I’m getting word that there isn’t a “pay everyone” proposal even close to the table. My sources are also telling me that the Vox link was originally posted in the “LOL Democrats” thread with the point of laughing at Democrats doing their same BS instead of “paying everyone”.
It took about 60 posts to get the muppet caught up with the rest of us, but I’m glad we can finally all agree that this Democratic proposal doesn’t go far enough and we need to pay everyone. It’s nice that we have Clovis here to muddy the waters talking about the PPP and lecturing about the federal budget before he finally realized that the point was the Democrats aren’t paying everyone.
The landlords wanted to play their game of “exploit your neighbor because they need shelter”. I think landlords should get $0 and some bootstraps. Why do you want to give them money?
I want to inject massive amounts of money into the system. That will take many different vectors. Given the size of the rental market it would be nuts for it not to be one of those vectors. In short I want to get money into as many peoples heads as possible. Landlords are people.
This is you advocating for govt to give money to landlords. Me and everyone else who is not a LL would not receive these funds. That sure sounds like the landlords would be getting more.
More than who? I don’t know what you are talking about. I never made any claims about amounts.
I want to inject money everywhere. By simple demographics orders of magnitude more would go to non-landlords than to landlords. I’m simply saying one of the vectors would be paying rents.
Along with massive increase in social safety net, a UBI, forgive student loans, guarantee mortgages, huge infrastructure investment, ppp, massive injection into research, especially green energy, tax forgiveness etc
These are all just various way to inject capital into the system. It doesn’t work if you use only one of these.
Sure you can be morally against landlords. That is a different discussion. People will be happy to have it in the whole thread dedicated to only it.
And in the vector of paying rents, orders of magnitudes more would go to the landlords. Which is why there are better vectors for us to choose. Sabo’s example above demonstrates it well.
There is no calculus that sends more to landlords, overall, than non-landlords. There are thousands of times more people in America who are not landlords.
If your complaint is individually might a landlord get more than some random citizen then ok sure that will obviously happen but so what? A business will get more than a person. A research institute would get more than a person. A family with kids would get more a person.
Is your idea of equality every entity gets exactly the same amount? That seems like a very inefficient way of injecting large amounts of money into the system.
Right now the economy needs money at every level. Bottom up and top down.
Your logic seems be singling out just landlords as some kind of special evil uniquely not worthy of gov support.
As I said many posts ago. Any plan that ONLY gives money to landlords is terrible trickle down bs.
My sympathies lie with the “no compromise” camp with a willingness to do absolutely nothing even if it means people getting evicted and going hungry–I am willing to accept an asymmetric compromise where the left wins more than it loses–but I can understand an argument (not necessarily the one clovis is pushing) that divided government means we have to settle for unhappy compromises and that we may have to accept handing out money to landlords and other undeserving folk in order to get money to people who deserve it.
How much bad stuff should we be willing to accept in exchange for a decent UBI plan? Or is it better to just allow things to completely break and accept some short-term suffering in the hope that it builds the political will to do something much better? How much value is there in making the landlording system completely untenable and a source of social unrest?
Democratic politicians tend to be bad negotiators who care too much about preventing short-term suffering, allowing their opponents to effectively take hostages against them. They model politics as a non-zero-sum game, whereas Republicans see politics as zero-sum. There’s an argument that the zero-sum strategy is winning because the system favors it. This means that the left needs changes to the political system to have a better chance of winning. Such changes do not generally happen without society paying a price.
