Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Biden’s plan: 1.9 trillion for Covid relief


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Except this wasn't a landslide victory.  Reagan's victory was a landslide.  This wasn't that.  Not even close.

Wait, we have been told by Trump supporters in this forum (not by you) for 4 years that his win in 2016 was a landslide. Biden got the same number of electoral votes, yet that is now not considered a landslide (and Biden got a record number of  popular votes). 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sand said:

If we were in the business of truth in advertising we'd name this bill the Ending the US Currency Reserve Status Bill - Salvo 1.

I fully expect more salvos - student loan forgiveness, state bailouts, climate bills.  We're destroying ourselves from within.

Agreed. Add in unfunded liabilities and we are now past the point of no return. Although I would respectfully rename it Salvo 5. 

1) Paulson/Bernanke Bailout, 2) Obama/Yellen QE + deficits, 3) Trump tax cuts, 4) Pandemic QE infinity, 5) The Blue Wave mega-stimuli years

From Ray Dalio:

Most people pay attention to what they get and not where the money comes from to pay for it, so there are strong motivations for elected officials to spend a lot of borrowed money and make a lot of promises to give voters what they want and to take on debt and non-debt liabilities that cause problems down the road. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Sand said:

If we were in the business of truth in advertising we'd name this bill the Ending the US Currency Reserve Status Bill - Salvo 1.

I fully expect more salvos - student loan forgiveness, state bailouts, climate bills.  We're destroying ourselves from within.

Thoughts on the 2017 tax cuts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rct said:
27 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Except this wasn't a landslide victory.  Reagan's victory was a landslide.  This wasn't that.  Not even close.

Wait, we have been told by Trump supporters in this forum (not by you) for 4 years that his win in 2016 was a landslide. Biden got the same number of electoral votes, yet that is now not considered a landslide (and Biden got a record number of  popular votes). 

Which is why I added the "(right?)" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic negotiating. First draft you ask for more than you than you will actually accept. The goal is to cut those that aren't priorities and end up where you intended all along. 

Consider the minimum wage a trial balloon for later. I'll be very surprised if it's in the final draft. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rct said:

Wait, we have been told by Trump supporters in this forum (not by you) for 4 years that his win in 2016 was a landslide. Biden got the same number of electoral votes, yet that is now not considered a landslide (and Biden got a record number of  popular votes). 

That's a good point. I think I heard I heard the word "mandate" more times post-2016 POTUS election than I heard in all eight seasons of Will and Grace. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rct said:

Wait, we have been told by Trump supporters in this forum (not by you) for 4 years that his win in 2016 was a landslide. Biden got the same number of electoral votes, yet that is now not considered a landslide (and Biden got a record number of  popular votes). 

Well if they did then that was incorrect.  I know I never said it. 

For the very definition of a electoral landslide you need to see Reagan.  Anything short of that is just a win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stoneworker said:

Agreed. Add in unfunded liabilities and we are now past the point of no return. Although I would respectfully rename it Salvo 5. 

1) Paulson/Bernanke Bailout, 2) Obama/Yellen QE + deficits, 3) Trump tax cuts, 4) Pandemic QE infinity, 5) The Blue Wave mega-stimuli years

From Ray Dalio:

Most people pay attention to what they get and not where the money comes from to pay for it, so there are strong motivations for elected officials to spend a lot of borrowed money and make a lot of promises to give voters what they want and to take on debt and non-debt liabilities that cause problems down the road. 

 

 

Your point is unanswerable. 

And yet what would you have us do? Are you really proposing that we do nothing? That the free market will just sort things out? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, timschochet said:

Well you just explained the problem yourself: the employer would have to charge an extra buck per drink. Which means less drinks purchased, which means less income, which means the employer can’t afford it, 

Now you may be assuming that the customer will be willing to spend an extra dollar on the drink instead of an extra dollar on the tip, but it doesn’t work that way. 

My lived experiences respectfully disagrees.  I'm not an economist, but I assume there is such a thing as alcohol multiplier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

Classic negotiating. First draft you ask for more than you than you will actually accept. The goal is to cut those that aren't priorities and end up where you intended all along. 

Consider the minimum wage a trial balloon for later. I'll be very surprised if it's in the final draft. 

Why is the Biden team negotiating anything? Do they not have the votes? It seems like he’s not even moved in yet but already caving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Your point is unanswerable. 

And yet what would you have us do? Are you really proposing that we do nothing? That the free market will just sort things out? 
 

My post was a factual response to a statement that the U.S. is on a path due losing its reserve currency status, and that the Biden stimulus pkg was contributing to that. I agreed. Then I listed several fiscal/monetary events that were precursors, then a quote from a respected investor about historically-proven rationale behind those events.

Pretty big leap from there to "proposing we do nothing" and "let the free market just sort things out." I don't mind having a conversation, but kind of tough when you kick it off by putting words in someone's mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

My post was a factual response to a statement that the U.S. is on a path due losing its reserve currency status, and that the Biden stimulus pkg was contributing to that. I agreed. Then I listed several fiscal/monetary events that were precursors, then a quote from a respected investor about historically-proven rationale behind those events.

Pretty big leap from there to "proposing we do nothing" and "let the free market just sort things out." I don't mind having a conversation, but kind of tough when you kick it off by putting words in someone's mouth.

OK fair enough. My question remains: what would you have us do? 
It’s not supposed to be an argument on my part. I’m concerned about the debt as well. And yet there are several urgent things that we’re going to have to spend money on: COVID relief. Infrastructure. Dealing with climate change. What’s the solution? 

Edited by timschochet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Why is the Biden team negotiating anything? Do they not have the votes? It seems like he’s not even moved in yet but already caving. 

You do want to give the opposition a win. I have no clue if that’s what Team Biden is doing, but you allow the other side in this game to say they got something.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, urbanhack said:

Thoughts on the 2017 tax cuts?

Complicated, but I generally thought they were a bad idea.

At least I thought the cuts at the top should have been paired with removing the SS tax income cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

OK fair enough. My question remains: what would you have us do? 
It’s not supposed to be an argument on my part. I’m concerned about the debt as well. And yet there are several urgent things that we’re going to have to spend money on: COVID relief. Infrastructure. Dealing with climate change. What’s the solution? 

I'm generally fine with Biden's plan since this is an emergency...but would jettison the minimum wage, child tax credits, etc. and focus almost exclusively on vaccine distribution and stimulus.

One huge problem with the stimulus to date is that it's not being spent. The savings rate has skyrocketed and money velocity is near an all-time low. Millions of millennials are actually putting their stimulus into the stock market. So I'd address those things to better target spending in the economy.

When you ask about the "solution" of course there is only one answer...and that is to go through a turbulent period of deleveraging that will look similar to the 70's after Nixon took us off the gold standard and our currency devalued. Either do that voluntarily or suffer the same de-stabilizing fate due to overleverage/overextension as every other empire in history. Market forces don't care that we don't think it will happen to us.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting in a $15 federal minimum wage and getting rid of the server minimum wage? In a Covid stimulus bill? Businesses fighting to survive and provide jobs already. Ugh. My business would be fine, but this is just stupid. 

Minority parties generally have a mid-term bounceback anyway, but crap like this is going to lead to a red tidal wave.

We got stuck with the 80 year old dude because he's a moderate. And it worked. Now, he's gonna go ahead and alienate the moderates a week before he's even freaking inaugurated. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pollardsvision
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pollardsvision said:

Putting in a $15 federal minimum wage and getting rid of the server minimum wage? In a Covid stimulus bill? Businesses fighting to survive and provide jobs already. Ugh. My business would be fine, but this is just stupid. 

Minority parties generally have a mid-term bounceback anyway, but crap like this is going to lead to a red tidal wave.

We got stuck with the 80 year old dude because he's a moderate. And it worked. Now, he's gonna go ahead and alienate the moderates a week before he's even freaking inaugurated. 

 

 

 

 

Yep, didn’t take Biden long to let his terrible policy ideas get in the way. Packaging his terrible minimum wage idea with this is one of the worst ideas I’ve seen. 
 

ETA did I just see he reduced the stimulus check amounts to $1400 as well? Wow. 

Edited by GoBirds
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

How about we just get rid of that $15 minimum wage.  Get rid of that extra in unemployment.  Get rid of unemployment.  Not have any programs to defer or forgive or whatever for rent, mortgages, or any other commitments.   Not have any pandemic related loans or what not.  And the list of things to get rid of goes on and on.  Instead how about we just institute a UBI and M4A and call it a day.   Maybe we call this the the Covid New Deal or something catchy, but the positive end results will be lasting for as long as their is a republic.   And if we believe that automation is the threat to the middle class that some suggest or could be then lets pay for this and everything else via taxing consumption rather than income.  Lets not let this opportunity born of a crisis go to waste like we did the Great Recession a decade ago.  

