|
Lib and let die posted:Yes. Let the democrats eat poo poo and lose power forever unless they shape up. I mean yeah WW 2 did get rid of Hitler. Accelerationism works!
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
"Not voting blue no matter who is accelerationism" is a take, for sureTrevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:So the the left has 0 elected politicians and instead of going with the party that is offering 70% of what the left wants, the answer is to elect more right wing politicians as punishment? You have to get it out of your head that the Democrats are offering "70% of what the left wants". A one-time $2,000 check to everyone 13 months after the pandemic officially began is a disgusting insult. Cutting it down to $1,400 because you've decided to count the $600 from the f-friggin orange hitler cheeto in the white house!!!, then openly playing with the idea that you'll means test it against 2019 income would be almost inconceivably cruel if we haven't already normalized this as business as usual and jeez, don't you know that Joe and Kamala are doing their dang heckin' best?! The left wants everyone who can to stay home and be paid to stay home until such a time where it's safe and everyone is vaccinated. If you have to work to keep society moving you deserve some sort of protection and additional compensation. I can tell you directly that, in broad strokes, any leftist that's not just appropriating the term for online clout, wants. Not $1,400 one-time checks. Not even $2,000 one-time checks. $1,400 vs $2,000 is not a failure of "the left" (which the Democrats, or at least Biden's wing of the democrats are manifestly not), it's a failure of the Democratic party to pursue the goals of even the liberal project. It's a display of staggering contempt for even their own voters, and they're doing the exact same calculus you're doing: "what are they gonna do? Vote for THE REPUBLICANS? Hahahaha!" -- but no, they'll just stay home. Frankly, as they should! This blue-no-matter-who bullshit enables conservative Democrats like Biden and his administration and their austerity goals. Nothing's going to change, and things are going to get worse, as long as people like you remain unwilling to brook any sort of criticism whatsoever about the Democratic party because the GOP is lurking around every corner. It ultimately doesn't matter because campaigning on $2,000 checks then immediately pulling back to $1,400, maybe, to some people, is going to do far, far more damage than you're going to be able to plaster over by gesturing to the Republicans now that Trump is gone. This is a massive gently caress up, and they'll keep loving up, and it doesn't matter if you've convinced yourself that you're right and people need to learn some FRIGGIN SECOND GRADE MATH!!! and THE REPUBLICANS WILL GIVE YOU $0 and $1,400 (maybe, if you get it) IS BETTER THAN $0 -- no one who isn't already a 100% blue-no-matter-who in the tank D voter thinks in those terms. At what point do these failures turn voters (especially first time 2020 voters) off? How many voters can you afford to lose now that you can't campaign against Trump? People are just going to stay home. That's it. You can get on here and wail and gnash your teeth about math and how the answer isn't to elect more right wing politicians but you're posting to nothing and no one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:You have to get it out of your head that the Democrats are offering "70% of what the left wants"... And really, the $2,000 monthly check for the duration of the pandemic is probably the compromise position, the minimum acceptable for a somewhat just response to a pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
This discussion is interesting because Democrats recognize they have to do something, either in order to win or out of genuine concern for the public good (lol), which is why they're offering "means-tested $1400 checks or you can vote for the Republicans" and not "a $1 off the McRib plus I'm gonna call you a dog-faced pony soldier or you can vote for Republicans" I don't get why people who recognize that giving away $1 McRib coupons as stimulus would be bad for Democrats even though Trump is worse, and that they need to do more, don't seem capable of comprehending the argument that fine-printing their $2000 promise down to $1400 then means-testing their new suburban voters out of even that might be bad for Democrats even though Trump is worse, and that they need to do more. Unless those people would defend $1 McRib coupons too if that's what the Party deemed appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
It's worth thinking about the psychological implications of the Ultimatum Game here. When given an unfair ultimatum, people will reject it to spite the person who devised the unfair division of money, even though that means they're worse off than they would have been if they accepted the offer. If someone offers to split $100 90/10, and you say yes, you get $10 that you didn't have before. But when offered that, people will usually reject that to try and teach the other participant a lesson even though it leaves them materially worse off than they would have otherwise been. The Democrats are right now bargaining down their offer to the American people, and the lower they go the more they risk triggering that kind of a spite response where people see how little money they're getting compared to others in society, like corporations and the wealthy, and turn against the Democrats out of spite. The problem isn't that the low-cutoff $1400 is worse than nothing, because sure, it's better than nothing. The problem is that people don't actually want to accept any deal that's better than nothing, and they will reject unfair deals to try and teach a lesson to those who proposed the unfair deal. If people interpret the Democrats' final stimulus checks, whatever they end up being, as something akin to a 90/10 (or 80/20, or 70/30, etc., but I use 90/10 here for simplicity) split of stimulus or relief or whatever, they will be unhappy about receiving their perceived 10% even if it's better than receiving zero. They're trying to frame it as "hey this is better than the Republicans were offering" without realizing that they aren't competing with what Republicans were offering, they're competing with the much higher possible stimulus that everyone knows they have the power to provide if they want to. $2000 instead of $1400 checks, and going to a higher proportion of the population than the $50k cutoff proposes, isn't just an objectively higher amount of stimulus benefiting more people, it's also a symbol of a more equitable and just division of resources, something that moves the division away from a perceived 90/10 split and therefore something that's less likely to trigger a spite response against an inequitable decision by the people in charge. In this case, the spite response wouldn't be rejecting the stimulus (which it would be in a pure ultimatum game experiment setup), but rejecting the Democrats because they independently decided to deprive you of what you saw as a just outcome. imo the psychological spite response would be even worse here because the Democrats campaigned on "$2000 checks" in Georgia and aren't delivering. So this would be more like a version of the ultimatum game where the two parties negotiated a split ahead of time, then the deciding party came back with an offer that wasn't the one that had been negotiated, which would in all likelihood trigger a far larger spite response than in the usual no-conversation structure. You might accept a 60/40 split in $100 if offered it out of the blue, since it isn't incredibly inequitable. But if you negotiate a 50/50 split and then the person submits their offer and it's 60/40, I would hazard a guess that you're much more likely to reject that since it isn't out of the blue, in fact it's a conscious betrayal of a deal you already thought had been agreed. That's the situation the Democrats are risking here, and as a result it's an incredibly stupid own goal that risks alienating basically any voter that paid attention to what they promised versus what they're now delivering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:"Not voting blue no matter who is accelerationism" is a take, for sure How many countries on the planet paid their entire population to stay home for 1.5 years it takes to vaccinate everyone like you're suggesting? If you think that nothing has been done since the start of the pandemic you are completely clueless, I'd wager you didn't lose your job? Are you working remotely from home comfortably or something, where the only benefit you've seen is stimulus checks? We've spent trillions on unemployment (like 2000+ a month to those who lost their jobs!) and paying company's salaries to keep them solvent. When did you personally decide that $600 vs $2000 checks, suddenly become 600 and additional $2k? The first time I heard that was when the left Twittersphere like AOC decided to make it a new issue mid January, before that I never heard a complaint about it because everyone knew it was 600 vs 2k, it only seemed to turn into issue so certain people could score some points
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
the US (and, indeed, the west in general) has handled covid-19 in an objectively lovely way. this is uncontestable, it's simply a matter of uncontroversial numbers. 1400vs2000 is just lovely politics for no great reason. no matter what one personally assumed and interpreted, the fact remains that the number in the campaigning was 2000, even after the previous 600 was done, and there was no obvious indication that this was meant to make whole a previous commitment. this means that the interpretation, as a GA voter, that one was voting for *an additional* 2000 is a basically reasonable one and in that situation the democrats have suddenly got cold feet for no very obvious reason and are trying to walk back their promise as much as possible again, whether this is one's own interpretation or the objectively most reasonable interpretation doesn't really matter. the point is that it's not an outrageous take on things based on the communication and campaigning in georgia, and that was totally predictable - so this is bad politics, and it's bad politics in the name of a rather unclear and at best rather conservative policy vision
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Cool thread, I'm glad the endless circle of interpretation is confined to one place. the "Want a $2000 check?" images from the Georgia runoff basically tell the whole story though. The Dems will gently caress up any opportunity that falls in their lap, either through incompetence or malice. now gimmie my loving Money, Joe
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:How many countries on the planet paid their entire population to stay home for 1.5 years it takes to vaccinate everyone like you're suggesting? This post is nothing but disingenuous bullshit, it's honestly pretty amazing. Accusing the other poster of being privileged (irrelevant to the discussion) and only caring about scoring points (irrelevant to the discussion), and not even bothering to address the issues in the quoted post. And I can't speak for them, but I personally decided that this was an issue when the Dems made it an issue by backing down on their promise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:the "Want a $2000 check?" images from the Georgia runoff basically tell the whole story though. The Dems will gently caress up any opportunity that falls in their lap, either through incompetence or malice. This is roughly my stance as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
With how stingy these politicians are being, you'd expect that the $2000 were coming out of their paychecks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:If you think that nothing has been done since the start of the pandemic you are completely clueless, I'd wager you didn't lose your job? Are you working remotely from home comfortably or something, where the only benefit you've seen is stimulus checks? We've spent trillions on unemployment (like 2000+ a month to those who lost their jobs!) and paying company's salaries to keep them solvent. We funneled extra payments to the tune of a few hundred billion (not "trillions" yet, at peak it neared 50bn per month but has largely tapered off) in to the UI system for which the requirements to qualify remained the same as ever: If you're found to have lost your job for "cause" or for any other reason UI is typically denied, you can go gently caress yourself and starve. This is in direct contrast with most other developed countries where the qualifications were generally looser "qualify if you've lost income or cannot work or find work" systems. Some of these systems also specifically support payments for those who could work but must care for their children or someone else. Other countries also offered mortgage deferment, and explicit 50-80% wage guarantees (not these ridiculously convoluted PPP "loans", for instance look at Japan's direct payroll subsidies) even if businesses were forced to close or furlough their employees. Digging at someone's privilege because you can't perceive any situation where someone wouldn't qualify for the most means-tested inconsistent state-run support system in our country is ridiculous. We haven't even spent as much on UI as we spent pointlessly pumping the stock market back in May. We have businesses around the country defying shutdown orders because the alternative is literally going bankrupt. We have people forcing themselves back to work, and demanding their kids' schools reopen so they can do so, because the alternative is starvation and homelessness. These stimulus checks are a too little, too late make-up for the support they haven't been giving us for the last year, so yes I'm going to get a little incensed when they short it by 30% from their initial promise and I'm repeatedly gaslit about it as if I should be thankful for being lied to and short changed on an already insufficient measure. Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:When did you personally decide that $600 vs $2000 checks, suddenly become 600 and additional $2k? The first time I heard that was when the left Twittersphere like AOC decided to make it a new issue mid January, before that I never heard a complaint about it because everyone knew it was 600 vs 2k, it only seemed to turn into issue so certain people could score some points Between Jan 1 and Jan 14 I heard the now president of this entire country, his vice president, and several senators say how important it was to deliver $2000 checks. I assumed (correctly, it has been revealed) that they were talking about an entirely new package, because I and tens of millions of others had already received the $600 from the previous package. Then, yes, right around mid-January Biden's team revealed the $1400 check lie and a bunch of people got incensed about it. It's plainly stated to be an entirely separate package now, not an amendment to the package in December, and this is plain in the outright discussion of adjusting the qualification guidelines for the next check. When did you decide that the $2000 should include a specific prior payment from months ago, but not the one from a bit further back? Is there a statute of limitations on check recombination? Solanumai fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:How many countries on the planet paid their entire population to stay home for 1.5 years it takes to vaccinate everyone like you're suggesting? It's very telling that I'm talking about how the Democratic strategy of austerity is failing not only the left, but their own political project, and you want to have an argument about how I'm being an ungrateful whiny baby. I won't poke too hard there but you should probably ask yourself if it's me that you're trying to convince? At any rate, the bare minimum the -- and I must stress this -- Trump administration did to keep the consumer economy from completely and utterly collapsing isn't exactly something I'm going to lavish praise upon. The new guy coming in, good 'ole Decorum Joe who has finally banished the evil, vile, fascist, most-dangerous-president-in-history Donald Trump, whose name we curse forever (but uhhhhh are going to count his last $600 check as ours too), promised $2,000 checks. That's how they won Georgia. I'm sorry you weren't paying attention to this but that's why they did. Literally "$2,000 checks out the door". Not "$1,400 checks because Drumpf *spit noise* gave you $600 already". I don't care, nor does it matter, you think this is a "fair" reading or that the Trump administration "did enough" (they didn't, just FYI) it is bad strategy. You promise $2,000 and give $1,400 and instead of being happy for the money they get, people will be upset because they need the $600 also that you promised and didn't deliver on. This is going to make people stay home next time you ask them to Vote! for Kamala Harris over Tom Cotton or whoever. Again, it doesn't matter if you don't think these voters are being fair or they're being disingenuous or big greedy bullies or whatever -- backpedaling on their promise and then blaming their constituents for not understanding is applying the gun directly to the foot at a time where they cannot. afford. to. lose. voters now that Trump has been totally excised from the picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:With how stingy these politicians are being, you'd expect that the $2000 were coming out of their paychecks. I mean their real paychecks come from their donors who are telling them to not give people money so it might as well be coming out of their checks
