Pelosi and the Importance of Relief Stabilization

[Acidbaron]

A UBI can be implemented immediately by adding it as an income tax. Set an amount to disperse monthly, then tax every person for it on an increasing scale based on income. If you make more than the average worker, you have a net loss. If you make less, it's a net gain. It doesn't need to be complicated. No other taxes need to be made to adjust for it.

Don't take this the wrong way but every time someone has tried to sell a solution to a complicated issue as a simple solution it was quite lacking when put into practice or when held under a looking glass.

You can't just simply start ignoring how the world works, how the economy works when adding in such an extreme measure that impacts your entire economy, however you are speaking of a government that struggles on a consensus that healthcare for all is a must, so this even if it were as simple will never see the light of day in the current situation, there's even push back on merely some oversight on the funds granted right now.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Don't take this the wrong way but every time someone has tried to sell a solution to a complicated issue as a simple solution it was quite lacking when put into practice or when held under a looking glass.

You can't just simply start ignoring how the world works, how the economy works when adding in such an extreme measure that impacts your entire economy, however you are speaking of a government that struggles on a consensus that healthcare for all is a must, so this even if it were as simple will never see the light of day in the current situation, there's even push back on merely some oversight on the funds granted right now.

The world is the way it is because of unnecessary complications. I won't say it's easy to overhaul, but I will say that many things that are complex don't need to be. I think simplification when possible is always the right step to take. Eliminate loopholes. Eliminate special interest. Etc.

[Acidbaron]

The world is the way it is because of unnecessary complications. I won't say it's easy to overhaul, but I will say that many things that are complex don't need to be. I think simplification when possible is always the right step to take. Eliminate loopholes. Eliminate special interest. Etc.

The world is complicated, because it is. There are so many factors involved here, you don't just remove work you also impact part of the economy that depends on worker traffic or simply people working like food industry, gas stations and so on. If you change one thing in a big machine full of cogs and wheels, things will start to jam up left and right.

But i am learning that the US has a lot of odd bureaucracy that overly complicate things so i could understand your mindset if that's where you come from.

[Edge-]

The world is the way it is because of unnecessary complications.

No, that's not "unnecessary", that's a natural consequence of progress and technology. As technology advances, more specialization and skills are needed to support the technology, and as it expands into more aspects of our life (not just digital "tech") specialization for each area is necessary.

Simplicity is for the Amish and the like. The modern world is complex and confusing because that's a necessary evolution to get where we are now. Just like forging metal was a huge advancement over sharpening rocks that required specific skillsets and knowledge.

I think simplification when possible is always the right step to take. Eliminate loopholes. Eliminate special interest. Etc.

Agreed, but that's not always feasible or possible.

Taxes being a good example. Republicans want to do it on a post-card, which reduces our necessarily (and unnecessarily) complex tax system to a point where it's unlikely to be able to work.

And special interests will always find loopholes, they're paid huge sums of money to do that. It's on Congress to actively seek them out and close them as best they can, and they should be doing that more seriously than they are right now.

But the world will never be simple. Again, if you want "simple", you gotta move to Amish country.

[Jonnusthegreat]

No, that's not "unnecessary", that's a natural consequence of progress and technology. As technology advances, more specialization and skills are needed to support the technology, and as it expands into more aspects of our life (not just digital "tech") specialization for each area is necessary.

Simplicity is for the Amish and the like. The modern world is complex and confusing because that's a necessary evolution to get where we are now. Just like forging metal was a huge advancement over sharpening rocks that required specific skillsets and knowledge.



Agreed, but that's not always feasible or possible.

Taxes being a good example. Republicans want to do it on a post-card, which reduces our necessarily (and unnecessarily) complex tax system to a point where it's unlikely to be able to work.

And special interests will always find loopholes, they're paid huge sums of money to do that. It's on Congress to actively seek them out and close them as best they can, and they should be doing that more seriously than they are right now.

