@panama18: As I left the location, I noticed a sign stating there were only four hours per day in which to donate. In the pre-covid past, donation was from open until close. Everyone was forced to skip the donation or wait in line instead of coming back later. Employees were told not to touch cars except to reach for donated items. I now wonder if the organization has stopped sending a truck to pick up donations.

I did not want to borrow a line from another cause, but I wonder what "we" are bequeathing to our kids and grandkids? What will the two or three generations after us will be able to do with overwhelming national debt, a possible sense of never-ending crisis, and a possible sense of 'why did they do this to us?' What could "we" do differently now that might prevent a heavy cluster of problems from assailing the future? Could we get by with less or fewer handouts from the fed? The lower house has neatly packaged an attractive gift to us which will be sweet for a few years and then go sour and and overpower the future generations. The upper house has no effective way to say, "No!"

There will most likely be a period of sustained inflation - the 2020's decade - to get rid of the national debt, but I think if we can get back to "real capitalism" and not the socialism for the rich and Horatio Alger, lift-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps for everyone else type, then we shall be fine. America's still a nation with unrivaled talent, diversity, freedom, and capitalism at its heart (even if it's been hijacked by corporate elites and the wealthy for a few decades).

I don't have any problems with the Federal Reserve printing money to bailout the middle and lower classes during this crisis. They've already done so for the rich (and usually mostly/only do it for them). After we get ourselves back on our feet, they can gradually ween us off the stimulus/bailout support.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

What will the two or three generations after us will be able to do with overwhelming national debt, a possible sense of never-ending crisis, and a possible sense of 'why did they do this to us?'

Or we could have millions of homeless, hungry people for the next decade. Sometimes you have 2 poor choices instead of a good one or a bad one. People seem to have forgotten that.

What would happen if... instead of predicting the absolute worst outcome for many people, "we" let the talent and drive that shoptastic mentioned rise to the occasion?


What would this look like? In my little world, we would all buy and donate non-perishables and other items that shelters and distribution sties can handle. We would do this every time we go to the grocery store. We could make online payments, too. We would intensively fund the agency that meets emergency housing payment needs. They would need lots and lots of money. But look. If all the political stuff I receive is true, there is an overabundance of money floating around the earth plane. Do we need to enact a law, or do we need for some genius to harness all that money power and re-direct if from campaign war chests to personal pantries? In this little region, people would be sheltered and fed. What would it look like in your little part of the world?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2020 11:55PM by Shop-et-al.

Maybe when wealth inequality were not at Gilded Age and Roaring 20's extremes like we have now (which is why economists label our era as "The Second Gilded Age" ), then maybe private charity could work, Shopetal.

And that's still a big maybe, given the size of funding that we'll need.

Right now, something like 1% of Americans have over 50% of the country's wealth and 10% have 90% of it...or whatever. I'm too lazy to look it up for exact figures.

You think those billionaires are gonna donate enough to fill the $2 trillion stimulus we need? The middle and lower classes are too broke to donate enough to charity to meet the hole we are talking about. We always have money to fund wars and bail out the rich (by going into debt/deficits), so this is no different.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2020 12:01AM by shoptastic.

To whom much is given...

These Congressional peeps are useless. Still nothing.

We should also understand that proper nutrition is important to bolster the immune system (important for COVID, but also the upcoming flu season). People are out of money...hungry...worried about rent.

So the Dems came down a trillion dollars and the Repubs didn't do anything. I hope worrying about the populace doesn't disturb their weekend. What the heck; 40 million people predicted to be homeless by the end of the year without a nearly immediate bill, but it would be tragic if they had to alter their privileged-people weekend plans.

@Sandy Shopper wrote:

So the Dems came down a trillion dollars and the Repubs didn't do anything.

Kind of but not really. They basically just shortened the time frame on the spending in order to lower the cost. It's a hard analogy to come up with....

Let's say you have applied for a job. You want 1,000,000 a year for 5 years for a total of $5,000,000 and they want to pay you 300,000 a year for 5 years for a total of 1,500,000. So you say ok I'll take 1.5 Million off my offer if you ad 1.5 Million to yours and then we'll be close enough to negotiate. But you want to take your 1.5 million off by saying you want 1,000,000 a year for 3.5 years. Well you really didn't take 1.5 off did you?

They should have at least gone piecemeal. If they wish to debate over the finer details of unemployment, liability, the stupid FBI building (lol), etc., they can do that later. At least rush another $1,200/$2,400/$500 out to those in desperate need right now.

Get eviction moratorium protections done.

I understand not wanting to incentivize people not working, but at bare minimum, send out some sort of cash. Even if you approve the $1,200 now, it will take weeks/months for everyone to receive. My sister got her's super early. My brother and I were next. My parents last (months later). ...Or, maybe they've figured out a system to fast-track it by now? Who knows. I just hope people don't get their help like three months late.

Here was Paul Krugman on the GOP: [www.sltrib.com]

@ wrote:

Well, I’m of two minds. Was it ignorant malevolence, or malevolent ignorance?

@ wrote:

Republicans, however, have shown no sign of understanding any of this. The policy proposals being floated by White House aides and advisers are almost surreal in their disconnect from reality. Cutting payroll taxes on workers who can’t work? Letting businesspeople deduct the full cost of three-martini lunches they can’t eat?

They don’t even seem to understand the mechanics of how unemployment checks are paid out. They proposed continuing benefits for a brief period while negotiations continue — but this literally can’t be done, because the state offices that disburse unemployment aid couldn’t handle the necessary reprogramming.

re: incentivizing laziness:

@ wrote:

This would be a bizarre claim even if unemployment benefits really were reducing the incentive to seek work. After all, there are more than 30 million workers receiving benefits, but only 5 million job openings. No matter how harshly you treat the unemployed, they can’t take jobs that don’t exist.

I'm willing to believe they are both that dumb and malevolent at the same time.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2020 12:50AM by shoptastic.

@shoptastic wrote:

They should have at least gone piecemeal. If they wish to debate over the finer details of unemployment, liability, the stupid FBI building (lol), etc., they can do that later. At least rush another $1,200/$2,400/$500 out to those in desperate need right now.

The problem with doing it that way is there's no leverage left. If they toss out another $1200 stimulus check the Republicans are pretty ok if nothing else gets done. So nothing else will get done.

No leverage for what though? The Democrat wish list has no place in the deal at all. It can be done later through normal processes and if it fails, it fails. Meanwhile, Republicans offered to extend unemployment, get the stimulus checks out, and freeze evictions. Pelosi and Schumer would not go along, for exactly the reason you state. They'll lose leverage for their unrelated wish list.

So if you have money and food, use them to keep people fed and in their homes! It is not necessary to wait for the government to make some decision. It is only necessary to locate the relevant organizations that you trust and support them. I give food to a pantry and clothes to another group. Other people give food, clothes, personal care supplies, money, and who knows what else. You do what you can and want to do.

@shoptastic wrote:

We should also understand that proper nutrition is important to bolster the immune system (important for COVID, but also the upcoming flu season). People are out of money...hungry...worried about rent.

Yes. We have/will. But, that is not enough. Private charitable giving likely won't be enough to fill those holes, as I said, Shopetal.

Also, I don't know how this even ends. Without an effective vaccine (that produces neutralizing anti-bodies ...say...in 70% of people?), there is going to be a lot of caution going forward. Baby Boomers have all the money in America, yet, ironically, have the most risk if they go out. From the figures I've seen and posted, they are holding back spending and that is cratering the economy. That wealthiest 25% account for 2/3 of consumer spending.

You cannot force them to come out. They have the money to not have to work, nor come out if they don't want to. Here is a terrifying number I heard. At the height of the 2008 financial crisis, GDP fell 5%. That 5% led to Occupy Wall Street on the Left and the Tea Party on the Right. . . .Right now, even if we get back to 95% of where we were pre-COVID, that still leaves us where the country was at the depth of 2008-09!!! It took six years to get jobs back to pre-2008-9 levels in that recession.

There is likely NO chance we get back to 95% of GDP in the next few years. This virus will keep many people home and not spending as usual. We could be in for a long depression worldwide. Governments may have to print a TON OF MONEY for a while. Private charity cannot begin to cover what we're talking about in that sort of scenario.

@panama18 wrote:

No leverage for what though? The Democrat wish list has no place in the deal at all.

Oh, that's a hot take if there ever was one. There are things Democrats want that are a stretch to be related, but it's the Republicans who are adding things like $2 Billion for a new FBI building that the FBI doesn't want or need it just happens to be close to Trump's hotel and he wants the business it brings. Or the billion for some new wiz bang aeroplane or tank or whatever the military wants. The Republicans didn't offer all of those things you mentioned. They offered $200 a week for unemployment, and the stimulus check, and they want companies to be free from liability if someone catches Covid.

No one has stated that private charity was intended to fill all gaps. However, the more that private charity is provided consistently and well, the less need there will be for the government to step in with its costly programs. This is something for every person to consider now and in future. Can we afford not to give and give and give as our funds and sensibilities permit? We can still choose to a great extent how and when we will give. If we are only and ever taxed, we will have no say in how "our" money is used.

@shoptastic wrote:

Yes. We have/will. But, that is not enough. Private charitable giving likely won't be enough to fill those holes, as I said,... Private charity cannot begin to cover what we're talking about in that sort of scenario.

Actually they did offer those things. But both sides seem to be missing the point of bargaining chips.You can ask for anything and everything, but at some point you start swapping one thing for another. They don't seem to be doing that. Plenty of blame on both sides.

@bgriffin wrote:

@panama18 wrote:

No leverage for what though? The Democrat wish list has no place in the deal at all.

Oh, that's a hot take if there ever was one. There are things Democrats want that are a stretch to be related, but it's the Republicans who are adding things like $2 Billion for a new FBI building that the FBI doesn't want or need it just happens to be close to Trump's hotel and he wants the business it brings. Or the billion for some new wiz bang aeroplane or tank or whatever the military wants. The Republicans didn't offer all of those things you mentioned. They offered $200 a week for unemployment, and the stimulus check, and they want companies to be free from liability if someone catches Covid.

It's an election stunt on the part of the Republicans, insisting on things that have nothing to do with relief (eg., the new FBI building, like bgriffin mentioned) - just so "he who must not be named" can swoop in and appear to "save the day" just before the election. The Dems are not asking for anything that wouldn't help the people of the U.S., including small businesses, during this crisis. What better use of our tax dollars than to help the people who have paid their taxes for so many years? (Covid will be with us for a long time, thanks to our inept leadership, so businesses will continue to close, people will run through the money they have saved, and charity dollars will be gone ... there is not an endless supply to rely on. Sanctimoniously donating used clothing and a few boxes of food to a food pantry is a drop in the bucket. Many of us have been donating our time and food for a long time without feelng the need to mention it.)

Unfortunately, this is becoming a political argument. Democrats think the Democrats are right, Republicans think the Republicans are right. BOTH sides of Congress are asking for things that have little to do with relief to the American people. The Republicans are asking for a new FBI building, the Democrats are asking for financial aid for the post office and election funding. If both sides drop their negotiating and focus on bailing out the American people, they might come to an agreement. Any other funding - FBI building, post office funding, election changes - should actually be separate from the stimulus. No need to mix additional issues into a bailout of Americans - except to arm wrestle and try to win concessions. This is a negotiating ploy by both sides. The American people are being held hostage by both Republican and Democrat children in Congress fighting over their playground instead of doing their jobs to represent us. Plenty of blame to go around.

As for making Trump a Hero, there is only so much he can do through Executive Order. Congress appropriates money, not the president.

Democrats don't have to like and agree with Republicans and Republicans don't have to like and agree with Democrats, but be fair and savvy enough to see the reality of this two way street. I'd like to see the terms of Representatives and Senators limited to 2 terms. We'd see a lot less ownership of the turf. It's disgraceful that Americans are being used as negotiating pawns in this. And the saddest thing is most of them don't see it.

Trump just issued a bunch of executive orders this afternoon that ignore the fact that the "power of the purse" belongs exclusively to congress, per the constitution. In addition, by existing law, states cannot pay unemployment insurance except with congressional approval. So Trump telling them to use some more federal $$$ to do so does not make it legal for them to use that money. Oy vey!

@walesmaven wrote:

Trump just issued a bunch of executive orders this afternoon that ignore the fact that the "power of the purse" belongs exclusively to congress, per the constitution. In addition, by existing law, states cannot pay unemployment insurance except with congressional approval. So Trump telling them to use some more federal $$$ to do so does not make it legal for them to use that money. Oy vey!