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Booourns posted:I mean their real paychecks come from their donors who are telling them to not give people money so it might as well be coming out of their checks I feel like when you're talking about elected officials like this, it's sort of a mix of direct donor demands and the politicians themselves genuinely just agreeing with the donors (because it's a lot easier to just convince yourself that everything you're doing is actually the most good and reasonable).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Booourns posted:I mean their real paychecks come from their donors who are telling them to not give people money so it might as well be coming out of their checks What big donors feel strongly about supporting $1400 stimulus checks but are opposed to $2000 stimulus checks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 04:32
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:What big donors feel strongly about supporting $1400 stimulus checks but are opposed to $2000 stimulus checks? Those who see spending money on the social safety net as a slippery slope that leads to higher taxes for them, ie: most or all of them. Also those whose wealth depends on poor people relying on their underpaid jobs to survive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Those who see spending money on the social safety net as a slippery slope that leads to higher taxes for them, ie: most or all of them. Also those whose wealth depends on poor people relying on their underpaid jobs to survive. Nobody is going to quit their job because they get an extra $600 check from the government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Nobody is going to quit their job because they get an extra $600 check from the government. No, but again, the wealthy see things like these as slippery slopes, which is why floating the idea of even the slightest tax increase is met with the shrillest of shrieks from them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:What big donors feel strongly about supporting $1400 stimulus checks but are opposed to $2000 stimulus checks? There is a lot of talk of lowering the payments further and restricting who receives the payment (means testing!) so much that Biden Bucks will go to fewer people than Trump Bucks. I'm not sure who is actually advocating for lower stimulus payments. I think the only reason the Democrats are pushing for as much as $1400 being sent to nearly everyone is because Trump already mailed checks to everyone. Heck, I received over $1000 Trump Bucks. I'm sure if Trump didn't do that, then Dems would means test these checks way harder like they did in 2009. Only beneficiaries from certain federal programs received checks, and a lot of people had a tax rebate. It was stupid and barely anyone noticed it. A big part of why no there is no consideration for $2000 or more is because there is no lobbying group pushing for that. A few senators and congressmen may push for the idea, but there is no interest group promoting giving people big checks. It doesn't help that the Dem congressmen and senators are mostly old and rich ducks who are far more conservative than the their voters. Rich ducks don't want to help people. Rich ducks don't want to send people free money because then they can't abuse their workers because people will say "gently caress this poo poo I got Biden's big check" and go home. Which is actually what we want during a pandemic but rich ducks don't care about anyone else. And yes my phone keeps autocorrecting f-ucks to ducks and it's great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, but again, the wealthy see things like these as slippery slopes, which is why floating the idea of even the slightest tax increase is met with the shrillest of shrieks from them. donors were far more opposed to the unemployment increases, not the checks, and there has been zero controversy over UI payments, so trying to draw a line from senators to donors in this specific instance seems tenuous, at best
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 05:45
|
|
|
Aruan posted:donors were far more opposed to the unemployment increases, not the checks, and there has been zero controversy over UI payments, so trying to draw a line from senators to donors in this specific instance seems tenuous, at best They can be (and likely are) opposed to both. You can bet they'd be opposed to regular monthly checks. I don't think the line between donors' preferences and the politicians they donate to is tenuous at all; there's a reason why so much of what the government does benefits the rich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
There's a reason that the mainstream political ideology of the western world is violently opposed to the very idea that government can be a positive effect on the lives of people at all. It's because the wealthy donors paid to make it that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 08:29
|
|
|
Well, if it’s not the deficit, and it’s not the donors I guess the cruelty is the point!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1358883692236705800
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 04:24
|
|
|
The "but not even Bernie and the Squad support $2k checks so you shouldn't either" talking point continues to age well
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:How many countries on the planet paid their entire population to stay home for 1.5 years it takes to vaccinate everyone like you're suggesting? It became an issue because the Democrats campaigned on $2,000 checks in the run up to Georgia and began breaking that promise immediately after.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 14:58
