Republicans vs Republicans

[protectionist]

On the one side, it is argued that Mitch McConnell is only giving in to Democrats' economic stimulus demands, because it is politically hazardous to allow Democrats to blame Republicans for not giving the American people economic relief when they badly need it.

On the other hand, it's argued that this money will have to be paid back, at some point, probably by future generations, who will get stuck with the bill.

While I don't disagree with both of these, I would like to add 2 more points of my own >>>

1. Many Americans are suffering, unexpected and extraordinary losses of income, and are in great need of economic assistance.

2. Many American businesses are suffering, and putting money into the hands of the lower economic classes of Americans, will surely see that money being pumped back into the economy, as $ALE$ for those businesses.

I think politics or no politics, debt or no debt, the stimulus checks are helpful and necessary.

 

[RodISHI]

Never got the 1rst so called stimulus and we are pretty cash poor and have been since the bank and the court pulled all its fraud in 2002. A lot of people including a lot of so call Republicans have basically said too bad get over it. So to all those ones I say "get over it" and "get a job" (no job? make one)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

On the one side, it is argued that Mitch McConnell is only giving in to Democrats' economic stimulus demands, because it is politically hazardous to allow Democrats to blame Republicans for not giving the American people economic relief when they badly need it.

On the other hand, it's argued that this money will have to be paid back, at some point, probably by future generations, who will get stuck with the bill.

While I don't disagree with both of these, I would like to add 2 more points of my own >>>

1. Many Americans are suffering, unexpected and extraordinary losses of income, and are in great need of economic assistance.

2. Many American businesses are suffering, and putting money into the hands of the lower economic classes of Americans, will surely see that money being pumped back into the economy, as $ALE$ for those businesses.

I think politics or no politics, debt or no debt, the stimulus checks are helpful and necessary.

What is necessary is to end the illegal economic shutdowns, let all businesses fully open, and allow and encourage all who are able to go back to work.

And to remove from office, and criminally prosecute for fraud and malfeasance, every single public servant who was responsible for these shutdowns in the first place.

No matter the excuse, shutting down large portions of the economy is unsustainable, and ultimately, taking money in taxes from those few who are still allowed to work to produce wealth, to be given to those forced into idleness, is no solution to the resulting economic disaster.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I don't agree with giving the general public enough money, so that they won't bother going out looking for a job and just be happy sucking on the government teat. Eventually, the money runs out. A common mistake is that when a government runs out of money, they just print more, then it becomes a runaway train wreck, with spiraling inflation, where you see people using wheelbarrows full of largely worthless currency. So, Americans have to get back to work. The last thing we need to see is a repeat of Venezuela, where people are starving, eating their pets and scrounging for food anywhere they can find it.

 

[protectionist]

I don't agree with giving the general public enough money, so that they won't bother going out looking for a job and just be happy sucking on the government teat. Eventually, the money runs out. A common mistake is that when a government runs out of money, they just print more, then it becomes a runaway train wreck, with spiraling inflation, where you see people using wheelbarrows full of largely worthless currency. So, Americans have to get back to work. The last thing we need to see is a repeat of Venezuela, where people are starving, eating their pets and scrounging for food anywhere they can find it.

Well, paying people unemployment insurance which is more than their job income, is certainly a wrong direction, That's a completely different thing though, than a 1 or 2 time stimulus check, that gets people into the stores (aka the "economy"), buying things. That is a good (and necessary) thing. The stores are starving for $ALE$.

 

[protectionist]

What is necessary is to end the illegal economic shutdowns, let all businesses fully open, and allow and encourage all who are able to go back to work.

And to remove from office, and criminally prosecute for fraud and malfeasance, every single public servant who was responsible for these shutdowns in the first place.

No matter the excuse, shutting down large portions of the economy is unsustainable, and ultimately, taking money in taxes from those few who are still allowed to work to produce wealth, to be given to those forced into idleness, is no solution to the resulting economic disaster.

I notice that you clicked Disagree with the OP. What do you disagree with ?

