Mark Cuban, "spend it or lose it" idea.

[arewethereyet]

While food banks are running low on food and people are out of work and have kids to feed, I don't see how the spending is guaranteed to be frivolous.

I see the issue being more of not focusing solely on those with the most need.

A few months of making sure your can feed your kids while they are home because school is closed and they can't have subsidized meals at school isn't going to suddenly make most people into indulgent spendthrifts.

There are several ways to look at this. I worry about the kids who used to get what could be their only meals every day at school. With no help...there will easily be days with no meal. It happens every summer break all around the country. These kids with poor diets are also the ones most likely to become ill and not be able to seek medical help.

This is an unusual time and everyone should be learning as we go. There have been and will be mistakes made. I would rather err on the side of being humane as possible.

[Rhizomorph13]

While food banks are running low on food and people are out of work and have kids to feed, I don't see how the spending is guaranteed to be frivolous.  

I see the issue being more of not focusing solely on those with the most need.  

A few months of making sure your can feed your kids while they are home because school is closed and they can't have subsidized meals at school isn't going to suddenly make most people into indulgent spendthrifts.  

There are several ways to look at this.  I worry about the kids who used to get what could be their only meals every day at school.  With no help...there will easily be days with no meal.  It happens every summer break all around the country.  These kids with poor diets are also the ones most likely to become ill and not be able to seek medical help.

This is an unusual time and everyone should be learning as we go.  There have been and will be mistakes made.  I would rather err on the side of being humane as possible.

That is sad, luckily many schools have maintained a breakfast and lunch for kids program and people are preparing food and handing it out to kids that come by. The worst thought is the kids who only get attention from their teachers. They are stuck at home with assholes that neglect them or do worse shit. This shelter in place is a horrible punishment for some children.

[Ranjr]

Ah, like a PI in the last month of an NIH grant.

[Brian37]

While food banks are running low on food and people are out of work and have kids to feed, I don't see how the spending is guaranteed to be frivolous.  

I see the issue being more of not focusing solely on those with the most need.  

A few months of making sure your can feed your kids while they are home because school is closed and they can't have subsidized meals at school isn't going to suddenly make most people into indulgent spendthrifts.  

There are several ways to look at this.  I worry about the kids who used to get what could be their only meals every day at school.  With no help...there will easily be days with no meal.  It happens every summer break all around the country.  These kids with poor diets are also the ones most likely to become ill and not be able to seek medical help.

This is an unusual time and everyone should be learning as we go.  There have been and will be mistakes made.  I would rather err on the side of being humane as possible.

Show me anywhere in anyone of my posts I used the word "frivolous" in reference to spending. I never said that, never will say that, wasn't even implying it. Nowhere in my posts did I ever say, just hord the check and don't spend any of it. I said savings matter as much as spending. Stop trying to make this an "either/or" argument. 

You keep putting thoughts in my head that are not there.

I cannot repeat this enough. Spending right now IS helpful, but so is saving. The only thing I have objected to in this thread are the strings he is attaching to this money. 

What makes you think I don't want the same thing? Kids should have meals, even when not in school. Again, even without this virus tons of kids whose parents don't make enough struggle to put food on the table, this virus has only expounded a problem that already existed. And for decades I have been pissed that children  have to pay for meals even when at school. And I also get pissed at the GOP when I am out shopping and I see some teacher having to pay for school supplies. Tax payers should be paying for school supplies, not the teacher. 

Again, it does no good in the long term to slap a temporary band aid on a problem, if you simply go back to the old ways after this problem is gone. It will simply just be ignoring the fact it will happen again and long term only allow the problem to grow.

Charity is good, I am not against charity. But it should not seek to expand and grow, it should seek to reduce itself. The best way to reduce desperation, inequality and pay gap, long term, is to pay livable wages and have universal health care. That is the best "direct impact". Long term if you pay people enough, they don't need charity, and they can save for the future. "Charity" as it is done today has the opposite effect people should want. The way charity is done today, it creates dependency, not independence. The best charity that will stabilize more isn't giant corporations adding to the long term debt but paying livable wages so people can do things on their own.

This "strings attached" is an old GOP argument used for unemployment and food stamps. It is a horrible tactic, because most folks, including white rural poor, use these programs and the idea that a vast majority abuse those programs are bullshit. Just like when the GOP argues voter fraud, when there isn't any.

If any abuse is to be done that we should worry about, it would be these bailouts being taken by giant corporations when they don't need it. We've seen that a few times in recent weeks, and when caught, the companies gave the money back. But, if nobody called them out, they would have kept it.

Spending AND  saving. Not "spending or saving".

[The Grand Nudger]

One persons frivolous spending is another persons income. It's a feature, not a bug. As far as greasing the economic wheels goes, people saving a huge chunk of gov cheese is the same as not giving it to them in the first place. Bit like passing a stimulus that only half of the US reports having received.

[arewethereyet]

While food banks are running low on food and people are out of work and have kids to feed, I don't see how the spending is guaranteed to be frivolous.  

I see the issue being more of not focusing solely on those with the most need.  

A few months of making sure your can feed your kids while they are home because school is closed and they can't have subsidized meals at school isn't going to suddenly make most people into indulgent spendthrifts.  

