Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 (/thread-20132.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 (/thread-20132.html)
Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - BostonCard - 07-23-2020
I thought this table was helpful to get a sense for what the bill (which I expect to pass in some form) will include.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/1286300826777067521?s=20[/tweet]
BC
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - dabigv13 - 07-23-2020
The low cap limits and low amounts are effectively punishment for folks in Democratic high cost of living areas. And also presumably will remain based on 2019 returns with no relevance to the present situation. If you made 80 grand last year scraping by in LA or SF or NY with little savings and took a big income hit this year, this will do zilch for you.
Also no state and local aid is economic suicide.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - chrisk - 07-23-2020
(07-23-2020, 06:22 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: The low cap limits and low amounts are effectively punishment for folks in Democratic high cost of living areas. And also presumably will remain based on 2019 returns with no relevance to the present situation. If you made 80 grand last year scraping by in LA or SF or NY with little savings and took a big income hit this year, this will do zilch for you.
Also no state and local aid is economic suicide.
There is no agreement within the Republicans let alone with Democrats on how the direct payments will be structured.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - lex24 - 07-23-2020
(07-23-2020, 06:22 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: The low cap limits and low amounts are effectively punishment for folks in Democratic high cost of living areas. And also presumably will remain based on 2019 returns with no relevance to the present situation. If you made 80 grand last year scraping by in LA or SF or NY with little savings and took a big income hit this year, this will do zilch for you.
Also no state and local aid is economic suicide.
Well, perhaps the Calif legislature can give some relief. Not, obviously, at the same level as the Feds. But some help.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - OutsiderFan - 07-24-2020
California's previously robust financial position was wiped out. All states and their local governments need federal government help, as do tens of millions of citizens.
What I find comical is the National Debt is now $27 Trillion - and amount that can never be paid back - and some people are concerned about adding more than another $1 Trillion when that amount isn't going to make much of a dent in the scale of problems faced.
- 50 million unemployed and/or underemployed
- Tens of millions facing eviction
- Tens of thousands of business bankruptcies
- Mortgages can't be paid
- State and local governments losing massive tax revenue
All while our money is being de-valued. If the U.S. were a business it would be in receivership. Of course so too would most countries built on the "you have to pay your debts but we don't" central banking paradigm.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - BostonCard - 07-24-2020
In 1946 nominal GDP was $228 billion; debt was $242 billion, so about 106% of GDP. At the time, it probably seemed like that amount "could never be paid back".
Our GDP currently is $21 trillion, so the debt is about 25% higher than GDP. Although it seems impossible to pay back, with 2% GDP growth and 2% inflation (nominal GDP growth of 4%), the GDP in 50 years will be almost $150 trillion, so our current debt of $27 trillion will be easily manageable. If you run the economy hot and allow for higher inflation (say, 3%), GDP will be $240 trillion The issue is, of course, not running a deficit between now and then.
BC
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - chrisk - 07-24-2020
The problem with big deficits now is the looming structural deficits of Social Security and Medicare. In the post-WWII era, Social Security was still collecting assets and Medicare did not yet exist. Reagan pushed through a Social Security "fix" in 1983 that has saved it for over 25 years, but Republicans long ago lost religion on fiscal responsibility.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - 76lsjumb - 07-24-2020
(07-24-2020, 11:14 AM)chrisk Wrote: ..., but Republicans long ago lost religion on fiscal responsibility.
Yeah, well, Democrats never had it...
[Had to sneak that in before the Terry Rule cops showed up. :-)]
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - Mick - 07-24-2020
(07-24-2020, 10:57 AM)BostonCard Wrote: In 1946 nominal GDP was $228 billion; debt was $242 billion, so about 106% of GDP. At the time, it probably seemed like that amount "could never be paid back".
Well...it never was paid back. And 1946 is the well chosen example. Prior to WWII, American had 1/4th of the world's manufacturing. Immediately after WWII, the rest of the industrial world was destroyed and American had half of the world's manufacturing, with years and years of trade surpluses to come. We haven't seen a trade surplus since the 1970s, and today we have about 18% of global manufacturing.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - OutsiderFan - 07-24-2020
You can't use GDP and debt percentages because the tax ratios and receipts have changed. Those changes led to the government collecting less money, while putting things it didn't have the money to pay for, on the credit card that constantly increases the debt.