 

[Aldo Raine]

On the one side, it is argued that Mitch McConnell is only giving in to Democrats' economic stimulus demands, because it is politically hazardous to allow Democrats to blame Republicans for not giving the American people economic relief when they badly need it.

On the other hand, it's argued that this money will have to be paid back, at some point, probably by future generations, who will get stuck with the bill.

While I don't disagree with both of these, I would like to add 2 more points of my own >>>

1. Many Americans are suffering, unexpected and extraordinary losses of income, and are in great need of economic assistance.

2. Many American businesses are suffering, and putting money into the hands of the lower economic classes of Americans, will surely see that money being pumped back into the economy, as $ALE$ for those businesses.

I think politics or no politics, debt or no debt, the stimulus checks are helpful and necessary.

100% agree. The exact OPPOSITE of trickle down effect.

 

[RodISHI]

I don't agree with giving the general public enough money, so that they won't bother going out looking for a job and just be happy sucking on the government teat. Eventually, the money runs out. A common mistake is that when a government runs out of money, they just print more, then it becomes a runaway train wreck, with spiraling inflation, where you see people using wheelbarrows full of largely worthless currency. So, Americans have to get back to work. The last thing we need to see is a repeat of Venezuela, where people are starving, eating their pets and scrounging for food anywhere they can find it.

Well, paying people unemployment insurance which is more than their job income, is certainly a wrong direction, That's a completely different thing though, than a 1 or 2 time stimulus check, that gets people into the stores (aka the "economy"), buying things. That is a good (and necessary) thing. The stores are starving for $ALE$.

Box stores come and go and have ever since they started. They run the privates out with their massive buying ability and cheap sales tricks; get investors to keep their stock up but eventually go belly up because they cannot sustain it all. My question is why should the taxpayer have to or need to subsidize all that?

 

[sealybobo]

On the one side, it is argued that Mitch McConnell is only giving in to Democrats' economic stimulus demands, because it is politically hazardous to allow Democrats to blame Republicans for not giving the American people economic relief when they badly need it.

On the other hand, it's argued that this money will have to be paid back, at some point, probably by future generations, who will get stuck with the bill.

While I don't disagree with both of these, I would like to add 2 more points of my own >>>

1. Many Americans are suffering, unexpected and extraordinary losses of income, and are in great need of economic assistance.

2. Many American businesses are suffering, and putting money into the hands of the lower economic classes of Americans, will surely see that money being pumped back into the economy, as $ALE$ for those businesses.

I think politics or no politics, debt or no debt, the stimulus checks are helpful and necessary.

My buddy has 5 pot grow houses. The prices have skyrocketed. Why? Because people are getting stimulus’s and extra unemployment and they are sitting at home bored.

 

[protectionist]

Box stores come and go and have ever since they started. They run the privates out with their massive buying ability and cheap sales tricks; get investors to keep their stock up but eventually go belly up because they cannot sustain it all. My question is why should the taxpayer have to or need to subsidize all that?

The stimulus checks have no limitation of where to be spent. Stimulus check recipients can choose to go to small stores any time they wish.

 

[protectionist]

My buddy has 5 pot grow houses. The prices have skyrocketed. Why? Because people are getting stimulus’s and extra unemployment and they are sitting at home bored.

Don't patronize the gougers. I was going to but a shotgun. Shotguns had become very scarce. I found one store that RARELY had a gun I was looking for. They raised the price from $180 to $260. I told them "I came here to buy a shotgun, not get ripped off." and I walked out, without the shotgun.

 

[RodISHI]

Box stores come and go and have ever since they started. They run the privates out with their massive buying ability and cheap sales tricks; get investors to keep their stock up but eventually go belly up because they cannot sustain it all. My question is why should the taxpayer have to or need to subsidize all that?

The stimulus checks have no limitation of where to be spent. Stimulus check recipients can choose to go to small stores any time they wish.

