mitch says no vote on 2k stimulus
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
so if someone made 70 in 2019 but was on pace to make 200 this year they get the check , that doesn't seem right. in certain industries that is possible.
joe burrow would get a check , I'm sure his lsu money was cash and not reported. kind of crazy to think of someone who with salary endorsement etc probably on pace to make 10 mil this year will get a 600 check
There are always edge cases. I have yet to see any kind of evidence that this would be a widespread problem. I couldn't care less if Joe Burrow and a few thousand more people who don't need it get it if that means getting the help to the millions who do need it.
I want people who need it to get it too. But it’s not a few thousand more. It’s tens of millions. And a debt all of us will have to repay. They knew more stimulus was coming. They had months to develop a means test. Nope. Too busy raising money for their own elections. We’ll just raise taxes in a few years to cover the checks to people who didn’t need nor want it.
Do you have any quick reads on this? It seems like a valid argument to me, though I am curious what the specific costs and benefits are and how urban planners might quantify them.
People move to the suburbs for multiple reasons: cheaper housing, larger housing, better schools, lower crime, etc, so the the bigger question is, what are realistic solutions?
Stl offsets suburban flight with a city earnings tax. We we have a metro of over 2 mil and a city of only 300,000 plus. We went from a city of 1 mil to 300,000 plus. Earnings tax is a huge part of its budget.
midwestern cities were making a major comeback in recent years, blm and dumbasses blowing up r.v.s will certainly end the trend
After our summer of love the ceo of the biggest company in Stl said if crime doesn’t abate here they will relocate to Charlotte. They had a three phase build and called off the third phase.
You've already said that you can't just do it based on income because cost of living should factor in. So how do you make it politically palatable to give stimulus to people making 100k in SF where that's barely subsistence-level income and refuse it to people making 40k in rural Wyoming because they wouldn't need it? How do you balance income with assets? What year do you use? That's all really complicated and it's going to have loopholes and edge cases at least as bad as the one you're talking about, and administering it is enormously costlier than a simple program that over-provisions the benefit. I'd much rather checks go to a middle class family who wouldn't have starved without it than to a complicated bureaucracy that still won't do much better at actually differentiating individual need.
I'm afraid I don't have a quick go-to read. I was first introduced to the idea when I read James Michener's essay collection The Quality of Life in high school. One of the essays describes how he watched Philadelphia choked to death by an inability to expand its borders and capture all the necessary taxes from people in surrounding towns thanks to Pennsylvania's strict annexation laws at the time.
Anyone who has ever lived in a city and followed a story about an annexation battle instinctively understands the problem. That's probably why it immediately seems like a valid argument to you. I don't have any answers. City planners have been trying to come up with the answers for decades. Annexation always seems to be fallback.
That’s precisely what contributed to the demise of Stl. Early on the inability to annex the surrounding communities which gave rise to 90 plus munis and the loss of attendant taxes.
FWIW I’m all for calling the Republicans’ bluff on that one. You make Facebook et. al. liable for the content on their platform the very first thing to go is conspiracy theory nonsense like Q and antivaxx. The very next thing is anything promoting any kind of violence, so every 2nd amendment and pro-gun group and post goes poof, they won’t take the chance that a post there leads to a shooting later. Twitter will immediately ban everyone including politicians posting outright lies, especially ones that are potentially dangerous like downplaying COVID. Repealing 230 will actually lead to the replay forming that righties whine about today, should be a fun ride and maybe we’ll get a better middle ground afterward.
Yeah I don’t get it. Years ago I had a client that was a helicopter instructor. He clipped the end of his hanger and crashed it. No one was hurt. His only incident in probably thirty plus years. A rival instructor got hold of the video and kept publishing it over and over on YouTube. For years. He’d share it on there until a ton of people saw it. It really hurt the guy’s biz. I eventually sued google for him hoping if nothing else they’d remove it. But google was insulated by liability. We couldn’t do squat. It’s a shitty deal.
It would also open the floodgates for Trump or anyone else to start suing Google and Twitter and Facebook and everyone else for anything derogatory that's posted. Section 230 allows the platforms to edit or reject content but doesn't require that they do or don't. Taking it away would set everything on it's head. Repealing Section 230 would give the liars and the kooks and the inciters you mention even more influence.
But it leaves businesses and people with zero recourse. They are left at the mercy of a platform that may or may not respond. One can have horrible shit posted; reputational shit; pics; whatever. Immunity isn’t okay. And what you write is valid too. There has to be some other way. Maybe the platform has to provide posters’ info to the party harmed. I don’t know. And tethering this stimulus etc is nonsense bs. I’ve just seen firsthand how platforms like YouTube really harm people
Last edited:
We never could identify him. The helicopter flight instructor World is cutthroat!! Movies could be made about it. Documentaries. Like narcos but only with old white helicopter guys
I can see how that would be a problem. I have to believe that could be rectified without repealing Section 230 wholesale.
Edit to add: Regardless, if the video was unaltered and accurate, it's kind of hard to complain about someone posting truthful information.
But annexation is an unsustainable strategy - a temporary fix without addressing the underlying problems. If cities continue to try and tax more and more, isn't that just going to continue the flight out of them to further out areas (e.g., Dupage vis-a-vis Chicago) or flight to other metro parts of the country (e.g., NYC, San Fran to FL, TX, etc.)?
In light of COVID and its impact on remote work, it seems like cities have the least power they've had in several years. Perhaps that will all be transitory, but we won't know for several more years.
That’s the problem. It was both altered and the comments underneath weren’t true about the owner. So we would post the original one. Then three months later the altered would be posted again with more comments etc. it went on and on
In that case, yes Google should be required to identify the uploader and actions be taken against them, not Google.
I knew people in the early and mid 90s who made good money being moderators for chat rooms. I remember in chat rooms from the old days having to submit a post for approval before it would actually be posted for others to see. Let the cons repeal it and then listen to them bitch about censorship even more.
Id love to know how much goat, marv, unclebulk and others are getting paid for their absurd partisan posts on this site. That “trailer” is for show. Guaranteed.
Soros sends us bundles of cash. I do not even bother counting any more.
I see Mitch called the $2000 stimulus "welfare for the rich". Can anyone explain how people making under $75,000 are "the rich"? Most of them do not get the Soros money I get
Make all the jokes you want, but check out Mark's double-wide sometime. It sits on a hill with a commanding view of all the surrounding single-wides, much like the manor house of the local baron at the heart of a medieval village.
Some of the serfs are hot, too.
Maybe, though the legal war chest at Facebook is a pretty daunting thing to go up against. To be clear I think repealing 230 is a terrible idea, but I also think at some point the dems have to call some bluffs or they’ll continue to lose the fights that really matter. I’d rather see money get to people and let the republicans take the blame for the nasty consequences of their threat than let them win by making that threat. There’s zero chance it’s not reinstated or replaced quickly once the impact of its repeal becomes evident.
Chuck said he'd be fine with bringing up Section 230 and a voter fraud commission as separate votes. Mitch said no.
Yep, exactly, and Mitch is counting on the Dems to be spineless and cave with 230 held over their heads. A hostage is going to be shot here one way or the other, I’d rather that be the internet than people desperate for this help.
Chuck and Nancy can claim they're perfectly happy to vote on all three Trump proposals but Mitch won't allow the vote because he doesn't want to cut the $2000 checks.
Damn right. And you kids need to keep at it while I'm now sucking the public teat full time while laying around in my castle doin' nothin'. I worked hard for it and earned everything I've got.
Been on Social Security for two months and already got a raise! Now get back to work!
Similar threads
Posters of the Water Cooler, unite!
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler
