@KathyG wrote:

IF something isn't done by Monday Federal workers will be furloughed and a good chunk of the government will come to a screeching halt.

[www.cnn.com]
Don't forget about evictions.

@ wrote:

"We have to be out by Christmas Day or they will have the sheriffs in here," she said. "With no money, I have to find a temporary place."

A very scary, painful read of people's dire circumstances across this nation.

@Sandy Shopper wrote:

Which is a great reason for limiting congressional terms to two 4-year or one 6-year term. If Congress was not set up to be a popularity contest but instead, a place where the welfare of our great country is at the front of their concerns, we would have more equitable and sane bills.

Some go so far as to ask for 10-year bans on taking a consulting or lobbying position after Congress (which is how politicians are often paid back by their donors).

[www.usatoday.com]

@ wrote:

Without federal intervention, they fear, as many as 40 million people could be displaced amid an ongoing and still worsening pandemic.

It's hard to process that number!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2020 03:58AM by shoptastic.

I'm going to speak from reality here, but I know people won't accept reality. Most people who are homeless are homeless by poor decision making. People make poor decisions on things they buy, places they go, habits they form, and relationships they make. Here are many things people could live without to prevent becoming homeless; air conditioning, smartphones, cable TV, Internet, vehicles with power steering, power brakes, air bags, gym memberships, hair salons, restaurant food, etc. I grew up without any of these things. Take a moment to ponder this, “The statement ‘I can’ or ‘I can’t’ is true. Whichever you believe will be your reality.” Happy Holidays! Take care of yourself and someone around you if you can. If you do this, you won't need "stimulus."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2020 01:35PM by maverick1.

I won't go into a big rant here, but maverick1, you are absolutely wrong. I have been an advocate/counselor for homeless people for over 40 years. The reasons they became homeless are as varied as they are, and MANY of them are homeless due to circumstances beyond their control.
PS, don't get sick or injured in this country without insurance and a lot of cash to pay the deductible and 20% not covered by the insurance.

@maverick1 wrote:

Most people who are homeless are homeless by poor decision making.

I think this pandemic shows that's not always the case, maverick1. It's an act of nature.

Maybe there's no way to prove it, but I tend not to believe that "most" people who are homeless are so from bad choices. For sure, things like addiction or gambling can lead to that. But, it's also very complicated, as some are more vulnerable than others.

I think we actually ALL make bad choices in life. But, some people don't get the same level of support and second chances in life. Mistakes by a poor person can lead to homeless, while mistakes by a wealthier person can lead to a reality TV show paycheck. I remember Bristol Palin had become an out-of-wedlock teen mom (having preached abstinence). This is usually highly associated with future poverty. But, she comes from a well-connected family and was able to get a decent job and stay out of poverty and homelessness. She didn't have to pay as harshly for her mistakes in life.

And then you had Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who were knocking on death's door one September 21st night. Their executives got on their knees and begged the Federal Reserve to bail them out (they had no money to pay their debts) and their reckless gambling was magically waived and paid by tax-payer dime. Big bank executives took the TARP bailout money and gave themselves big bonuses to add insult to injury, while Main Street lost its homes in 2008-9. We see this same stuff happening in 2020. The elites are bailed out and the poor are left to fend for themselves in the midst of a raging medical pandemic and destroyed economy.

@maverick1.... There are many reasons people are homeless, speaking from reality. Poor choices is certainly one. Once upon a time, I and a group of friends would prepare meals once a week and walk the streets to feed homeless and offer them a message of hope and provide information about services and aid. On the ground, in reality, you learn a lot about the reasons people are in a homeless situation. Additionally, I have done volunteer work in a homeless shelter serving meals. I have had many one on one conversations with the people who do not have a permanent residence, and conversations with supervisors of the homeless shelter. There are many reasons, and sometimes they are a little complex. In general, the many reasons involve death, divorce, sickness, loss of job(s), rent "too damn high," or any one or combination of any of those things and others. A growing number of people are employed, but homeless. Many younger people were born into foster care, and remained in the system until they "age out," leaving them with no place to go. Furthermore, there are countless people who have untreated mental illness that are homeless. Yes, I also have met and know people who made poor decisions that resulted in homelessness. On the other hand, the larger percentage resulted from no real fault of their own.

@Sandy Shopper wrote:

The reasons they became homeless are as varied as they are, and MANY of them are homeless due to circumstances beyond their control.

A lot of them homeless by there own choosing. Several "homeless" people actually have places they can go. But they don't wanna follow the simple rules. They rather get high instead of having a roof over there heads

I knew it. Homelessness is a fiery topic. So let's look at the other end of the spectrum. Millionaires.