And 76, here's the fact-based story on U.S. debt: https://www.cbpp.org/research/getting-the-facts-straight
Quote:When President Bush took office in January 2001, the federal budget was on a more promising course than any President had inherited in decades. The budget had run surpluses for three straight fiscal years (after running deficits for nearly 30 years in a row) and was on course for a surplus in fiscal year 2001. More importantly, both President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if the policies in place when President Bush took office remained unchanged, the budget would generate surpluses that would total $5.6 trillion over the next ten years[2] — more than enough to pay off the entire outstanding federal debt held by the public.
But President Bush and Congresses changed those policies sharply (and the economy did not perform as well as anticipated), and, as a result, large projected surpluses turned to large deficits. For fiscal years 2001 through 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Bush left office, the $3.5 trillion of surpluses that CBO had projected for these years turned into deficits of $2 trillion. [3] A look behind these numbers is revealing.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - 76lsjumb - 07-24-2020
(07-24-2020, 02:48 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: You can't use GDP and debt percentages because the tax ratios and receipts have changed. Those changes led to the government collecting less money, while putting things it didn't have the money to pay for, on the credit card that constantly increases the debt.
And 76, here's the fact-based story on U.S. debt: https://www.cbpp.org/research/getting-the-facts-straight
Quote:When President Bush took office in January 2001, the federal budget was on a more promising course than any President had inherited in decades. The budget had run surpluses for three straight fiscal years (after running deficits for nearly 30 years in a row) and was on course for a surplus in fiscal year 2001. More importantly, both President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if the policies in place when President Bush took office remained unchanged, the budget would generate surpluses that would total $5.6 trillion over the next ten years[2] — more than enough to pay off the entire outstanding federal debt held by the public.
But President Bush and Congresses changed those policies sharply (and the economy did not perform as well as anticipated), and, as a result, large projected surpluses turned to large deficits. For fiscal years 2001 through 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Bush left office, the $3.5 trillion of surpluses that CBO had projected for these years turned into deficits of $2 trillion. [3] A look behind these numbers is revealing.
You may be too young to remember this, but GWB actually tried to tackle Social Security reform -- the topic of the preceding thread -- and he didn't exactly get much support for that from Democrats. As for your "fact-based story", let me know when you have a source that's not comprised mostly, if not entirely, of former Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - OutsiderFan - 07-24-2020
(07-24-2020, 03:25 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(07-24-2020, 02:48 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: You can't use GDP and debt percentages because the tax ratios and receipts have changed. Those changes led to the government collecting less money, while putting things it didn't have the money to pay for, on the credit card that constantly increases the debt.
And 76, here's the fact-based story on U.S. debt: https://www.cbpp.org/research/getting-the-facts-straight
Quote:When President Bush took office in January 2001, the federal budget was on a more promising course than any President had inherited in decades. The budget had run surpluses for three straight fiscal years (after running deficits for nearly 30 years in a row) and was on course for a surplus in fiscal year 2001. More importantly, both President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if the policies in place when President Bush took office remained unchanged, the budget would generate surpluses that would total $5.6 trillion over the next ten years[2] — more than enough to pay off the entire outstanding federal debt held by the public.
But President Bush and Congresses changed those policies sharply (and the economy did not perform as well as anticipated), and, as a result, large projected surpluses turned to large deficits. For fiscal years 2001 through 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Bush left office, the $3.5 trillion of surpluses that CBO had projected for these years turned into deficits of $2 trillion. [3] A look behind these numbers is revealing.
You may be too young to remember this, but GWB actually tried to tackle Social Security reform -- the topic of the preceding thread -- and he didn't exactly get much support for that from Democrats. As for your "fact-based story", let me know when you have a source that's not comprised mostly, if not entirely, of former Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks.
So if Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks say 2+2=4 you aren't going to accept it as truth?
These are actual facts based on actual numbers, with assumptions agreed on by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and George W. Bush's own Budget Office. What difference does it make who publishes them?
These aren't policy debates. They are independently agreed on budget and debt payoff projections. The fact is when GWB took over the Oval Office, the United States was on a trajectory to be debt free by 2011. People may not like this. They may now want to believe it, but no matter how much they stomp their feet, hold their breath, bury their head in the sand, click their heels like Dorothy, or stick their Democrat voodoo doll, this fact isn't ever going to change. It will always be the truth. Denying it is the behavior of baseless conspiracy theorists.
And OMG, SS cuts didn't need to be made to have a budget surplus. I mean, again, "if the policies in place were followed" (and this means keeping SS and Medicare contributions the same as when GWB took office), we would be able to pay off the debt by 2011.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - BostonCard - 07-24-2020
(07-24-2020, 11:41 AM)76lsjumb Wrote: [Had to sneak that in before the Terry Rule cops showed up. :-)]
Quick, change the subject to COVID-19; a Terry rule cop has been spotted.
BC
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - teejers1 - 07-24-2020
(07-24-2020, 04:07 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(07-24-2020, 03:25 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(07-24-2020, 02:48 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: You can't use GDP and debt percentages because the tax ratios and receipts have changed. Those changes led to the government collecting less money, while putting things it didn't have the money to pay for, on the credit card that constantly increases the debt.
And 76, here's the fact-based story on U.S. debt: https://www.cbpp.org/research/getting-the-facts-straight
Quote:When President Bush took office in January 2001, the federal budget was on a more promising course than any President had inherited in decades. The budget had run surpluses for three straight fiscal years (after running deficits for nearly 30 years in a row) and was on course for a surplus in fiscal year 2001. More importantly, both President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if the policies in place when President Bush took office remained unchanged, the budget would generate surpluses that would total $5.6 trillion over the next ten years[2] — more than enough to pay off the entire outstanding federal debt held by the public.
But President Bush and Congresses changed those policies sharply (and the economy did not perform as well as anticipated), and, as a result, large projected surpluses turned to large deficits. For fiscal years 2001 through 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Bush left office, the $3.5 trillion of surpluses that CBO had projected for these years turned into deficits of $2 trillion. [3] A look behind these numbers is revealing.
You may be too young to remember this, but GWB actually tried to tackle Social Security reform -- the topic of the preceding thread -- and he didn't exactly get much support for that from Democrats. As for your "fact-based story", let me know when you have a source that's not comprised mostly, if not entirely, of former Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks.
So if Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks say 2+2=4 you aren't going to accept it as truth?
These are actual facts based on actual numbers, with assumptions agreed on by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and George W. Bush's own Budget Office. What difference does it make who publishes them?
These aren't policy debates. They are independently agreed on budget and debt payoff projections. The fact is when GWB took over the Oval Office, the United States was on a trajectory to be debt free by 2011. People may not like this. They may now want to believe it, but no matter how much they stomp their feet, hold their breath, bury their head in the sand, click their heels like Dorothy, or stick their Democrat voodoo doll, this fact isn't ever going to change. It will always be the truth. Denying it is the behavior of baseless conspiracy theorists.
And OMG, SS cuts didn't need to be made to have a budget surplus. I mean, again, "if the policies in place were followed" (and this means keeping SS and Medicare contributions the same as when GWB took office), we would be able to pay off the debt by 2011.
Remind me, was that "trajectory" caused by the Internet Bubble I? C'mon now . . .
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - BostonCard - 08-11-2020
So, since I first posted, the talks have reached an impasse, and Trump has issued some executive orders, which may or may not actually result in anything.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/08/11/no-stimulus-deal-anytime-soon-789805
But it seems like there will not be a deal in the imminent future; the House has gone home, but are on notice to come back in 24 hours if a deal is reached. Mark Meadows, the President's chief of staff, is also "out". More distressingly, both sides think they have the upper hand politically here, because of course what matters is not helping Americans, but putting the other side into a pickle. Also distressing:
Quote:In fact, we are told it could be weeks before any serious talks resume barring any significant events like Wall Street sell-offs or a run of truly dismal economic data.
Because again, how the stock market does is more important than helping Americans.
BC
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - dabigv13 - 08-11-2020
Important to note the House passed a bill in May. The Republican led Senate has yet to propose a bill that can pass their caucus. In fact, any final bill will likely need D votes to pass the Senate because some right wingers will veto it for being government spending. No both sides to the politics here.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - OutsiderFan - 08-11-2020
The Republican Party is not a governing party. It is a white grievance party. People may not like to read or hear this, but it is the 100% truth.
This isn't the first time the GOP couldn't muster enough votes to pass something when it controlled a chamber of Congress. It also couldn't pass a budget when it controlled the House from 2016-2018. It could have found Democrats to support a bill that would get enough votes to pass, but they were hell bent on passing only with GOP votes. It's idiotic, but that's how they roll.
