Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[consolcwby]

Do MASK MANDATES WORK?
According to this, apparently not: https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821
Unless murdering innocent people is the goal?
Dunno what to think!

You might notice that mask mandates are only put in place when there are a lot of cases, and sometimes not even then. So it stands to reason that there would be more coronavirus cases where there are mask mandates, because there were already more cases which led to the mask mandate.

Kansas, as it once did with tax policy, provided a natural experiment to test mask effectiveness, and a CDC study found that counties with mask mandates did better. The article links to the CDC study.

Just a reminder.

$900 billion stimulus bill
/ 150 million taxpayers
= $6,000

That's how much your $600 stimulus costs you. (At least a 1:10 return is a better deal than the CARES Act was.)

It's a typical dishonest ploy for Republicans to pass tax cuts for rich people, driving up the national debt and then attribute that debt equally to every American. I don't see any problem with the benefit of coronavirus relief going to those who were more negatively affected, and those who were not paying for it; that's how society should work. The push for stimulus checks to everyone instead of increased unemployment benefits for people who are mostly out of work through no fault of their own is a bad thing, but it's probably all that the politics allows. (Labeling something that is disaster relief as stimulus is a failing at both ends of the political spectrum.)

Oh. It's the republican's fault. I should've guessed at that. Maybe Christian and Jews should stfu and let the CDC ISOLATE THEM INTO GHETTOS? As planned.
ATLANTA, GA – In a move that is sure to spark controversy and protest, the CDC released Proposition 23.4 yesterday which grants state governments the right to quarantine unvaccinated families.  According to the proposal, state governments will "have the right to erect closed communities" in order to isolate unvaccinated families from the public. CDC headquaters"We're losing the battle on convincing people to get vaccines through science and facts.  The next best approach is to quarantine disease vectors," said CDC spokesman Dr. Tina Krysinski.  "In this case the vectors are unvaccinated humans."

The quarantine will only be enacted for people and families who have not been vaccinated due to bogus philosophical or religious reasons, as to not punish individuals who have true allergies or medical reasons not to receive vaccines. "Toxins," autism, "I don't want to," and celebrity posts will not be legitimate reasons accepted by state governments. The plan calls for building enclosed communities with walls around living spaces with a one-mile safety buffer around the community.  Each community will have their own water supply and gluten-free food sources to ensure maximal containment.

"Proposition 23.4 addresses two immense problems," said Krysinski.  "First, it will protect those humans who cannot get vaccines either due to a young age, immunodeficiency, or other real contraindication to vaccines.  Secondly, it will protect the innocent children of parents who chose not to vaccinate from acquiring disease since they will be in a closed environment.  Those poor kids... they have to deal with their crazy parents.  They don't even stand a chance at being normal themselves in the future."

"Proposition 23.4 could be the second greatest advance in medicine, behind vaccinations," said Krysinski.  "This might be our last fighting chance to contain measles, pertussis, meningitis and a whole host of other diseases." Anti-vaxxers can either chose to get vaccinated or move themselves and families to the quarantined areas.  According to pediatrician, Dr. Steven Willis, anti-vaxxers are best treated like toddlers.

"I have found that patients that are against vaccines are more manageable when presented with a choice," said Willis.  "Just like toddlers, just offer them a choice and they will be more likely to take one instead of throwing a tantrum.  Don't ask them if they want to be vaccinated, but rather just say, 'Mr. Johnny, vaccine or quarantine, you pick.'"

With the recent measles outbreak, Texas and California are already pushing the proposal through state legislation and hope to have enough signatures by the start of next school year.  Huge land areas in the Angeles National Park are future spots for the hundreds of celebrities in L.A. who will need to be quarantined.

Wow. What a fucking piece of shit you are! Congrats! You've just become a fucking nazi!
https://gomerblog.com/2014/05/quarantine/
The Evidence:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/disease/cdc-is-a-private-organization-not-government/
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/301432-the-cdc-is-being-being-influenced-by-corporate-and-political
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/hiring-liberals-policy-cdc-employees-made-8000-political-contributions-pacs-since-2015-5-republican-causes/
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/07/19/fec-reports-provide-insights-into-which-politicians-and-pacs-cdc-employees-donated-to-n2572728
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2020/03/14/cdc-and-covid-19-scandal-and-incompetence/?sh=731d66ed2e7a

[rawma]

Just a reminder.

$900 billion stimulus bill
/ 150 million taxpayers
= $6,000

That's how much your $600 stimulus costs you. (At least a 1:10 return is a better deal than the CARES Act was.)

It's a typical dishonest ploy for Republicans to pass tax cuts for rich people, driving up the national debt and then attribute that debt equally to every American. I don't see any problem with the benefit of coronavirus relief going to those who were more negatively affected, and those who were not paying for it; that's how society should work. The push for stimulus checks to everyone instead of increased unemployment benefits for people who are mostly out of work through no fault of their own is a bad thing, but it's probably all that the politics allows. (Labeling something that is disaster relief as stimulus is a failing at both ends of the political spectrum.)

Trumpbux Mark 2.0 adds up to $166 billion, and expanded unemployment another $120 billion. What part of the $634 billion left over adds up to helping those were more negatively affected? The money to monitor climate change in Tibet? Paying for investigating a race riot in 1908? Hundreds of millions to help another country (the Sudan) pay down it's own debt?

Calling this either a stimulus or a disaster relief bill is a joke. It's pork, with a minor bribe attached.

Since you are silent on the inappropriateness of distributing increases in national debt equally among all American taxpayers (and of course you misrepresent the Americans who don't pay federal income tax as not being taxpayers), I conclude you are unable to defend that point. Victory lap taken!

Instead you deflect by misrepresenting the contents of the coronavirus relief package. Taking your points in reverse order:

The money to monitor climate change in Tibet? Paying for investigating a race riot in 1908? Hundreds of millions to help another country (the Sudan) pay down it's own debt?

The foreign aid is part of the omnibus spending bill, not the coronavirus relief package.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/22/facebook-posts/facebook-posts-wrongly-say-covid-19-bill-includes-/

Congress appropriated funds for foreign aid and for American arts centers, and Americans are free to disagree that taxpayer money is allotted in this way. But it's wrong to suggest that such funding is in the COVID-19 relief bill.

And some more debunking: https://www.masslive.com/politics/2020/12/no-the-covid-stimulus-isnt-sending-85m-to-cambodia-complaints-over-alleged-omnibus-pork-muddle-stimulus-deal.html

What part of the $634 billion left over adds up to helping those were more negatively affected?

The $900 billion price tag includes:

$325 billion		Aid to Small Businesses
$166 billion		$600 checks per person
$120 billion		Unemployement Benefits
$82 billion		Education
$56 billion		Health Care
$45 billion		Transportation
$83 billion		Other Spending
$40 billion		Other Tax Cuts

From http://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-final-covid-relief-deal-2020 which has more detail of each category. They total it to $920 billion; I get 917, but there may be accumulated rounding errors.

Other tax cuts includes as the second largest item "Reinstate 100% Business Meals Deduction for 2021 and 2022", which is pretty stupid (encouraging people to take business lunches seems to aid the coronavirus, not the people who might be affected by it; I expect somebody rationalized it as keeping restaurant workers employed). But it's "only" $6 billion.

The transportation part is not clearly aimed at coronavirus relief, beyond payroll support for airline workers, but "state highway funding" is the closest it seems to have to aiding state governments which mostly can't run deficits and are suffering from decreasing revenue.

I'm not sure what the education portion includes; it could be state and local aid in a specific area, it could be mitigating the expenses of operating schools safely in a pandemic, it could be unrelated spending to get the necessary votes.

It's not surprising if a large bill contains various pork spending, but it doesn't appear to be that much given a 5,593 page bill with no time to read it. Put the blame on Republicans; Democrats passed a second relief package in the House in May and have been shut down in negotiations by Senate Republicans since.

That website also lists $560 billion in "offsets" (reductions in previous budget authority); it is unclear to me whether that amount was already going to add to the national debt or not, so your "calculation" may have had an incorrect numerator as well.

Pat, if you don't want to be thought a right-winger, maybe you should spend time making your economic posts accurate rather than regurgitating right-wing talking points, and less time worrying about the correctness of the term "President elect".

[Pat]

Just a reminder.

$900 billion stimulus bill
/ 150 million taxpayers
= $6,000

That's how much your $600 stimulus costs you. (At least a 1:10 return is a better deal than the CARES Act was.)

It's a typical dishonest ploy for Republicans to pass tax cuts for rich people, driving up the national debt and then attribute that debt equally to every American. I don't see any problem with the benefit of coronavirus relief going to those who were more negatively affected, and those who were not paying for it; that's how society should work. The push for stimulus checks to everyone instead of increased unemployment benefits for people who are mostly out of work through no fault of their own is a bad thing, but it's probably all that the politics allows. (Labeling something that is disaster relief as stimulus is a failing at both ends of the political spectrum.)

Trumpbux Mark 2.0 adds up to $166 billion, and expanded unemployment another $120 billion. What part of the $634 billion left over adds up to helping those were more negatively affected? The money to monitor climate change in Tibet? Paying for investigating a race riot in 1908? Hundreds of millions to help another country (the Sudan) pay down it's own debt?

Calling this either a stimulus or a disaster relief bill is a joke. It's pork, with a minor bribe attached.

Since you are silent on the inappropriateness of distributing increases in national debt equally among all American taxpayers (and of course you misrepresent the Americans who don't pay federal income tax as not being taxpayers), I conclude you are unable to defend that point. Victory lap taken!

Instead you deflect by misrepresenting the contents of the coronavirus relief package. Taking your points in reverse order:

You're completely dishonest. I talk about the things that interest me and which I know something about, and don't talk about the things that I don't. You can't randomly throw add a new topic, and then immediately claim victory because you were ignored. Not talking about something is not a statement of support. That's idiotic.

Plus, much of the rest of your post was illegible garbage. There wasn't much to respond to, because many of your points were unclear.

Distributing the debt equally is a perfect example. What does that mean? Taking $25 trillion, and dividing it by 330 million? That's insane. It's not how it works it's not how it ever worked, it's not how anyone ever proposed it works, it has no bearing on the bill being discussed, and it's not even an interesting or illuminating exercise. It's just random claim with no relation to anything, because you failed to communicate the concept you're really trying to convey.

And of course people who don't pay income tax pay other taxes, the government is very good at gouging money from people. Even if you somehow manage to avoid paying sales tax for instance, they'll get you via inflation. But we're talking about the Trumpbux, which are predicated on paying income tax. So taxpayer, in that context, clearly means someone who pays income tax. Your failure to understand context and correctly interpret their trivial implications would be moronic if that was the limit of your intellectual capabilities. But I prefer to believe you at least qualify as a dimbulb, and thus knew exactly what I was saying. You just choose to deliberately misinterpret it, in a feeble attempt to claim a false victory. Which is dishonest.

The money to monitor climate change in Tibet? Paying for investigating a race riot in 1908? Hundreds of millions to help another country (the Sudan) pay down it's own debt?

The foreign aid is part of the omnibus spending bill, not the coronavirus relief package.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/22/facebook-posts/facebook-posts-wrongly-say-covid-19-bill-includes-/

Congress appropriated funds for foreign aid and for American arts centers, and Americans are free to disagree that taxpayer money is allotted in this way. But it's wrong to suggest that such funding is in the COVID-19 relief bill.

And some more debunking: https://www.masslive.com/politics/2020/12/no-the-covid-stimulus-isnt-sending-85m-to-cambodia-complaints-over-alleged-omnibus-pork-muddle-stimulus-deal.html

It's one bill. There is no omnibus spending bill, and a separate sars2 relief bill. There is only one bill, which includes both omnibus and coronavirus spending.

This is civics 101.

You could make an argument that some parts of the bill are intended for different things, i.e. part of it is for relief, and other parts are for other stuff. But then you could also argue that the spending for the Sudan is a separate thing, unrelated to anything else in the bill. You can atomize it any way you like, but that doesn't change the fact: It's all part of the same bill.

That's how they pass all this crap. They find something that people want, or think they want, and then jam attach every last piece of random crap they think of to it, so they can (falsely) claim that opposing the bill means opposing the tiny bit of stuff that polls well. Rand Paul is right to call them on it, and it's astonishing Trump is doing the same, because he's hardly been a voice of fiscal restraint or cutting crap.

So that's another case where you've displayed a combination of blissful ignorance and dishonesty, flavored by your nutso variety of irrational partisanship.

Your analysis of the $900 billion spending seems moderately reasonable if we ignore your need to make false digs against certain members of the uniparty. I would add some points about much of that spending is really wasted, too late, or are patches to fixes problems the government itself caused, but what's the point? You don't engage in honest discussions.

