Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

And the more the coronavirus outbreak spreads throughout this country, the more volatile the markets will become, as recessions, bankruptcies, job losses, foreclosures, etc. are now all but done deals.

 

Now, granted, Donald Trump did NOT create the coronavirus (although, his administration could have done a much better job minimizing its' effect on us, if not keeping it at bay).  But, in a way, @marceline was right yet again.  The Republicans always wreck the economy.  Always.

 

And while I never want to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist or of knowing what God is thinking, I don't think it should be ignored how the coronavirus is affecting disproportionately one segment of our population -- namely, the baby boomers and their elders -- who have backed this administration from day one.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The cultists are eating that up. They're also spending lots of time and energy telling us how badass Trump is and how Pelosi has ruined the Democrats. Oh and of course reminding us how terrible Obama was. 

 

 

They are desperate for Trump to win. They know most of this is a mirage and they are still peddling it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see a lot of people are understandably upset about the stimulus plan not getting passed right now. Many of them are posting on Twitter under the #PeoplevsPelosi trend. They are blaming Nancy Pelosi for reportedly being against a cash transfer for Americans, because it's being reported she wants to do means testing. I do agree that means tested is not the best way to try and get the payments to people, for lots of reasons. Here are some of the reasons that were highlighted by this post on Twitter:

 

 

 

 

 

Most people could definitely use the extra money especially right now with people losing jobs and a lot of uncertainty going on in the economy due to the coronavirus:

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/18/refusal-pelosi-consider-universal-cash-payments-response-coronavirus-pandemic?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Edited by xtr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm glad you brought more details into this whole conversation because I don't really understand how it works. I think Democrats know they can't get away with "free money" (as that's how it would be spun if Pelosi were pushing the idea) so are being extremely cautious. I wonder if Trump is saying all this never planning to give money because he knows it will make Democrats look bad. I'd certainly appreciate some money but I have a hard time believing it will ever happen, and if it does, there will be a kick in the ass coming at some point after. 

 

You're really doing a great job trying to frame this for us - I can only contrast to the idiots on Twitter who help us lose elections every 2 years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks.

 

I think that Nancy along with some other people who support means testing are worried that money will be "wasted" on the rich people in this country if universal income is supplied to everyone.  But I think that if the best way to make sure most Americans get some extra (and often times much needed) financial help is to also to give the rich a check,too, so be it, IMO. In the grand scheme of things there are way more people who could use this money than there are rich people. And the rich can always donate their money to Charity or put it back into the economy if they choose. (And I believe that some of them will do that.) Means testing could help a lot of needy people fall through the cracks and will take more time, than distributing checks for Americans.

 

One of the suggestions that I saw it was reported Nancy suggested would be to do refundable tax credits. That could benefit people in the future, but that's not going to be of much help right now for a lot of people. A lot of people have already filed their taxes this year, especially people with families. And usually tax returns with refundable credits taken longer to process, because often times the IRS is holding them over long due to checking for things fraud. For example the IRS didn't really start processing returns with Earned Income Credit, Additional Child Tax Credits/Education Credits until February 15 this year. (Returns that fall underneath the PATH ACT) 

 

Even if people with these types of returns filed them as soon as the IRS opened on January 27th. And not too long ago, the IRS told people that they were holding some of these types tax returns for at least an additional 45 days, after the Feb 15th date.. (And I've heard as high as 60 additional days from people. I've seen reports about these things at work). It could be quite a while before people get a refundable tax credit due to this. And if they have those other credits, it could prolong their refund even more. 

 

If Nancy wants to do a refundable tax credit for next year's return in addition, to cash payments, I think that would be fine. (And I did see somewhere on Twitter, she was open to that, but still wanted to do means testing.)  But I think think it's best if people aren't means tested for this. 

 

I hope they can get this passed, I think they could if people are more cooperative. It actually seems like Trump is in favor of this. I read that Andrew Yang was actually in contact with him about this. (Which I think makes sense, given Andrew was one that was really pushing for this earlier when he was running for president.)

Edited by xtr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yeah, I just read hey would like to get checks out within the next three weeks I also read that the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is saying right now they are looking at plan to possibly give every american adult $1,000. If people have children they could get an additional $500 for each child. And then six weeks from now if this still a crisis there could a second disbursement of $1,000 for each adult/another $500 for each child. Here is an article talking more about this. And also what financial help may also be given to some businesses/industries:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/488412-mnuchin-americans-could-get-two-coronavirus-stimulus-checks-within-9

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Or Megan is shot by mobsters as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy