Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Spectral]

It’s pretty much matching unemployment pay outs. It’s not arbitrary...

Picking a flat number and giving it to everyone regardless of their previous employment status is pretty arbitrary. Giving a $24K/year salary to 16 year olds while giving the same to out of work building contractors seem stupid on its face.

The whole thing betrays a cargo-cult quality to their understanding of economics, a belief that merely injecting cash into an atmosphere where people aren't even allowed to produce the goods and services that the cash was previously spent on will have salutary effects. It's like demand-site economics combined with a lack of grasp on the part where you need actual goods for their to be demand.

Realistically though, it's not intended to be a serious proposal, just a way to say, "oh yeah, well we offered even more money and the dastardly Republicans blocked it". Committing to something in the ballpark of $500 billion per month of additional spending for an indefinite period isn't even an attempt to be serious.

[Felya]

Picking a flat number and giving it to everyone regardless of their previous employment status is pretty arbitrary. Giving a $24K/year salary to 16 year olds while giving the same to out of work building contractors seem stupid on its face.

Depending on what your goal is. Do you think expanding unemployment was arbitrary during a crisis? It’s a reasonable assumption that people will need the same to live off, regardless of employment. Since around 2000 a month was determined as enough for unemployment, I don’t understand why that amount is anything, but enough for everyone.

[Spectral]

Depending on what your goal is. Do you think expanding unemployment was arbitrary during a crisis? It’s a reasonable assumption that people will need the same to live off, regardless of employment. Since around 2000 a month was determined as enough for unemployment, I don’t understand why that amount is anything, but enough for everyone.

Giving that amount to people that were making less (or nothing) is arbitrarily high. Giving that amount to people that were making more is arbitrarily low.

The proposal isn't "during the crisis" - it sets this out:

...would receive cash payments from the federal government for at least six months and until unemployment falls to pre-pandemic levels.

The pre-pandemic levels were setting records. Even if the recovery was quick and V-shaped, it's highly unlikely that pre-pandemic levels are coming any time in the next few years. Again, promising $500 billion/month in extra spending for years on end isn't even an attempt to pretend to be serious, it's purely intended to be able to say "we were going to take care of everyone, but our opponents are evil".

[Breccia]

Picking a flat number and giving it to everyone regardless of their previous employment status is pretty arbitrary. Giving a $24K/year salary to 16 year olds while giving the same to out of work building contractors seem stupid on its face.

It's far smarter than a payroll tax cut, which gives less to American's most in-need citizens and even less, zero, to the unemployed.

Also, we're going to hear a lot about unemployment soon.

Another 5.2 million people filed initial unemployment claims for the week ending April 11, according to the Department of Labor, adding to the sharpest and most severe rise in joblessness in the nation's history.

Thursday's report is the fourth in a row showing more than a million initial claims, a level that had not been reached previously.

Overall, more than 22 million people have filed for initial benefits in the span of just four weeks, accounting for about one of every seven workers in the economy.

Economists believe that the unemployment rate is likely already up to at least 15 percent, a stunning rise from a 50-year low of 3.5 percent earlier this year. Some predict that number could end up reaching as high as the Depression-era peak of 20 percent.

Meanwhile, McConnell continues to play politics while pointing at the Democrats and saying "they are playing politics and that's bad". Again, the holdup is that money for businesses is out, and Democrats won't approve more unless there's also money for actual people who were fired by those businesses, or for hospitals, or for state governments. McConnell is demanding the Democrats vote for a "clean" business funding bill, which means no extra money for other causes. By doing this, he is trying to force the Democrats to make a choice:

1) Vote for McConnell's bill and hope that the GOP votes to help actual individual Americans, hospitals, and state governments, which by the evidence of McConnell refusing to add such to his own bill, proves the GOP would not do that

or

2) Vote against McConnell's bill at which point McConnell will say "The Democrats voted against giving money to businesses and that's bad. And stop asking for food and medicine and get back to work!"

The Democrats can, and should, easily control the damage here. McConnell asked for $250 billion, the Democrats have asked for the same. If my non-expert non-professional ass was in charge, I'd go out on the biggest, tallest, soapiest box I could find and say "McConnell has asked me to vote for money for businesses. And I will give him what he asks this time. In return, I ask him and the rest of the GOP to sign this bill, which I have just posted publicly, that has more money for the hospital workers on the front lines. The state governments, who are helping their people directly with things like food and medicine. And for unemployment fundings, for Americans who have been forced out of a job because their business (glared) fired them. McConnell, I have agreed to stand with you. Now I ask you to stand with America. Show that you care about your fellow citizens, your voters, that you care as much for them as you care for big oil and big coal. Show that you care as much for Mrs. Suzy Jo, who lost her restaurant job and needs to feed her baby girl and pay her husband's hospital bills, as much as you care about Wal-Mart and Amazon. Show that you care as much about our doctors, our nurses, our police and emergency responders. Join me in respecting those who serve and protect America, in this time of crisis. Tell America you will sign their bill, and get them the help they deserve."