Thomas Stanley wrote the book, "The Millionaire Next Door." His survey showed that 80% or so of millionaires basically received no inheritance. They're self-made. They feel that a large part of their success was due to their own hard work. But surveys of the general population show that people, in large part, think success is mostly due to luck (like some people on this forum). That disagreement is perhaps the greatest difference between our two political parties. It's a myth that you are your group. And by that we're referring to where you were born, the color of your skin, your gender, etc.

It says, “Believing in that gives you an out to explain why you cannot get ahead”. So, why are the rich, rich and the poor, poor? How much of that can be attributed to hard work and ability and how much should be attributed to circumstances, discrimination, privilege, and luck?

Here is what the the daughter of the author of that book, Dr. Sarah Stanley Fallaw (who has a PhD in industrial psychology) had to say,

"First of all, what we know is that those of us who really view financial success as something that we can control, that's up to us, that we know that if I work hard or if I am able to be disciplined about my finances, will be more successful than those that believe that something else or someone else controls their financial success.

That's what we call locus of control in psychology and it does correlate with building wealth and net worth. So, we know that that's the case, and that's why that myth of, “Well, if I'm in a certain group, and my group looks like this in general, I can't get out of this.” That is one of the things that certainly is a myth.

I think my father certainly was very aware of the fact that if your income level is at the poverty level or something like that, it's going to be extremely difficult for you to pull yourself out of that and become a millionaire. I think those are the kinds of things that people get stuck on. And he certainly recognized that, and I do, as well.

I think the difference, like I said, comes in when we're using some of these things as sort of crutches for why we can't do things. We know what it takes to build wealth. We know what it takes to sustain wealth from a behavioral perspective, but a lot of us just don't want to do those things. And that's the hard part.

But I think it's naive to not recognize the fact that there are challenges that each of us has because of those factors. We absolutely do need to recognize them. And so it may be harder for some to overcome those, but in general, what we know is that if you have this mindset that you can actually impact what happens to you, the likelihood that you'll be successful is higher."

In summary, it's mostly mindset.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2020 11:05AM by maverick1.

Addiction is a terrible disease :-(

@simonbanks wrote:

A lot of them homeless by there own choosing. Several "homeless" people actually have places they can go. But they don't wanna follow the simple rules. They rather get high instead of having a roof over there heads

You just don't know what happens in a persons life. I have seen too much, and experienced too much, to encapsulate homelessness as a mindset or choice.

@maverick1 wrote:

I knew it. Homelessness is a fiery topic. So let's look at the other end of the spectrum. Millionaires.

Thomas Stanley wrote the book, "The Millionaire Next Door." His survey showed that 80% or so of millionaires basically received no inheritance. They're self-made. They feel that a large part of their success was due to their own hard work. But surveys of the general population show that people, in large part, think success is mostly due to luck (like some people on this forum). That disagreement is perhaps the greatest difference between our two political parties. It's a myth that you are your group. And by that we're referring to where you were born, the color of your skin, your gender, etc.

I don't know anyone who believes being wealthy or successful is mostly just due to luck (on this forum). No one has said that. I'm about as enthusiastic of a free-market capitalist as they come and believe 50% of your life's outcome is in your own hands and 50% is from things you cannot control. But, what that means is that sometimes people fall on hard times not of their own making.

My parents came from poverty, but built a successful small business as entrepreneurs. I'm definitely very proud of them. We've met so many dishonest, scummy business people in our lives. My parents were sacrificial, hard working, honest, and took the long route. They got rich slowly. They developed trust with customers from quality products and superior customer service. They invested their personal savings over decades. Watched it slowly grow in the stock market (sometimes taking big losses along the way, but still remaining invested). Lots of their competitors went in and out of business, but my parents were steady. They took a long-term view of things and had a stable clientele. They were very frugal, even when they amassed a lot of stock market wealth. I don't begrudge capitalism, as I've seen it change lives. It's the only economic system that's produced the level of prosperity we see today in modern societies.

Having said that, I do think people can fall into poverty and even homelessness from things beyond their control or even if it's their fault, have it hurt them much more from their more humble background. That was all that I was saying.

.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2022 12:36AM by shoptastic.

So maybe homelessness is like COVID? It's among us in society, isn't easily determined how you get it since you can't see it, some people don't believe it exists, some people choose not to protect against it, yet society as a whole ends up paying for it.

