3 ms·

It would be more correct to say "thanks to two pro-austerity political parties" — neither of which "listened to the science" or offered a solution more substant

by drekk 4y ago

It would be more correct to say "thanks to two pro-austerity political parties" — neither of which "listened to the science" or offered a solution more substantial than "sacrifice grandma for the GDP". Public health measures didn't put your family in poverty. The lack of any social safety net in the US did. Stimulus should have gone to people directly and not companies, but that's communism or something. Maybe in hindsight the pandemic could get us thinking about why it’s a bad idea to tie health insurance to employment? Or the idea that shelter is contingent on laboring. It costs more to have people suffering and it makes everyone less safe needlessly.

Clubber 4y ago
I thought COVID would show the huge cracks in the US healthcare system and safety net, but nothing changed, except a temporary stimulus check, which was nice. This stimulus didn't cover the missing income from the lockdowns for many people. The greatest burden was put on people who rent properties and mortgage holders (banks) with the eviction moratorium. This was deemed unconstitutional, was given a month to rectify by passing a law, and yet congress did nothing. Everything you said was absolutely true, but nothing was done about it, even with a 2+ year plague that killed over a million people in the US. The only person with a plan was not elected; he didn't even win the primary. I'm not overly optimistic about change.
patrick451 4y ago
> Public health measures didn't put your family in poverty. The lack of any social safety net in the US did. Stimulus should have gone to people directly and not companies, but that's communism or something. No. If the government had not locked down, their family would not have slipped into extreme poverty. Simple as.
- sofixa 4y ago
  As Sweden's example shows, no. The economic downturn was due to the pandemic (people being sick and isolating, other people preferring not to travel/go out to avoid getting sick with associated risks for them and friends/family, etc.), not actions trying to combat it.
origin_path 4y ago
"Public health measures didn't put your family in poverty" They very obviously did do that, and attempts to deny their impact is a form of "socialism washing". "Stimulus should have gone to people directly and not companies, but that's communism or something." Great plan. Give people printed money so prices all immediately rise, and then forcibly destroy all the organizations that produce things, ensuring prices immediately rise again. Yes, printing money and giving it directly to people whilst the economy gets shut down IS in fact communism, which is why we are now dealing with the consequent poverty. And it was all for nothing, because the public health measures didn't have any effect.
npc54321 4y ago

by drekk 4y ago

Clubber 4y ago

I thought COVID would show the huge cracks in the US healthcare system and safety net, but nothing changed, except a temporary stimulus check, which was nice. This stimulus didn't cover the missing income from the lockdowns for many people. The greatest burden was put on people who rent properties and mortgage holders (banks) with the eviction moratorium. This was deemed unconstitutional, was given a month to rectify by passing a law, and yet congress did nothing. Everything you said was absolutely true, but nothing was done about it, even with a 2+ year plague that killed over a million people in the US. The only person with a plan was not elected; he didn't even win the primary. I'm not overly optimistic about change.

patrick451 4y ago

> Public health measures didn't put your family in poverty. The lack of any social safety net in the US did. Stimulus should have gone to people directly and not companies, but that's communism or something. No. If the government had not locked down, their family would not have slipped into extreme poverty. Simple as.

sofixa 4y ago
As Sweden's example shows, no. The economic downturn was due to the pandemic (people being sick and isolating, other people preferring not to travel/go out to avoid getting sick with associated risks for them and friends/family, etc.), not actions trying to combat it.

origin_path 4y ago

"Public health measures didn't put your family in poverty" They very obviously did do that, and attempts to deny their impact is a form of "socialism washing". "Stimulus should have gone to people directly and not companies, but that's communism or something." Great plan. Give people printed money so prices all immediately rise, and then forcibly destroy all the organizations that produce things, ensuring prices immediately rise again. Yes, printing money and giving it directly to people whilst the economy gets shut down IS in fact communism, which is why we are now dealing with the consequent poverty. And it was all for nothing, because the public health measures didn't have any effect.

npc54321 4y ago