What's the matter with Donald Trump.

[bcredliner]

Just after election day, the democrats I know felt a huge sense of relief and an instant feeling that Trump was yesterday's news, they couldn't care less what he was saying, a release of tension in their lives. The republicans I know went silent. I can't tell if they feel defeated, momentarily deflated, gone 'underground' to plan revenge or a counter attack. Personally I went to a zen state of mind and am still there.

The republicans in the House and Senate that come from states where republicans dominate will just be more careful of what they say and do but I don't think the end result of voting on legislature brought forward by democrats will change. Those that are in states where it was a close republican win have a big decision to make. I think the best course of action for them is to take a few steps away from the republicans that continue to disparage the democrats and that echo what Trump will projectile vomit. And, they will vote more on the merits of legislation rather than which party introduced it, voting more in concert with the voice of the nation.

I'm interested to see whether Trump will veto the package for aid related to COVID 19 hardships. I can see him vetoing anything that comes to him and blame it on the democrats. Probably wouldn't if there are stimulus checks in the package. Since he has no empathy and has been publicly disgraced in front of the world, in his mind, he has to lash out. If he is going down he will want to take as many people as he can with him. Or, try to be the hero and send them back to add stimulus checks that would have his signature.

I think he is now obsessing on what he can do to generate a higher rating on Biden's inauguration day, swing the spotlight from Biden to him and demean Biden, ruin his day. My guess he will want it to start one or two days before the inauguration and reach a peak the day of the inauguration. My bet is that it will involve further attacks on his son and perhaps his wife.

Here's one to ponder hopefully for fun---He manufactures a bogus military crisis with a target he can wipe off the map. Two days before the inauguration, in prime time, he gives the target an ultimatum. Again during prime time, the night before the inauguration, he starts a large scaled attack with the finale taking place during the inauguration. There's also China he could mess with.

[crystalworks]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

I'm interested to see whether Trump will veto the package for aid related to COVID 19 hardships. I can see him vetoing anything that comes to him and blame it on the democrats. Probably wouldn't if there are stimulus checks in the package. Since he has no empathy and has been publicly disgraced in front of the world, in his mind, he has to lash out. If he is going down he will want to take as many people as he can with him. Or, try to be the hero and send them back to add stimulus checks that would have his signature.

He's wanted that when Congress was bickering back and forth and wouldn't even send anything to his desk for the last 6 months. Now the Republicans and Dems know they HAVE to work together. I wouldn't doubt he vetos it out of spite. And in this case I can't say I blame him.

These packages are a huge fail anyway. Would have been much better (and cheaper) to send all w-2 filers checks every month instead of the programs and bureaucracy they added. Rent would get paid (no need for eviction moratorium), food could still be purchased, etc. I'm not for handing money out to people generally, but I'd much rather it be handed to the public tax-payers and put back into the economy than used as cheap capitol for large, or successful businesses, squandered or lost in the system, or otherwise wasted.

The only thing in the packages that might be useful is the money to the states for vaccinations and PPE expenditures. All the paycheck protection programs were garbage as was the additional unemployment. Just give that money directly to tax payers.

[Maruzo]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

He's wanted that when Congress was bickering back and forth and wouldn't even send anything to his desk for the last 6 months. Now the Republicans and Dems know they HAVE to work together. I wouldn't doubt he vetos it out of spite. And in this case I can't say I blame him.

These packages are a huge fail anyway. Would have been much better (and cheaper) to send all w-2 filers checks every month instead of the programs and bureaucracy they added. Rent would get paid (no need for eviction moratorium), food could still be purchased, etc. I'm not for handing money out to people generally, but I'd much rather it be handed to the public tax-payers and put back into the economy than used as cheap capitol for large, or successful businesses, squandered or lost in the system, or otherwise wasted.

The only thing in the packages that might be useful is the money to the states for vaccinations and PPE expenditures. All the paycheck protection programs were garbage as was the additional unemployment. Just give that money directly to tax payers.

Who do you think is made of businesses, large or small?

It's people.

There are employees and their family members behind every single businesses.

To help keep these businesses in solvency is to keep their employees on payroll and their families fed.

The program is not easy to apply for. You actually have to show all your financials to the lender, the same way you do when you apply for a business loan, except it's much more strict.

The money you borrow can only be forgiven if you can show you've kept all your employees on the payroll even when you're not open for business due to shutdown mandates.

[crystalworks]

Originally Posted by Maruzo

To help keep these businesses in solvency is to keep their employees on payroll and their families fed.

Giving those employees money directly (in many cases more than their employment would pay), negates that problem. Actually, with the limits they put on the checks I'd venture that under almost all circumstances people would have more money to survive on than under their normal employment.

[Maruzo]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

Giving those employees money directly (in many cases more than their employment would pay), negates that problem.

That's the most rediculous thing.

You're pessimistic because you think it's all about corruption and waste.

It's actually more about keeping the massive amounts of small and medium businesses alive so the economy won't crumble.

