|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 15, 2020 16:09:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Apr 15, 2020 18:33:00 GMT -5
wonder if I'll actually qualify for this
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 15, 2020 21:27:20 GMT -5
wonder if I'll actually qualify for this Are you making more than $130k per year (or $260k per year if married and filing jointly)? If so, you won't qualify. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 15, 2020 22:16:40 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it a stunt, but it will be DOA. The bill says nothing about how it will be funded. Additionally, there's nothing to say that a person on unenjoyment can't "double-dip"... ditto for Social Security recipients, etc. (If provisions for such were actually written in, I didn't see 'em.)
Good feelz, but ripe for a lot of amendments which will essentially gut the actual execution, even while proclaiming the intent all the more fiercely.
And come to think of it...... By the time this thing could get itself passed in both chambers of Congress, the King will have "opened up the country and returned everything back to normal", so the need for such a bill will be moot.
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Apr 15, 2020 22:30:13 GMT -5
nah i just haven't filled taxes in a number of years. technically self-employed but i don't have employees so i don't qualify for the sba programs. just a 'tweener. few years back when something like 75% of our income was going towards rent web didn't make enough to live with racking up credit card but too much for any sort of assistance
not complaining because it is what it is and my quality of life is miles beyond when i worked all the friggin time
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 16, 2020 23:15:31 GMT -5
And come to think of it...... By the time this thing could get itself passed in both chambers of Congress, the King will have "opened up the country and returned everything back to normal", so the need for such a bill will be moot. Well akshully ...the authors of this bill claim there will still be a need for this after we begin to resume business as usual, because many small businesses have already gone belly-up and there will be tons to follow in the near future. Their 'plan' is to continue payments until at least 60% of all persons of working age are actually working. But when you consider the size of this ... two stacks per month for a single person, four stacks per month for a married couple, five and a half stacks per month for a family with three children ... it's YUGE. There aren't enough members of the Communist ... erm, I mean ... Democratic party who are that far left so the chance it will pass in the House and move on to the Senate are pretty much nil. But Tim Ryan and Ro Khanna will surely make the most of their opportunities to grandstand on the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 17, 2020 6:30:45 GMT -5
There aren't enough members of the Communist ... erm, I mean ... Democratic party who are that far left so the chance it will pass in the House and move on to the Senate are pretty much nil. LOL. Only in America, where the Democratic party is right-wing by any measure viewed from European politics — and earns its 'left-wing' label only in opposition to the Republican party — could New-Deal-style suggestions to sustain the Americans that actually put in the work to create value, through a public health crisis in which they cannot, be daubed with the 'Communist' label. Screw the public, eh? The extension of the basic social contract — shared payment for shared systems and shared infrastructure — to shared economic mitigation against a national pandemic is something even the UK's conservative government has adopted to get through this. The time for ideologies has passed. Now we see what economics actually work. But Tim Ryan and Ro Khanna will surely make the most of their opportunities to grandstand on the issue. Every smidgen of community-minded ideology is merely posturing to hoodwink people? Compassion is just a social signal, it doesn't actually exist? A heartbreaking viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 17, 2020 7:12:30 GMT -5
Tim Ryan is my congressional representative, and I like him a lot. I don't think this plan has much chance of being enacted, but it's nice to see a proposal to help workers and families, rather than the stimulus that the Senate passed (with the House forced to go along because of the crisis), which provides billions in corporate bailouts, to be doled out willy-nilly with no oversight.
This, a couple of years after said corporations got a huge tax cut, most of which they spent on stock buy-backs. Now, there's a crisis, and they're strapped, so they want Federal bailouts.
So, it's "socialism" when Ryan proposes income support for working class folks, but not when we give money to large corporations to bail them out from their poor decisions.
We have socialism in America, but only for the well-off, when things are on the way down. As was said by someone, we "privatize the profits and socialize the risks".
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 9:44:29 GMT -5
The extension of the basic social contract — I don't recall signing one of those. Do you have a copy of that you can show me? |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 9:49:58 GMT -5
Tim Ryan is my congressional representative, and I like him a lot. I don't think this plan has much chance of being enacted Is your opinion of the probability of this being enacted based upon the evil, uncaring conservatives blocking it or the fact that the monetary amounts being being offered are absurdly generous? |
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Apr 17, 2020 9:55:43 GMT -5
The extension of the basic social contract — I don't recall signing one of those. Do you have a copy of that you can show me? it's called your birth certificate |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 10:07:00 GMT -5
it's called your birth certificate Erm ... I'm quite sure I didn't sign mine. Did you sign yours? And does yours include any language regarding " shared payment for shared systems and shared infrastructure"? I'm absolutely certain mine doesn't, but if you can cite such statements or similar on your, I'm willing to listen. |
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Apr 17, 2020 10:09:29 GMT -5
i am glad you are being intentionally obtuse because maybe you'll get a chuckle at the very real answer of:
your mom did
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 10:32:18 GMT -5
Nope. I'm looking at mine right now, and the only signature on it was that of the hospital's Registrar. And you didn't answer my other question. Where is the language that defines this social contract?
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 17, 2020 11:59:32 GMT -5
Ya know, we started out with a straightforward question ("Is this for real?"), and now we've veered into the old "straw man" argument. ("Right Turn, Clyde!") I've been down that road, way too often, so I speak from experience when I say that this is one argument that can never be "won" by either side.
As long as it remains civil, I'll not say anything more. Indeed, I'll be interested in seeing if anything new (to me) is brought forth.
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 12:11:43 GMT -5
Ya know, we started out with a straightforward question ("Is this for real?"), and now we've veered into  |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 17, 2020 12:51:34 GMT -5
It is a folly of many arguments that Side A focuses on only one supporting predicate of Side B's argument (i.e. the "contract-iness" of the social contract), and Side B mistakenly places the weight of their entire argument's validity on that predicate, forgetting that the rest of their argument stands strong. I would like to see that not happen here.
Having said that:
LOL, ReTread believes that everybody should have an axiomatic right to choose everything! Presumably the terms of ReTread's choices are supplied to him in contracts written in language he made a conscious choice to learn, having been exposed to it via culture he could make a choice to integrate into, and educated with infrastructure he could choose to opt out of, in a country he made an informed choice to live in. I'm sure ReTread's choices aren't influenced by his upbringing or reliant on advantages he has no choice to be born into. After all, nobody is inherently tied to the support of their surroundings! Everyone is wholly removed from their community — that's why Bangladesh has as many billionaires as America. And thus nbody has a responsibility to sustain the same community that sustained them. Because "freedom" really means a lack of responsibility towards what provided you the opportunity to take on responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 17, 2020 12:53:25 GMT -5
The social contract is encoded in our DNA, you've got it whether you like it or not. We were social before we were human. All of our closest genetic relatives live in social groups. The extended family, the tribe, the community- these are the basic units within our species, the individual comes lower in the hierarchy.
The Lockean ideal of a "State of Nature" wherein Man was a self-reliant individualistic actor is simply an historical/anthropological crock of excrement. Such a state has never existed and never will, because it is contrary to our shared biology.
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 13:04:12 GMT -5
ReTread believes that everybody should have an axiomatic right to choose everything! That goes miles beyond run-of-the-mill presumptiveness. That's flat out slander. I never made such a claim. Feel free to write your own narrative. But when try to write mine for me, you only expose yourself as incapable of debate. |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 13:16:21 GMT -5
The social contract is encoded in our DNA, you've got it whether you like it or not. We were social before we were human. All of our closest genetic relatives live in social groups. The extended family, the tribe, the community- these are the basic units within our species, the individual comes lower in the hierarchy. The Lockean ideal of a "State of Nature" wherein Man was a self-reliant individualistic actor is simply an historical/anthropological crock of excrement. Such a state has never existed and never will, because it is contrary to our shared biology. Those are pretty words, newey. At least up to the part where you resorted to comparing what you disagree with to excrement. But the reality is: There is a balance between our obligation to our fellow man and our own right to self-determination. |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 17, 2020 13:19:30 GMT -5
Your self-determination was nurtured by your fellow man, you libertarian *profanity removed*.
