Riot 4: Rocky Vs. Ivan

Well the easy answer is just give out money. All the money. Problem solved.

I joked about Yang not being able to bribe his way to a nomination but trump might be able to with a new UI and multiple stimuli.

his people are dumb enough to believe he's the one making sure the dirty dems don't hold their money back.

(it IS true that dems are holding it up, BECAUSE $200 is insufficient, this is an important fact. and while 200 is better than 0 it effectively is zero)((among other things stuffed into the proposal))

Let's be honest, Dems would hold it up if it was $2,000 unless they were able to somehow distance the idea from coming from Trump and call it their own, which they could actually easily do since their zealots believe anything they or their media says.

Like always both sides *** up.

R holding it up because 600 is too much. Or D holding it up because 200 is too little. It's just perspective. Who do you blame. They're both guilty.

$200 is too much. Hell, when things were getting better, unemployment was still high because more people were making more from extra $600 unemployment than they were doing regular work. And I'm sure there is a significant portion of unemployment benefits paid to people who were still employed. Mainly because it was (and still is) so easy to game the system.

Lost your job? Claim unemployment and gain equal or greater wages per week than you were before.
Got offered your job back? Still claim unemployment because it pays more.
Got your job back but part time/reduced hours? Work and still get your additional $600/week, even if your overall benefits were reduced.

I'm glad it's going away today. There were way too many people who refused work because the government trough was too big of a benefit over actually supporting yourself and your family. And, after it is all said and done, I guarantee you that there will be a lot of fraud uncovered, and some study released that shows that greater than 25% of UI recipients should have never received that money in the first place.

I'm trying not to wade into these threads right now, but come on, man. Just say you hate the poor and be done with it.

Have you ever filed for unemployment? Because I haven't in a while, but last I checked, the system isn't "easy" for anything. Even getting the money you're owed - yes, owed, because UI comes out of every paycheck - is a horrible, lengthy process that takes weeks and involves a bunch of hoops to jump through.

Remember when the pandemic first really started to hit and New Jersey and Florida's UI systems collapsed under the weight? I was fielding cold calls from recruiters about how much COBOL I knew because the New Jersey system needed to be fixed so badly.

That's mostly a function of wages being stagnant for so long. The federal minimum wage hasn't gotten an increase since 2009. The tipped wage is $2.13 an hour. Even if those people were working, how much money are they going to make? Do they just deserve to starve because they weren't born rich?

Is that gonna be before or after they uncover all the voting fraud that also doesn't actually happen?

And if you think I'm being unfair, answer me this:

How is "quoting a study that doesn't exist and fraud you have no evidence of as justification for millions of Americans going hungry/being put on the street" translate to anything other than "I hate the poor".

I would have thought a global pandemic would have taught people the need for compassion for those less fortunate. Because let me tell ya, you want riots? Wait til the evictions start to hit. People with nothing left to lose aren't going to think twice about getting violent.

I do not hate the poor. I hate people who take benefits away from those who need it the most, and this system in place allow people to claim unemployment, and the bill itself allows states to increase their unemployment rolls and allows the federal government to pay not only the $600/week "bonus unemployment," but also 30% of the unemployment paid out that the state would have normally paid to said individuals.

Can you tell me honestly that states wouldn't be lining up to boost their rolls, as they would be the most to really benefit from this?

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, or at least hope it wasn't easy to apply/receive.

I do know that Texas at least has relaxed their rules where you don't even have to say you are looking for work (one of the main aspects of claiming unemployment in Texas is that you have to prove you are looking for work). They even relaxed it where all you have to do is say you were laid off because of COVID and, as long as your last employer on file doesn't say otherwise, they will generally pay it out.

I can only speak for what happens for Texas, but I think it is safe to assume that it is the same across the country, since the bill above encourages said behavior.

Only in Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania do employees pay unemployment insurance. And only state level.

Employers pay UBI (unemployment benefits insurance), both on the Federal and State level, and only for certain thresholds (aka first $9,000 of taxable income for federal, and states differ on theirs).

And minimum wages increases do not increase real wages. Source.

There are many aspects associated with wage growth, but increasing it forcefully usually has a negative effect over time, where real growth occurs naturally due to increased innovation, increase productivity, and increased demand, as long as all other things remain equal (major shocks, such as the 2008 recession for example). Real wages have been increasing substantially in the past 3 years due to our much stronger economy that is not fueled by government growth.

Want to really have this conversation? Shall we start at the definition of fraud, since I think that is where the biggest disconnect between you (and Vic) and I seem to have?

Fraud is not missing signatures on mail-in ballots. Fraud is not late mail-in ballots. Fraud is somebody else voting for you by stealing your ballot from the mail. Fraud is changing your vote as you mail your ballot from your post box. Fraud is throwing away your ballot when a "volunteer" collects it from your house, or changing your vote when a "volunteer" collects it, opens the envelope, and changes it to what they want (even if they use a numbering system, there will be occasions where the voter "forgets" their envelope and the "volunteer" has one just available for those situations).

Just because widespread fraud hasn't existed in the past doesn't mean we should allow it to occur through a system that has absolutely no safeguards against such fraud.

