government-ran programs, and it's not even the first time this has happened. Ultimately you yourself will see $0 that come from your contributions - it's set up to get contributions from the generation that follows, which is a fantastic idea when you're simultaneously promoting the idea that the world is overpopulated and birth rates are on the decline. I'm sure this approach will work great in an oversaturated market where a large portion of the youth can't find well-paying jobs and *isn't* contributing much to their pot, which in reality is your pot. All sarcasm aside, It's a giant mess far inferior to private retirement funds which offer better ROI. Again, a discussion for another thread that has nothing to do with the current stimulus package.


Xzi said:


> Not referencing any comment here in particular, but I love the ridiculous absurdity of the argument that America can't have decent/universal healthcare coverage because we've got "too much freedom."  Seems to apply to every other form of social safety net we could possibly implement, too.  The truth is that the number of freedoms you enjoy in the US is directly tied to how many zeroes are in your bank account balance.  If you're poor you're barely even considered human, and given the pandemic we're dealing with, we're about to generate a whole lot more poor people and whole lot of epiphanies related to class consciousness.


I agree - the government could create a better healthcare system than it has today. Step 1 would be to roll back its interference in it, but we've had that conversation before, so we can leave it at that. 


SG854 said:


> Reductio ad absurdum while people see as a negative logical fallacy is a step for me to understand your perspective more. I can say, so this is what you believe in? Then you can reply well not really it's actually this way I think of this. Since your beliefs isn't all too clear to me on certain areas I have to make assumptions which then you can clear up in another post. It helps bring out what you really think. I could be spot on in my assumptions or not. I even left that as a possibility in my post that it might be not what you believe in.
> 
> But let's be honest in a normal circumstance I'm sure you believe that if you want to eat you have to work for it. People that don't work don't deserve to eat. And I'm sure you don't want them to die and will say they have to pull up their boot straps but if they don't do that well then death will happen. In a unexpected situation with the corona virus you agree to help and a stimulus which is basically returning our money we worked for back to us.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between what I'd want and what is fair. I certainly don't want people to starve, but at the same time if the system is fair, it will necessarily have winners and losers. If you want the most clear explanation possible, it's "you reap what you sow". I'm in no way responsible for the financial future of my neighbour and, by extension, shouldn't be held liable for their bad financial decisions. I happily help people electively, but I don't enjoy being coerced for the "greater good" - there's no greater good than liberty, and my savings, the result of my hard work, should benefit myself and my family. I hope that's a little clearer.


----------



## notimp (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Social Security is funded by the payroll tax, not by the income tax. The payroll tax is another terrible penalty on productivity which deflates on-hand wages, but


Honestly - I didnt differenciate between the two. Made for a simpler argument. 


> *payroll taxes* are typically taxed at a simple flat rate, while *income tax* is subject to a variety of *income*-based *tax* brackets


Payroll taxes (at least in my country) as the name implies are taken from people that are employed, income tax from people that are self-employed. Apart from that - no difference as far as my argument is concerned.

What you are now shouting against is progressive income tax.

Which is the only thing that counteracts a systems error that can be described as 'money draws in more money' - meaning the advantage of high income people while investing is cumulative. ('The rich are getting richer, without taking on risk').

If you now are against that as well - you kind of don't understand what the underlying problem of our times is.. 



> You *do not* pay income tax on earnings saved towards your retirement. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the government should provide *0* retirement options as your savings are your business, but at the very least under the current system they're not taxing you for thinking ahead, [...]


You dont pay income tax on earnings saved towards retirement, because that would be akin to 'double taxation'. The government would take Income  away to (mainly) provide for your retirement, while you are already providing for your retirement, so the state acknowledges that and doesnt force you to pay income tax - on the part you are already saving towards retirement. Only specific vehicles are accredited (namely ones where you are not at risk, loosing all (/significant) amounts of that money (speculation)).

I don't advocate for 'everyone to be a winner', just for the losers to be able to live without resorting to 'fights' over food, shelter or water. In rich societies. Again - I dont have to use an individual argument, structurally it makes more sense, if you prevent cities from becoming derelict, if lets say 30% of the workforce drops out of work (and in your world most others would choose to leave). It allows for a quicker 'upstart' when someone manages to do something in that region that brings it on a growth path again. It destroys less wealth.

I'd also argue for free medical treatment for your poor - also because of structural issues. See pandemic. (If in parts of your town, smallpox is still a thing, ...)


You are just a little shmuk, that hides behind definitions of words at this point, ones he doesnt even understand, that doesnt want to take on responsibility for anyone but yourself and are whining, that the world doesnt work according to your ideology (which is outdated by several hundreds of years) - because look at all the money you'd be missing. You use words like 'terrible' for base systems of todays society - you have no idea how you'd tackle any of the issues arising, if you take them out. You havent even thought about it -

yet you feel entitled as hell. 

You must work in middle management? 

Do you live in a gated community by any chance?  Or is that your aspiration for when you get more wealthy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> Honestly - I didnt differenciate between the two. Made for a simpler argument.
> 
> Payroll taxes (at least in my country) as the name implies are taken from people that are employed, income tax from people that are self-employed. Apart from that - no difference as far as my argument is concerned.
> 
> ...


That's a nope and nope on that, although with some luck perhaps one day I will. As far as double taxation is concerned, you're already taxed once on your income and once at the point of sale - with VAT around the world and a Sales tax in the USA. If any of the current Democrat tax policy gets enacted within the next decade, you'd also be taxed on your savings via the Wealth tax, so that makes it triple. That ship has long since sailed, which is precisely why I'm against the current system - taxing a citizen multiple times on the same dollar is unfair by definition. You can't say with a straight face that it's perfectly fine to tax people on the income they make and then merrily tax the same income again if they try to spend it or save it. I'd also appreciate it if you kept it civil - you don't have to agree with me and it's okay to have a difference of opinion, but leave the epithets at the door. Now, if we're done here, we can get back to the stimulus package, if you will.


----------



## notimp (Mar 30, 2020)

You didnt take the bait.  (namecalling)

I live in a gated community. Its a historic object. It was gated as by the ideology of the time.  People that run it now, open the gates every day for tourists, and whoever wants to access the compounds.

I always thought that was a neat thing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> You didnt take the bait.  (namecalling)
> 
> I live in a gated community. Its a historic object. It was gated as by the ideology of the time.  People that run it now, open the gates every day for tourists, and whoever wants to access the compounds.
> 
> I always thought that was a neat thing.


That does seem nice - it's important to keep history alive...

...LIKE THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS FIGHTING AGAINST UNFAIR TAXATION! THROW THAT TEA IN THE SEA, NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, NO STEP ON SNEK, REEE! 

Keep on keeping on, times are tough right now, I don't think name-calling is productive. What I do think is that when discussing tax policy you have to make a choice - taxing based on income or taxing based on individual transactions - you shouldn't do both. In my opinion transactions make more sense as the government is directly involved in them and they distribute fairly well - the more you consume, the more you pay in taxes, which is fair. This doesn't just include going to the store to buy a stereo, it includes all spending. A value added tax is significantly more fair than an income tax - you're not charging people on their economic output, you're charging them on participating in the economic system established by the government via their government-issue legal tender. As far as payroll tax is concerned, it exists as a separate entity to the income tax in the U.S. (FICA), so I treat it separately, even though I don't like it too. A whole different discussion with different ramifications, but we'll leave it at that so as to not further derail.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 30, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I agree - the government could create a better healthcare system than it has today. Step 1 would be to roll back its interference in it, but we've had that conversation before, so we can leave it at that.


Private healthcare insurance is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.  The cause of the problem cannot also be the solution, and the free market cannot simultaneously heal people while also leaving them to die.  The profit motive has no place in this conversation, and neither do the middlemen just looking to get their cut for doing nothing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 31, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Private healthcare insurance is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.  The cause of the problem cannot also be the solution, and the free market cannot simultaneously heal people while also leaving them to die.  The profit motive has no place in this conversation, and neither do the middlemen just looking to get their cut for doing nothing.


I'll have to disagree - there's certainly a lot of problems with the healthcare system as it is implemented right now, but the fact that it's private isn't one of them. One of the biggest problems is the employer-funded healthcare coverage which destroys any form of legitimate competition in the insurance market, but as I said earlier, that has less to do with the current package and more to do with the cavalcade of mistakes made over the years by prioritising universality at the cost of quality and affordability. By pushing the cost of healthcare onto the employers for large swathes of the population the government left the lower income people hanging and enabled the insurance companies to inflate premiums while simultaneously reducing coverage. Insurance is no longer a choice - it's a legal obligation. You don't have to improve a product that your customers *have* to purchase to operate as a business. There's no incentive to keep costs affordable and actually fight for customers in the marketplace, and since the payers are overwhelmingly wealthy, the little guys have to pay big fish prices as well. As for middlemen getting paid for nothing, assigning healthcare to an army of government pencil pushers seems counter-intuitive to me. If you want your hospital to be ran like the DMV, go nuts - I lived under two universal healthcare systems and frankly, they both sucked.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 31, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> mistakes made over the years by prioritising universality at the cost of quality and affordability


When has that ever been the priority in the US?  Romneycare/Obamacare do hardly anything to ensure that everyone is covered, they only ensure that wealthy people with preexisting conditions will be covered.



Foxi4 said:


> By pushing the cost of healthcare onto the employers for large swathes of the population the government left the lower income people hanging and enabled the insurance companies to inflate premiums while simultaneously reducing coverage.


Which seems like another good argument in favor of tax-funded universal healthcare.  It opens up collective bargaining power for employees, and takes most of the burden off small businesses.



Foxi4 said:


> There's no incentive to keep costs affordable and actually fight for customers in the marketplace


Of course there isn't, there's no reason for private healthcare insurance companies to exist in the first place.  It's probably the easiest industry to automate into extinction right now if we bothered to put a little effort in.



Foxi4 said:


> As for middlemen getting paid for nothing, assigning healthcare to an army of government pencil pushers seems counter-intuitive to me. If you want your hospital to be ran like the DMV, go nuts - I lived under two universal healthcare systems and frankly, they both sucked.


I'm not suggesting the government seize direct control over hospitals.  I have no issue with the hospitals themselves remaining private entities as long as they follow regulations and keep prices reasonable.  However, it's also because of the profit motive that they're used to operating efficiently with minimal staff - like a McDonald's - and because of that, efficiency is now turning into extreme scarcity.  We're going to have to rethink the way we do a lot of things now, especially disaster response preparedness, and the "free market" needs to wake up and realize that prioritizing short-term profits above all else means losing so much more in the long term; both lives and money.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 31, 2020)

Xzi said:


> When has that ever been the priority in the US?  Romneycare/Obamacare do hardly anything to ensure that everyone is covered, they only ensure that wealthy people with preexisting conditions will be covered.
> 
> 
> Which seems like another good argument in favor of tax-funded universal healthcare.  It opens up collective bargaining power for employees, and takes most of the burden off small businesses.
> ...


McDonald's is somehow able to churn out a $1 burger, meanwhile the government is having a hard time churning out a sandwich for a school lunch. As soon as that somehow magically reverses, which hasn't been achieved anywhere in the world, I'll give you your "affordability and efficiency" point. Until then, you're talking nonsense.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 31, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> McDonald's is somehow able to churn out a $1 burger, meanwhile the government is having a hard time churning out a sandwich for a school lunch. As soon as that somehow magically reverses, which hasn't been achieved anywhere in the world, I'll give you your "affordability and efficiency" point. Until then, you're talking nonsense.


Most schools around the nation are giving out free breakfasts and lunches for low-income families right now.  If the government can eat the cost of so many corporate welfare handouts over the years, that's nothing in comparison.  And it goes without saying, but operating a hospital _is not_ the same thing as operating a fast food restaurant.  It's just as easy to cause a fast food restaurant's efficiency to crash, by ordering 1,000 cheeseburgers or something, but obviously that's still nowhere near as urgent as having 1,000 dying corona patients queued up.  In this hypothetical, the fast food worker is actually far more prepared since a single grill can churn out all those burgers, but 100 beds and 50 ventilators is not enough for 1,000 patients no matter how you slice it.  People have already started dying as a result of the profit motive's ruthless need for efficiency, with many more deaths to come.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 31, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Most schools around the nation are giving out free breakfasts and lunches for low-income families right now.  If the government can eat the cost of so many corporate welfare handouts over the years, that's nothing in comparison.  And it goes without saying, but operating a hospital _is not_ the same thing as operating a fast food restaurant.  It's just as easy to cause a fast food restaurant's efficiency to crash, by ordering 1,000 cheeseburgers or something, but obviously that's still nowhere near as urgent as having 1,000 dying corona patients queued up.  In this hypothetical, the fast food worker is actually far more prepared since a single grill can churn out all those burgers, but 100 beds and 50 ventilators is not enough for 1,000 patients no matter how you slice it.  People have already started dying as a result of the profit motive's ruthless need for efficiency, with many more deaths to come.


Again, that's nonsense. Many countries with universal healthcare are in the exact same situation, if not worse - Italy is a much smaller country with a smaller population and the sheer amount of deaths is unprecedented. Their healthcare system is ranked 2nd best in the world by the WHO - to me it looks like it's not nearly as good as you'd imagine. It suffers from the exact same problems as any other public healthcare system - it's drowning in inefficiency and it's affected by rationing. This is not a "profit motive" problem, this is a "pandemic" problem.

