Your post was automatically removed for being about the coronavirus. We are allowing significant news stories as their own threads; if you think your article qualifies as major news, please message the mod team.
The stimulus package was to help stimulate the economy. I get people paying down debt, but the US economy is based on consumerism. That is what turns the wheels. I know I'm doing my part to help with employment by providing work to skilled laborers over the past 2 months. Do what you can, folks.
Savings is good for the economy too. Those deposits are used to back loans banks make to businesses.
Yeah and maybe the economy just needs to slow down a bit if everyone is using credit to maintain the high level. It's like those people that "live richly" but really they are mired in huge debt to maintain that lifestyle. Eventually it will come all crashing down.
>Savings is good for the economy too. Those deposits are used to back loans banks make to businesses.
Before this crisis, the world was already flush with savings trying to find a business. You can see that in the low interest rates: the reward for saving is very low. In the market for money, there is too much money looking for too few investment opportunities.
The problem is that there's not enough demand. And if you save more, you spend less, so there will be even less demand.
That means saving in a recession is bad for the economy.
Seems like if we had any reliable and trustworthy safety net, I might feel a bit safer spending money. It is almost as if tying our jobs to our healthcare and most basic ability to survive makes people a little nervous when you hear that tens of millions of people are out of work.
Yep. When you know that, in the majority of states, unemployment benefits are going to equate to below the poverty-line, you'd be foolish not to "hoard" money. The sorry excuse for our social safety net is riddled with holes, with a pool of alligators directly beneath it.
Not to mention that some states, like Florida, have *purposefully* designed their UI system to fail, so they can pretend to have met some masturbatory right-wing fantasy.
First off, it's ludicrous to complain about consumers "hoarding cash" when this nation has a savings epidemic. "Hoarding cash" is exactly what Americans should be doing at least until they have a financial safety net in the form of an emergency fund. Finger-wagging at them is, at best, short-sighted, and at worse unethical.
This cult of consumerism that has gripped our country over the last several decades is a cancer. The very idea that it's somehow a patriotic duty to go buy shit is a great example of the problem run wild.
Second, what the hell does this guy expect during a time of great economic and medical uncertainty? Pandemics don't inspire consumer confidence.
>"Hoarding cash" is *exactly* what Americans should be doing at least until they have a financial safety net in the form of an emergency fund.
You're thinking that a country's finances are like a household's finances. They are really different. If a household saves, it has more money next year.
But in a country, your spending is my income. If you work in construction, your income relies on people spending on construction projects. If you work in food retail, your income depends on people spending on food.
Now if we both start to save, that means we both spend less. Since spending equals income, spending less means both our incomes drop. This will make us even less secure and make us save even more, in a vicious circle.
So for a country, it is ethical and long-sighted to encourage spending in a recession.
You didn't ask me, but I actually do work in food retail, and sales are up right now because people are eating meals at home more often. People aren't going to stop buying the thing I make a living selling, because they need it to survive.
It's also a nice way to make money because my livelihood doesn't depend on selling people shit they don't need - I sell them one of the most vital things in their lives.
Congratulations, restaurant closures mean food retail is up. You're one of the few winners here :)
>People aren't going to stop buying the thing I make a living selling
They might buy less expensive stuff, and drive further to get it cheaper.
The fact that spending and income are the same is hard to understand, as it was when [Keynes stated it in 1926](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money). It's a real aha moment when you get it.
For an individual it's good advice to keep as much liquidity as they can in a crisis. But in this case what's good for the individual is not good for the country.
What a "saving epidemic" does is make it harder to earn money. If everyone is saving, nobody is buying. The people see their income drop so they become even more unsure and spend even less. This cycle causes a depression.
So actually yeah, ethically you should spend. Ethics is often the opposite of self interest.
Sorry, but this is just pants-on-head crazy. The fact that the average American has less than $500 in savings and can't afford to miss even a single paycheck is a terrible circumstance, especially in a country that has spent 40+ years destroying what little safety net we had.
I'm not arguing that no one should spend money *ever* – it'd be a silly argument anyway, since it's fundamentally untenable – but the idea that as soon as consumers have a little money in their pocket they're morally bound to spend it is ludicrous.