Because I understand human nature. I know how greedy people can be, as it is shown on a daily basis. Hell, that is one of the virtues about capitalism, using human greed and transforming it into social good.

Honestly, I think we do more good through charity than government intervention. For one, government has a lot of waste and cannot accurately determine where to direct funding for the most good (given the fact that many businesses who received PPP funding ended up giving it back because it was bad press, along with the fact that these companies are worth billions, and could weather such storm for a short while) along with unforced errors, such as allowing people who make up to $100k/year receive a stimulus (honestly, people who make $60k-100k have means to weather such storms, but that's a different topic at hand) where the ones who are truly needy receive equal amounts as those who do not need as much (aka nice to have, not to survive).

As for rent evictions and other high-cost of living areas that will be hit hard when the money stops flowing from government coffers, honestly, who's fault is that really? Is it the fault of some guy in Wisconsin? Or is it the fault of somebody in New York City? High-cost of living areas are a multitude of bad decisions (not by citizens mainly, their bad decision is continuing voting for people who continue to make bad decisions, even after it is shown that they make bad decisions) over the course of decades.

Texas has a "rainy-day fund" just for situations like this. Texas is not hurting due to COVID-19. Texas could pay for everything they have paid out to Texans and not have to worry too much about it (as long as it doesn't last for long that is, the fund is only there to support short-term disasters, not long-term). You cannot say the same for any Northeastern State, as their coffers were run dry well before this hit. And now they are demanding that the federal government to rescue them from bad decisions they themselves made.

If violent riots hit because of this, it will occur mainly in locations where state and cities have failed their citizens for planning for such occasion. And before you can say that they couldn't have, that's why you have a "rainy day fund".

you forgot to mention that the postal service could also not even deliver the ballot to the voter or to the election officials in a timely manner ~ even lose it somewhere. resulting in a disenfranchisement of the voter where they have zero control

Hmm I'm of two minds on the matter. I do believe that a social safety net is necessary to prevent short term disasters from ending a society. I also know for a fact that when such systems become permanent it creates great incentives to not work at the lower echelons.

This goes with what I said while back about how money is just a representation of time and that nothing is "Free". So I ask people, what is being exchanged for that UI? Theoretically it's supposed to be a tax on past and future wages, meaning it's temporary and that the money received is in exchange for past and future time. Now what happens when progressives demand such systems be made indefinite as a form of Universal Basic Income? Yeah that's when we have problems.

Thankfully most UI programs require you have worked in the past and be separated through no fault of your own so they are functioning properly.

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/unemployment-insurance

Interesting thing is that welfare in the USA is quite cheap, well if we remove the abused Medicare / Medicaid system.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2020USbn_21bc6n_30#usgs302

Unemployment is quite small in that list. "Family and Children" is the biggest non-medical category and that's for children of poor families. Now the conservative argument is that "financially unstable people shouldn't have children", upon which I respond that the Constitution disagree's. You can't argue for freedom from Progressive oppression while simultaneously asking to impose your own oppression.

There's that too.

Back in March when they were writing the CARES act both parties explored the idea of changing all 50 states unemployment systems to pay out 70% of wages. They asked the Labor Dept. how viable of a plan it was and they were told it would take weeks for the states with a good system in place to implement it, months for everyone else, and some states might never be able to implement it (Florida). So Congress scrapped that idea, and went with the flat rate of $600/week on top of whatever good or bad system each state had in place. It worked for all the states.

We thought the pandemic would be subsiding by the end of July and people would be going back to work. Got that one wrong. In the last two weeks 2 million people have filed for unemployment for the first time. There are over 30m Americans unemployed right now and its not their fault. The pandemic is still raging on.

So on July 27th, 4 days before the deadline, the Republicans unveiled their old idea to once again try to change all 50 states unemployment systems to pay out 70% of their wages. They asked the Labor Dept how viable it was now and they got the exact same answer. Weeks for the good states, months for everyone else, maybe never for Florida. So they said ok we will keep the old system in place until each state gets our system up and running, but reduce it to $200/week. Everyone on board? Oh, we got 20 or more Nays, lets go ask the Dems! All of them said hell no.

And thats where we are. Don't try to change the unemployment system for the entire country when there are 30m people out of work and covid is still in every state. If you want to reduce the weekly payout to a lower number thats fine. Start there. Trying to jam the Dems with a bad idea while losing the messaging war is never going to work. Half the GOP is going to vote no anyway, they have been abundantly clear about that.

Source? Since, you know, states and federal government doesn't release stats until the first Friday of each month (aka next week).

Source

1) Not the first time. Those are total unemployment claims.
2) It continues on a downward path. Expect the July monthly rate/numbers to be lower than June monthly rate/numbers.
3) Let's see what August 8th numbers look like, as that will be the first week without the $600/week benefit. Mind you, my theory only holds true if the states continue their relaxed work benefits, and nothing changed between August 1st and August 8th.

My guess is that you will see a very sharp decrease in August 8th total unemployment claims.

What exactly do you think the word INITIAL means?

Sorry, for some reason I saw 20 mil, not 2 mil.

Alright, would you like to start over? Or just delete bullet point #1?

Just delete bullet point #1. The premise still stands.

Real wages have gone up, the effect is extremely localized though. Major Democrat run cities are *** as employers are looking for any way possible to keep headcount down.

On the topic of minimum wage, there should be absolutely no federal minimum wage. Every State is it's own miniature country with it's own economy, standard of living and requirements. The economic reality of living in California is radically different then living in Mississippi. Even with a State economics can vary radically between regions.

I'll use Virginia as an example because it's where I currently live and have updated knowledge of.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dickensoncountyvirginia,arlingtoncountyvirginia,richmondcountyvirginia,loudouncountyvirginia,VA/AFN120212

2018 numbers


With those radically different values how can any single policy cover the entire geographic region? Even the "statewide" number is way different then the extremes in both directions. We can see this pattern repeat across the nation, no single economic policy could possibly work for everyone.

This is why I strongly disagree with a national minimum wage and mostly disagree with state-wide ones. Things like minimum wages need to be determined at a regional level based on the Real Cost of Living.

I'm not expecting a "sharp decrease" for a few reasons. #1 being California closed down a lot of businesses in July, and their daily cases totals remain high, so I don't expect them to come out of their caves as early or as quickly this time. California unemployment will be enough to keep the numbers at least flat.

Second reason being there is enormous pressure on Washington, Trump in particular, to do something about the expiring UI and the evictions. Both of those are huge issues, and they will bring the WH to the table. People know that even if the UI expires, whatever solution Congress comes up with will be retroactive to July 31, because thats what happened in March.

People will probably, well definitely because nothing is happening this week, have to go a pay period with their state's unemployment. But I would be shocked if something wasn't done by the second pay period.

As for the evictions I don't know what they will do. I honestly don't. It would be nice to see them just pass a short term extension for the evictions only, but we can't have nice things in 2020.

Hmm didn't make it into the post. Those are Median Household Income levels across the state.

2016 Election results by county

https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/virginia/

People can cross reference the MHI values with the election results and come to a shocking conclusion, the Democrats are living in stupid wealthy / high income areas.

Which is why I said August 8th. I highly doubt they will pass anything within the next 2 weeks, since it's still be debated and it still takes a short while for the President to sign.

That's easy to do, but it's a state problem, not a federal problem.

Some states (such as NY, for example), already have on the books to stop all evictions from occurring. They just need to keep changing the date their EOs stay on the books.

As for compensating land-owners, just have a complete freeze on residential rental property taxes. Most states already have a separate property tax category for residential rental property taxes, so it's not hard to implement.

There, problem solved. Rental companies are already benefiting from PPP and EIDL loans. And rental companies own their own properties (or have them mortgaged). If you want to take the extra step, stop mortgage interest from accruing for residential rental companies. And only residential rental companies.

I blame Rooks.

Basically, Mark Meadows stated that there were 4 proposals offered to the dems, and not only were they immediately rejected, there has not been a counterproposal for any of those 4.

So, yeah, placing blame on the Republicans isn't going to fly this time Vic.

It sure is, because Meadows, who isn't qualified for his job, is lying. There is a counterproposal from the Dems, there has been for 2 months. Extend the fully functional $600/week program until the end of the year. We are not changing the unemployment system for every state, especially when we have the Labor Dept. saying it might not even be possible for some states. Until the GOP abandons that bad idea, they aren't being serious.

You...do know what a counterproposal is, right?

I get it, you have this crazy *** for blaming everything and anything under the sun on Trump and the Republicans, except when something good happens.

But seriously, your automatic default "he lies!" excuse doesn't help your argument at all.

Expect more protests, riots, and CHAZ/CHOP/whatever is cool now in Seattle:

Seattle to fully disband police force.

Like their other social experiment, expect this one to backfire hard on them.

I wonder how many more of these types of social experiments the Seattle public will continue to take before there's a radical change in leadership?

Any guesses Chanti?

I do know what a counteroffer is. We have seen this failed tactic from the WH before, back during the Trump shutdown at the end of 2018. The WH kept asking Pelosi for a counteroffer to Trump's border wall demands, and she flatly told them she already passed her counteroffer, fund the gov't with no border wall. Thats all they got, she never moved.

Fast forward to today, they are trying to create nonexistent pressure on Pelosi to come up with a plan to bail them out, because they don't have the votes for ANY of their proposals. She already did, she passed it 2 months ago. Don't expect her to move too much. Maybe she will come down to 4-500 a week, but I doubt it. She has the votes for her offer, and it would pass the Senate. Its way easier to peel off 13 Republicans, especially when they are so divided.

You just stated the real problem: Both sides not willing to compromise.

Why do you think the White House isn't willing to compromise with Pelosi? Is it because of past negotiations that she basically told the President "stuff it!"?

Besides, the Republicans are more united than you think. But I'll never say the democrats aren't united. They are basically Pelosi's puppets. The impeachment proceedings showed that. They literally have no independent thoughts of their own.

I feel sorry for the districts that elected a D who stated that they wouldn't be a Pelosi Puppet. They were lied to.