[crystalworks]

Originally Posted by Maruzo

It's actually more about keeping the massive amounts of small and medium businesses alive so the economy won't crumble.

If the majority of Americans have money in their pockets, usually more than they would have before the pandemic, the economy would not crumble. Spending would go up. Renters would not be hurt because tenants could pay. There are so many positives. You're not thinking this through.

Businesses open and close everyday. Under all circumstances. BTW, if I was a business owner (retail, restaurant, etc) in an industry that was affected by the lockdowns. I would have closed immediately, moved all inventory to storage, broke my lease, filed business closure with the city. I wouldn't have borrowed a dime from the PPP or anyone and would live off of my savings (and/or get another job). Reopen (if it made sense financially) after the pandemic was under control.

Originally Posted by Maruzo

Your way will breed more homeless, where as the PPP program helps to keep these people employeed.

I disagree. And I'm a conservative when it comes to spending.

Wait until the rent moratorium ends, then we'll see how much the PPP has contributed to the homeless population and the costs to cities to deal with it.

Edit: sorry eviction moratorium, not rent.

[Maruzo]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

If the majority of Americans have money in their pockets, usually more than they would have before the pandemic, the economy would not crumble. Spending would go up. Renters would not be hurt because tenants could pay. There are so many positives. You're not thinking this through.

Businesses open and close everyday. Under all circumstances. BTW, if I was a business owner (retail, restaurant, etc) in an industry that was affected by the lockdowns. I would have closed immediately, moved all inventory to storage, broke my lease, filed business closure with the city. I wouldn't have borrowed a dime from the PPP or anyone and would live off of my savings (and/or get another job). Reopen (if it made sense financially) after the pandemic was under control.



I disagree. And I'm a conservative when it comes to spending.

Wait until the rent moratorium ends, then we'll see how much the PPP has contributed to the homeless population and the costs to cities to deal with it.

You forgot to mention that many of these people will not have a job to go back to while they continue to receive government handouts.

Once the money dries up, and it will quickly dry up, they will not have a job to go back to.

Businesses does open and close everyday.

But the economy is driven by these businesses, not the people.

Businesses keep people employeed.

And economy will crumple without the support of massive number of businesses proping it up.

Your way is actually more socialist in thinking, and mine more Republican.

What??

[Maruzo]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

Giving those employees money directly (in many cases more than their employment would pay), negates that problem. Actually, with the limits they put on the checks I'd venture that under almost all circumstances people would have more money to survive on than under their normal employment.

Giving the business the money means the employees will also get the money. However, this also means their jobs won't become obsolete, their daily routines aren't disrupted, they are not just staying home, umemployeed because the company they work for has filed for bankruptcy due to drastically reduced business in 2020.

Can you imagine what a paying job does to a person's confidence? Especially if he's got 3 kids to feed and a mortgage to pay?

It's easy to keep feeding a homeless, but much harder to convince him to work for his keep.

Your way will breed more homeless, where as the PPP program helps to keep these people employeed.

Big difference.

Even after you discount the possible waste and corruption.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

He's wanted that when Congress was bickering back and forth and wouldn't even send anything to his desk for the last 6 months. Now the Republicans and Dems know they HAVE to work together. I wouldn't doubt he vetos it out of spite. And in this case I can't say I blame him.

These packages are a huge fail anyway. Would have been much better (and cheaper) to send all w-2 filers checks every month instead of the programs and bureaucracy they added. Rent would get paid (no need for eviction moratorium), food could still be purchased, etc. I'm not for handing money out to people generally, but I'd much rather it be handed to the public tax-payers and put back into the economy than used as cheap capitol for large, or successful businesses, squandered or lost in the system, or otherwise wasted.

The only thing in the packages that might be useful is the money to the states for vaccinations and PPE expenditures. All the paycheck protection programs were garbage as was the additional unemployment. Just give that money directly to tax payers.

The house passed the Care act in March I believe it was. The Senate refused to take it to the floor or negotiate with the House.

[AVB-AMG]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

All the paycheck protection programs were garbage as was the additional unemployment. Just give that money directly to tax payers.

I have to disagree with you. I believe that the ideal approach would to extend the financial benefits to those people who are still unemployed and not just hand out $600 to everyone under a certain income level, regardless of whether or not they are employed. Most folks who are employed do not truly need the financial assistance at taxpayers expense, whereas those who are unemployed and will have their benefits cut off towards the end of this year, really do need the extension of the funds.

On a related topic, our local food bank has just announced a 3 for 1 match of any dollar donations made to our local Community Food Bank, by the Dec. 31st 2020. I have already made a couple of donations to them this year and will most likely do so again before the end of the year. I am just waiting to see what the presumed final bill will include that is expected to be finalized in Congress before Christmas and what it may include towards this very important charitable cause. As far as I am concerned, making sure that Americans have enough food to survive is far more of basic necessity than many other charities right now, especially since so many people are still out of work and cannot afford the basic necessities of life.

AVB-AMG