The idea that I, or anyone else, has some sort of ethical duty to spend money at the expense of reasonable savings is a prime example of the consumerism that's run rampant in our society.
You're not addressing the core of my argument: one person's spending is another person's income. So if lots of people start saving, revenues drop, and you get high unemployment.
So while saving has advantages, like having a larger buffer, it also has disadvantages, like reducing what economists call "aggregate demand".
I do agree that it is in people's personal best interest to save for an emergency fund. But then it's up to the government to fix the "aggregate demand" problem.
Not my kids. They got the extra $600 in unemployment and are going crazy buying junk they don't really need. My oldest dropped 300 on RGB fans for his computer rather than get his vehicle to where it will pass a safety inspection. His reasoning is he doesn't NEED a car if he doesn't have a job to go to.
Or use it to pay down credit card balances because we were already working on paying off the cards. Didn't need the money, so being responsible by either paying down debt or saving it is the smart and fiscally prudent thing to do.
Also as a user of YNAB the situation has caused me to use the 4 rules, put $ where they will do the most good and pay down old debt. The story seems to miss a few things. Some of the reason that $ is being held right now is that nothing is open. No sporting events to go to, casinos (locally) are closed, only certain stores are open. No vacation / travel to Orlando if the parks are closed. I expect there will be a jump in spending again once things start reopening, people are going stir crazy to get out. But for me, YNAB has me on the right track.
Right? They're acting like the economy would be saved if everyone would just spend all their money on Amazon or something. We don't exactly have many choices right now, and saving is 100% the best option. The economy shouldn't matter more than human lives!
At some point we will need to open up. The reality was laid out by dr fauci yesterday. The vaccine may never come. The propblem is that opening up requires testing which the idiots in
Washington DC don’t want because of optics. If trump was competent he would realize even if the numbers look bad he could save the economy by providing testing. The vaccine might never come and we need a real plan from real leadership to protect lives but also protect our future.
The reality is that those who grow their wealth by investments rely on the rest of the population to spend every cent they have (or more) to keep generating wealth from investment. If everyone was a dedicated YNABer the stock markets would be a very different place. Hearing financial gurus make light of COVID and telling people to keep spending as normal left a bad taste in my mouth. It felt very self serving.
Edit to add that I invest and I take no issue with accumulating wealth this way. But I recognize that I too benefit from people consuming up to and beyond their means.
Consumer spending is only one part of the economy, but it's an important part that keeps the economic engine running. I'm not saying that it's right to try to part everyone from their money, as there is a fine balance that must be maintained. A large part of that balance is that for most of us all saving is really deferred spending, and that goes for the long-term stuff like retirement accounts.
On the other hand, the ultra rich that are sitting on cash or investments from their cash could probably help the economy by sinking the cash back into it. An individual can only spend so much in their lifetimes. Generational wealth is a hinderance to the economic engine. Being ultra rich through stock ownership in a highly valuable company is a different ball of wax though, because their control of the company is tied to the ownership, so it's difficult to separate the two.
These jobs shouldn't exist in the first place. Rich people made a solution to a problem that didn't exist, and the chils of that is hyper-consumerism. The reality of it is, these people WOULD lose their job, but who cares? We shouldn't be so hellbent on working our whole lives.. it isn't even practical for that matter. There are too many people and too few jobs, automation will supplement the difference. If the job is useless, why even let it exist.. UBI is the solution for the unemployed.
There is truth to that but plenty of the cheap stuff I buy lasts. I think our problem is we buy tons of stuff we don't need or even use. Half the crap we buy the manufacturers don't even expect us to use it.
I’m not just talking quality - I mean that most of the stuff we sell is unnecessary in principle. We employ millions selling things that in an ideal world nobody would buy. McDonalds exists because people make poor spending choices.
Here are some of the things wrong with McDonalds (not a comprehensive list, in no particular order):
Not good value i.e. too expensive for what you get.
An exploitative business model which harms workers in aggregate.
Anti-union, which harms workers in aggregate.
Entirely profit-motivated, which harms both consumers and workers.
Has enough resources to purchase leverage, which distorts both legislation and supply chain logistics.