My point about the sandwiches was that a government-issue school lunch "costs" $3.81 out of which $1.88 is subsidised, and that's *all* loss. McDonald's is in the same industry, the industry of providing food, and it manages to get a profit out of selling a product that is less than 1/3rd the price, which should give you some pause.

Of course you're welcome to have a different opinion, even if all the evidence at hand points to it being wrong.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 31, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Many countries with universal healthcare are in the exact same situation, if not worse - Italy is a much smaller country with a smaller population and the sheer amount of deaths is unprecedented. Their healthcare system is ranked 2nd best in the world by the WHO - to me it looks like it's not nearly as good as you'd imagine. It suffers from the exact same problems as any other public healthcare system - it's drowning in inefficiency and it's affected by rationing. This is not a "profit motive" problem, this is a "pandemic" problem.


Italy's problem was their late response to the whole thing.  Which is yet another problem on top of scarcity that we're also having in a number of states.  Florida, Texas, and others are _just now_ starting to close down non-essential businesses, with no stay at home order issued.  I can damn near guarantee that America is going to be hit harder than Italy overall, even when accounting for the difference in population.



Foxi4 said:


> My point about the sandwiches was that a government-issue school lunch "costs" $3.81 out of which $1.88 is subsidised, and that's *all* loss. McDonald's is in the same industry, the industry of providing food, and it manages to get a profit out of selling a product that is less than 1/3rd the price, which should give you some pause.


School lunches also contain multiple items and have some real nutritional value to them.  A McDouble is just anus meat, and the price has still gone up compared to what it used to be.



Foxi4 said:


> Of course you're welcome to have a different opinion, even if all the evidence at hand points to it being wrong.


Hospitals are now begging corporations and billionaires to save the lives of their patients, and they have no obligation to respond.  Things can't get much more dystopian than this without the entire nation collapsing.


----------



## nero99 (Apr 1, 2020)

ChibiMofo said:


> You may have heard that the super rich don't get anything in this $1.2T stimulus bill. If so, you heard wrong. Trump and each of his family members will get far more than $1,200 from this. Now you know why the Republicans in Congress were so eager to get the 800 page bill passed quickly and claimed that the Democrats were dragging their feet. Vote for people who will repeal this handouts and make billionaires pay their fair share.


seems you live in Canada. This doesn't concern or involve you one bit if you live over there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 1, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Italy's problem was their late response to the whole thing.  Which is yet another problem on top of scarcity that we're also having in a number of states.  Florida, Texas, and others are _just now_ starting to close down non-essential businesses, with no stay at home order issued.  I can damn near guarantee that America is going to be hit harder than Italy overall, even when accounting for the difference in population.


Italy is suffering from late response to the virus, like... The rest of the world, since China lied and people died. You can't simultaneously give Italy a pass because they responded to the problem late while condemning the United States for also responding to it late.


> School lunches also contain multiple items and have some real nutritional value to them.  A McDouble is just anus meat, and the price has still gone up compared to what it used to be.


[CITATION NEEDED], sir. You're talking about the same school lunches that pushed pizza as a vegetable/fruit portion since it contains tomato sauce. You have no ground to stand on.


> Hospitals are now begging corporations and billionaires to save the lives of their patients, and they have no obligation to respond.  Things can't get much more dystopian than this without the entire nation collapsing.


It's pretty bad. It's equally bad where hospitals are publically funded. That's what makes this a pandemic and not "just a flu, bro". China had to quarantine millions of people, they were putting them in isolation rooms with no doorknobs, of course this is hard to handle. Most countries affected by the virus instituted lockdowns for this exact reason. Yeah, hospitals are stretched thin - d'uh, that's the reason why we're all staying home - to spread the infections out a little.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 1, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Italy is suffering from late response to the virus, like... The rest of the world, since China lied and people died. You can't simultaneously give Italy a pass because they responded to the problem late while condemning the United States for also responding to it late.


I'm not, I'm saying it's a different issue that is compounding Italy's problems as well as our own.  People are dying from scarcity of healthcare workers/supplies in Italy, but in America they're dying from that AND a lack of healthcare insurance.



Foxi4 said:


> [CITATION NEEDED], sir. You're talking about the same school lunches that pushed pizza as a vegetable/fruit portion since it contains tomato sauce. You have no ground to stand on.