|
|
|
 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Gulping Again fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Feb 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
I'm not sure what exactly is allowed in USPol, so I'll note here that the new phaseout thresholds mean a certain percentage of people who got a Trump check will not get a Biden check. Which once again underlines the fact that "600+1400=2000" was always bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I'm not sure what exactly is allowed in USPol, so I'll note here that the new phaseout thresholds mean a certain percentage of people who got a Trump check will not get a Biden check. Which once again underlines the fact that "600+1400=2000" was always bullshit. Someone in USPOL mentioned it worked out to ~3% less than the last round, which is only a mere 3,000,000ish people. But this is the best possible outcome! E: I estimated 3,000,000. https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1367164931183902720 Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Someone in USPOL mentioned it worked out to ~3% less than the last round, which is only a mere 3,000,000ish people. But this is the best possible outcome! at a certain point even lib media has to at least acknowledge what a tactics failure this all is, right? Like, Maddow or whoever the big name in that world is now eventually has to say 'well yea it's p. bad to not only do the whole 'actually $1400 is $2000' game but then also ensure millions who got the Donald Dollars won't get Biden Bux' right? They can't just keep gaslighting us can they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Someone in USPOL mentioned it worked out to ~3% less than the last round, which is only a mere 3,000,000ish people. But this is the best possible outcome! The Democrats will means test themselves into the grave and they will deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
https://theweek.com/speedreads/970024/joe-biden-just-yanked-away-stimulus-checks-from-17-million-americansquote:During the campaign for the two Georgia Senate races, Joe Biden repeatedly promised to pass $2,000 stimulus checks if the Democrats won. After they did, the administration argued that $2,000 really meant $1,400 in addition to the $600 that had already gone out in the December rescue package.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I'm not sure what exactly is allowed in USPol, so I'll note here that the new phaseout thresholds mean a certain percentage of people who got a Trump check will not get a Biden check. Which once again underlines the fact that "600+1400=2000" was always bullshit. Matt Breunig made this point on Chapo a few weeks ago with a great example: If you're arguing 600 + 1,400 = 2,000, but not everyone who got the 600 will get the 1,400 due to new thresholds, what's the limit where you can still say the $2k promise was kept? If you gave $1,400 to exactly one person who got the $600, would they $2k promise still be met in your mind?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:https://theweek.com/speedreads/970024/joe-biden-just-yanked-away-stimulus-checks-from-17-million-americans I realize this is just splitting hairs, but his math is probably wrong. The cap for payments was $87K for single filers and $174K for joint filers for the $600 round of payments. The caps he lists were applicable for the first round of 1200 payments, and I thought that’s what he might’ve been referring to, but after reading the whole thing, he specifically called out the $600 payments in the first paragraph. All that said, I think means testing any of these payments was dumb, but on the third one, they should’ve at least kept the caps the same as the second one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
generic one posted:I realize this is just splitting hairs, but his math is probably wrong. The cap for payments was $87K for single filers and $174K for joint filers for the $600 round of payments. The caps do basically mean that even saying "we're finishing the mission of getting you $2,000" is a lie, so from that perspective alone this is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:The caps do basically mean that even saying "we're finishing the mission of getting you $2,000" is a lie, so from that perspective alone this is dumb. I agree, I was just pointing out his calculation of 17 million people being impacted was probably wrong, because he’s using the difference between 80-100K instead of 80-87K for singles, and 160-200K instead of 160-174K for joint filers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:at a certain point even lib media has to at least acknowledge what a tactics failure this all is, right? Like, Maddow or whoever the big name in that world is now eventually has to say 'well yea it's p. bad to not only do the whole 'actually $1400 is $2000' game but then also ensure millions who got the Donald Dollars won't get Biden Bux' right? They can't just keep gaslighting us can they? I think the new line is "ok they lied but the only people materially affected by the lie don't matter/won't really be affected/it's a small lie so the lie doesn't matter."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Not surprised by the added means-testing. Seems like Dems think 2022 is years away and not next year. Thought this thread might enjoy this image.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:The Democrats will means test themselves into the grave and they will deserve it. I just wish they'd hurry up and die so that we can iether get full fash, or at least a party further left then Manchin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:45
|
|