What will you be doing with your Sanders style socialism check?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by FryDaddyJr, Mar 27, 2020.

  1. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Member

    Probably donating it to charity or burning it I imagine.
     
  2. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    I don’t qualify.
     
  3. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Member

    me either. I never get any free stuff. Not until age 67
     
  4. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    I won’t be getting one either, but we all might one after the socialists wreck the economy. Take a look at Venezuela. That’s what AOC and company have planned for us.
     
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  5. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    If you are talking about Social Security, that’s not free. You pay into it from your first “above the table job” until you leave your last position.

    “Free health care for illegal aliens.” Now there is something that is free from the government.
     
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  6. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Member

    and medicare. most people take more out of social security than they put in. If they live right.
     
  7. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Before you say that people get more back more than they pay in, you should figure in what that money stream would have earned in even a conservative investment. That’s the beauty of 401ks. Even a fixed interest account becomes impressive when the interest compounds for 30 to 40 years.

    Social Security has no such compounding. It’s really a transfer payment from those who are working to those who are retired or drawing supplementary Social Security. Still, since most people don’t save anything, Social Security does help with that problem.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2020
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  8. toughcoins

    toughcoins Well-Known Member

    What you'll get at 67 won't be free either . . . you'll be getting back some fraction of what you paid in.
     
  9. toughcoins

    toughcoins Well-Known Member

    What Sanders style socialism check? When short-sighted elements of our society supported increasing the minimum wage for flipping burgers, it drove pay for skilled positions like mine further upward to a level where I no longer qualify.

    Personally, I'll be fine, and don't lament not getting a handout from the feds.

    Not to hijack your thread FryDaddy, but raising the minimum wage provides only temporary comfort to those who thought it would increase their standard of living . . . increased costs will follow closely on the heels of the rise in income. That overlooked by-product of increasing the minimum wage is further evidence that liberals clearly either don't understand, or don't care about economics.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2020
    Mopar Dude and JohnHamilton like this.
  10. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Another factor is that businesses will look for ways to invest in capital machinery when the price for unskilled or low skilled labor is set to arbitrarily high levels. Have you been to a McDonalds recently? They are installing touch screens to take the place of cashiers. Once those machines take hold, it won’t matter what the arbitrary minimum wage is, those people won’t have a job.

    The answer is to instill in the kids that you need to work in school if you want to succeed. It does not mean that you have to go to college. In fact, for some people, college is way overrated and unnecessary. If you learn a trade and do it well, you have more job security that some second-rate college graduate who has few practical skills.

    I’ve stopped calling those who oppose us “liberals” because there are some liberals who realize the threat that socialism poses to our freedoms. I call them “socialists” because that is what they are.

    Socialists only consider economic principles when it suits their narrative. Therefore, they will create markets for buying, selling and trading “carbon credits” because it fits their never-ending desire to control people. When you try to explain what the minimum wage will do for high school kids trying to get their first job or low skilled workers, they ignore reality.

    Socialism is built on class envy and greed for the voter and recruitment process. For socialist leaders, it offers opportunities for power and wealth. It’s no surprise that Hugo Chavez had over a billion dollars salted away when he died. That is the natural result of socialism for those who get to lead the government. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrats who advocate it know that all too well. That’s why they feed their “equality” rhetoric to the naive and the gullible. They want to get rich by crawing on your back.
     
    Mopar Dude and toughcoins like this.
  11. toughcoins

    toughcoins Well-Known Member

    I used those kiosks overseas last summer, Bill. Surprisingly, they were both user friendly and efficient and, with the mimimum wage rising so fast, they will almost certainly pay for themselves in fairly short order.

    I agree, except that a work ethic should be instilled in kids at an even earlier age. I'm not advocating child labor, mind you . . . just having them learn that work is rewarding, often in more ways than just getting paid. It makes us feel valued, raises our self-esteem, and conditions us to better adapt to changing future conditions.

    Right in lockstep on this comment.
     