Sorry I believe let the crash take its course, let the chips fall where they may and let people get back to work if they can. Kicking the can down the road and letting special interest groups, racketeers, frauds and every detestably corrupt thing go farther up the road into our politics and government is not helping the country. Tell everyone to buckle up and get ready because it is coming with or without 'stimulus'. All of DC needs to get back to the basics and quit lining their buddies and themselves pockets at the expense of the people: and the same goes for the locals at the state, county or city levels.

 

[RodISHI]

My buddy has 5 pot grow houses. The prices have skyrocketed. Why? Because people are getting stimulus’s and extra unemployment and they are sitting at home bored.

Don't patronize the gougers. I was going to but a shotgun. Shotguns had become very scarce. I found one store that RARELY had a gun I was looking for. They raised the price from $180 to $260. I told them "I came here to buy a shotgun, not get ripped off." and I walked out, without the shotgun.

The price of bleach has doubled in the last few months too.

 

[Oddball]

On the one side, it is argued that Mitch McConnell is only giving in to Democrats' economic stimulus demands, because it is politically hazardous to allow Democrats to blame Republicans for not giving the American people economic relief when they badly need it.

On the other hand, it's argued that this money will have to be paid back, at some point, probably by future generations, who will get stuck with the bill.

While I don't disagree with both of these, I would like to add 2 more points of my own >>>

1. Many Americans are suffering, unexpected and extraordinary losses of income, and are in great need of economic assistance.

2. Many American businesses are suffering, and putting money into the hands of the lower economic classes of Americans, will surely see that money being pumped back into the economy, as $ALE$ for those businesses.

I think politics or no politics, debt or no debt, the stimulus checks are helpful and necessary.

Putting an end to the sham shutdowns is helpful and necessary.

No increase of the dole needed.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I don't agree with giving the general public enough money, so that they won't bother going out looking for a job and just be happy sucking on the government teat. Eventually, the money runs out. A common mistake is that when a government runs out of money, they just print more, then it becomes a runaway train wreck, with spiraling inflation, where you see people using wheelbarrows full of largely worthless currency. So, Americans have to get back to work. The last thing we need to see is a repeat of Venezuela, where people are starving, eating their pets and scrounging for food anywhere they can find it.

Well, paying people unemployment insurance which is more than their job income, is certainly a wrong direction, That's a completely different thing though, than a 1 or 2 time stimulus check, that gets people into the stores (aka the "economy"), buying things. That is a good (and necessary) thing. The stores are starving for $ALE$.

Box stores come and go and have ever since they started. They run the privates out with their massive buying ability and cheap sales tricks; get investors to keep their stock up but eventually go belly up because they cannot sustain it all. My question is why should the taxpayer have to or need to subsidize all that?

The cheaper the product can be purchased for, is what draws in the customer, enlarges the company/corporation, brings in more jobs and thus keeps the economy going. The 2008 recession where we bailed out some major companies, was as a result of the banks/lending agencies agreeing to loans for people to purchase homes who obviously couldn't afford the payments. If you can't afford to purchase a home (i.e., insufficient collateral), stay in an apartment until you can afford one, if you ever can. My personal opinion of the whole affair was that the major companies that suffered through the recession, should "not" have been bailed out, when it was the banks fault.

 

[The VOR]

My buddy has 5 pot grow houses. The prices have skyrocketed. Why? Because people are getting stimulus’s and extra unemployment and they are sitting at home bored.

Don't patronize the gougers. I was going to but a shotgun. Shotguns had become very scarce. I found one store that RARELY had a gun I was looking for. They raised the price from $180 to $260. I told them "I came here to buy a shotgun, not get ripped off." and I walked out, without the shotgun.

The price of bleach has doubled in the last few months too.

Ever since trump's presser on April 24th, bleach and lysol has been flying off the shelves.

