• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McConnell Opposes $1,400 Stimulus Checks Because He Thinks People Could Stop Working

VySky said:
I disagree with your premise. Let the economy run unassisted which in turn will change the current political environment
Click to expand...

That would be a rather foolish move by the congressional demorats now enjoying a (potentially temporary) political advantage. They are in a position whereby they can borrow from (in the name of?) the people and offer “free” (not supported by current taxation) perks to the people. Note that we have yet to see any of their promised increased taxation of “the rich” (the donor class?) to pay for their compassionate generosity.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
160k a year is rich to you?
Click to expand...

My girlfriend and I now live on almost $32K/year (from our combined SS retirement incomes) and $160K/year is substantially higher than the current median household income (about $65K/year). I would not call any lower to mid 6 figure annual income “rich”, but $160K/year is certainly worthy of being called financially well off with increased potential to become more wealthy.
 
Hatuey said:
To people struggling, a 1000$ may as well be a million, but to realists, a million dollars may be impossible to manage economically.
Click to expand...
no it’s not. It’s 100 hours of unskilled labor at the most. That’s perfectly obtainable for nearly anyone.
It certainly is better than prayer and bullshit, dont you think? Lol, wait, what am I saying? You are that Christian guy who can't wait for poor people to default on their houses so you can profit. Aint no saving you.

Click to expand...
if 1000 dollars changes your life you have very poor money skills or you live somewhere you can’t afford.

now to be fair, the liberal democrats have made houses unaffordable with a combination of environmental activists and third world chain migration, but those issues will never be addressed even though the majority of Americans want fewer immigrants because the left needs more voters.
 

I don't disagree, but it's not rich. It really depends on where you live too. 160k a year is pretty good in much of the South and Midwest. Not so much in parts of the coasts due to crazy housing costs.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't disagree, but it's not rich. It really depends on where you live too. 160k a year is pretty good in much of the South and Midwest. Not so much in parts of the coasts due to crazy housing costs.
Click to expand...

Where we have chosen to live, our (guaranteed) nearly $32K/year income is adequate. Our rent is currently $318/month, for about 1/3 acre with an old (1960’s) 2 BR, 1 bath single-wide, and will soon drop to $268/month when we will pay only lot rent (for about 1/2 acre).

The median income for a household in the city was $30,714, and the median income for a family was $31,875.
Click to expand...

Uhland, Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 

What you seem to be ignoring is CPI never was nor can be intended to be a perfect all inclusive instrument of inflation nor behavior from it, which speaks directly to productivity.

More importantly CPI is just a sampling of the basket of goods and services, and does not compare well to all the goods and services produced or consumed year to year then decade to decade. That presents blind spots when the math assumes weighted averages for one set of goods and services yet the economy sees another spending pattern.

Worse, CPI completely ignores substitution so any calculation based entirely on CPI alone gives you blind spots.

No economist would suggest we base every economic influence or distortion based on one math routine using one variable.
 
Total ****ing idiocy that the right believes. Moscow itch would not had said that if he did not know how many cons believe that back at home.

He's much rather give that money to corporations than to help individuals.
 

While that (bolded above) may be true, you have (so far) not presented any (numerical) basis at all - you have just alluded to having hunches or theories which indicate that entry level workers should be paid more than the current median hourly wage.
 
Yeah, I didn't think that you would have a good reason why Republicans voted last year for $600 UE benefits and Democrats voted to slash them from $400 to $300. Blaming Republicans who didn't even vote for the bill is dishonest and awful. It's the ACA all over again; Dems claiming they want single payer universal healthcare, and then blaming Republicans when Democrats pass expanded health insurance. Garbage.
 
Metric Mouse said:
Yeah, I didn't think that you would have a good reason why Republicans voted last year for $600 UE benefits and Democrats voted to slash them from $400 to $300.
Click to expand...

You're being dishonest on the basis of partisanship alone. Or is it just a reading comprehension deficiency? Id argue it's a little of both.

Blaming Republicans who didn't even vote for the bill is dishonest and awful.
Click to expand...


It's not my fault you refuse to adhere to reality, although it is comical watching you squirm to such a degree. Republicans don't want to help the American people.
 
So you're saying Democrats are as bad as Republicans? I think that we can agree. Passing a $300 UE benefit was a spit in the face when Democrats have complete control, and shows just what they think of desperate unemployed people.

I never said Republicans wanted to help; I said they passed better UE benefits last year. You're the one claiming Dems are better, even though they voted to slash benefits to give six figure households thousands of dollars. It's comical watching you blame the people who didn't vote for the bill for the garbage that is in the bill.
 
Metric Mouse said:
So you're saying Democrats are as bad as Republicans? I think that we can agree. Passing a $300 UE benefit was a spit in the face when Democrats have complete control, and shows just what they think of desperate unemployed people.
Click to expand...

No. But continue to squirm. It's the best you can offer.

It's comical watching you blame the people who didn't vote for the bill for the garbage that is in the bill.
Click to expand...

You've lost this exchange. And given you've refused to do so with dignity... you may have the last word.
 
Kushinator said:
No. But continue to squirm. It's the best you can offer.



You've lost this exchange. And given you've refused to do so with dignity... you may have the last word.
Click to expand...
No, the American people lost this exchange by trusting Democrats who claim $15/hour is a minimum living wage, but then vote to pay desperate people half that. Garbage.
 
Communists like to stay home. They like to feign work... for if communism was such a great ideology, it would have created paradise instead of the 3rd world shithole misery it spreads everywhere it goes.

You ever been to or worked in a former Communist shithole? I have. Multiple times. The stories about their pretending to work are legendary... and the perversion... poison it has spread will take a century to undo... if they’re lucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…