Well, I haven't looked into the topic closely in the last few years, so I don't have any idea how badly Trump/DeVos have fucked it all up, but the Obama administration did require fairly nutritious lunches.



Foxi4 said:


> eah, hospitals are stretched thin - d'uh, that's the reason why we're all staying home - to spread the infections out a little.


The point I'm trying to get at is that there's no reason our healthcare system should have been stretched this thin.  Trump axed a $1 billion pandemic response and preparedness program in the first year of his administration.  So we saved $1 billion and now we're going to lose several trillion.  The unchecked greed of American capitalism is incompatible with both common sense, and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 1, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I'm not, I'm saying it's a different issue that is compounding Italy's problems as well as our own.  People are dying from scarcity of healthcare workers/supplies in Italy, but in America they're dying from that AND a lack of healthcare insurance.
> 
> Well, I haven't looked into the topic closely in the last few years, so I don't have any idea how badly Trump/DeVos have fucked it all up, but the Obama administration did require fairly nutritious lunches.
> 
> The point I'm trying to get at is that there's no reason our healthcare system should have been stretched this thin.  Trump axed a $1 billion pandemic response and preparedness program in the first year of his administration.  So we saved $1 billion and now we're going to lose several trillion.  The unchecked greed of American capitalism is incompatible with both common sense, and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.


So what you're saying is that if the $1 billion program wasn't scrapped the U.S. wouldn't have to "lose" $2 trillion even though the actual cost is in fact $2 trillion since, in your mind, $1 billion 3 years ago equals $2 trillion now, for reasons. I understand now, I can see why left-wing governments always seem to have trouble with money.

As for the pizza example, it dates back to 2011 - I don't think Trump was president at that time, I think it was somebody else, but I can't quite recall... Hmm... Ah, yes, Obama.

We'll leave this at a difference of opinion. What you completely neglect to account for is the fact that you're not encompassing the totality of the situation. In Italy literally everyone is dying, rich or poor, because they're unable to adequately address the situation. In the U.S. there's more infected, but less casualties, which tells me that the standard of care must necessarily be higher. Of course the hospitals aren't overrun quite as much as in Italy just yet, the population is much higher, so the overall density is lower and the situation could very well deteriorate as you say.

I will agree that people die for different reasons, this much is true and regrettable, but you failed to convince me that some citizens should be penalised on the behalf of others. One thing we both agree on is that the current insurance system is garbage and must be dismantled, but we arrived at that conclusion following very different trains of thought. That probably means the conclusion is good, so there's that.


----------



## g00s3y (Apr 1, 2020)

Fuck trump and his supporters.

That is all, please carry on.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 1, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> So what you're saying is that if the $1 billion program wasn't scrapped the U.S. wouldn't have to "lose" $2 trillion even though the actual cost is in fact $2 trillion since, in your mind, $1 billion 3 years ago equals $2 trillion now, for reasons. I understand now, I can see why left-wing governments always seem to have trouble with money.


Oh, the cost of this is going to be far more than $2 trillion in the long term.  And while that program may not have prevented _all_ of this spending, it definitely would've cut it down significantly.  Like I said, a bit of common sense in the short-term saves money in the long run.  Instead of being ahead of the infections curve, we're stuck playing catch up, and that leads to a whole lot of unnecessary panic spending.



Foxi4 said:


> As for the pizza example, it dates back to 2011 - I don't think Trump was president at that time, I think it was somebody else, but I can't quite recall... Hmm... Ah, yes, Obama.


Sounds like they were giving an example of what was wrong with school lunches before fixing them.



Foxi4 said:


> In the U.S. there's more infected, but less casualties, which tells me that the standard of care must necessarily be higher.


Well ya just jinxed it. 

Really though we're still at least two months behind Italy, hospitals are just now starting to reach the breaking point in the US.  So we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 1, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Oh, the cost of this is going to be far more than $2 trillion in the long term.  And while that program may not have prevented _all_ of this spending, it definitely would've cut it down significantly.  Like I said, a bit of common sense in the short-term saves money in the long run.  Instead of being ahead of the infections curve, we're stuck playing catch up, and that leads to a whole lot of unnecessary panic spending.
> 
> Sounds like they were giving an example of what was wrong with school lunches before fixing them.
> 
> ...


That's fair. I disagree that it would've prevented a significant portion of the spending, it would've prevented a billion's worth of spending, the situation is pretty unprecedented and couldn't be predicted. Other than that, I am happy to report that I had one of my five a day today, I do like pepperoni pizza with stuffed crust. Stay safe.


----------