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  12. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Member


    most people are drawing 3x-6x more than they paid. That's why they want to push the retirement age back
     
  13. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    So none of us qualifies for a stimulus check. Count your blessings. Plenty of low-wage service workers are going to need some assistance from the rest of us. You have to ask, is this completely bi-partisan stimulus package going to do anything at all to help anybody? I have no idea and neither do you. I did find an interesting opinion piece that spells out the pros and cons pretty well.

    What to make of the US's $2 trillion coronavirus bailout
    In spite of the negatives and the risks, the stimulus package represents a real political and philosophical change.

    [​IMG]
    by Larry Beinhart, 27 Mar 2020

    On Wednesday, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved a $2 trillion rescue bill to address the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the economy.

    Will it make the US and world economies better than otherwise?

    Yes. Perhaps, even significantly so.

    Will it save the economy of the US from a severe recession?

    No.

    Will it save the economy of the world from a severe recession?

    No.

    Is it better than the 2008 bailouts?

    Better.

    Is it better than the original Republican, White House, Treasury proposals?

    Far better. More significantly, it marks a huge change in our political-economic world view. That being said, it is, at best, a mix of the old, established evils, and the refreshing new.

    It is impossible to estimate the full, actual impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the attempts to control it on the world economy. At this moment, there are 14 countries on full shutdown. China has a group of regional shutdowns, several of them bigger than entire other countries. At least 13 more countries have partial shutdowns. Then there are the countries that have closed their borders and have quarantines for incoming travellers. The EU has banned all non-essential travel.

    On Tuesday, March 24, the Guardian estimated around 20 percent of the global population was under a coronavirus lockdown. On Wednesday, March 25, India went into lockdown. India has a population of 1.37 billion. That brought the total to 35 percent of the world's population.

    Think for a moment of yourself losing a mere two weeks of work and of the cuts you would make to your spending. The world population is 7.8 billion people. Imagine that happening to 2,730,000,000 people.

    Not all of them are working adults. That number includes children, retirees, the sick and politicians. Putting people to work has a multiplier effect. They spend what they earn. The businesses that get their money spend a significant portion of it on more goods and services. And on employees, who also spend. When the number of people earning decreases, it has a negative multiplier effect. A plant closes. Employees lose their pay. The local grocery, bowling alley, liquor store all suffer. The tax base declines. That affects police, teachers and all public services.

    The average net profit margin for US businesses - excluding the financial sector - is just 6.53 percent. A lot of sectors are in the 1 to 4 percent range. Even a slight slowdown can put a lot of enterprises out of business.

    The lengths of the shutdowns are unknown. The direct and indirect medical costs are unknown. The negative multipliers are incalculable.

    Donald Trump, and many others, imagine that when the pandemic is brought under control, our economies will bounce back up, like a fighter who has been knocked down but jumps up short of a 10 count ready to battle even harder. That is ridiculous.

    The negative economic consequences cannot be stopped. Nor will they disappear by themselves.

    But they can be ameliorated.

    The 2008 bailout is the most obvious - and the most meaningful - comparison to this bailout. It was promoted, sold and run by Henry Paulson, who had been CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a coven of big bankers. He is now associated with PIMCO, a $1.91 trillion investment management company and Citadel, a $32 billion hedge fund - the sophisticated, modern form of payoff.

    The public face of the bailout was the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). It authorised $700bn (later reduced to $475bn), to buy "trouble assets" from big banks that had made stupid and reckless purchases. The hidden face was much bigger. It put between $16.8 trillion and $29 trillion into the largest financial institutions in America and around the world.

    They saved the banks, the bankers and their bonuses. But everyone else was screwed. It took six years for the real economy - by many measures - to even return to pre-crash levels. Think of it as government by finance, of finance, and for finance.

    It was a model that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were eager to adopt when responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Their proposal was to give $500bn to Mnuchin, which he could use however he wanted.

    However, the powerof the purse is with Congress. It might not always seem that way because they abdicate their responsibilities, but the constitution says it is. Congress has a Democrat majority. Even two years ago, the Democrats might have rolled over for Mnuchin and McConnell as they rolled over for Paulson and Bernanke. Now, they have awakened. They had their own proposals.

    Instead of trickle down, their vision was build up from the bottom. That is good.

    The most surprising policy is the most sensible: $1,200 to everyone who files their income tax with incomes below $75,000, tapering off to zero at $100,000, with an additional $500 per child.

    It is not limited to everyone who pays federal income tax. Nearly half of Americans do not and that half needs it the most. But filing is necessary to exclude high earners.

    Unemployment benefits will continue for an extra 13 weeks, will be expanded to cover freelance, gig and furloughed workers, and unemployment benefits will increase by $600 per week across the board for all workers claiming them. Given that, as of January, the average UI check was $385 per week, this is a massive increase.

    There should also be $350bn in loans for small business - which will be forgiven if they keep their employees on. So it is actually a subsidy with coercion. It must be repaid if it is not used in a way that supports the whole economy.

    There is $100bn for hospitals.

    The package had to get through the Senate and it had to have Trump's nod of approval.

    The $500bn for big businesses remained.

    In some quarters, cognitive dissonance clanged louder than church bells. An op-ed in USA Today said "bailout for airlines and cruise lines is socialism for the undeserving rich". During their fat years, they used their money for share buybacks and excessive executive compensation instead of saving for an emergency. Yet there are reasons we want the US airline industry to survive. We want Boeing to survive in spite of the greed-driven mess they made out of the 737MAX. They have too many real employees who make decent money. I do not know if we would miss cruise lines. Trump refused to say that government funds should not go to his own hotels, resorts and golf courses. When he was asked who would watch where the money went, Trump said, "I'll be the oversight."

    cont'ed...
     
    FryDaddyJr likes this.
  14. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    .....

    The Democrats stepped up. They demanded a provision that would stop funds going directly to Trump or his family by adding a clause that included top members of the executive branch, members of Congress and their families. They also prohibited the money from going to stock buybacks and excessive domestic compensation. There will be an oversight board and an inspector general.

    Nonetheless, Zach Carter of Huffington Post wrote that it "is not an economic rescue package, but a sentence of unprecedented economic inequality and corporate control over our politics that will resonate for a generation". He views the restraints as "purely cosmetic" and "toothless". More significantly, he notes that "$425 billion ... can be leveraged 10 times over by the Federal Reserve, resulting in a multi-trillion-dollar program". That gooses it up to the sort of fun numbers that were taking place behind the curtain after 2008. Meanwhile, the New York Times did a story, In Fine Print of Stimulus Package, Special Deals for Certain Industries. It demonstrated that the unprecedented rescue package was still, at least in part, business as usual.

    In spite of the negatives and the risks, the package represents a real political and philosophical change. We are at last moving on from Reagan's "The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'," to "We need the government to help. Nobody else can help. Here we are." That new and improved attitude is not limited to America. It is showing up in the UK and in Germany, as well.

    It is not instant or total salvation, but it is cause for long-term optimism.
     
    FryDaddyJr likes this.
  15. toughcoins

    toughcoins Well-Known Member

    Your perception that the floodgates are finally opening is all wrong Joe . . . don't be so optimistic about long term loose monetary policy.

    This is a short term reversal in policy to address a major unexpected bump in the road. Long term, we must and we shall return to fiscal responsibility.
     
  16. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Do you have an stats to back that claim up?

    Part of the money is going to Aid to Dependent Children. You guys are always in the kids corner. You say, "Well, their parents are no good, but are you going to take it out on the kids?" That's you last line of defense.

    Frankly, I don't think that the kids benefits should be part of the Social Security System. It should be funded on its own. Social Security should be for retirees who paid into the system.

    The retirement age is going up because the system is not financially sound, and people are living longer. Taxes have to go up and benefits have to be limited to keep it afloat. When FDR got this passed in the mid 1930s, most people didn’t live long enough to collect. They assumed it would stay that way. It didn’t.
     
  17. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    I haven't honestly noticed anything that resembled "fiscal responsibility" lately??? Can you point out any fiscal responsibility that is at all significant?
     
  18. toughcoins

    toughcoins Well-Known Member

    Of course he doesn't . . . he's shooting from the hip again . . . that's what liberals do. Then, if you question them about being wrong, they cover their ears and hum to themselves.

    I am eligible for full retirement in 7 years. If I live until 75, as is average, I'd collect for 8 years.

    Based on my lifetime earnings, and FryDaddy's claim that I should draw at least 3x more than I paid in (3x is dead wrong, forget the inane extreme claim of 6x), I should be drawing $6975 monthly . . . that's not even close to what I'll be eligible to draw.

    Based on my last benefit projection from the SSA, I'll be drawing just shy of $2000 monthly. That's a crying shame, given that I will have put in about $167,000 over a 45 year full-time engineering career, and may reasonably expect to receive only $192,000 in benefits. That is a yield of about 0.3% annually, and a pitifully poor return for everyone putting into the program, not to mention the estimated 40% in purchasing power lost to inflation over all of those years.

    Uncle Sam sucks wind again . . . we're already living the socialist nightmare, and it's not working. So, what's their solution? The productive ones aren't dead yet, so scrape more skin off their backs to support the one who won't carry the load.

    With few exceptions, anyone advocating for big government programs is doing so because they want to ride the gravy train while the rest of us pull it. The exceptions are those precious few who truly NEED it, who I'm perfectly willing to support, and the DC jet-setters drawing political capital from it, which I won't support.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2020
  19. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Social Security was never meant to be a source of lucrative retirement income. It was primarily implemented as a senior safety net. We used to be a manufacturing society and once a person aged out of the workforce, they were basically destitute prior to the SSI Program. You could spend your entire life working for some corporation/manufacturer and then starve to death once you became to indigent to work anymore. SSI was meant to be a safety net for the underclass of workers vital to the building of this country. Anyone that tries to live on SS exclusively after they retire isn't going to have a very comfortable rest of their lives even with the annual COLA.

    My situation, if you care, is a bit uncommon these days. I do not contribute to the SSI program, or at least I haven't in many years. I pay the SSI amount directly into my pension system. Most people, including my wife, will never collect SS that work where we work. I happen to have worked in the private sector long enough to actually be able to collect SS when I retire. My wife has not worked the minimum number of quarters to collect SS.

    If we were counting on living on SS, we'd be pretty bad off when we retire. Our pension system is what is called a defined benefit pension, which means that we collect the monthly amount based on how much we earned and how long we worked there and we collect it until we die. And there is a survivor benefit of either 100%, 75%, or 50% depending on what you elect at retirement. Obviously, the 100% and the 75% reduce your monthly income but there is an annual automatic 3% COLA.

    This might seem like enough to live on but you never can tell how long either of you might live. We also decided to poor the maximum amount into each of our 401k accounts and have been doing so for decades. We also have huge life insurance policies and we own everything we have outright and have zero debt.

    The only reason I tell you any of this is because it flies in the face of your liberal stereotypes. I am by no means the type of liberal you accuse me of being and I obviously do not belive the things I am continually told that I believe on this forum.
    I paid for my children's tuition. I support my elderly mother-in-law. I have never lived beyond my means. I never have had a handout from anybody.

    SS is a necessary program but it needs to updated by expanding benefits and access. Is needs to be separated from the government entirely and open to everyone. You currently have to work 40 quarters at an annual minimum amount of wages to even qualify for SS. The baby boomers are moving through the system and will put significant pressure on the assets accumulated thus far as there are just less people underneath them to support them. Immigration would solve that problem but we are too ethnocentric to allow such an easy solution.
     
  20. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Member


    Do you realize when a woman with kids has a husband die that they get social security money? Yeah. horrible isn't it?
     

Share This Page