But the world will never be simple. Again, if you want "simple", you gotta move to Amish country.

I completely disagree. You can have an effective and equitable tax code in less than 30,000 pages in 8 point font. It is overly complex explicitly to advantage a specific class of individuals.

Simplicity is for people that don't want to deal with bullshit. The American legal system is for people that want to enjoy exemptions to the rules the everyone else follows. The modern world's systems can be simplified in every sector.

It's always possible to simplify things. There are people that fight against it. They are the problem.

Wanting simple and achieving simple are two different things. Claiming that only the Amish can achieve simplicity is outright ignorant.

[Somewhatconcerned]

So some semi permanent pipeline for government aid? Is that really a good thing?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

So tell me when the best time to implement a UBI is.

It starts with when it has a chance. President in office that supports it is paramount. The person can just sign it away or sign it into law. One person. So that is a must. I don't think you have to hold both sides of Congress but you will need at least one to create a bill and pass it. Then you can MAYBE negotiate some sort of deal with the other (unlikely in the current environment, but you never know). That time is not now.

I won't sit here and be like you and say "at this exact time" it has to be done and it is "best time". I will say if it doesn't have a chance than it isn't a good time. Pretty simple logic. Would it be good to have? Sure. Not the debate. But asking us to put a man on another planet in another star system cannot be the solution. We just don't have what it takes to do that now. So come up with another solution or wait until we can do it.

[Ivanstone]

Taxes being a good example. Republicans want to do it on a post-card, which reduces our necessarily (and unnecessarily) complex tax system to a point where it's unlikely to be able to work.

The GOP likes the complex tax system. Everyone likes tax deductions. GOP Donors just like that their deductions actually work and that they get more of them than everyone else. Also it helps to gut IRS funding so tax fraud is difficult to pursue.

Everyone else's tax deductions are also quite obtainable if you just use the easy-to-use tax preparation industry. Who also lobby's congress to make everyone's taxes difficult. Taxes are supposed to be hard! That means you've earned your money! Its like voting. Voting's supposed to be hard too!

- - - Updated - - -

So some semi permanent pipeline for government aid? Is that really a good thing?

It is. Some people think otherwise because the poors have no morals. There's also another reason. I think Lee Atwater had a few thoughts on the subject.

[Jonnusthegreat]

It starts with when it has a chance. President in office that supports it is paramount. The person can just sign it away or sign it into law. One person. So that is a must. I don't think you have to hold both sides of Congress but you will need at least one to create a bill and pass it. Then you can MAYBE negotiate some sort of deal with the other (unlikely in the current environment, but you never know). That time is not now.

I won't sit here and be like you and say "at this exact time" it has to be done and it is "best time". I will say if it doesn't have a chance than it isn't a good time. Pretty simple logic. Would it be good to have? Sure. Not the debate. But asking us to put a man on another planet in another star system cannot be the solution. We just don't have what it takes to do that now. So come up with another solution or wait until we can do it.

Really? It doesn't have a chance, so that means that a UBI is not a good option? This is ridiculous logic.

This just in - currently reported that it's not "a good time" to cure cancer! It's just "pretty simple logic."

Abhorrent.

Would it be good to have? Sure. Not the debate.

This is precisely the debate. You've chosen to argue about something else.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Really? It doesn't have a chance, so that means that a UBI is not a good option? This is ridiculous logic.

This just in - currently reported that it's not "a good time" to cure cancer! It's just "pretty simple logic."

Abhorrent.



This is precisely the debate. You've chosen to argue about something else.

Ok, now I get it. This is just a bait topic. I will close out my check ins on this note. Words. You put them in my mouth. What a joke.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Ok, now I get it. This is just a bait topic. I will close out my check ins on this note. Words. You put them in my mouth. What a joke.

No, no, no. I said that right now (a crisis where people are losing jobs) is the best time to implement a UBI. You said that right now (a crisis where people are losing jobs) is NOT a good time to implement a UBI.

