Stimulus check 2020, should the disabled get it

a reply to: dawnstar

I dont think we will be getting anything

*shrug* Then so be it. I'll be just fine and dandy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

As in, research into physical and electromagnetic phemonena. Keeps me from getting bored.

Been working on a thesis on gravity and the potential for anti-gravitational propulsion the last few weeks.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dawnstar

I dont think we will be getting anything

*shrug* Then so be it. I'll be just fine and dandy.

TheRedneck

Actually, my biggest gripe in the first place is that it should be more than 1k. Again, not so much for myself, but for others.

And we will be getting something. But will it be enough?

Don't pretend that they can't cough up the money from somewhere, they can. Plenty of BS programs that can be cut right now

a reply to: toolgal462

Well, then, here's hoping your folks will be OK.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: toolgal462

no one is going to complain and it's doubtful one could be sued for giving away money.

Au contraire. My first career was as a structural draftsman. When i started, it was common for draftsmen to get bonuses for exceptional or speedy work. It made the pay much more palatable.

That all changed when companies started getting sued and labor complaints lodged against them because the draftsmen who didn't work on the jobs that got bonus pay, wouldn't work harder or faster for the bonuses, didn't get the same money for less work. So the bonuses went away.

Why would things be any different today? That was before McDonalds was sued for their hot coffee being hot.

TheRedneck

That isn't the same as people giving away their own money for charitable purposes. Not as compensation for work.

a reply to: toolgal462

I don't know about that. Last time I looked, there were about 300 million people in the US. At $1k each, that's $300 billion, plus the cost of distribution. That is what? 15+% of the entire budget?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: toolgal462

Well, then, here's hoping your folks will be OK.

TheRedneck

More concerned that my addicted to scratch tix mom will still insist on being out and bringing back Wuflu to my dad. I can cover for their food needs. I wish they would stop lottery sales. Maybe she could stop break that horrible cycle of addiction. Addiction aint no joke. Even if it's an addiction to lottery it ruins lives.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: toolgal462

I don't know about that. Last time I looked, there were about 300 million people in the US. At $1k each, that's $300 billion, plus the cost of distribution. That is what? 15+% of the entire budget?

TheRedneck

distribution costs would be minimal.

Here is where the virtue signalling and Bernie Sanders loving celebs can throw in their fair share for the greater good of all! Surely they could easily give up even 1 billion without barely noticing.

a reply to: toolgal462

$1 billion would work out to $3.33 per person. You just said $1000 per person wasn't enough?

TheRedneck

a reply to: toolgal462

That's the beauty of it. They don't even have to. The system is such that continued innovation and efficiencies drive liquidity more than anything else. In fact, "debt" -- as regular people know it, is, for the government, a bet that they can grow either way. Most of the debt is owned by and to Americans in their 401Ks/IRAs/Investment accounts.

A coordinated research policy to prevent future pandemics of this kind can and will inject enough upside into that equation, in and of itself, that it doesn't even matter.

Homeless soldiers are a choice. Poverty for working-class Americans is a choice. And unlike the "bootstrap" brigade, it isn't necessarily a choice on the worker's side. It is a structural choice designed to maximize rewards for a vast donor class. A new space race to recover and mine asteroids, or to use microwave broadcast power from satellite to earth alone would more than pay for an upper-middle-class lifestyle for the entire world's population. And we wouldn't need any new tech or violations of the laws of physics.

The question is: can we do it without upsetting the aspirational component of innovation? That is the true crux of all economic policy.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: toolgal462

$1 billion would work out to $3.33 per person. You just said $1000 per person wasn't enough?

TheRedneck

Surely, you don't need to give checks to each person. Like each child doesn't need to receive 1k.

a reply to: toolgal462

I think the point is you dropped three zeros.

100 billion = 1000 each to 100 million people.

originally posted by: toolgal462
Surely, you don't need to give checks to each person. Like each child doesn't need to receive 1k.

Firstly, I dont know whay anyone would be panhandling strangers, secondly, even if you only gave that $1billion to all employed people's your looking at less than a dollar each.

a reply to: toolgal462

Stimulus checks should be cut to each household. Sure, depending on how many people per household maybe the amount would be more or less.

But obviously, not every single person in the country should be getting a stimulus check.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: toolgal462
Surely, you don't need to give checks to each person. Like each child doesn't need to receive 1k.

Firstly, I dont know whay anyone would be panhandling strangers, secondly, even if you only gave that $1billion to all employed people's your looking at less than a dollar each.

Meh, celebs are always virtue signalling, let them pony up more then.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: toolgal462

I think the point is you dropped three zeros.

100 billion = 1000 each to 100 million people.

I am first to admit I'm not that great at math. Do our celebs have enough wealth to cover 100 billion?

If they do, then they should put their money where their big virtue signalling, socialist loving mouths are.

a reply to: toolgal462

So people offering their opinions means they have to hand out cash? If that were the case then every mf'er on this site would be broke from giving away their money.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Giving me it wouldnt have stimulated the economy much anyways. I learned a long time ago to not buy anything that isnt necessary. God will give me what I need, so a big windfall like that must mean something's coming down the pike soon that I will need an extra thousand for...
So, squirrel it away for a rainy day!!
But is does lead me back to wondering how i am gonna get my car inspected before my son needs it when his job starts back up.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: toolgal462

So people offering their opinions means they have to hand out cash? If that were the case then every mf'er on this site would be broke from giving away their money.

If they think that the "govt" ie. the tax payer should be providing everything to everyone then yah....they shoulud.

a reply to: toolgal462

In the first place, please be safe during this time and protect those closest to you.

In the second place, this virus isn't helping the average person's economic literacy at all. Not that our schools, our media or our politicians help.

But seriously. Stay safe!