I'm just trying to foster some critical thinking instead of an always leaning left CNN headline news feed. I believe the answer is complex, like solving the healthcare issue, but many people don't want to address the facts. In the end, you need to learn how to properly take care of yourself, and if you can, someone else close to you. Taking care of yourself with regard to homelessness means, in part, to build a financial reserve so that if the unfortunate happens, you can make it through a brief layoff. Spend well under your take home pay. You don't take out excessive loans for a college degree like the Arts or History. The US needs STEM majors. The US in general needs to go on a diet as we are collectively more obese than ever. Etc., etc.

The main reason for homelessness is a shortage of homes. It's not profitable to build low-income housing, so it doesn't get built.

@maverick1 wrote:

So maybe homelessness is like COVID? It's among us in society, isn't easily determined how you get it since you can't see it, some people don't believe it exists, some people choose not to protect against it, yet society as a whole ends up paying for it.

That's an interesting comparison.

I know poverty is studied a lot in sociology and a little bit in economics and public policy too. I don't know if homelessness is studied that much. In general, though, academics point to structural (impersonal forces - e.g., laws, cumulative advantage, environmental factors, etc.) and cultural (including, personal values) factors for why people end up the way they do. It's essentially a mix of personal choices and impersonal forces around them.

I actually think most human beings would agree with this. It's intuitive and easily observed. I'm guessing we probably emphasize one side (say, impersonal forces) over the other (personal choices), because that's what tugs at our heart's emotions and strings the most and/or it's what we see on a daily basis.

I was fortunate to grow up around well-educated, decent, and successful individuals in a neighborhood that was relatively safe. I say relatively, because we had our share of crime too, but it wasn't dominant like in a ghetto. For every teen mom or gang banger I met in school, I probably knew of twice as many successful kids doing the right things to go to college and get a good job for themselves. Really bad personal choices weren't that common around me. I've met business cheats and scum bags, though, and some very unethical and powerful individuals in the professional world. I've also studied these topics in school.

Perhaps the reason we focus on one "villain" in society over others more is our direct, everyday experience with such people (or, in my case, studying them a lot too). It's always good, though, to take a step back and look at other vantage points to get a balanced view.

@mystery2me wrote:

The main reason for homelessness is a shortage of homes. It's not profitable to build low-income housing, so it doesn't get built.

I'm not that familiar with low-income housing, but I know even affordable starter homes (for entry level professionals) are in short supply. America has become increasingly a nation of renters.

[www.cbsnews.com]

@ wrote:

As of 2018, 62% of renters, or 27.1 million people, earned middle-class incomes of between $30,000 and $75,000, according to the study. At least 10.3 million families with annual income of at least $75,000 are renting the roof over their head, a jump over previous years.

That shift came as the country started to rebound from the 2008 housing bust. Along with straining family budgets across the land, the ensuing recovery drove up home prices. In 2013, for example, households needed to earn at least $53,300 a year to afford buying a home – a number that jumped to $67,300 in 2018, according to National Association of Realtors. Meanwhile, worker wage gains haven't kept pace with home prices.

A great deal of this had to do with how we handled 2008. We let Main Street fail. Banks given bailout TARP money did not lend it out to revive the economy. Instead, they gave themselves bonuses, bought up smaller banks, and took risk-free profits by stashing the cash at the Federal Reserve for interest. But, a more insidious motive existed too (that I've explained before). Banks and private equity served to gain more by watching everyone else fail. Those same homeowners, who were tricked into signing ARMs they couldn't understand and lost everything and then were tricked a second time into joining the HAMP program (a trial modified mortgage program) and were still foreclosed on (often fraudulently: [www.youtube.com] ...as the program hurt millions more than it helped, according to its top regulator, because it was more profitable for the banks/lenders, given HAMP's guidelines that the trial fees could be kept if the homeowner was foreclosed on for any reason - leading to many fake and made up excuses even after they paid on time, as detailed by Neil Barofsky in that video), were now desperate/financially ruined and given their third whammy and privilege of renting back those same homes they lost.

This is why famed economist, James Galbraith (son of Harvard's John Kenneth Galbraith) has said the banks did what they were incentivized to do and what was most profitable for them: not lending, letting people fail, and later buying up their homes at cents on the dollar and renting them BACK OUT to those same people who were ruined. Private equity got involved later too. They both cleaned up and have made a killing the past decade on collecting rent from financially weakened Americans.

The nation has barely just recovered from 2008 and now 2020 will bring a whole new level of pain for years to come. How many renters will we have after this crisis? Galbraith's schema is simple: bailout the elites, let Main Street fail, and let the elites prey on weakened Main Street afterwards. That's how corrupted power works in an oligarchy.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2020 01:45AM by shoptastic.

Trump signs tonight. About time!

He had no choice. [Unless the bill only had stimulus content, and not the pork from progressive's pet projects like the Kennedy Center, or Pakistan "gender studies" and other foreign aid, I would have vetoed it. Why is it that no one is yet concerned about the start of this pandemic; at best from wet markets in China, at worst, biological war?]