Provides a convenient vector for consumers to develop addictive behavior, and enables that behavior as much as possible for profit reasons.
I didn't say they were useless - I said they were unnecessary, and I listed some of the problems that American consumerist culture (as represented by McDonalds) exacerbates.
Nobody needs to buy McDonalds, just like nobody needs heart disease, but many people choose both. That doesn't make McDonalds good, or necessary.
A better example might be cheap Chinese electronics. America loves buying flatscreen TVs, or iPhones, or what have you, for just a couple hundred bucks - and guess what? They are that cheap only because of labor conditions in China and rampant industrial pollution. Americans choose these things because they aren't useless, but it would be better if they didn't.
If were talking strictly needs then we can all pretty much go back to living like the amish do, so thats a poor way to word it. I would argue fast food is an important part of our fast moving, on the go society. A lot of people don't have time to sit down for a meal at a restaurant or buy groceries and prepare themselves
We're not talking strictly needs. We're simply talking making good financial decisions, and decisions commensurate with valuing human rights - globally, not just in the USA.
You're assuming that fast food and cheap consumer goods are in response to our fast-paced society in which people literally do not have time to cook for themselves. The mistake you're making is that the fast food and cheap consumer goods are *the reason* the poor don't have the time and money to cook for themselves. Corporations like McDonalds are specifically enabling exploitative practices in ways that I outlined above.
McDonald's isn't even the worst offender in the selling of crap. It sells low quality junk food at a low price. At least people eat the stuff. Happy meal toys are definitley useless tat though. I know people who spend a fortune on clothes they don't wear, treadmills that get run on once, sofas replaced every two years, kitchens and the appliances ripped out and out back in every five years.
I'm Uruguayan. When I was a kid, one of our sofas had a hole in the middle so large we would crawl through it. Two or three refurbishes later, I'm sitting on that sofa right now, and have no reason to throw it away.
Now I want to write a fantasy story about the people in power convincing their nation that their president and a virus are tearing the nation apart, only to find out in some huge twist at the end that it was all a ploy to get them to pay off their credit card debts.
You should check out the book “Orconomics” by J. Zachary Pike, if you have any interest in a fantasy take on economic manipulation. It’s a great satirical comedy, especially if you’re familiar with the tropes of Dungeons and Dragons-esque adventure fantasy.
Omg, stop vilifying the successful few. They worked hard to inherit that money. They deserve all the benefits it that come with it. Maybe you should stop hating them and just go inherit a fortune from you family. You know EZ-PZ.
We are the dominate monitary sovereign of the whole entire world. Our money isn't based off of gold, or oil, and the federal reserve knows what it's doing, we are not going to have hyper inflation. Please stop fear mongering and actually study monitary policy
This will always be true for as long as oil is being traded in dollars. That can change, of course, but like it or not, the dollar is the most influential currency currently out there. I say that as a European who'd love to see the Euro be more important than the dollar.
Well considering we have to be allies with Saudi Arabia, because we need a gas station in the desert to protect Europe from a potential African war, the only way that the euro can become dominate is if the EU creates their own military that can replace the US.
I would absolutely love to see an EU army, but Germany can't even be bothered to keep their army up to snuff, so I don't see it happening any time soon.
All these ANTI LOCKDOWN is what’s wrong with America!! Stop posting these propaganda!! Life is more important than money. We need to continue the lockdown at least until we can get a vaccine then we can worry about the economy.
This is asinine what if a vaccine never comes? Even the medical experts agree the key to opening up is testing. We need fucking testing not a vaccine. A vaccine is just a hope but we can’t rely on that.
The international service economy was already doomed just from major closures and many large companies such as Disney would be basically forced to be more cautious than the United States if they were told to, say, reopen their parks and resorts, let alone factors such as foreigners keeping sectors like gambling afloat, to say nothing of fields that were already due for burst bubbles like healthcare and non-Chinese manufacturing. The initial 'growth' we'd see if the lockdown was lifted right now would be a wave of new 'jobs' mostly fueled by apps (Uber, ect) and a unprecedented boom in Chinese investing, because they're not hemorrhaging money. On the US side, shitty fuel shops open and close all the time and strip malls are a blight; less small businesses and cookie-cutter retail spaces doesn't matter to me whatsoever. The greatest flaw with the Covid-19 handling was simply that strong universal measures were not taken immediately instead of the confused roll-out of incremental changes.
Maybe you should ACTUALLY listen to Biden. He isn’t saying stay locked down he is saying we need to stay locked down until we have adequate testing in place. Nobody in a place of authority is advocating staying home until a vaccine that may never come arrives.
Why are you in such a big rush to go back outside? Or even to work? Nancy Pelosi is working on passing a bill to help everyone out financially. Our stay at home orders are working and the numbers are declining why don’t we continue? It’s common sense.
I didn’t say we need to rush to go outside I said that waiting for a vaccine is unrealistic. The bill Nancy Pelosi proposed will never pass and is just for show because republicans have already shot it down. What I’m in a rush for is a realistic national response. Places like florida and Georgia have pretty much opened up completely and aren’t going to go back to lockdown so we need solutions fast because idiots like that are jeopardizing the rest of the country.
You sound like a Republican smh. It’s your party blocking the bill then blaming the progressive left. Just wait and see GA & FL are going to regret their decision. Your logic is jeopardizing the country. What part of coronavirus do you not understand? A global pandemic! Doctors our hero’s dont need people like you making reckless decisions.
Smh you’re an
idiot. I’m not a republican look through my comment history. Read and comprehend what I said. I didn’t say I agree with republicans shooting down the bill I said they shot it down. Mitch McConnell has already said the bill is DOA. So how do you expect it to pass? My logic is we need a federal response. The republicans and president have said there is no federal response and have left it up to the states. Of fucking course Florida and Georgia are going to regret it but it doesn’t change the fact that they are open and so is interstate travel. People are flocking to these locations from other states jeopardizing everyone. The point is they aren’t going to shut down again because those in charge won’t do it so we need a federal response for testing and guidelines. Learn to read, learn to comprehend, and shake your head out of your ass,
Okay you might be a right leaning democrat. But how does it make sense to open the Country? You said we need realistic solution how is this even a thought, whether the feds respond or not that doesn’t make it alright to open the country until a vaccine is found. I am from San Francisco and skit of talks about one almost being ready. This is why we need socialism to bring everyone together. ☮️☮️☮️
No I’m someone who lives in reality. Dr fauci even said it himself. A vaccine might never be found. We have never found one for a coronavirus and current trials are hopeful but not guaranteed. Economies don’t work on hope. We have to trust science and reality and the reality is that waiting for a vaccine makes no sense. That needs to be a hopeful plan b. Every single expert has said the key to opening is aggressive testing not a vaccine.
Kids need to be in school, that's the bottom line. It has nothing to do with politics.
A vaccine very well may never come, and we could be destroying people's lives trying to save those who are already dead.
"Many more will have to suffer, many more will have to die. Dont ask me why."
> Wtf you should be spending money, stop hoarding it
I used to like Ben Stein until he made a comment like that about the Great Recession. Saying that Americans could end the slump by spending money.
>Well, look at it this way. The economy grows because of two factors: M, which is the quantity of money in the economy, which is controlled mostly by the Federal Reserve; and V, the velocity of money, or the rate at which it changes hands - or, as one might say, the speed with which it is borrowed, invested and spent.
>People at every level are afraid to spend because they fear conditions will get worse and they're going to need the money in the future just to survive. So they don't spend it.
>After all, no one is bombing our cities right now or poisoning our rivers. This whole thing is about confidence. Ninety-two percent of us are still employed. Roughly 90+ percent are not behind on our mortgages. If we had some confidence, we could get this ball rolling again.
The only thing I could think of was,"Spend what money?! People are holding on to their money because they're not sure if they can get any more."
I have money. I'm not spending it. I don't see a reason to spend it when I'm on the verge of losing my job and have no idea how to get another in this economy.
The younger half of the population got fucked to protect the older half, so maybe the government could transfer some money the other way.
They fail to realize the velocity of money is both up ***and*** down. If people don't have a lot of or a consistent supply of money in hand, why would they pass the buck? If you want to jumpstart the economy, jumpstart the people.