I'm extending your bogus and flatly wrong logic to show you how bogus and flatly wrong it is.

Hope that was simple enough for you to understand.

[Blade Wolf]

OR that GOP senators are actively try to block any other social welfare. And saying it fucking out loud.

And GOP govenors are thinking up schemes to block disbursement of already approved money.

And democrats and bending over and taking because they refuse to fight back.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/08/p...m_source=twCNN

This is what Bernie is trying to do and i see the so called "the most progressive speaker in history" nowhere near this, yet she has supported bailout after bailout while fucking over the working class.

[Edge-]

And democrats and bending over and taking because they refuse to fight back.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/08/p...m_source=twCNN

This is what Bernie is trying to do and i see the so called "the most progressive speaker in history" nowhere near this, yet she has supported bailout after bailout while fucking over the working class.

Fight back with what? A proposal that has about as much chance of even being voted on as Sanders does of going to the moon?

Just because you propose impossible legislation with no chance of passing doesn't mean you're "progressive", even if you're pushing for progressive ideals. And let me help you out on what some of what Pelosi has been fighting for, and getting -

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN21Z37D

See, here's where reality comes crashing in. She doesn't just have to worry about pushing good policy, she has to worry about vulnerable purple Democrats who are key to the Democratic majority and are important votes on key issues. If they lose those seats, they lose the House again.

But guess what?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...package-203965

The vote on the roughly half-trillion dollar package comes after more than two weeks of tense negotiations between Pelosi, GOP leaders and the White House, led by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. What began as a GOP demand for an additional $250 billion to replenish Congress’s small business aid program has turned into a far larger package.

The deal struck between the two parties includes about $380 billion total in additional funding for small businesses, as well as huge sums for hospitals and disease testing — both of which had been pushed by Democrats.

Is it perfect? No. Is it a big improvement over what Republicans wanted? Yes. Did she have to fight for it? You bet. Did she get everything she wanted? No, they didn't get the funding for local governments. Why? Because sadly, that was the compromise necessary to get the additional funding that was more than 50% above what the GOP proposed.

So, other than proposing a great idea that's a total non-starter, what has Sanders has Sanders added to any of these bills that has helped people? I honestly don't know and am not claiming he hasn't added anything, I'm asking so that we can evaluate the contributions of both.

[xanzul]

A great idea.

But sadly proposed by people who never seem to do or try more than talk about it.

What was Pelosi's last effective suggestion of aid again? Something about temporary loan payment suspensions?

So did I just imagine that $1200 stimulus check?

[Zan15]

Ongoing In: [U]

In addition to unemployment benefits, Pelosi said automatic stabilizers could be used for other relief like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, informally known as food stamps, and federal Medicaid reimbursement rates, known as Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP), “so that you don’t always have to say, ‘Let’s debate whether that’s necessary.’”[/I]

Sahm triggers are something that should be standard practice for anystimulus legislation. Ensuring that assistance keeps flowing as long as is necessary without needing repeated votes by Congress.

Given the continued attempts of Congressional Republicans to crash the economy in fealty to either their short-term electoral advantage or their ideological agenda. It's becoming really important to have programs that cannot continually be held hostage by bad faith actors.

good if the repubicans don't want unfair help / assistance then we can reduce those FMAP rates down to an even 50% for everyone!!


Just in case you guys don't know how much red states are bailed out by blue states when it comes to the 600 billion spent on Medicaid...

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-i...2:%22asc%22%7D

LET SEE if you guys NOTICE A TREND HERE!!

Standard FMAP rates - Regular membership

Alaska 50.00%
California 50.00%
Colorado 50.00%
Connecticut 50.00%
Maryland 50.00%
Massachusetts 50.00%
Minnesota 50.00%
New Hampshire 50.00%
New Jersey50.00%
New York 50.00%
Virginia 50.00%
Washington50.00%
Wyoming 50.00%
Illinois 50.96%


Montana 65.60%
Indiana 65.83%
Tennessee 66.10%
Georgia 67.03%
North Carolina 67.40%
Louisiana 67.42%
Utah 67.52%
Oklahoma 67.99%
District of Columbia 70.00%
Arizona 70.01%
Idaho 70.41%
South Carolina 70.63%
Arkansas 71.23%
Kentucky 72.05%
Alabama 72.58%
New Mexico 73.46%
West Virginia 74.99%
Mississippi 77.76%


ANYONE see a problem??? ANYONE SEE A TREND??


CHIP rates

Mississippi 84.43%
West Virginia 82.49%
New Mexico 81.42%
Alabama 80.81%
Kentucky 80.44%
Arkansas 79.86%
South Carolina 79.44%
Idaho 79.29%
Arizona 79.01%
District of Columbia 79.00%
Oklahoma 77.59%
Utah 77.26%
Louisiana 77.19%
North Carolina 77.18%
Georgia 76.92%
Tennessee 76.27%
Indiana 76.08%
Montana 75.92%
Missouri 75.47%


Alaska 65.00%
California 65.00%
Colorado 65.00%
Connecticut 65.00%
Maryland 65.00%
Massachusetts65.00%
Minnesota 65.00%
New Hampshire 65.00%
New Jersey65.00%
New York 65.00%
Virginia 65.00%
Washington 65.00%
Wyoming 65.00%


So what does that all mean?

NY spent 72 billion dollars on medicaid. 40.2 billion from federal funding.

If NY was to get the same rate say Mississippi got, they would be recieving an additional 14-19 billion in medicaid funding.

Gee i wonder why NY has such high state taxes vs some of these other states????

CA spent 85-90 billion. They would get an additional 20-25 billion in federal funding.

or on the flip side HOW HIGH would TAXES need to be raised in Mississippi if they only got 50%??

[Endus]

Don't take this the wrong way but every time someone has tried to sell a solution to a complicated issue as a simple solution it was quite lacking when put into practice or when held under a looking glass.

You can't just simply start ignoring how the world works, how the economy works when adding in such an extreme measure that impacts your entire economy, however you are speaking of a government that struggles on a consensus that healthcare for all is a must, so this even if it were as simple will never see the light of day in the current situation, there's even push back on merely some oversight on the funds granted right now.

The more important gist is that the core concepts of a UBI are fairly simple. People who pretend that it's way too complicated to ever implement are not approaching the debate honestly, to begin with. Sure, the specific details of exactly where we want to draw cutoff lines, how strong to make the income tax scaling, what exceptions and adjustments should be applied and why or why not, that's all complexity that should be discussed and worked out, but it isn't any more complex than the current system is. Arguably significantly less so, since a strong UBI eliminates the need for a bunch of complex support systems like welfare; there's no need for the monthly verifications and assessments and so forth (sure, some fraud prevention, but less than the current system).

And yes; it would impact the economy, and cause changes. That's literally the point. The current economy is fragile, fractious, and constantly on the brink of spiralling into collapse. That's why people are freaking out with this pandemic's effects. Because the economy is fragile and can't handle negative factors. At all. The moment you tip a domino, legislators need to start panicking to try and shore the whole thing up before it hits a full depression. They've managed to do so, for the most part, and instead, we just waffle from boom to recession, with no stability. That's not a positive trait.

So yeah; some of us would rather build a stronger, better economy. One designed for the benefit of the working and middle classes, rather than allowing the wealthy to bleed off pretty much all the gains in the economy, choking it back into inevitable recession in the process.

[Nadiru]

The more important gist is that the core concepts of a UBI are fairly simple. People who pretend that it's way too complicated to ever implement are not approaching the debate honestly, to begin with. Sure, the specific details of exactly where we want to draw cutoff lines, how strong to make the income tax scaling, what exceptions and adjustments should be applied and why or why not, that's all complexity that should be discussed and worked out, but it isn't any more complex than the current system is. Arguably significantly less so, since a strong UBI eliminates the need for a bunch of complex support systems like welfare; there's no need for the monthly verifications and assessments and so forth (sure, some fraud prevention, but less than the current system).