 

[RodISHI]

I don't agree with giving the general public enough money, so that they won't bother going out looking for a job and just be happy sucking on the government teat. Eventually, the money runs out. A common mistake is that when a government runs out of money, they just print more, then it becomes a runaway train wreck, with spiraling inflation, where you see people using wheelbarrows full of largely worthless currency. So, Americans have to get back to work. The last thing we need to see is a repeat of Venezuela, where people are starving, eating their pets and scrounging for food anywhere they can find it.

Well, paying people unemployment insurance which is more than their job income, is certainly a wrong direction, That's a completely different thing though, than a 1 or 2 time stimulus check, that gets people into the stores (aka the "economy"), buying things. That is a good (and necessary) thing. The stores are starving for $ALE$.

Box stores come and go and have ever since they started. They run the privates out with their massive buying ability and cheap sales tricks; get investors to keep their stock up but eventually go belly up because they cannot sustain it all. My question is why should the taxpayer have to or need to subsidize all that?

The cheaper the product can be purchased for, is what draws in the customer, enlarges the company/corporation, brings in more jobs and thus keeps the economy going. The 2008 recession where we bailed out some major companies, was as a result of the banks/lending agencies agreeing to loans for people to purchase homes who obviously couldn't afford the payments. If you can't afford to purchase a home (i.e., insufficient collateral), stay in an apartment until you can afford one, if you ever can. My personal opinion of the whole affair was that the major companies that suffered through the recession, should "not" have been bailed out, when it was the banks fault.

Hell I couldn't afford to rent an apartment but even when I was 16 (close to fifty years ago but cheap houses needing repairs are always out there) I bought my first own home. It needed a lot of fixing but it beat the hell out of paying rent and brought a profit in years to come. The problem with any housing at this point is the excessive, bloated and inflated property valuations; and that you can blame on everyone in the housing market from the tax man to the banker, along with anyone in between.

 

[protectionist]

Ever since trump's presser on April 24th, bleach and lysol has been flying off the shelves.

Both of those will kill the virus, and standard procedure, they are being used by supermarkets to wash down their shopping cart handles.

 

[protectionist]

Putting an end to the sham shutdowns is helpful and necessary.

No increase of the dole needed.

Couldn't disagree more. What good is opening up your store, when people are now so far behind in their rent, utility bills, car note, etc, that they cant afford to buy your stuff ?

Sure, open up, and get bored with no customers coming in.

 

[U2Edge]

On the one side, it is argued that Mitch McConnell is only giving in to Democrats' economic stimulus demands, because it is politically hazardous to allow Democrats to blame Republicans for not giving the American people economic relief when they badly need it.

On the other hand, it's argued that this money will have to be paid back, at some point, probably by future generations, who will get stuck with the bill.

While I don't disagree with both of these, I would like to add 2 more points of my own >>>

1. Many Americans are suffering, unexpected and extraordinary losses of income, and are in great need of economic assistance.

2. Many American businesses are suffering, and putting money into the hands of the lower economic classes of Americans, will surely see that money being pumped back into the economy, as $ALE$ for those businesses.

I think politics or no politics, debt or no debt, the stimulus checks are helpful and necessary.

What is necessary is to end the illegal economic shutdowns, let all businesses fully open, and allow and encourage all who are able to go back to work.

And to remove from office, and criminally prosecute for fraud and malfeasance, every single public servant who was responsible for these shutdowns in the first place.

No matter the excuse, shutting down large portions of the economy is unsustainable, and ultimately, taking money in taxes from those few who are still allowed to work to produce wealth, to be given to those forced into idleness, is no solution to the resulting economic disaster.

The economy can't recover until the virus is contained and destroyed. People will not leave their homes and spend money in large numbers until it is safe. Until you make the environment safe to conduct business, people will stay home. Shutdown is the only way to contain and destroy the virus without a vaccine. Had the United States conducted a full national shutdown until infection rates declined to low levels, we would be out of this mess already.

But Trump did nothing. Left it up to the states to decide what to do. The results. 160,000 people dead, a pandemic raging uncontrollably. The worst recession since the 1930s.

The Democrats will control both houses of congress and the white house after November 3, 2020.