Trump wants to pay people not to work

[BoyNextDoor]

Tricky Trumpy decided this weekend to pay people not to work, by using executive orders. (wasn't that the biggest of Obama's sins? Maybe that is a different thread)

 

[HisArpy]

Ummm.... Yay?


Or are you trying to say that he shouldn't be giving money to those who can't work because of Democrat governors shutting down their State economies?

 

[FescueFan]

LOL the socialist is complaining about the liberal trying to help people being oppressed by his commie comrades.

Tricky Trumpy decided this weekend to pay people not to work, by using executive orders. (wasn't that the biggest of Obama's sins? Maybe that is a different thread)

Lying again....Trump is trying to get people relief because (D)'s won't let them work and are flagrantly violating their civil and human rights.

No, that wasn't the biggest of Obama's sins......

Ummm.... Yay?

Or are you trying to say that he shouldn't be giving money to those who can't work because of Democrat governors shutting down their State economies?

BND 100% has blinders on to that......(D) governors/mayors are NOT responsible at all for their states or cities, it's all Orange Mans fault.

 

[bellisarius]

Ummm.... Yay?


Or are you trying to say that he shouldn't be giving money to those who can't work because of Democrat governors shutting down their State economies?

I think that's what he's saying. He always phrases things stupidly though so it's hard to tell.

 

[Trumpedo]

It's okay as long as trump is doing it. Had obama done it, these republitards would be losing their shit. It's a double standard.

 

[Comshaw]

Ummm.... Yay?


Or are you trying to say that he shouldn't be giving money to those who can't work because of Democrat governors shutting down their State economies?

I think that's what he's saying. He always phrases things stupidly though so it's hard to tell.

Yes, that's what he could be saying and if he meant it literally would indeed be stupid.


Then again he could be pointing out the hypocrisy in that not so long ago the Trump administration was using pretty much that exact phrase to oppose unemployment payments to those out of work, but now that the election is getting tight decided to pander to those who they tried to screw earlier.

Hmmmmmm...I wonder which one it is???


Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, that's what he could be saying and if he meant it literally would indeed be stupid.


Then again he could be pointing out the hypocrisy in that not so long ago the Trump administration was using pretty much that exact phrase to oppose unemployment payments to those out of work, but now that the election is getting tight decided to pander to those who they tried to screw earlier.

Hmmmmmm...I wonder which one it is???


Comshaw

This is hilarious. It's like you don't remember who signed the relief bill into law or something.

 

[Comshaw]

This is hilarious. It's like you don't remember who signed the relief bill into law or something.

As expected, you try to detour the conversation to keep from addressing the reality of what the Donald said. Did or did not his administration use that phrase to oppose the unemployment payment? Choose wisely.


Comshaw

 

[LLCox]

Trump wants to help Trump.

 

[KeithD]

Trump isn't doing anything at all with those executive orders (actually only one executive order and a few toothless memoranda). They don't order anything he can order and the only part of them that mean anything concerns setting up to attack the payroll tax and Social Security, which doesn't have anything to do with anyone on unemployment anyway--they aren't on a payroll when they are unemployed. All the executive order and memoranda were meant to do is to flim-flam Trump's dopey base into thinking he was doing something for anybody. Trump does nothing for anyone but himself.

 

[FGB]

Just following the Example OBAMA set...

 

[FescueFan]

It's okay as long as trump is doing it. Had obama done it, these republitards would be losing their shit. It's a double standard.

Obama sent billions to Wall St.

Trump wants to send it to the working class....explaining why you're so upset.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

As unemployment benefits were ending all we heard from Tricky Trumpy and the GOP was some variation of Cornyn's statement in the hearings:

“We should never pay people not to work,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said last month during an unemployment hearing.

Misis Institute: The Paycheck Protection Program: Paying People Not to Work?

Fox reporting: If we pay people not to work, they'll gladly take us up on the offer

The Government is Spending $90 Million a Day to Pay People Not to Work - Government Executive Media Group

Economists vs. Common Sense
If you pay people not to work, fewer will work. Except at Yale, it seems. - WJS Opinion piece by The Editorial Bard

The Tricky Trumpy Echo chamber and the sycophants spent months preaching that the Dems were out to get you. Paying people not to work was the death of freedumb! The end of Democracy! All the while they stuffed the bill in the Senate with poison pills: Tax breaks for the wealthiest, Gutting the Post Office (which we need for a proper election but the GOP wants a self-fulfilling prophesy), Indemnification for business that expose workers to Covid-19, no food stamps for people impacted etc etc etc

Then the benefit ran out and now we have a lot of people that cannot pay the rent starting to get angry and what does Tricky do? He tries to do the very thing that he and his whole entourage say was "paying people not to work", but he does it illegally and without delivering anything so dopes like Alt-Rightguide can giggle say he owned the Dems. I got news for you - you have been had.

What a fucking complete and utter dumpster fire this administration, the GOP and all you dopey so-called "conservatives" are. You are lemmings, wrapped in a moron stuff up Tricky Trumpy's ass.

 

[HisArpy]

As expected, you try to detour the conversation to keep from addressing the reality of what the Donald said. Did or did not his administration use that phrase to oppose the unemployment payment? Choose wisely.


Comshaw

It's amazing that you cannot seem to wrap your head around THE FACT that Trump signed TWO BILLS about coronavirus relief already.

He opposed the second bill on the grounds that he wanted a payroll tax cut to be included but signed it anyway even without that provision. He also opposed any "new" relief while the current relief funds were still available and unspent.