And yes; it would impact the economy, and cause changes. That's literally the point. The current economy is fragile, fractious, and constantly on the brink of spiralling into collapse. That's why people are freaking out with this pandemic's effects. Because the economy is fragile and can't handle negative factors. At all. The moment you tip a domino, legislators need to start panicking to try and shore the whole thing up before it hits a full depression. They've managed to do so, for the most part, and instead, we just waffle from boom to recession, with no stability. That's not a positive trait.

So yeah; some of us would rather build a stronger, better economy. One designed for the benefit of the working and middle classes, rather than allowing the wealthy to bleed off pretty much all the gains in the economy, choking it back into inevitable recession in the process.

As always, UBI proponents ought to be worried about people trying to use UBI to create a two-class political system, since it creates such a sharp distinction between those who contribute to the system and those who do not. Constant, eternal vigilance would be required to ensure it doesn't turn into an entrenched aristocracy.

[Acidbaron]

As always, UBI proponents ought to be worried about people trying to use UBI to create a two-class political system, since it creates such a sharp distinction between those who contribute to the system and those who do not. Constant, eternal vigilance would be required to ensure it doesn't turn into an entrenched aristocracy.

There is also the concern of clientelism where one party would rise more into power by promising added benefits to certain groups or classes. This is something that is already an issue in democracies.

In addition to that people who claim it is easy to do or not that more complicated also have to be aware you can't look at your country in a vacuum, you need to be able to maintain a competitive edge or else your country economy will struggle and so will your ability to maintain a working system.

I find an UBI can work but for me an UBI system is the cherry on the cake after you reformed your political structure, your education system, your healthcare and so on.
In my personal opinion i find that people wrongly put forward UBI as some sort of magical pill that is going to solve a whole bunch of issues. I don't believe that.

So @Endus while i see your point of adding more money in the pockets of the people will clearly stimulate an consumption based industry it only is a part of that circle that needs to be completed and if you wish UBI to succeed you would really want other systems to be tailored towards it first otherwise it will fail badly.
I also don't see how there would be less fraud prevention, people will still try to work tax free to earn extra on the side, people will try to cheat the system claiming disabilities for example for added benefits.
With all due respect but you are somewhat claiming that an UBI will make humans less human, that it will create a whole change of behaviour.

Also how would you solve the need for certain manual labour jobs because like it or not money does create an incentive for those roles to be filled. You cannot replace everything with automatization or robotics and even if you could, are you suggesting that every single business and government branch gets hefty investments to make this all possible?

I know the saying "if there's a will there's a way" but i really don't believe in this magic pill solution that is an UBI, that's not to say i don't see the merits or benefits of this system, i am not stating either that we shouldn't aid unemployed or poor people but i see the UBI solving some issues short term, while creating more long term to the point it collapses.

[Masark]

Also how would you solve the need for certain manual labour jobs because like it or not money does create an incentive for those roles to be filled.

Like any other job, they'd have to raise wages to attract employees, as they'd have to make it worth their effort rather than relying on desperation, like any other job. This is like half the point of a UBI.

[Egomaniac]

No, no, no. I said that right now (a crisis where people are losing jobs) is the best time to implement a UBI. You said that right now (a crisis where people are losing jobs) is NOT a good time to implement a UBI.

I'm extending your bogus and flatly wrong logic to show you how bogus and flatly wrong it is.

Hope that was simple enough for you to understand.

Yeah. You're right. Right now would be "the best time" to pass a UBI bill... except for the fact that the GOP controls the Senate and the Presidency and any UBI Bill would be DOA. So while it might be the "best time" to implement a UBI Bill....it's the worst time to introduce a UBI bill.