Wait 24 hours.

Then put the bill up for a vote. If McConnell blocks it, get right back on that soapbox and say "I offered to meet McConnell halfway. I voted for what he and his business friends wanted: your taxpayer money in a massive bailout. In return, I asked him to support actual working, or want-to-be-working, Americans like yourself. He refused. He spat in your faces. He said 'No, Americans in trouble don't deserve help from the government, only corporations do'. And that is why neither I, nor my Democratic colleagues, will vote for any more funds he asks for, until those funds include help for people like you. I gave him every chance. I begged him to help you, right here, on this very soapbox. You saw me extend a hand, and you saw him slap it away. And you saw him do it after he decried playing politics, and voting partisan. How dare he?"

Now, McConnell might sign the bill, having been thusly publicly shamed. Or, more likely, you'd have given $250 billion to small businesses (that part about Wal-Mart was just for show) in exchange for making the least-liked Senator even less liked. Kentucky is higher than the nation in unemployment and it's about to get much higher -- BLS doesn't seem to display March numbers, for some reason. Taking the opportunity to take a step towards ridding Washington of the shelled sociopath, in exchange for something that's not a bad idea anyhow, would be an amazing double-whammy. Or at least, I think it would be.

[Belize]

I may ask, why?

Genuine malevolence combined with unbound stupidity and with a sprinkling of being bought out by large corporations who are currently losing millions.

[Lenonis]

I may ask, why?

I do believe there was never a more appropriate moment for this answer -- "Muh Freedums".

- - - Updated - - -

King Obama strikes again...wait...umm, i mean Trump?

I must say even though it won't matter and hypocrisy is now just a brand for the GOP -- I will enjoy whenever one of our resident posters even hints of complaining about abuse of executive power after Trump is gone just flooding them with endless examples from Trump that they were silent or approving of.

Same thing with the deficit.

Although hypocrisy never stopped conservatives from complaining about anything the Dems do they really won't have any grounds to stand on after Trump made such a mockery of their so-called principles.

[Odinfrost]

https://twitter.com/SecAzar/status/1...445907969?s=19

Well that's good news. We need good people for HHS in these times.

What's this?



https://twitter.com/AlexandraChalup/...767873537?s=19

Wonder who hired him? Trump or Putin?

Probably Trump by the orders of Putin either directly or indirectly. I really wonder what kind of dirt Putin has on Trump... pp tape? Maybe Trumps Tax Returns?

I mean, for a man who says that he has nothing to do with Russia he continously seem to surround himself with people who are directly connected to Putin. I am honestly waiting for the day Putin gives Trump some kind of tie as a gift just to rub it in how much of a useful idiot that man has been to him.

[Martymark]

Probably Trump by the orders of Putin either directly or indirectly. I really wonder what kind of dirt Putin has on Trump... pp tape? Maybe Trumps Tax Returns?

I will never stop being amused by the Democrats becoming the unhinged conspiracy nutjobs.

[Acidbaron]

Picking a flat number and giving it to everyone regardless of their previous employment status is pretty arbitrary. Giving a $24K/year salary to 16 year olds while giving the same to out of work building contractors seem stupid on its face.

The whole thing betrays a cargo-cult quality to their understanding of economics, a belief that merely injecting cash into an atmosphere where people aren't even allowed to produce the goods and services that the cash was previously spent on will have salutary effects. It's like demand-site economics combined with a lack of grasp on the part where you need actual goods for their to be demand.

Realistically though, it's not intended to be a serious proposal, just a way to say, "oh yeah, well we offered even more money and the dastardly Republicans blocked it". Committing to something in the ballpark of $500 billion per month of additional spending for an indefinite period isn't even an attempt to be serious.

It would take too much time to pay out the correct amount per person, just give everyone a flat amount and correct it later in taxes.

Do communicate this properly and i see no reason, that's how some european nations did it from my understanding. Speed in this crisis is important letting people wait for nothing like the trump admin has done on a couple of times is causing distress for no good reason.

[Spectral]

It would take too much time to pay out the correct amount per person, just give everyone a flat amount and correct it later in taxes.

Do communicate this properly and i see no reason, that's how some european nations did it from my understanding. Speed in this crisis is important letting people wait for nothing like the trump admin has done on a couple of times is causing distress for no good reason.