Normally I dislike these juxtapositions, too often they are hyperbolic and not actually representative of the situation.
However, this is spot on; and now I'm a little angry. I know what'll help, stackin more dollars in my savings; oh yeah, I can feel their hate, and it feels good...
Yep, if these companies didn't want their thin profit margin havin greedy ass business to fail they should have been "responsible with their money and saved at least 3 months ahead, it reflects on their personal character to spend money so recklessly" fucking motherfuckers.
This really shows a lack of understanding how an economy works. “Useless crap” is what generates jobs and growth. Just removing non Essential services has removed 25% of our workforce. What do you think happens when all retail falls and consumer spending nears zero. You’re going to see lots of people start losing their jobs. How do you think money works? Without people spending and borrowing the system collapses.
Edit: instead of downvoting can someone just explain their thinking on this? I’m honestly curious because this is basic economics. It isn’t political it’s just fact.
No it doesn’t. An economy doesn’t “depend” on useless crap unless we let it. People being out of work because non essential services are stopped doesn’t mean the economy is broken. There are nurse and doctor shortages, and supermarkets are still hiring - if we stop buying “useless crap” there will still be jobs for people, if they choose them.
Unfortunately some people feel it’s “beneath” them to work such jobs.
I mean are you being serious? How exactly does that work then. Explain how you achieve economic growth solely on supermarket workers and nurses? Useless crap isn’t just trinkets at Walmart this is referring to entire consumer spending on consumables. In order to outrun the pace of inflation we need to constantly be producing and growing. This isn’t achieved by just essential services? Please I’m dying to know how that works?
The crazy part is the article isn't even about savings that much, it's mostly about credit card debt:
>Worried Americans are drastically scaling back their credit card debt, the most expensive form of typical borrowing.
>In March, revolving credit outstanding collapsed at an annual rate of 31%, [according to a Federal Reserve report](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/current/) released last week. It was the largest one-month decline since January 1989.
Apparently not having a ton of credit card debt is a threat to the economy.
I can't believe you guys haven't been given monthly checks, in the UK they just extended the furlough scheme to October, this is a benefit of higher taxes I guess.
I Just don't get it, America can afford to do it so why not? Is it seen as 'socialist' because I know a lot of Americans seem to dislike the idea of government "handouts" even though it's not a handout at all.
Anyone who lost their job *is* already receiving a federal government handout of $2400 per month on top of whatever state unemployment they're getting. In some states this means they're making over $50k per year equivalent in unemployment benefits from the state and federal governments combined. Don't let reddit make you think Americans aren't getting government assistance just because they're not handing out more of the $1200 one-time check that went to everyone in the middle-class. That check went to people who didn't need it, it went to retirees and people who still are employed in addition to those actually affected, and it wasn't about helping people hurt by coronavirus, it was about boosting Trump's approval rating and (ostensibly) boosting the economy from the bottom. It only did one of those things because we're locked down and *can't* spend money right now, thus everyone used it to pay off debt or invest in the stock market and we get the results shown in this article. It was a stupid program and they shouldn't do it again despite everyone begging for it out of greed. It should all be handled through unemployment benefits for people who are *actually* affected by this.
> It should all be handled through unemployment benefits for people who are actually affected by this.
I'm sorry but that's reactionary. The idea of furlough in the UK is to KEEP people employed and take pressure off of the companies employing them, unemployment isn't new and I know the US has this already. Handing out money to people after the lose their jobs is...lazy. It's still something don't get me wrong, I just don't get how a country who spends multiple billions on military can't keep people in work or come up with anything better.
In the US employees can take those unemployment benefits I mentioned immediately after being furloughed, and furlough works the same here as it does there (I guess, at least in concept - a temporary unemployment with the intention of coming back to work eventually.) Many if not most of the jobs lost won't ever be coming back though because the companies they worked for will go bankrupt from lack of income against their structured debts before the economy starts moving again.
> Many if not most of the jobs lost won't ever be coming back though because the companies they worked for will go bankrupt from lack of income against their structured debts before the economy starts moving again.
