Did Trump Incentivize Laziness With The CARES Act?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by walkoflife, May 13, 2020.

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Wrat

    "Not because they did not like their jobs or because they did not want to work, but because it would cost them literally hundreds of dollars per week to be employed."

    So it was not laziness it was because they were low waged?

    This just sounds like a badly set up scheme, in the UK people that couldn’t work at home were furloughed with 80% of their wages been paid by the government (and I believe it has cost less than what was paid out to bailout the banks).
     
    Joshua Van likes this.
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    wrat

    This forum is entertaining but that doesn’t mean I don’t put in the effort - reading is NOT difficult not even close – have you ever studied for anything in your life and it’s not the reading it’s the understanding and questioning that is important – if you just read and repeat you are not going to get educated.

    Maybe that's been your life experience are you saying you and the people around don’t do charity work or help out others? Hell I’ve been delivering food boxes to those in need and I’ve help out at other charity events, most people I know do that to one degree or another.

    Well I don’t know the circumstances but it doesn’t fit in with my life experiences LOL maybe you are sending too much time around right wingers.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2020
    Joshua Van likes this.
  3. wrat

    wrat Member

    Well I guess you should have a major problem with our educational system then..

    That is my experience travelling around this country and talking to people Ive spent time in 40 of our 50 states and lived in 5 different ones

    You cant seem to help yourself with the snide personal jabs that have no place in a rational debate
     
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    wrat

    I do – and have posted criticisms of it - why?

    Not sure what you mean can you explain?
     

  5. What if it is true though?

    Where in society would you find the laziest 10% of the population

    Not all poor people are lazy of course, but what if hidden within the poorest part of the population is the laziest

    You're lazy, you work for a couple years, buy the cheapest house in a bad neighbourhood because you want to spend the rest of your life on the dole and watch day time tv

    Someone walking past your house and your neighbour hood, it would all look the same
     
    wrat likes this.
  6. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

    I feel like those cases are really the exception to the norm. Our basic societal expectations are that everyone do their part. The concept of work ethic is pretty strong; at least here I know it is.

    But people who are "on the dole" aren't really deviant. They find themselves in that situation because they qualify for the dole. :)

    EDIT: I don't think laziness factors in, really. Maybe once they get there they like it and don't want to work as much.
     
  7. wilsjane

    wilsjane Members

    People need to financially survive the current situation, but simply handing out money is a very dangerous game.
    I would consider cutting mortgage interest rates to zero while people are unable to work a far better starting point.
     
  8. You need to look after the young though, they are the ones that can so easily turn society into a shit storm, as we saw recently. Most of them don't have mortgages yet

    We haven't seen the worst yet. The worst will come when the full economic impact hits and our governments don't have the money to furlough all those students and unemployed, and the security forces to keep them in check; police are for the most part also young

    Imagine George Floyd type protests and rioting all over the world but next time the target isn't police, it's the people they feel are responsible for the economic nightmare after Covid, and instead of thousands looting Target stores, they are home invading Boomers
     
    wrat and soulcompromise like this.
  9. wilsjane

    wilsjane Members

    I did only say a "starting point".
    It is a very difficult situation and even I cannot see an overall solution.
    It is important to help all people in GENUINE need, without making the lazy even lazier. Can you see an overall strategy that would achieve this, I certainly can't.?
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    VG

    I don’t know of any benefits system where that would be allowe. In the UK if you can’t prove you’re actively looking for work the benefits would be cut, if you did it with other benefits it could be classified as fraud and could led to a conviction.

    The thing is that such incidences are quite small (the fraud rate in 2015 was 0.8%) and it has been argued are ineffectual and even harmful.

    European studies show that the use of sanctions is likely to lead to worse employment outcomes (lower pay and more likely to be back on benefits) than if sanctions are not used. This is because the threat or use of sanctions makes people take lower-quality jobs than if they had been allowed to wait for a better opportunity.

    The thing is that the majority of people want to work and if they go on benefits they do it for short periods.
     

  11. I can, but everyone over 60 isn't going to like it ;)
     
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    The problem is years of neoliberal free market thinking we need to go back to more Keynesian type economic thinking that is about serving the interests of everyone not just the few.
     
  13. wilsjane

    wilsjane Members

    I don't know of a single person who even qualifies for financial help under these corona virus schemes.
    As I have posted on several occasions, both America and the whole of western Europe have destroyed their economy by sending vast amounts of their wealth along a one way street to China.
    To me, it is so obvious. It is like living on a credit card and then wondering why China end up owning the credit card company.
     
  14. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

    I feel like this image adds needed context. If it is not appropriate, I understand and it can be edited or deleted! :)

    [​IMG]
     
  15. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

    So I think that some of what @Balbus is suggesting is that this overwhelming push for less regulation is an antiquated approach and a gigantic mistake! :) Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going off of the information I have about Neo-liberal vs. Keynesian economics; which may be misleading or incorrect.

    I personally feel like regulations when intelligently imposed are thoughtful and just.
     
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Soul

    Oh that is actually painful –LOL - the thing is millions of words have been used to explain the differing economic models so it is hard to do in a few words

    But if I had to try it would be

    Neoliberalism is a type of economics where the economy is geared to allows the exploitation of the many for the benefits of a few.

    Keynesianism economics is more about distributing the benefits of an economy to everyone.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  17. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Here is something I've posted here before

    It seems to me that the political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism).

    People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. Many people saw their wages grow and in the period between the end of WWII and 1970 many in Europe and the US gain middle class status.

    But from the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

    In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.

    So what we are getting in is the dismantling of the distributive system in the developed countries while in some developing countries the conditions resemble what was happening in the west before the people’s struggle to get rid of exploitation

    - To me what neoliberal inspired right wingers seem to be aiming for is for a few to be able to exploit the many more easily across the globe.

    I think we need to fight again for social balance but this time it has to be global. To counter the economic globalisation that has already taken place we need social globalisation to be brought in, and that means social global governance to counter the already in place economic global governance.

     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    The thing is that the much of the right seems stuck in the 19th century which is incompatible with dealing with 21st century problems.

    In relation to work for example they are basing there thinking on 19th century social and economic ideas (laissez-faire markets and Social Darwinism) and fighting the battles of the 20th century (opposing welfare and universal healthcare) while what is needed is ideas to deal with 21st century problems like climate change and a post work society.

    So it seems rather silly to be talking about forcing people to work by withdrawing public assistance when a lot of people are waking up to the possible dangers advances in technology might mean for the future of work.

    Now I know that many on the right say that when certain work disappears other types of work will replace them but some economists are warning this change is unlikely to result in that.
     
  19. wrat

    wrat Member

    Bit of a different story here:
    In 2016, 10.6 percent of all federal welfare payments made were improperly filed or fraudulent.

    A total of $77.8 billion in payments were found improperly filed or fraudulent in 2016.

    Completely different here all you have to do is SAY you applied for a job no proof necessary ..
    We incentivize having more children as seen by the signs all over the place at TAX TIME proclaiming $$$ per child
    Creating a cycle of dependency
     
  20. wrat

    wrat Member

    Well my 'bil' was placed n the same situation and he said screw it im gonna work so...........choices
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice