What? Umm, you're evidently in the wrong thread. Where in this thread was the convo about the "homeless" only? This thread is about the stimulus package, which does not apply to only the homeless. In fact. I don't think "homeless" was even mentioned in this thread till you just brought it up.
What we need the most is help medically and especially with development of an effective vaccine. Then, we need help getting people through this economically. We need help getting things produced and distributed that people need the most. This has got to be done while we protect those doing the production and distributing from the virus. We should be on a war time footing. Edit: Oh, and we need effective leadership from our President. He should be out front telling it like it is.
Agreed, some people will obviously need help financially but not all...use some of the allocated money for supplies/food for those who need help and more tests/screening for the virus and make sure hospitals are properly funded/equipped/staffed, etc., I'm not convinced that "cash" is the only way to go because you just know there are many folks who will spend it frivolously. But yeah, some actual leadership from the POTUS would be nice for a change...but Trump still thinks this is about him.
You're correct. I misread Minstrel's post. The context, though, was the definition of Socialism and at what point that exists. Minstrel appeared to relate that Socialism, as a whole, begins with even the insignificant of helps. I believe the nation (us) should help the poor and needy, but, arguably, that doesn't necessarily qualify it as Socialism. Moreover, there's a wide spectrum between Bernie's Green New Deal, free healthcare and schooling, etc. for all, and helping those truly in need. In terms of this stimulus package, there are always gonna be one-offs and should he handled accordingly. Not Socialism. Naturally, those decisions involve the House, Senate, and President, collectively.
That's because you see "socialism" as a black/white system...either we're capitalist or socialist, so something small can't qualify as "socialism." The whole concept of socialism, at least as it's used internationally today, is using the resources of the society to help those in society who need it--which in practice acts as a wealth transfer downwards; disproportionately from richer disproportionately to poorer. The US is, and has been for many generations, a mix of capitalism and socialism. We have some free market principles and we have some programs that are funded by richer people for poorer people. Even a one-time check to keep people most at risk afloat is not particularly different conceptually from social security, which was intended to keep the poorest elderly afloat. Obviously, it's not the commitment that social security is, but I don't think that changes the ethic behind it.
Arguably, everyone dropped out too early, as the pandemic might change the electoral landscape entirely. Although, for the moment, it seems to play to Biden's strengths, so maybe it would wind up in the same place anyway. barfo
I don't know about that. Andrew may indeed end up driving a cab, but Joe will have secret service to drive him. barfo
lol...I put cab knowing you would play with it. Im off, to the shores of Detroit Lake at noon. Have a good one Capt. Barfchips
It would occur to me, then, that pure socialism, semi-socialism, or communism accounts for virtually every 1st or 2nd world country in existence today.
As far as spending frivolously, well, who decides? Is my buying yarn frivolous, since I don't really need another sweater but just like to knit? Is buying ice cream frivolous? Regardless of what is purchased, money spent goes into economy.
Every developed nation is a mix of capitalist and socialist policies. There are no "purely capitalist" or "purely socialist" nations, that I can think of. The question has never been "capitalism or socialism?" The question has always been, "What mix of the two should we have?"
K, that all makes sense. I've never felt the "Bern" (SCARY!) and I doubt the majority of our country has, either. That said, as the pundits keep reminding us, our nation appears to be veering more and more to left of center....towards to socialized side of the spectrum. Am I wrong in that assessment?
Under the current circumstances with many people out of work who have families to feed and clothe them, pay for medications, and utilities, and other essential things, yes, IMO, ice cream and knitting yarn should take a back seat for the time being, and as I said the stimulus package is as much about Trump's ego as it is helping the ones who need help the most. And again, instead of giving people money willy nilly even to people who don't really need it, why not instead re-channel that money and use it in other ways to counter the virus?
Trump's reelection effort was built on the idea of the economy is good. Since the stock market is now at pre-Trump administration levels and we are likely heading into a recession - he is doing whatever he can to try and prop the economy or he will lose in a landslide. Frankly, there are only so many people who vote for him because of his stance on abortions.
It does sound like the money they're sending out will be by income / family size, and so to some extent it's good I guess.