WOW! So he is going to exceed his authority with Executive Orders. Oh, well, I guess Obama set the pattern for exceeding authority with Executive Orders. Obama got away with it, so maybe Trump will also .... and Americans can enjoy a much-needed stimulus while the Congressional children continue to fight over turf.

Once, Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that the entire feminist movement should be scrapped and a new plan to support women should be made. I like that. It would make the issues pertinent to today and clear out tired old arguments. It is good that women can vote and hold office. It is not good that equal pay for equal work has not been clearly defined. This would be a solid foundation for wholesome conditions for women.

Perhaps the government could scrap its approach to funding emergencies and start all over... while that is happening, people who can afford it should be supporting others in a simply decent and neighborly way, and in keeping with laws against discrimination. People who need a boost can get it. Meanwhile, over there in the government, some genius soul might develop a framework for accurate means testing, rapid auditing, and planned/scheduled reviews and as-frequent-as necessary overhauls of each and every program. This business of opening gambits, counteroffers, bargaining chips, and general gamesmanship and the occasional poiltico neener-neener-neener only serve to keep necessary assistance from people who most need it.

If the government cannot or will not work for the people, the people should make things happen for themselves in ways that are legal and supportive of the population.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2020 10:53PM by Shop-et-al.

I can see the potential for a massive legal tangle and further delays coming from those EOs. I hope not.

@walesmaven wrote:

Trump just issued a bunch of executive orders this afternoon that ignore the fact that the "power of the purse" belongs exclusively to congress, per the constitution. In addition, by existing law, states cannot pay unemployment insurance except with congressional approval. So Trump telling them to use some more federal $$$ to do so does not make it legal for them to use that money. Oy vey!

A question about donations:

What are the most reputable places you've seen? Ideally, I'd like to give where there is the least amount of administrative cost. Our local hospital has a 100% usage policy of money donated and no fees taken out of it. I am wondering about more of a food bank type of places or anywhere that serves food.

Any national orgs. trustworthy in this area? We've donated to Salvation Army, but not really money (usually physical donations).

The stimulus package wasn't just Democrats versus Republicans. It was Republicans versus Republicans versus the White House versus Democrats. Reverse/repeat. Both parties fully realized if they didn't put something on Trump's desk, EOs were forthcoming. Both parties also realize there will likely be challenges to the EOs, leaving millions of Americans twisting in the wind, and worse.

Looks like they can live with that and go on recess. Plenty of hooey all the way around.

Oh there's hooey all right and it came straight from the top. I don't think the Repubs were bargaining in good faith at all. They were waiting for the failure in the White House to find a way to make himself look like the hero who fixed it all. I call BS. I'm surprised there hasn't been an uprising from the governors of every state, since they are expected to throw in a hundred dollars of that $400 that he ordered for UI. With most states seeing an overwhelming shortfall in taxes, due to the shutdowns, they simply don't have it.

I was thinking the same thing Sandy Shopper. How the heck are the states supposed to just throw in money? The states are in need of help too! That's a portion of what the Dems are asking for also. Every state is hurting, but the other side of the aisle doesn't want to budge on that issue either. I don't know why. It benefits them, whoever them is, Dem or Repub, or "Dem state" or "Repub state," the citizens. States don't have any money. "They simply don't have it." If states don't get help, furloughs are coming and reduced services are coming too. For example, defund the police won't have a darn thing to do with BLM.

Another issue that does not get enough attention is the insistence on Trump's payroll tax cut. What the heck! So, Social Security and Medicare are already barely hanging in there, and he wants to cut the source of funding for them. The payroll tax cut helps no one who needs help. The effect is really just the opposite, but it might make the 1% wealthier.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But I gotta tell ya, the day the president has the power to order states to pay this or that, cut taxes, and spend money how he sees fit, is the day we return where we started, King George III.

I would be surprised if any of the EOs are actually administered due to a myriad of complications, ie states having to contribute 25 percent, the "request" nature of the evictions EO and the payroll tax simply deferring the payment until a large chunk is plopped onto the parties at a later time. From my understanding, the Dems offered to compromise 1 trillion if the Republicans would come up 1 trillion. The repubs said "no." Also, the heroes bill has been in the Senate hands for 3 months. WTH, No one is a hero here, and those most in need are going way down the rabbit hole very soon.