Pat, if you don't want to be thought a right-winger, maybe you should spend time making your economic posts accurate rather than regurgitating right-wing talking points, and less time worrying about the correctness of the term "President elect".

That's only you. The other half a dozen people on this board who insisted on applying a partisan label to me called me a leftwinger.

It should be obvious at this point, but just to reiterate, you're all idiots.

[Snowman0147]

I thought you are neutral Pat.

[HappyDaze]

I thought you are neutral Pat.

Believing that everyone here is an idiot is the neutral position.

[rawma]

Just a reminder.

$900 billion stimulus bill
/ 150 million taxpayers
= $6,000

That's how much your $600 stimulus costs you. (At least a 1:10 return is a better deal than the CARES Act was.)

It's a typical dishonest ploy for Republicans to pass tax cuts for rich people, driving up the national debt and then attribute that debt equally to every American. I don't see any problem with the benefit of coronavirus relief going to those who were more negatively affected, and those who were not paying for it; that's how society should work. The push for stimulus checks to everyone instead of increased unemployment benefits for people who are mostly out of work through no fault of their own is a bad thing, but it's probably all that the politics allows. (Labeling something that is disaster relief as stimulus is a failing at both ends of the political spectrum.)

Trumpbux Mark 2.0 adds up to $166 billion, and expanded unemployment another $120 billion. What part of the $634 billion left over adds up to helping those were more negatively affected? The money to monitor climate change in Tibet? Paying for investigating a race riot in 1908? Hundreds of millions to help another country (the Sudan) pay down it's own debt?

Calling this either a stimulus or a disaster relief bill is a joke. It's pork, with a minor bribe attached.

Since you are silent on the inappropriateness of distributing increases in national debt equally among all American taxpayers (and of course you misrepresent the Americans who don't pay federal income tax as not being taxpayers), I conclude you are unable to defend that point. Victory lap taken!

Instead you deflect by misrepresenting the contents of the coronavirus relief package. Taking your points in reverse order:

You're completely dishonest. I talk about the things that interest me and which I know something about, and don't talk about the things that I don't. You can't randomly throw add a new topic, and then immediately claim victory because you were ignored. Not talking about something is not a statement of support. That's idiotic.

I criticized your foolish statement and you chose not to defend it. Apparently, things you just said are among the things you don't know about. Not surprising for a right-winger.

Plus, much of the rest of your post was illegible garbage. There wasn't much to respond to, because many of your points were unclear.

Ask for clarification. If you really don't want to respond, don't; but if you do, you should address what is said and not make stuff up or deflect. If you want to talk about something else, don't make it a reply.

Distributing the debt equally is a perfect example. What does that mean? Taking $25 trillion, and dividing it by 330 million? That's insane. It's not how it works it's not how it ever worked, it's not how anyone ever proposed it works, it has no bearing on the bill being discussed, and it's not even an interesting or illuminating exercise. It's just random claim with no relation to anything, because you failed to communicate the concept you're really trying to convey.

It's a common right-wing tactic to create debt unequally with tax breaks to the wealthy and then pretend the debt thus created applies equally to everyone.

And of course people who don't pay income tax pay other taxes, the government is very good at gouging money from people. Even if you somehow manage to avoid paying sales tax for instance, they'll get you via inflation. But we're talking about the Trumpbux, which are predicated on paying income tax. So taxpayer, in that context, clearly means someone who pays income tax. Your failure to understand context and correctly interpret their trivial implications would be moronic if that was the limit of your intellectual capabilities. But I prefer to believe you at least qualify as a dimbulb, and thus knew exactly what I was saying. You just choose to deliberately misinterpret it, in a feeble attempt to claim a false victory. Which is dishonest.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You concede that there are other forms of tax revenue, even though you have to engage in a huge number of insults to get there. A more telling point is that the debt incurred may never be paid off; the US owed more than its GDP at the end of WWII and the federal debt has never gone below half of that debt - it just became less significant through economic growth.

The money to monitor climate change in Tibet? Paying for investigating a race riot in 1908? Hundreds of millions to help another country (the Sudan) pay down it's own debt?

The foreign aid is part of the omnibus spending bill, not the coronavirus relief package.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/22/facebook-posts/facebook-posts-wrongly-say-covid-19-bill-includes-/

Congress appropriated funds for foreign aid and for American arts centers, and Americans are free to disagree that taxpayer money is allotted in this way. But it's wrong to suggest that such funding is in the COVID-19 relief bill.

And some more debunking: https://www.masslive.com/politics/2020/12/no-the-covid-stimulus-isnt-sending-85m-to-cambodia-complaints-over-alleged-omnibus-pork-muddle-stimulus-deal.html

It's one bill. There is no omnibus spending bill, and a separate sars2 relief bill. There is only one bill, which includes both omnibus and coronavirus spending.

But it is intensely dishonest (in a typically right-wing way) to pretend that foreign aid and other spending in the omnibus spending bill are for coronavirus relief. Every aspect of coronavirus relief could have been considered separately and more carefully if Republicans had responded to the coronavirus relief package that Democrats in the House passed back in May. (Fair criticism that neither party wanted exposure on spending measures before the election, preferring to repeatedly do short-term fixes; but in my view Republicans are usually more to blame because they're the party of "government doesn't work" and they try to demonstrate it by making government not work.) If you were honestly conflating the two, you wouldn't pretend that the bill is for $900 billion, since the omnibus spending bill (needed to keep the government from shutting down for a third time in Donald Trump's presidency) costs $1.4 trillion and that's where your examples come from.

This is civics 101.

You could make an argument that some parts of the bill are intended for different things, i.e. part of it is for relief, and other parts are for other stuff. But then you could also argue that the spending for the Sudan is a separate thing, unrelated to anything else in the bill. You can atomize it any way you like, but that doesn't change the fact: It's all part of the same bill.

Yes, you could argue that the two parts are separate or that it's all one thing, but pretending that the other stuff is part of the $900 billion as you did is Right-wing Dishonesty 101.

That's how they pass all this crap. They find something that people want, or think they want, and then jam attach every last piece of random crap they think of to it, so they can (falsely) claim that opposing the bill means opposing the tiny bit of stuff that polls well. Rand Paul is right to call them on it, and it's astonishing Trump is doing the same, because he's hardly been a voice of fiscal restraint or cutting crap.

It is true that unrelated items are often put in the same bill, either as a "poison pill" to block the bill in Congress or to prevent a presidential veto (since there's no line item veto). In this case, Donald Trump lacks any incentive to do his job and may shut down the government with a veto because he wants $2000 checks and a number of small things that were mostly in his own budget request. If your intent was simply to criticize Congress for combining unrelated ideas into one bill, that would be fair; but don't place the non-coronavirus-relief stuff into the $900 billion of coronavirus relief.

So that's another case where you've displayed a combination of blissful ignorance and dishonesty, flavored by your nutso variety of irrational partisanship.

Your analysis of the $900 billion spending seems moderately reasonable if we ignore your need to make false digs against certain members of the uniparty. I would add some points about much of that spending is really wasted, too late, or are patches to fixes problems the government itself caused, but what's the point? You don't engage in honest discussions.

What were the "false digs against certain members of the uniparty"? I expect that Republicans pushed for the "three martini lunch" tax break, but I didn't even say that. My criticism of Republicans after the analysis was for their delay in considering coronavirus relief in the Senate for many months after Democrats in the House passed a bill; the result would always be a compromise from that bill but it should have been arrived at much sooner than this.

Still no concession that your "analysis" of the $900 billion included things that were not part of the $900 billion.

Pat, if you don't want to be thought a right-winger, maybe you should spend time making your economic posts accurate rather than regurgitating right-wing talking points, and less time worrying about the correctness of the term "President elect".

That's only you. The other half a dozen people on this board who insisted on applying a partisan label to me called me a leftwinger.

It should be obvious at this point, but just to reiterate, you're all idiots.

That stupid right-wingers don't think you're right-wing enough (meaning that you're less right-wing than them) is not really any indication of anything; I've never claimed you were more right-wing than the idiots here who aren't worth talking to.

It's really not hard; stop making right-wing arguments if you're not right-wing.

[Pat]

Just a reminder.

$900 billion stimulus bill
/ 150 million taxpayers
= $6,000

That's how much your $600 stimulus costs you. (At least a 1:10 return is a better deal than the CARES Act was.)

It's a typical dishonest ploy for Republicans to pass tax cuts for rich people, driving up the national debt and then attribute that debt equally to every American. I don't see any problem with the benefit of coronavirus relief going to those who were more negatively affected, and those who were not paying for it; that's how society should work. The push for stimulus checks to everyone instead of increased unemployment benefits for people who are mostly out of work through no fault of their own is a bad thing, but it's probably all that the politics allows. (Labeling something that is disaster relief as stimulus is a failing at both ends of the political spectrum.)

Trumpbux Mark 2.0 adds up to $166 billion, and expanded unemployment another $120 billion. What part of the $634 billion left over adds up to helping those were more negatively affected? The money to monitor climate change in Tibet? Paying for investigating a race riot in 1908? Hundreds of millions to help another country (the Sudan) pay down it's own debt?

Calling this either a stimulus or a disaster relief bill is a joke. It's pork, with a minor bribe attached.

Since you are silent on the inappropriateness of distributing increases in national debt equally among all American taxpayers (and of course you misrepresent the Americans who don't pay federal income tax as not being taxpayers), I conclude you are unable to defend that point. Victory lap taken!

Instead you deflect by misrepresenting the contents of the coronavirus relief package. Taking your points in reverse order:

You're completely dishonest. I talk about the things that interest me and which I know something about, and don't talk about the things that I don't. You can't randomly throw add a new topic, and then immediately claim victory because you were ignored. Not talking about something is not a statement of support. That's idiotic.

I criticized your foolish statement and you chose not to defend it. Apparently, things you just said are among the things you don't know about. Not surprising for a right-winger.

I think I understand what you're saying now.

You believe an illustration of how much a bill costs, by showing how much it costs from the perspective of each taxpayer, is somehow an argument for taxing everyone equally?

You're a fucking moron.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You concede that there are other forms of tax revenue, even though you have to engage in a huge number of insults to get there. A more telling point is that the debt incurred may never be paid off; the US owed more than its GDP at the end of WWII and the federal debt has never gone below half of that debt - it just became less significant through economic growth.

I stated what I believe, what I've always believed, and spelled out how you deliberately and dishonestly misinterpreted what I said. That's not a concession, that's calling you out as a liar.

[It's really not hard; stop making right-wing arguments if you're not right-wing.

You really see the world that way, don't you? That people are divided into two groups, with comprehensive and mutually incompatible beliefs. So all you have to do is learn one thing that someone believes, and you know everything there is to know about them.

That's sad. You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

[rawma]

I think I understand what you're saying now.

You believe an illustration of how much a bill costs, by showing how much it costs from the perspective of each taxpayer, is somehow an argument for taxing everyone equally?

You tried to compare $600 payments to the "cost" to taxpayers, and pretended that $600 was the only benefit to each; it's a typical right-wing deception. Recasting it as general opposition to any large government expenditure would hardly escape from the universe of right-wing discourse. (Do you have a link to your equivalent criticism about the $2+ trillion dollar tax cut from 2017, a stimulus effort that produced so little actual stimulus?)

You're a fucking moron.

You're awfully defensive about being right-wing but unsurprisingly you offer no defense of your dishonest claims that the foreign aid amounts were part of the $900 billion coronavirus relief package.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You concede that there are other forms of tax revenue, even though you have to engage in a huge number of insults to get there. A more telling point is that the debt incurred may never be paid off; the US owed more than its GDP at the end of WWII and the federal debt has never gone below half of that debt - it just became less significant through economic growth.

I stated what I believe, what I've always believed, and spelled out how you deliberately and dishonestly misinterpreted what I said. That's not a concession, that's calling you out as a liar.

You wanted to divide by federal income taxpayers, and you backed off from that. Cheers for your tiny little step away from being a right-winger. You should notice that many federal-income-taxpayers won't get the $600 and many non-federal-income-taxpayers will get it.

[It's really not hard; stop making right-wing arguments if you're not right-wing.

You really see the world that way, don't you? That people are divided into two groups, with comprehensive and mutually incompatible beliefs. So all you have to do is learn one thing that someone believes, and you know everything there is to know about them.

That's sad. You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

You make arguments straight out of Republican talking points memos and pretend that you're some sort of neutral arbiter of the truth. You laud Rand Paul and find fault with every Democrat. You denied the clear Biden election victory. But you want to be seen as not a right-winger? LOL.

[Shasarak]

You really see the world that way, don't you? That people are divided into two groups, with comprehensive and mutually incompatible beliefs. So all you have to do is learn one thing that someone believes, and you know everything there is to know about them.

That's sad. You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

I bet you can predict what rawma thinks on any particular topic just by knowing that he is left wing.

[Snowman0147]

You really see the world that way, don't you? That people are divided into two groups, with comprehensive and mutually incompatible beliefs. So all you have to do is learn one thing that someone believes, and you know everything there is to know about them.

That's sad. You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

I bet you can predict what rawma thinks on any particular topic just by knowing that he is left wing.

It is rawma's fault for making that bed.  Now let him lay in it.

[consolcwby]

You really see the world that way, don't you? That people are divided into two groups, with comprehensive and mutually incompatible beliefs. So all you have to do is learn one thing that someone believes, and you know everything there is to know about them.

That's sad. You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

I bet you can predict what rawma thinks on any particular topic just by knowing that he is left wing.

He's a contrarian. When Trump wanted an aid package MONTHS AGO, he stated they weren't necessary. NOW suddenly, he complains about Trump stating it's not enough! He's also an economic expert, a political expert, a law expert, a medical expert, and an obvious anti-semite.  The fact is, he has trouble thinking, sleeping, and other less savory problems. Also, his back hurt today something fierce! So go easy on him will ya??
fnord.

[Shasarak]

You really see the world that way, don't you? That people are divided into two groups, with comprehensive and mutually incompatible beliefs. So all you have to do is learn one thing that someone believes, and you know everything there is to know about them.

That's sad. You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

I bet you can predict what rawma thinks on any particular topic just by knowing that he is left wing.

He's a contrarian. When Trump wanted an aid package MONTHS AGO, he stated they weren't necessary. NOW suddenly, he complains about Trump stating it's not enough! He's also an economic expert, a political expert, a law expert, a medical expert, and an obvious anti-semite.  The fact is, he has trouble thinking, sleeping, and other less savory problems. Also, his back hurt today something fierce! So go easy on him will ya??
fnord.

Its not being a contrarian at all.  I would put people like Mistwell in that particular category.

rawma is the type of person who gets his talking points from places like CNN and NY Times which frees him from the need to be consistant.  Therefore he is happy to complain about Trump wanting an aid package one second before the narrative changes to the opposite.

You and I may experience some kind of cognitive dissonance but for him it is just another Tuesday.

[consolcwby]

You really see the world that way, don't you? That people are divided into two groups, with comprehensive and mutually incompatible beliefs. So all you have to do is learn one thing that someone believes, and you know everything there is to know about them.

That's sad. You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

I bet you can predict what rawma thinks on any particular topic just by knowing that he is left wing.

He's a contrarian. When Trump wanted an aid package MONTHS AGO, he stated they weren't necessary. NOW suddenly, he complains about Trump stating it's not enough! He's also an economic expert, a political expert, a law expert, a medical expert, and an obvious anti-semite.  The fact is, he has trouble thinking, sleeping, and other less savory problems. Also, his back hurt today something fierce! So go easy on him will ya??
fnord.

Its not being a contrarian at all.  I would put people like Mistwell in that particular category.

rawma is the type of person who gets his talking points from places like CNN and NY Times which frees him from the need to be consistant.  Therefore he is happy to complain about Trump wanting an aid package one second before the narrative changes to the opposite.

You and I may experience some kind of cognitive dissonance but for him it is just another Tuesday.

Well, you'd know him better than me!  If you're friend is a mindless NPC, then more power to him! If it was me, I'd be in TOTAL DESPAIR! (At least he's not reading the Atlantic or such silly trash!)

[Pat]

I think I understand what you're saying now.

You believe an illustration of how much a bill costs, by showing how much it costs from the perspective of each taxpayer, is somehow an argument for taxing everyone equally?

You tried to compare $600 payments to the "cost" to taxpayers, and pretended that $600 was the only benefit to each; it's a typical right-wing deception. Recasting it as general opposition to any large government expenditure would hardly escape from the universe of right-wing discourse. (Do you have a link to your equivalent criticism about the $2+ trillion dollar tax cut from 2017, a stimulus effort that produced so little actual stimulus?)

I pretended no such thing. I just pointed out that the $600 that everyone talks about has a huge hidden cost. And the 2017 bill isn't even vaguely equivalent.

If you come across a green wall, and the green wall doesn't immediately denounce something you claim is a characteristic of white walls, say doing division in a certain way, do you tell the green wall it's really white?

You're a fucking moron.

You're awfully defensive about being right-wing but unsurprisingly you offer no defense of your dishonest claims that the foreign aid amounts were part of the $900 billion coronavirus relief package.

No, you're just a moron who unsurprisingly offers no defense of your dishonest claim that there were two bills. (I notice you switched to calling it a "package" instead of a "bill".)

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You concede that there are other forms of tax revenue, even though you have to engage in a huge number of insults to get there. A more telling point is that the debt incurred may never be paid off; the US owed more than its GDP at the end of WWII and the federal debt has never gone below half of that debt - it just became less significant through economic growth.

I stated what I believe, what I've always believed, and spelled out how you deliberately and dishonestly misinterpreted what I said. That's not a concession, that's calling you out as a liar.

You wanted to divide by federal income taxpayers, and you backed off from that. Cheers for your tiny little step away from being a right-winger. You should notice that many federal-income-taxpayers won't get the $600 and many non-federal-income-taxpayers will get it.

I never backed off from that even in the slightest. There's no way a reasonable person could interpret anything I said as backing off from it, but you're not a reasonable person, are you?

In fact, I'll reiterate it: I took the amount of the coronavirus part of the gigantic abusive spending package, and divided by the number of people who pay federal income tax. I did that because, while some of those taxpayers won't qualify because they make too much and there are some complications re SSNs, it still serves as a reasonable proxy for the number of people who will receive a $600 "stimulus". In other words, it's the total hidden cost of that $600 check or deposit.

This is a perfect reasonable illustration of the real costs. It's clear and easy to understand to anyone who doesn't read crazy things into every step, like you.

[It's really not hard; stop making right-wing arguments if you're not right-wing.

You really see the world that way, don't you? That people are divided into two groups, with comprehensive and mutually incompatible beliefs. So all you have to do is learn one thing that someone believes, and you know everything there is to know about them.

That's sad. You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

You make arguments straight out of Republican talking points memos and pretend that you're some sort of neutral arbiter of the truth. You laud Rand Paul and find fault with every Democrat. You denied the clear Biden election victory. But you want to be seen as not a right-winger? LOL.

I'm not neutral. Snowman said that, not me.

I find fault with every Republican, too. In fact, it was only about a month ago on this very board that I got dogpiled for attacking Rand Paul. So that's just ironic.

And I never said anything about who won the election.

0/3 so far. And I don't care whether people think I'm right-wing or not, either. It's just a symptom of the deeper problem: Your inability to listen to what I say. You'll notice we haven't talked about anything interesting or substantive, and that's because you keep replying as if I said things I never said, I correct you, you get indignant and double down, and it repeats ad nauseum.

In fact, I was always rather amused that people on the left usually labeled me as right wing, while people on the right usually labeled me as left wing. That's a just how people work. When you talk with another person, disagreements take on a greater import than areas of concordance. So when someone starts with a left/right axis bias, they're likely to label someone who doesn't fall on that axis as being on the opposite end. Humans are quick to label people as Other.

But there was a time when I could simply explain that I didn't fit neatly in that box, and people would accept that. That was fun, because it allowed us to move on with the discussion, and talk about real differences and areas of agreement, instead of being stuck at the gate, as it were. The loss of that is the worst part of today's political zeitgest, because saying "no that's not what I believe" in an endless, recursive cycle is pretty damn dull.

[Pat]

Its not being a contrarian at all.  I would put people like Mistwell in that particular category.

rawma is the type of person who gets his talking points from places like CNN and NY Times which frees him from the need to be consistant.  Therefore he is happy to complain about Trump wanting an aid package one second before the narrative changes to the opposite.

You and I may experience some kind of cognitive dissonance but for him it is just another Tuesday.

Rawma isn't someone who just repeats talking points, there's some thought under there. It's just it's buried under the Culture War mentality, the idea that there's this grand fight between two diametrically opposed sides. This does tend to blind people to the faults of their own side, while turning the enemy as a cartoonish caricature, but even more consequential is the belief that every argument must be won at any cost, even if they have to resort to dirty tactics. Plenty of people on both sides display it, though it is more common among the left because they're the driving force in the Culture War, while the right is more reactive.