Bold font doesn't make outhouse arguments more effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Apr 17, 2020 13:22:58 GMT -5
no man lives on an island. the only reason i am accessing this website through data in the air reaching my cellphone is because a long time ago people decided that living communally and providing necessities for each other instead of living in a savage zero sum world would result in a better existence for all. when you add your cattle to my corn harvest we both eat tamales! 1 + 1 = 2
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 13:23:28 GMT -5
Your self-determination was nurtured by your fellow man, you libertarian dimwit. Bold font doesn't make outhouse arguments more effective. Dimwit? You find it necessary to resort to ad-hominem insults? That's a sign of weakness. |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 17, 2020 13:26:42 GMT -5
Oh darling, directly calling you a *profanity removed* as an ad hominem slip doesn't invalidate all the other logical arguments that prove you to be a *profanity removed*! Didn't you take logic classes before you decided to play logician?
|
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Apr 17, 2020 13:31:46 GMT -5
hey let's try to keep the language somewhat family friendly
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 17, 2020 13:33:21 GMT -5
Oh darling, directly calling you a *profanity removed* as an ad hominem slip doesn't invalidate all the other logical arguments that prove you to be a *profanity removed*! Didn't you take logic classes before you decided to play logician? lol, that volley speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 17, 2020 23:08:29 GMT -5
I've yet to see you reply with a more convincing argument than bolded text (edit: and calling the Democratic party the Communist party like you were Abe Simpson) for what amounts to social autism, the 'right' to transcend responsibility for your fellow human, and for what amounts to being a leech, benefiting from all the opportunities and advantages others provided you with no compulsion to sustain them in return.
Might I suggest you move to Western Somalia, where truly you may rule your own destiny. Make sure to avoid public highways on the way to the airport, and maybe try to guess your way there so that you don't use the reading comprehension someone taught you for free to follow road signs. Make sure to not use the bathroom until you get to Africa! Sewer systems require communal responsibility. But also you can't poo outside in public, because that responsibility extends to commonly-owned land, so I recommend you proudly exercise your right to self-determination and soil yourself.
Honestly Tread, I feel for you. The world hurt you at some point and you seem to think the way to avoid it is the right to check out. John Donne's "no man is an island" springs to mind. As does Albert Einstein: "The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society."
People have thought hardcore libertarianism was crackpot rubbish for years. It's not too late for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 18, 2020 7:06:17 GMT -5
Gents, this is going seriously off the rails here. No one in this forum has the right to swear at other members or engage in personal attacks. We either debate things civilly or we shut this down.
To the extent that I may have personally contributed to any of this discussion going South, I apologize. Now, let's move on. The current situation has everyone on edge, but we needn't let it play out here.
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 18, 2020 8:18:03 GMT -5
To the extent that I may have personally contributed to any of this discussion going South, I apologize. I don't think anything you've said was particularly egregious although there are some points I tend to somewhat disagree with. Particularly regarding nature, DNA, and Social Contract theory. Perhaps we'll get back to that as the temperature subsides. Some apology by sumgai and me, is warranted as our interaction might have been misinterpreted as a wider license. But there's more to the story, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 18, 2020 8:19:12 GMT -5
I've yet to see you reply with a more convincing argument than bolded text I only used bold on a dozen words. Yet even with the bold you completely missed the one key word which is a salient point in any discussion where a socio-economic/political issue is involved. That was a snarky reply directed at sumgai in reference to him calling the President of the United States 'the King'. I'm not at all surprised that you only picked up on one side of that. But one passing barb countered with another singular barb doesn't grant universal license for a third-party to abandon all decorum and resort to personal attacks. I'll give you some credit for dressing that one up. Far more elegant on the surface than your previous attempts to belittle with repetitions of ' *profanity removed*'. But when the underlying intent is still based on a false presumption and inherently ad-hominem, it is a bit like putting lipstick on a pig. That one surely did give me a giggle. Ironically similar to the reaction when one takes an opposing viewpoint in a (US) Conservative echo chamber and the toothless-hick style of canned reply is presented: 'murica ... love it or leave it. Same melody, different key. That's a good one. The pretense of being concerned and caring. A bit disingenuous, given your previous and later attacks, though. Again, you're being presumptive and judgmental. Not to mention being another failed attempt at writing a narrative for me. I'm not in lock-step with you, therefore I must be damaged in some way. lol The folly of an idealist is to summarily dismiss any ideology (which isn't their own) and brand it as being rubbish. A realist recognizes that any socio-economic system will work if there are perfect people involved. The full range, all the way from sole dictatorship to anarchy, will function efficiently and effectively with perfect people. That same realist also recognizes the real world isn't comprised of perfect people and there is not one singular pure ideology that functions perfectly in this imperfect world. A successful government doesn't rely on a single ideology. The truth exists somewhere between. But it is necessary for people to spend at least as much time listening as they spend talking.
Are you ready to re-read the bolded text and find the keyword? Give it a try, there are only a dozen from which to choose! |
|