Yeah, I know.  We got Biden so thinking big is unlikely.  But lets think for BIG for him. 

Deal.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interest payments on the debt are very low as a % of GDP.  And interest rates are so low as to be irrelevant.  So taking on long-term debt right now does not really cause problems -- especially because future growth and inflation will erode the true cost of the debt.  The rates are mostly fixed for decades at historically low levels.

The problem comes when interest rates rise and the US continues to spend, because we don't fund government at its current levels from national income and rely on debt.  Or when rates are high and we have another crisis or war.  Or when no one wants to lend us money anymore.

But none of those things are true today, so we can use debt to avoid the worst impacts of COVID and we should use debt right now to invest in long-term infrastructure (trades/job training, transportation, public works, power grid, etc).  And, IMO, to redress the incredible income inequality that's developed since 1980.  It was policy-ed in and it can by policy-ed out.

There likely will be a crisis at some point in the future, when the situation is different and we don't adjust our spending, but today we can do it.

This video from Ray Dalio is fantastic IMO.  And he talks about how to "beautifully de-leverage" at the end (which is where we have been for the last 10 years or so).  27:00 is where he talks about the value (and risks) of government debt in a deleveraging and how it does not cause inflation if it's offsetting a decline in total credit.  The situation is different than 2008, but it's a relevant point today as well and it's worth understanding.

Trump's Tax Cuts for Billionaires program wasn't bad because it increased the debt, it was bad because it increased the debt in an inefficient way -- with less of the money going into the "real" economy than should have happened.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Yep, didn’t take Biden long to let his terrible policy ideas get in the way. Packaging his terrible minimum wage idea with this is one of the worst ideas I’ve seen. 
 

ETA did I just see he reduced the stimulus check amounts to $1400 as well? Wow. 

No. The additional stimulus was always an add-on to the original $600. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

No. The additional stimulus was always an add-on to the original $600. 

The fact Biden's taking fire from the left on this is amazeballs.  He proposed $2000, we got $600 so he quite reasonably pushes for another $1400 and he's getting pummeled for it.  Ouroboros are jealous at the ferocity with which liberals eat their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MTskibum said:

We need to raise taxes and cut spending, we do not need another stimulus.

I don’t follow this closely enough to be able to offer an opinion so I won’t but I will ask a question, at some point we have to just stop printing money and actually address the deficits we’re piling up, right? This probably isn’t the time given the hole we are in w/COVID but certainly soon, right?

Lotta good discussion in here guys that have helped me understand the guts of this proposition much better, thanks!

Edited by beer 30
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fruity pebbles said:

Gotta agree with you guys on this one. Minimum wage hikes should happen when unemployment is at a low not at a high. 

If we think that minimum wage will be hiked to $15 in the relatively new future AND we think that will prevent some businesses from being viable, then it seems like now is the exact right time to do it.  I don’t want the pandemic to end and to have a bunch of people start new businesses that won’t be able to survive paying employees at that level.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dawgtrails said:

30K a year is still a pretty lousy salary. It is also amazing that the federal minimum wage hasn't increased in 10 years. Shouldn't it just be tied to cost of living index or something?

My understanding (and please someone correct me if I’m wrong) is that the federal minimum wage amount is currently irrelevant because it’s been a state issue and all 50 states have a minimum wage higher than the old federal amount. It would become an issue with this new bill because $15 is higher than many states and so would affect them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading the minimum wage discussion in thread and the very good and smart arguments made on all sides, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that: 

1. I’m for it so long as there are carve outs- for small businesses in particular. Without such carve outs I’m against it. 
2. I’m against eliminating the servers and tipping minimum wage. But I’m open to the idea of raising them proportionately if you’re going to raise the overall minimum wage, with the same carve outs for small businesses as above. 
3. While I’m against these proposals as they currently are presented, thats not enough for me to oppose the entire package. The overall bill is too important and urgent to oppose solely on this issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

The fact Biden's taking fire from the left on this is amazeballs.  He proposed $2000, we got $600 so he quite reasonably pushes for another $1400 and he's getting pummeled for it.  Ouroboros are jealous at the ferocity with which liberals eat their own.

I’m not suggesting there is any collusion or “good cop/bad cop” being played here, but let me just offer the thought that Biden is never hurt when the far left opposes him. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GoBirds said:

ETA did I just see he reduced the stimulus check amounts to $1400 as well? Wow.

:confused: Every proposal I read said it would be to be a total sum of $2K (an additional $1400).  Not sure what the US media is reporting, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were lied to by them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Commish said:

:confused: Every proposal I read said it would be to be a total sum of $2K (an additional $1400).  Not sure what the US media is reporting, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were lied to by them again.

Yea, this is pretty simple math. Folks had been calling for 2K all along, but the last stimulus only gave folks 600. To go back to their original proposal, an additional 1400 gets you there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, timschochet said:

My understanding (and please someone correct me if I’m wrong) is that the federal minimum wage amount is currently irrelevant because it’s been a state issue and all 50 states have a minimum wage higher than the old federal amount. It would become an issue with this new bill because $15 is higher than many states and so would affect them. 

Incorrect. There are 5 states that have no state mimimum (AL, LA, MS, SC, TN) thus the federal rate is the law. In addition there are 2 states (GA, WY) that have state minimums of $5.25, but employers a re subject to Fair Labor Standards Act and must pay the $7.25. There are also 14 states that seem to just go along with the federal rate. The federal rate is highly relevant.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dawgtrails said:

Incorrect. There are 5 states that have no state mimimum (AL, LA, MS, SC, TN) thus the federal rate is the law. In addition there are 2 states (GA, WY) that have state minimums of $5.25, but employers a re subject to Fair Labor Standards Act and must pay the $7.25. There are also 14 states that seem to just go along with the federal rate. The federal rate is highly relevant.

Thank you. I wasn’t sure about that. 
So nearly every state without a minimum is located in the Deep South? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Thank you. I wasn’t sure about that. 
So nearly every state without a minimum is located in the Deep South? 

Where the cost living is significantly less. Tough issue to solve when things cost2-3x more in some places. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Thank you. I wasn’t sure about that. 
So nearly every state without a minimum is located in the Deep South? 

Maybe the min wage should be tied to the cost of living in that area.  Obviously $15/hour in NYC and in Jackson MS are two totally different things.   Say 9.50 in Jackson MS = $15 in NYC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Except this wasn't a landslide victory.  Reagan's victory was a landslide.  This wasn't that.  Not even close.

How do you define landslide victory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Maybe the min wage should be tied to the cost of living in that area.  Obviously $15/hour in NYC and in Jackson MS are two totally different things.   Say 9.50 in Jackson MS = $15 in NYC.  

Let states decide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, timschochet said:


So nearly every state without a minimum is located in the Deep South? 

Yes. And the ones who have set it rigth at the federal lever of $7.25 is not shocking either. ID, IA, KS, KY, NH, NC, ND, OK, PA, TX, UT, VA, WI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Yes. And the ones who have set it rigth at the federal lever of $7.25 is not shocking either. ID, IA, KS, KY, NH, NC, ND, OK, PA, TX, UT, VA, WI

I would bet most big cities in those states have higher minimum wages.  Not the most recent, but a copy of Milwaukee's - https://county.milwaukee.gov/files/county/comptroller/Audit/Minimum-Wage/2019/2019-MinimumWageFlyer-NoticetoEmployeesdhhsratesmar119.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'd be ok with this if the states had to deal with the "welfare" concept....leave it out of the hands of the feds in this case.

Hard to imagine this moving to the states though. It would create some disasters in the deep south. Welfare programs probably require the ability to run a deficit as well. They are going to be most needed when income is down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

Hard to imagine this moving to the states though. It would create some disasters in the deep south. Welfare programs probably require the ability to run a deficit as well. They are going to be most needed when income is down. 

Don't disagree at all.  Most of the deep south already takes from the federal government more than they provide...which is ironic given all the "BUT SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!" stuff that comes from down here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2021 at 2:36 PM, Sand said:

If we were in the business of truth in advertising we'd name this bill the Ending the US Currency Reserve Status Bill - Salvo 1.

I fully expect more salvos - student loan forgiveness, state bailouts, climate bills.  We're destroying ourselves from within.

Still four more days until Republicans have to pretend they care about the deficit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my favorite part of the bill is the child tax credit expansion. The consequences of living in poverty as a child are terrible and Biden’s proposal would reduce childhood poverty by 40%. That is massive.

  • Like 2
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, caustic said:

I think my favorite part of the bill is the child tax credit expansion. The consequences of living in poverty as a child are terrible and Biden’s proposal would reduce childhood poverty by 40%. That is massive.

It is a great step. But really, there is beyond zero reasons why we can't properly feed and house children in this country. Yes, some parents suck, but the kids deserve way better from us

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...