There are several ways to look at this.  I worry about the kids who used to get what could be their only meals every day at school.  With no help...there will easily be days with no meal.  It happens every summer break all around the country.  These kids with poor diets are also the ones most likely to become ill and not be able to seek medical help.

This is an unusual time and everyone should be learning as we go.  There have been and will be mistakes made.  I would rather err on the side of being humane as possible.

Show me anywhere in anyone of my posts I used the word "frivolous" in reference to spending. I never said that, never will say that, wasn't even implying it. Nowhere in my posts did I ever say, just hord the check and don't spend any of it. I said savings matter as much as spending. Stop trying to make this an "either/or" argument. 

You keep putting thoughts in my head that are not there.

I cannot repeat this enough. Spending right now IS helpful, but so is saving. The only thing I have objected to in this thread are the strings he is attaching to this money. 

What makes you think I don't want the same thing? Kids should have meals, even when not in school. Again, even without this virus tons of kids whose parents don't make enough struggle to put food on the table, this virus has only expounded a problem that already existed. And for decades I have been pissed that children  have to pay for meals even when at school. And I also get pissed at the GOP when I am out shopping and I see some teacher having to pay for school supplies. Tax payers should be paying for school supplies, not the teacher. 

Again, it does no good in the long term to slap a temporary band aid on a problem, if you simply go back to the old ways after this problem is gone. It will simply just be ignoring the fact it will happen again and long term only allow the problem to grow.

Charity is good, I am not against charity. But it should not seek to expand and grow, it should seek to reduce itself. The best way to reduce desperation, inequality and pay gap, long term, is to pay livable wages and have universal health care. That is the best "direct impact". Long term if you pay people enough, they don't need charity, and they can save for the future. "Charity" as it is done today has the opposite effect people should want. The way charity is done today, it creates dependency, not independence. The best charity that will stabilize more isn't giant corporations adding to the long term debt but paying livable wages so people can do things on their own.

This "strings attached" is an old GOP argument used for unemployment and food stamps. It is a horrible tactic, because most folks, including white rural poor, use these programs and the idea that a vast majority abuse those programs are bullshit. Just like when the GOP argues voter fraud, when there isn't any.

If any abuse is to be done that we should worry about, it would be these bailouts being taken by giant corporations when they don't need it. We've seen that a few times in recent weeks, and when caught, the companies gave the money back. But, if nobody called them out, they would have kept it.

Spending AND  saving. Not "spending or saving".

Show me where my post was in response directly to you.

You can't - STFU.

[Brian37]

Billionaire Nick Hanauer in this article is quoted as saying that 40 years of corporate greed has left us unprepared for this virus. And also is saying it is foolish to think his class is going to change their tune after this virus goes away. 

Quote Nick Hanauer, "A better, more economically sound nation is possible, Hanauer said, but it will come about because enough people stand up and demand that corporations and the wealthy don't hoard their profits at the expense of everyone else.  "No society should need permission from wealthy people to operate in a high-functioning way," he said."

And from Nick, Hanauer thinks this resentment is a logical response. "One of the reasons that we're having to bail out all of these industries," he said, "is that the industries themselves have been made fragile by decades of shareholder value maximization" instead of "building resilience." 


https://www.businessinsider.com/pitchfor...st9FN1e3jw

Nobody has to take my word for it, ^^^^^^^ Nick is a Billionaire.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Billionaire Nick Hanauer in this article is quoted as saying that 40 years of corporate greed has left us unprepared for this virus. And also is saying it is foolish to think his class is going to change their tune after this virus goes away. 

Quote Nick Hanauer, "A better, more economically sound nation is possible, Hanauer said, but it will come about because enough people stand up and demand that corporations and the wealthy don't hoard their profits at the expense of everyone else.  "No society should need permission from wealthy people to operate in a high-functioning way," he said."

And from Nick, Hanauer thinks this resentment is a logical response. "One of the reasons that we're having to bail out all of these industries," he said, "is that the industries themselves have been made fragile by decades of shareholder value maximization" instead of "building resilience." 


https://www.businessinsider.com/pitchfor...st9FN1e3jw

Nobody has to take my word for it, ^^^^^^^ Nick is a Billionaire.

Wrong thread. Would you like me to move it for you?

Boru

[Brian37]

No it isn't in the wrong thread. Nick was relating the lack of prepreperation to focusing too much on his class and not enough on saving for a rainy day.

He was making the point I've actually been making for for a long time. You cant keep focusing on his class, and not care about safety nets and workers.

I started my thread because I am skeptical of Mark Cuban. I am far more likely to trust nick over Mark. 

The article makes the point of long term, and that it is foolish to think after this virus is gone, to expect Nick's class to change their tune.  

Me- Corporations always pull PR stunts during times of crisis, only to end up going back to the same old "don't tax us". That is part of the point Nick was making. He expects most of his class to go back to the same old same old when the virus is over.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No it isn't in the wrong thread. Nick was relating the lack of prepreperation to focusing too much on his class and not enough on saving for a rainy day.

He was making the point I've actually been making for for a long time. You cant keep focusing on his class, and not care about safety nets and workers.

Ok.  It just looks as if you meant for it to be a reply in the 'COVID-19' thread.  My mistake.

Boru