4 ms·
The efforts to discredit this policy are truly fascinating - that's how you know how effective it is, it truly is a threat. But this article is correct, that th
by juve1996 4y ago
The efforts to discredit this policy are truly fascinating - that's how you know how effective it is, it truly is a threat. But this article is correct, that this is not sustainable and a longer term policy is needed.
Plenty of people are benefitting dramatically from this, and for once it's not the mega rich getting tax breaks or the fraud rife PPP loan fiasco.
- fallingknife 4y agoYes, a $500 billion bribe right before a midterm election is absolutely an effective policy. No one is arguing against that. At least the PPP was approved by congress, and the people unfairly enriching themselves from it are doing so through crime, and not the intended purpose of the policy.
- skellington 4y agoAn executive order that Biden has no legal right to enact. This is what we get from the party that values "democracy." Bypass all legislation if you can't get what you want and if a law is passed democratically that you don't like then tie it up by using the legal system and activist judges forever. There is very little "democracy" happening in our system currently.
- juve1996 4y agoIf he has no legal right to enact, sue. The remedy exists and has been used before against executive orders.
- xtracto 4y agoAs an outsider to the US and a person that leans more into "socialism", I find these type of threads really interesting. It's so different (from my principles) where most American commenters that are against this policy are coming from. I would not have a problem in providing relief to the poorer through social policies. My take is that at the end of the day is part of the social contract I "accept" when living in the society. Some people had it harder, some made poor choices (including drug addicts, people studying philosophy, people choosing not to study, etc), but in my (socialist maybe) view, it is in MY interest for them to be good-standing members of society. Otherwise, we risk them becoming criminals.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThe question is one of degree. Would you take food from your child's plate to feed a drunk who refuses to work? This is the lens through which many Americans view the discussion.
- mrguyorama 4y agoYou comparing people who have student loan debt to "drunks who refuse to work" is straight up disgusting.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI'm providing insight on American reactionism to socialized costs. If you choose to be disgusted, that is one you. If you are just looking to depate, I can steel man the point you thought I was making. There are a number of ways in which drunk and loan holders are similar, and some in which they are not. They both made poor choices which have future consequences. They both often have regrets. They both are not providing much economic value to society. They both externalize the costs of their life choices on society at large. They both are very real humans, and may be nice people, deserving of compassion.
- juve1996 4y agoWhich, unsurprisingly, is a strawman.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIt isn't even a position, let alone a strawman.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- saltcured 4y agoI think that the underlying emotional state against such "subsidies" is a feeling of unfairness. That someone is being allowed to "cheat" and violate the rules of the game you have obeyed. There are probably many factors behind this framing, and different blends among the population. But, I think one big factor is that our modern consumer advertising and pop-culture environment has nurtured a kind of jealous relativism. Insecurity and desire are programmed in. The pervasive "Keeping up with the Joneses" turns everything into a zero-sum competition. There is _no_ place for contentment and satisfaction, no place of security from which to offer relief. There is no such thing as the tide raising all boats, when you are all treading water and those splashing around you threaten your next breath... Edit: added missing _no_ above!