The IRS already has income data for everyone involved, implementing software for dispersement based on income tables isn't actually that difficult. Giving $2K/month to people that were earning something close to zero is pretty silly.

Even if dropping another trillion or so is a good idea, the reason it's an obviously stupid plan is the "until unemployment drops to pre-corona levels" stipulation - that's committing to $6 trillion per year annually for an indefinite period that would likely be multiple years. There's no way to even project the impacts of that level of money creation over that long of a period of time, we'd literally be into "no one knows" territory. I'm not being sardonic at all when I say that the bright side is that it's not intended to be taken seriously.

[cubby]

The IRS already has income data for everyone involved, implementing software for dispersement based on income tables isn't actually that difficult. Giving $2K/month to people that were earning something close to zero is pretty silly.

Even if dropping another trillion or so is a good idea, the reason it's an obviously stupid plan is the "until unemployment drops to pre-corona levels" stipulation - that's committing to $6 trillion per year annually for an indefinite period that would likely be multiple years. There's no way to even project the impacts of that level of money creation over that long of a period of time, we'd literally be into "no one knows" territory. I'm not being sardonic at all when I say that the bright side is that it's not intended to be taken seriously.

We're already deeply into "no one knows" territory. Where the fuck have you been the past six months?

[xenogear3]

What happens to the people who made $200k last year? but lost job and no income this year?

Are they screwed?

[Spectral]

We're already deeply into "no one knows" territory. Where the fuck have you been the past six months?

Most of the "no one knows" are the economic choices being made. We have plenty of historical precedent for pandemics, even pretty severe ones. During the '50s and '60s we had two separate influenza pandemics with over 100,000 dead Americans. Obviously many people are familiar with the Spanish Flu and its death toll.

We have a much better historical idea of the impact of those on a nation than we do on just saying, "yeah, spending another $6 trillion a year should help". What little precedent we have for that level of national spending increases is far from encouraging.

[Dontrike]

I will never stop being amused by the Democrats becoming the unhinged conspiracy nutjobs.

Unhinged? Tax return conspiracy is boring and at least the peepee tape is more interesting than pizza place murder dungeons and Mars pedophilic sex rings.

[Acidbaron]

The IRS already has income data for everyone involved, implementing software for dispersement based on income tables isn't actually that difficult. Giving $2K/month to people that were earning something close to zero is pretty silly.

Even if dropping another trillion or so is a good idea, the reason it's an obviously stupid plan is the "until unemployment drops to pre-corona levels" stipulation - that's committing to $6 trillion per year annually for an indefinite period that would likely be multiple years. There's no way to even project the impacts of that level of money creation over that long of a period of time, we'd literally be into "no one knows" territory. I'm not being sardonic at all when I say that the bright side is that it's not intended to be taken seriously.

With all due respect you are taking a large assumption here, even if all data is freely and easily available for the IRS that still means processing it all at some level or another and processing means a delay because you would i expect it to be done correctly, considering the correctness of the pay out is your concern. But again speed is important as plenty of people depend on each pay check.

A good benchmark for the speed of that agency would be your tax returns.

As for the second paragraph, obviously that would not be a good idea to just keep throwing money at it till you go back to a pre-corona economy.
However a swift and unified action is important the EU is even urging nations to not simply look at themselves but also to neighbouring countries when it comes to rebooting the economy and reducing the severity of the corona measures that are impacting our lives as we don't reside on islands. This is something that is lacking in the US to keep it short as i don't wish to elaborate too deeply on everything that is going wrong as you probably know that better than i do.

Another problem is and that might be a key reason as to why such a suggestion is being proposed that sounds so absurd as it is just throwing money at it till things change, might be the lack of a proper unemployment system both for employees, companies and businesses and so on. Is there such a frame work that a business can ask for government support that due to circumstances out of their control they need to put their employees on "technical unemployment"? I don't believe there but i could be wrong and that could explain as to why now in the US you get these sort of suggestion because it might be the easiest way to tackle this as other things require time to set up.

[cubby]

Most of the "no one knows" are the economic choices being made. We have plenty of historical precedent for pandemics, even pretty severe ones. During the '50s and '60s we had two separate influenza pandemics with over 100,000 dead Americans. Obviously many people are familiar with the Spanish Flu and its death toll.

We have a much better historical idea of the impact of those on a nation than we do on just saying, "yeah, spending another $6 trillion a year should help". What little precedent we have for that level of national spending increases is far from encouraging.

For those pandemics in the '50's and '60's, did we shut down the economy and lock people down and shut down traveling etc etc etc?

What we do know is that people aren't going to survive this without a source of money if they are unemployed. Moreover, other countries are making similar moves in regards to monthly payments to their citizens.

It will work if the government makes it work.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn’t see this mentioned yet, but $2000 a month until unemployment returns to pre-Covid-19 levels seems bold. Wonder how many republicans would back it.

Under the Emergency Money for the People Act, US citizens who are 16 or older — and make less than $130,000 a year — would receive cash payments from the federal government for at least six months and until unemployment falls to pre-pandemic levels.

https://www.businessinsider.com/amer...ts-plan-2020-4

Would be amazing if this made it through. They could also lower the monthly amount (but not entirely) and freeze all rents and mortgages.

[Odinfrost]

Unhinged? Tax return conspiracy is boring and at least the peepee tape is more interesting than pizza place murder dungeons and Mars pedophilic sex rings.

I am frankly honest that ANYONE took that part seriously of my comment. Pretty sure the pp-tape part was obvious enough that the proposal wasn't serious, and the Tax Returns should have been the final nail in that coffin.

But seriously, why does Donald "have nothing to do with Russia" Trump surround himself with so many people who are directly or almost directly connected to Putin?

[Lenonis]

What happens to the people who made $200k last year? but lost job and no income this year?

Are they screwed?

1) Unemployment. 2) If someone who is making $200k last year has no emergency savings something is deeply wrong in their life.

[Edge-]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...ask-force.html

Man, I didn't think about it like this...

Trump's "task force" to reopen the economy is functionally a "death panel".

That being said...

By the beginning of this week, the “task force” had evolved from a collection of Trump officials skeptical of public health to an “advisory panel” including outside business leaders. “Senior White House officials briefed President Trump on Monday about his looming decision regarding how to eventually jump-start the economy, presenting him with a list of 100 business executives that could serve in an advisory panel,” reported the Post Monday. “In a sign of how fluid things remain, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said these executives have not yet been formally notified that they could serve in an advisory role.”

Awesome. But why?

By Tuesday night, the Post had the answer, which was rather sinister. The administration needed credible-looking outside allies to give Trump cover for an unpopular decision that could very well lead to tens of thousands of deaths. “The debate this week has been over how to implement the return, what data could be used to justify the decision, and how to build public support for it to provide the president maximum political cover,” two sources explained to the Post.

That's...not great.

This line from the same report might be one of the most incriminating sentences ever published about this (or any) president: “Trump’s advisers are trying to shield the president from political accountability should his move to reopen the economy prove premature and result in lost lives, and so they are trying to mobilize business executives, economists and other prominent figures to buy into the eventual White House plan, so that if it does not work, the blame can be shared broadly, according to two former administration officials familiar with the efforts.”

Oh, that makes total sense now. Trump is setting up some patsies to take the fall when his decisions kill more Americans.

By Wednesday, the advisory council had devolved into a Zoom call. Many of the participants still hadn’t been informed that they had been selected, and some either had scheduling conflicts or were unable to log in.

So...it's about as planned, thought out, and prepared for as everything this administration does. Awesome. And most folks didn't show up anyways, so the White House sent them a note letting them know they've won a seat on the "death panel to reopen America!".

Most comically, most of the business leaders who did make the call used their time (after the prerequisite flattery for Trump, which everybody knows is needed to make the president pay attention to your message) to urge the administration to step up testing nationwide.

And for the handful that did show up, they actually seemed more interested in...well...following medical advice and getting more testing done. It doesn't seem like they want to encourage re-opening the economy if they'll just have to shut their businesses right back down. Especially as many likely know they're being set up as fall guys/gals for Trump.

In summary -

In other words, the group that was originally designed to counteract the advice of public-health professionals wound up giving Trump the exact same advice.

Because Trump and his enablers are fucking dangerous morons, and even greedy, money hungry executives won't ride that train into the ravine. Not necessarily because they care about Americans, though I'm sure some do, but because it makes literally no business or financial sense.

It does make political sense though, at least if you've got someone to blame the tens of thousands more American deaths on. If you don't though...then it gets a bit awkward. But hey, Trump knows how to handle that -

[PhaelixWW]

Oh, that makes total sense now. Trump is setting up some patsies to take the fall when his decisions kill more Americans.

I mean, this is literally Trump's MO to a "T". If something is wrong, he blames someone else for it, even if it's his fault. If something is right, he claims credit for it even if he had nothing to do with it.

It's why he was willing to let the state governors close down the economy, but he wanted to be the one credited with opening it back up again (and threw a tantrum when it looked like they weren't going to listen to him).

It's why he wanted his name on those stimulus checks, despite not being a part of the Legislature that passed the bill authorizing said stimulus.

Deflect and steal, it's all he does.