That's really not true though, my company would have to make people redundant if not for the government paying mine and other colleagues wages. In turn this, like I said, takes pressure off of the company, we're digital based and can work from home with no issues, but a downturn in income has led to less work. Restrictions have started to be lifted here and work has already started coming up from what I understand. Without that I would have no job, sure I could go on benefits but i'd rather not, so that's just one example of a job NOT lost. That's my point though, the State's response is reactionary, even more so than the UK and we we're late to the party in Europe. I should point out i'm talking about your government not yourself and other American people, I get it's not your fault.
> my company would have to make people redundant if not for the government paying mine and other colleagues wages.
In the US, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has made billions of dollars in loans available to companies, and if those companies use the money to pay wages of their employees the loans are forgiven, i.e. free money. It's a different angle but the same result in terms of reducing the pressure on businesses in an effort to keep people on payroll.
> we're digital based and can work from home with no issues, but a downturn in income has led to less work.
If there's work to do, you'd still be working and making money for the company. If there's no work to do, your company would furlough you and you'd collect benefits from the government until work comes back and the company brings you back in to do it. The furlough takes pressure off the company when they don't need your labor. It works the same way here as it does there, except it's up to the company to decide if they need to furlough workers or not.
> Without that I would have no job
You would still have a job if they furloughed you, that's how furlough works even if the company does it rather than the government. It's temporary by definition.
> sure I could go on benefits but i'd rather not, so that's just one example of a job NOT lost.
Your job was no more or less "lost" than someone that was furloughed from a US employer. The only difference was who made the decision, the government vs. the employer. And you did go on "benefits" (of a sort) the same as a US employee, only your employer didn't get to choose if they needed the help or not.
Why should the government be handing out billions of dollars in money to assist workers at Walmart, Amazon, grocery chains, food suppliers, PPE factories, etc. that are making more than they ever have and need no assistance at all right now? How is that better than taking the money that would be wasted on people and companies who don't need it and giving more of it to those who do?
> The only difference was who made the decision, the government vs. the employer.
Furlough is not mandatory in the UK either if that's what you're suggesting? It's up to the company if they wish to put workers on the scheme. The furlough scheme is also available all the way until October, which is nice. I'm not trying to make this into 'US vs UK' debate and you're obviously invested in this but unless all the news is lying you guys are getting fucked no? Millions unemployed already and you guys had a pretty bad employment rate anyway right? You should be more open about criticizing your government, our government is run by rich crooks. You guys had a head's up with covid, more than we did, i'm just saying I don't know why you all seem surprised as the damage, Trump knew well before it got this bad.
> Furlough is not mandatory in the UK either if that's what you're suggesting? It's up to the company if they wish to put workers on the scheme.
Then I guess we have the same thing? If companies furlough workers in the US those workers also get access to government benefits which total about $1000 per week between state and federal programs, which is again higher than the median income in the US and therefore often higher than the wage that the person was making before being furloughed or laid off.
> I'm not trying to make this into 'US vs UK' debate and you're obviously invested in this but unless all the news is lying you guys are getting fucked no?
Not really, no. I'm trying to tell you that people who are furloughed or unemployed right now due to Covid-19 are getting about $4,000 per month from the state and federal unemployment/furlough programs in the US, which is *above* the median US income. It's really not that bad. The only problems are that the system is overloaded and it can be difficult for people to get in touch with the programs to sign up, but that's a temporary technical difficulty not a lack of support from the government.
> Millions unemployed already and you guys had a pretty bad employment rate anyway right?
Unemployment before Covid was among the lowest it's ever been since we started keeping records of it, similar to the rest of the world generally speaking. Millions are unemployed or furloughed now, but that's also the same as the rest of the world generally speaking. Our raw numbers are just bigger because our population is bigger.
> You should be more open about criticizing your government, our government is run by rich crooks.
So is ours, but they're honestly not doing a bad job with support for the people affected. They're doing a questionable job with testing and actual epidemic control, but my original point was that there is plenty of support for people affected in the US. Reddit just has a hardon for the government to be sending out checks of free money to everyone even if they're not furloughed or unemployed, because it means more free money for them to invest on Robinhood. People that are retired or are still employed at full pay for employers that are doing just fine shouldn't be getting government assistance or furlough pay. That's what all the fuss is about. People want free money even though they're not affected by covid at all. If the government should be doing more to help the people, it should only be doing it to help the people who actually need it, not just throwing money around to people who still have a stable income or are already retired.
> You guys had a head's up with covid, more than we did, i'm just saying I don't know why you all seem surprised as the damage, Trump knew well before it got this bad.
News of China's outbreak was global, don't give your leaders any benefit of the doubt. They knew about it the same time Trump did. The US had the benefit of being on the other side of the world from China but we had the same heads up everyone else did and chose to ignore it like everyone else haha.
Americans are getting an extra $600 a week through unemployment, which is enough to keep us afloat. There's plenty of people who were furloughed and are now receiving unemployment benefits.
The reason why we're not getting additional monthly checks is because the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, will not allow the Senate to reconvene and won't let them work remotely.
So Democrats in the house are putting together a bill with tons of money to the states and monthly payments of $2000ish (the amount hasn't been decided yet) both of which McConnell doesn't want, and there's about 500 bills that Democrats have passed in the house that McConnell refuses to hold a vote on.
So idk what's going to happen, the American people overwhelmingly support monthly payments, even republicans overwhelmingly support it, so maybe the political pressure will be enough to get a vote.
BUT Trump has said he'll veto any bill that has money for states. Now he might change his mind, but he seems very eager to screw over the American people as much as he can while he's still in office
> there's about 500 bills that Democrats have passed in the house that McConnell refuses to hold a vote on.
As someone who is pretty sure both sides are shit - and has no idea of any bills they have passed that are remotely adequate (ie no UBI, no M4a **during a pandemic**, etc.) - can you provide some examples?
Look, Democrats are never going to be exactly how you want them to be, because in order for them to win power, they need to be a big tent. Big tents mean that conservative who vote for them, who understand Republicans are shit, don't get exactly what they want and the progressives who vote of them don't get exactly what they want, either. No one gets excactly what they want, but we need to compromise to get anything resembling a functioning government
But Democrats are objectively better, they are trying to govern. Republicans are trying to destroy everything. The environment, voting rights, women's rights, hell they went even raise the minium wage or as an infrastructure bill.
Democrats have passed a minium wage hike, a universal background check, equal pay, expanding health coverage, bringing down prescription drug costs. They voted to extend the violence against women act which Republicans refused to vote on. They've passed net neutrality laws, election security laws and a million other really really good, important things we need
Here's a list from 6 months ago if you want to read it
This whole "both sides are bad" is something told by republicans to progressives, so they can hold onto power, because they'll think you'll believe it, instead of actually watching what Democrats do. The country will not survive with another 4 years of republicans controlling the Senate and the presidency. Many abused women will not survive at all.
>Big tents mean that conservative who vote for them,
Have to stop you there. 80-90% of Republicans support Trump and 30-40% of Democrats support Sanders. That means they are abandoning their base to chase **10%** of the **Republican party.**
How'd that strategy work in 2016?
You're absolutely correct, REPUBLICANS are pro Trump. There's a significant amount of conservatives who vote for the Democratic party, and have done so for over a decade, because they recognize the republican party is shit.
They are part of the Democratic base, and they do not get anything they want, except the truth, good governance, ethical actions and the rule of law. And what I'm talking about is not part of any stragety, it's just the makeup of the base.
If you want progress, then you need to vote for the Democratic party, because when they're in power, progress happens in the direction that you want, even if it's not exactly everything you think we should have.
Here's a great article about the makeup of the country and why Democrats need to be a big tent. The basic reason is that 2 senators per state means that republicans have 40 seats baked into the Senate, while Democrats only have 20
Plus the electoral college is absolute shit
Well, also the fact that there is a legit argument whether the long term debts of our poorly ran states should be covered by the Fed. If NY gets a bailout, why not South Carolina?
Im not defending Mitch. But Nancy ain't being a Saint here. We need small microbills - one bill for the $2000 check to tax payers. One bill for bailing out a state or states. But we've never done that and we won't start now.