So, unless you have something other than that, I don't remember him directly opposing unemployment benefits for furloughed workers. I could be wrong, but I don't REMEMBER anything like what you're suggesting.

 

[Comshaw]

It's amazing that you cannot seem to wrap your head around THE FACT that Trump signed TWO BILLS about coronavirus relief already.

He opposed the second bill on the grounds that he wanted a payroll tax cut to be included but signed it anyway even without that provision. He also opposed any "new" relief while the current relief funds were still available and unspent.

So, unless you have something other than that, I don't remember him directly opposing unemployment benefits for furloughed workers. I could be wrong, but I don't REMEMBER anything like what you're suggesting.

You are STILL equivocating. Did his administration use that term or not? And he did sign the bills, under duress. The Republicans told him if he didn't they would pass it over his veto, so it really means nothing that he signed it. He DID NOT support it.


Comshaw

 

[Curmudgeonly]

On the other hand the payroll tax deferment pays people who are working to continue doing so.

I would think an enthusiastic socialist such as yourself would be pleased that he's redistributingdas capital to das workers and das indolent

 

[toeskr]

Tricky Trumpy decided this weekend to pay people not to work, by using executive orders. (wasn't that the biggest of Obama's sins? Maybe that is a different thread)

So... I guess you are now ready to lick his taint and call him master?

Isn't this what you have wished for all along Bore? Although it wasn't your messiah Bern, it's all good now, amirite?

Lawlz!

What a bunch of fucking shiftless and wayward retards.

 

[toeskr]

It's okay as long as trump is doing it. Had obama done it, these republitards would be losing their shit. It's a double standard.

Acknowledged canuck puke.

You are an embarrassment to the board and pretend Canadians.

You should try another straw. The other 15 ain't working.

Your mom sez hi! And, get a real job.

 

[Bad_Egg]

Lol.

Waaaaah! Trump did something I agree with. Waaaah!

Cumshaw

.....

 

[toeskr]

It's almost like luk doesn't care anymore. Pretending to be multiple Canadiens. Not living off of his mom's and buddie's dimes and goodwill.

Mehbe there should be a pole/poll if he could ever make it on his own.

Lawlz!

 

[SpeareChucker]

You know what?
He (BND) has a point there.
In her wisdom, Nancy did everything she could to make sure that
his voters would feel pain, be evicted and their children denied access to schools...




All Hail Speaker Pelosi and her rock-solid principles!!!

 

[WillJ8787]

Goes to show, every once in a while someone I severely dislike does Something right. Trump did the right thing(inspite of his own ambitions) on continuing​ the $400 unemployment help.

 

[Conager]

On the other hand the payroll tax deferment pays people who are working to continue doing so.

I would think an enthusiastic socialist such as yourself would be pleased that he's redistributingdas capital to das workers and das indolent

I heard Mark Levin quoting someone that has looked over Biden's released returns. He has a good CPA. Half a million of his fair share he avoided paying for Social Security, Obamacare and Medicare taxes. It's almost like Bidrn is trying to hasten the collapse of Social <in>Security <un>Affotdable Care<less>and Med<s>care.

 

[SpeareChucker]

The Future of Work Arrived Way Too Early
MARIANNE WANAMAKER

...

It is now clear that the Future of Work is here, having arrived in the form of a pandemic. The lowest-paid and lowest-skilled Americans have been displaced from work at heightened rates. A significant number will need to be retrained as the economy realigns. And while workers are at home awaiting a vaccine or other mitigation for the public-health disaster, employers are rapidly automating their tasks with robots that have evolved faster than anyone imagined. Robots don’t need child care, can’t catch COVID, won’t sue, and can even appear remarkably human. The order is backwards (supply shock sidelines workers and makes them costlier, then robots arrive), but the result is the same — except instead of a slow drip, the dam broke.

For many American workers, the pandemic has been a disaster. For public policy, it has been attention-focusing. Is there a congressperson in Washington who thinks labor-market policy is not the most important question on the table right now? Let’s hope not.

So let’s call the $600-per-week unemployment insurance (UI) debate what it is: a shadow debate over a national policy about income guarantees that will define the arguments for years. Conservatives have long argued that a universal basic income will have detrimental labor-supply effects. Why work when the returns to not working are so high? In Tennessee, where I live, a two-earner household earning $15 per hour each would earn roughly $60,000 in labor income over the course of a year, but earned nearly $90,000 in annualized income under the CARES Act.

To the surprise of American employers struggling to fill jobs, quantitative evidence published so far shows negligible labor-supply effects. But economists know, or should know, that these are highly unusual economic conditions. Whatever the labor-supply effects of our current generous UI system, they do not imply effects from UBI. For one thing, there are four times as many unemployed workers as available jobs; as the labor market recovers, the labor-supply effects may intensify. Moreover, any worker reluctance is not only about the generosity of UI, but also about health risks. Economists are documenting that the pace of exit from UI is not remarkably different across workers with high and low income-replacement rates from the UI system, and suggesting this means there is no labor-supply effect of generous UI. But if health concerns are driving decision-making, then the lack of a replacement-rate effect is not terribly surprising. And in the absence of a pandemic, the effect would likely reemerge.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...mic-job-market-future-work-policy-challenges/

 

[Trumpedo]

It's almost like luk doesn't care anymore. Pretending to be multiple Canadiens. Not living off of his mom's and buddie's dimes and goodwill.

Mehbe there should be a pole/poll if he could ever make it on his own.

Lawlz!

Which Canadiens is he pretending to be? Carey Price? Max Domi?