Come on now @Revan its only about 5 trillion dollars for a year. Basically one all in of high stakes poker between Jeff Bill and Elon.
Last edited:
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Where does Germany gets it's money?
It shouldn't be an issue for the richest country in the world. Somewhere, they have money.
Trillion, not quadrillion.
Thanks for the magnitude correction!
ok i guess I gave you too much credit
Is Germany giving 2000USD for a month to every citizen? That's news if true, and I am living here.
It doesn't matter what should or not should be the issue. You are the president, the debt is 130% of the GDP. How do you manage to give 2000USD/month retroactively (let's say from May cause there was one check sent in April). That is - as of January - 18k dollars per person. If we assume that 200M people are available for it, that is 3.6 extra trillion dollars that the government needs to loan (or print). Without counting any other covid relief that needs to be done. After already loaning a few trillion for covid.
I mean, let's start pretending to be realistic for a minute here. Doing brainless opposition at everything is just brainless.
Me too. I thought that you might be capable of actually debating anything. You are not. You are a nihilistic who won't be content at anything, and your urge to moan is bigger than Trump's ego.
It’s hard to give credit when you have no credibility.
If they decided that it was okay to loan "a few trillion" for Covid already, what is really standing in the way of loaning a few more? I wonder how many trillion have been lost in future production already, from Covid.
truly epic own, sir
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You realize that the money has to be paid back, right? You also realize that the debt to GDP is already at an insane rate (it was close to 130% before the new covid package reliez). Adding another 3.4T would push it above 140%. There are many studies that show that it going over 78% fecks the economy of a country.
Your question is as pointless as saying 'if you took a debt to buy a small car, why you didn't take twice as much money to buy a Mecedes S'? Because the money has to be paid. And what happens when you cannot pay it?
I think we should look into this, but I do think they need reevaluate the thresholds for sending out the money. In my opinion the gates to send it out ( $75,000 for single filers, $112,500 for heads of household, and $150,000 for those married filing jointly) are potentially too high depending on number of dependents and cost of living of your residence. We may qualify for some payment, and if we do we will do what we did last time and donate it to the local food bank because we don't need it to survive. I think there are a decent number of people in the same situation, where the extra money would be nice but is not necessary. If work was done to identify those who need the assistance I think you could lower the overall spend while having the greatest impact. It's more work, and less politically beneficial, but it better achieves the core mission of helping those most in need.
the national debt is 27 trillion which is exactly as meaningless as 22 trillion or 32 trillion or 24 trillion. god forbid we actually use government to help people
if you're in the position of being able to donate a check from the government during a pandemic congrats and good for you but your opinion absolutely does not count on this subject
So if 78% is a disaster and it was already close to 130%, how is it that the last covid spending was fine, but adding some more to push it to 140% is unthinkable? Aren't the conditions that necessitated the last relief still there? Or are you saying that relief was also wrong?
In any case, you missed my point. I know it "has to be paid back", but if you allow the destitution which is happening in the US to continue it might do more damage in the long run than not spending more. Austerity does not work.
I see you haven't yet realized that you can't compare personal household economics to state economics. They aren't even remotely the same.
No, it is not. It is bad, the higher it goes the worse it is and it will feck the country more.
I cannot believe that even this needs to be discussed. I mean, we can discuss till absurdity this. Why doesn't the government just prints money and sends 1 million dollars to everyone. That would actually help the people. Who knows why no one has thought about this genius plan?
because.....
because you don't need the money and hundreds of millions of people do. obviously. if you don't care about 1400 or 2000 then its none of your business!
78% is the limit on what you should go. 130% is terrible (people seem to not understand how fecked the US is because of this), 140% is even worse.
Probably this is not the last covid relief going on. Covid is nowhere near finished, and even when the economy reopens the state will need to further help.
Debt does damage in long term. More debt does further more damage. It isn't fecking rocket science.[/QUOTE]
Straw man, thy name is Revan.
To be fair, the US government thought it was appropriate to spend a billion dollars a day on war in Iraq for ages. A few dollars more to actually support their citizens shouldn't even be a debate.
And yet neither you nor Eboue were able to provide a solid argument on how does the US pays 18k dollars for everyone without fecking itself harder than it is already fecked.
Smirky remarks and a lot of moaning are all the ultra-leftists offer.
Once I made a bad decision. Making more bad decisions from now on is okay, and shouldn't even be a debate.
It IS a silly question, except if you're willing to discuss the entire government budget. There are SO many things a government pays for; why single out this one? Because it's an addition? I don't see how that's more relevant than asking about things that could realistically be cut (of which there are many outside support for people), or about other things that are added in the course.of a budget year, or where actuals and forecasts differ. It's ad-hoc cherry-picking.
What's more, you can only reasonably ask these questions in the context of a wider debate about government debt; you can't decide on these things one by one. That again leads to the point that making this into a single-item make-or-break thing for the government budget or debt makes little sense.
And that's even without taking into account the wider COVID-19 economic context, where governments have made huge investments across the world regardless of debt implications.
Supporting your citizens who need money because of a global pandemic is a bad decision?
fundamentally, the us government doesnt want to support their citizens. and revan doesnt want them to either
I know you don't believe in democracy, but since we live in one it means that we all have a stake in decisions that are made. Do I absolutely need the money now, no, but I sure as hell would have needed it for most of my adult life had this happened then, or if I didn't work in a critical industry now. Policies are not made in a vacuum, they create precedent that will be used by future governments to help or feck over others.
just gonna stop reading right here.
Spending the insane amount of money that you cannot pay, after being in a debt that you cannot pay is a bad decision. Yes, people need money. That doesn't mean that the US should just give up on saving their own economy.
That is what a 7-year-old not that bright kid would argue.
Providing citizens with money that they need to pay bills, buy food, etc is saving the economy.
we must sacrifice our citizens for the economy
It's funny isn't it, people saying you can't afford to give everybody money equally and it shouldn't be going to the very rich, but many of those same people don't support raising taxes on the rich.
At the risk of sounding very Scouse here, spending is irrelevant - it's all about net spend. Minimising administration costs by only means testing taxes and not benefits is actually cheaper overall, you just need to adjust the taxation system appropriately.
We should be talking about financial transaction taxes (penny per trade), wealth taxes on people with tens of millions of dollars they will never spend, and environmental taxes on polluters and those benefitting from unethical trading methods e.g. companies using unsustainable palm oil, profitable companies who don't pay enough to live on etc. Apparently that's scary though whereas starving poor people isn't.
At the risk of sounding very Scouse here, spending is irrelevant - it's all about net spend. Minimising administration costs by only means testing taxes and not benefits is actually cheaper overall, you just need to adjust the taxation system appropriately.
We should be talking about financial transaction taxes (penny per trade), wealth taxes on people with tens of millions of dollars they will never spend, and environmental taxes on polluters and those benefitting from unethical trading methods e.g. companies using unsustainable palm oil, profitable companies who don't pay enough to live on etc. Apparently that's scary though whereas starving poor people isn't.
What the feck are you talking about? Smirky remarks and moaning?
Also: ultra-leftists
Edit: You added another totally non-snarky post while I was in the process of posting:
Cant they just spend a few trillion less on defense for a while? Or on, I dunno building a brick wall on the border?
Or wait, crazy idea, have uber rich people pay a bit more tax?
Or wait, crazy idea, have uber rich people pay a bit more tax?
Yes dude, having money is nice. Especially when you need them.
Not going bankrupt is also nice. The government tries to find a balance in this (though has been doing a poor job at it in the last 20 years).