Lockdown Collateral Damage

@no1marauder said
"Nobody"?

Jesus now you're channeling whodey, Earl and the other Chicken Littles.

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not allowed a little hyperbole to make a rhetorical point?

🙄

Fine.

When GDP is way down, it's hard to pay for it.

@sh76 said
Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not allowed a little hyperbole to make a rhetorical point?

🙄

Fine.

When GDP is way down, it's hard to pay for it.

When GDP is down, it's a good idea to get income into the hands of consumers.

I don't seem to remember you being such a fan of fiscal austerity during the TARP bailout.

@no1marauder said
When GDP is down, it's a good idea to get income into the hands of consumers.

I don't seem to remember you being such a fan of fiscal austerity during the TARP bailout.

When the economy is good you want to redistribute to take care of those who contribute the least. When times are tough you want income in the hands of those who contribute the least under a different pretext. The fact pattern may change but your solution never does.

@no1marauder said
When GDP is down, it's a good idea to get income into the hands of consumers.

I don't seem to remember you being such a fan of fiscal austerity during the TARP bailout.

Was I even a regular on this forum during TARP? I don't remember.

But anyway, I don't have a problem with any of the stimulus bills passed so far. But I'm not in favor of a permanent UBI and I think it's an especially impossible idea to implement when the economy is running at half it's normal speed.

I think I've been pretty consistent as a deficit hawk except where necessary to alleviate a clear and present danger. COVID certainly qualifies, but the UBI is a messy tool to solve this emergency. Targeted unemployment and aid to businesses affected and to states is a better solution.

@sh76 said
Was I even a regular on this forum during TARP? I don't remember.

But anyway, I don't have a problem with any of the stimulus bills passed so far. But I'm not in favor of a permanent UBI and I think it's an especially impossible idea to implement when the economy is running at half it's normal speed.

I think I've been pretty consistent as a deficit hawk except where necess ...[text shortened]... emergency. Targeted unemployment and aid to businesses affected and to states is a better solution.

I recall you definitely defending it; not sure if it was at the time of its enactment.

If there's anything this crisis has shown it is that funding is available at almost unimagined levels if thought necessary by the powers that be.

@quackquack said
When the economy is good you want to redistribute to take care of those who contribute the least. When times are tough you want income in the hands of those who contribute the least under a different pretext. The fact pattern may change but your solution never does.

Your idea that workers contribute little and the wealthy a lot is well known. In truth, liberal use of the guillotine on the worthless aristocracy in the US would be the best way to ensure a reasonably well functioning economy.

EDIT: Since there's a guillotine shortage, a wealth tax and/or transaction tax on stocks and other financial items would do in a pinch.

@no1marauder said
Your idea that workers contribute little and the wealthy a lot is well known. In truth, liberal use of the guillotine on the worthless aristocracy in the US would be the best way to ensure a reasonably well functioning economy.

EDIT: Since there's a guillotine shortage, a wealth tax and/or transaction tax on stocks and other financial items would do in a pinch.

Your use of a guillotine or any killing metaphors just highlights your hatred for those who contribute the most. You always advocate taking even more from those who already give those most -- before because times were good and now because times are tough. I just want to know when I get to keep my money and not be told I should always pay more.

@quackquack said
Your use of a guillotine or any killing metaphors just highlights your hatred for those who contribute the most. You always advocate taking even more from those who already give those most -- before because times were good and now because times are tough. I just want to know when I get to keep my money and not be told I should always pay more.

Again your ideas are typical aristocratic drivel though you are surely more of a bootlicker than an actual.

The People should be free to arrange their economic system as they see fit. If that means less toys and play things for the rich, TFB.

@no1marauder said
Again your ideas are typical aristocratic drivel though you are surely more of a bootlicker than an actual.

The People should be free to arrange their economic system as they see fit. If that means less toys and play things for the rich, TFB.

I oppose all handouts No1, to rich and poor alike, and yes people should be free to arrange their economic system, that does not translate to raiding other folks economic systems.

@no1marauder said
Again your ideas are typical aristocratic drivel though you are surely more of a bootlicker than an actual.

The People should be free to arrange their economic system as they see fit. If that means less toys and play things for the rich, TFB.

The people should not be free to continually take from groups that already contribute the most. You advocate nothing short of theft by the masses.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Well, somebody has to work. We need stuff to be done. I'm sure working, although granted, my work doesn't really put me in harm's way.

I'm fine with temporary unemployment benefits, as I said above, but sooner or later, most people have to go back to work for the economy to have any chance to rebound.

@sh76 said
Well, somebody has to work. We need stuff to be done. I'm sure working, although granted, my work doesn't really put me in harm's way.

I'm fine with temporary unemployment benefits, as I said above, but sooner or later, most people have to go back to work for the economy to have any chance to rebound.

Well sure, the question though is, are you essential?

So if you want an elective surgery to fix a hernia that is uncomfortable, let's say, you can't have that surgery because it is not essential, but if you want an abortion for any reason whatsoever, it is essential.

If you are a farmer selling crops you are also essential. In fact, if you work in a meat packing plant you are also essential even though they are closing up despite this fact. Crazy, huh? This makes AOC happy.

If you are a corporate monster like Walmart that gives billions those in Washington, you are also essential, but if you are a local mom and pop store you are not essential.

If you do dog grooming, you are still open, cuz Leftists just love animals, but if you want a hair cut sorry about your luck. Oh, and please don't tell me animals can't get and pass Covid to humans, unless dogs around the world who have gotten the virus shop at wet markets in China.

@quackquack said
The people should not be free to continually take from groups that already contribute the most. You advocate nothing short of theft by the masses.

The masses are the ones who create wealth.

The good of the masses is what societies of social animals are formed for.

Contrary to the idea of the aristocracy and their ideological flunkies like yourself, a few weren't meant to rule and dominate and the rest to serve and grovel.