The common denominator is the ideologues in the party are responsible for its dysfunction. Democrats have an activist left wing in their tent, but its party leadership doesn't pander to it or allow it to disrupt the party's ability to govern. Perhaps this is because the GOP, again, isn't interested in governing, as much as it is complaining and blaming others to consolidate its power for sale to the highest bidder. Its whole incentive system to get into office is based on being crazier than the previous guy. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why QAnon conspiracy cranks are starting to win GOP primaries.
Democrats have plenty of bad ideas. We need at least two parties that are serious about governing and compromising, but only have one. The only way to ever change this is to vote the GOP out of office en masse in November, and hope it gets the message that the American people aren't going to tolerate a party in power that can't govern, so it has no choice but to change.
I mean who among us doesn't want to go back to the days of boring House and Senate hearings, regular order, and the parties working long into the night at a deadline to pass a bill that does something to show the American people their government can work for them? Who wouldn't want to hear stories about lawmakers from different parties having lunches and dinners together? United in purpose we succeed. Divided in purpose we fall.
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - teejers1 - 08-11-2020
(08-11-2020, 12:07 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The Republican Party is not a governing party. It is a white grievance party. People may not like to read or hear this, but it is the 100% truth.
This isn't the first time the GOP couldn't muster enough votes to pass something when it controlled a chamber of Congress. It also couldn't pass a budget when it controlled the House from 2016-2018. It could have found Democrats to support a bill that would get enough votes to pass, but they were hell bent on passing only with GOP votes. It's idiotic, but that's how they roll.
The common denominator is the ideologues in the party are responsible for its dysfunction. Democrats have an activist left wing in their tent, but its party leadership doesn't pander to it or allow it to disrupt the party's ability to govern. Perhaps this is because the GOP, again, isn't interested in governing, as much as it is complaining and blaming others to consolidate its power for sale to the highest bidder. Its whole incentive system to get into office is based on being crazier than the previous guy. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why QAnon conspiracy cranks are starting to win GOP primaries.
Democrats have plenty of bad ideas. We need at least two parties that are serious about governing and compromising, but only have one. The only way to ever change this is to vote the GOP out of office en masse in November, and hope it gets the message that the American people aren't going to tolerate a party in power that can't govern, so it has no choice but to change.
I mean who among us doesn't want to go back to the days of boring House and Senate hearings, regular order, and the parties working long into the night at a deadline to pass a bill that does something to show the American people their government can work for them? Who wouldn't want to hear stories about lawmakers from different parties having lunches and dinners together? United in purpose we succeed. Divided in purpose we fall.
76LSJUMB, I don't think you need worry about "sneaking" anything in before Terry cops come marching in . . .
And that's "the truth!" (even though people may not like to read or hear this . . .).
RE: Coronavirus relief bill version 4.0 - Scooter_Stepford - 08-11-2020
(08-11-2020, 12:07 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The Republican Party is not a governing party. It is a white grievance party. People may not like to read or hear this, but it is the 100% truth.
This isn't the first time the GOP couldn't muster enough votes to pass something when it controlled a chamber of Congress. It also couldn't pass a budget when it controlled the House from 2016-2018. It could have found Democrats to support a bill that would get enough votes to pass, but they were hell bent on passing only with GOP votes. It's idiotic, but that's how they roll.
The common denominator is the ideologues in the party are responsible for its dysfunction. Democrats have an activist left wing in their tent, but its party leadership doesn't pander to it or allow it to disrupt the party's ability to govern. Perhaps this is because the GOP, again, isn't interested in governing, as much as it is complaining and blaming others to consolidate its power for sale to the highest bidder. Its whole incentive system to get into office is based on being crazier than the previous guy. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why QAnon conspiracy cranks are starting to win GOP primaries.
Democrats have plenty of bad ideas. We need at least two parties that are serious about governing and compromising, but only have one. The only way to ever change this is to vote the GOP out of office en masse in November, and hope it gets the message that the American people aren't going to tolerate a party in power that can't govern, so it has no choice but to change.
I mean who among us doesn't want to go back to the days of boring House and Senate hearings, regular order, and the parties working long into the night at a deadline to pass a bill that does something to show the American people their government can work for them? Who wouldn't want to hear stories about lawmakers from different parties having lunches and dinners together? United in purpose we succeed. Divided in purpose we fall.
Are you a comedy writer?