Does the public understand that stimulus money (or as I like to call it, helicopter money) will need to be paid back in the future? Taxes will be increased. Inflation will increase, raising your living costs and lowering your standard of living. More people may be pushed into homelessness. Does anyone see the cycle here? Of course not. The average American doesn't understand personal finance let alone M1 money supply, fiat currency, or government debt.

Welcome to Biden's "compassionate world" where the old slogan was, "Defund the Police." His new slogan is, "You'll feel like living in a basement."

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2020 09:24AM by maverick1.

You're too one-sided, maverick1.

You are currently only acknowledging and attacking bad choices and poor spending done by the Left/poor/Democrats, while ignoring worse things done by the elites/wealthy/Trump.

Trump ran the largest U.S. fiscal deficit in history at $1.5+ trillion before COVID in a non-wartime and non-recessionary environment. That's unheard of. There is $120 billion per month (promised essentially forever into the future, as long as the Fed sees fit with its "QE Infinity" program) that is essentially all going into financial markets and creating this wonderfully bubbly stock market we have. Then, there is $2.5 trillion in corporate junk debt that we have to bailout through what most scholars consider illegal bond buying. The Federal Reserve Act prohibits the Fed from buying stocks and corporate bonds. However, they found a quasi loop-hole using an SPV (special purpose vehicle) in collusion with Treasury to do this. Would the American people agree to bailing out junk debt rated corporations, who were irresponsible in piling up so much debt they are living zombies if they knew about this? I don't think so.

$900 billion (much of which is not stimulus for the poor) pales in comparison to the trillions we're printing and giving to the wealthy/elites/corporations.

[www.forbes.com]

@ wrote:

What This Means For You
By Trump signing this stimulus package, this may impact your wallet in several ways, including:

Stimulus Checks: The new stimulus package will provide a one-time stimulus check of $600 for each eligible individual based on the same income limitations for the first stimulus check, which is a 2019 income less than $75,000 for each individual and $150,000 for each married or joint filer. Eligible dependents 16 and younger can qualify for $600 stimulus checks, while married and joint filers can get $1,200. Trump advocated for $2,000 stimulus checks, and has previously said he wanted large stimulus checks for the American people. Previously, Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin said that stimulus checks could be sent within days, although it’s unclear if that schedule still holds and if payments would be delayed until early next year.

Unemployment Insurance: The new stimulus package includes $300 a week for enhanced unemployment insurance.

Rental Assistance: The stimulus package includes $25 billion of rental assistance to protect vulnerable Americans who are at risk of losing their home. There is also a one-month extension of the federal eviction moratorium. (This is different than a congressional proposal to cancel rent and mortgages).

Additional Benefits: The stimulus package also includes funding for the Paycheck Protection Program ($284 billion), education ($82 billion), child care ($10 billion), clean energy and fossil fuels, and vaccine distribution, among other benefits.

What’s Missing: Student loan relief was dropped from the stimulus package. This include any proposals to cancel student loans. Trump postponed federal student loan payments through January 31, 2021, but that student loan relief will expire then, unless Congress extends through legislation or the president extends through executive action. There is also no Covid-19 liability protection for businesses or any state or local aid, which were favored by Republicans and Democrats, respectively.

Roughly speaking, it looks 50% of the first package.

@1forum1 wrote:

@roflwofl wrote:

I think Mitch is ready and willing to bail out individual Americans with stimulus money, but the House stimulus that also includes bail-outs to certain states is not going to fly. .

There is no such thing as "bail-outs to certain states" in any stimulus. That verbage is used by the Unindicted Co-conspirtator Individual -1 and Mitch to distort. Every state in the union has taken a financial hit. Revenue subsided. States and cities have operating cost which includes a plethora of basic infrastructure maintenance. Additionally, the expenditures include the resources for schools, police, corrections, highways and roads, hospitals, and other public health including medicaid.

This shall be the next fight: state/local aid
[www.nbcnews.com]
Rick Scott (FL) called it a "blue state bailout," despite equal red and blue states being affected.

It's a touchy issue. The truth is, some states did have better run budgets, treasuries, and finances. So, there is legitimate argument over whether the collective American people should bailout worse off local states.

On the other hand, we've seen unfair bailouts already (QE bailing out the financial markets and the corporate junk bond market being bought up by the Fed), so this would be nothing new. Importantly, though, states cannot run deficits (they have balanced budget requirements). Only the U.S. government can run up large deficits (which then get monetized by the Fed's printing of money). What that means is that states are "stuck" in a pandemic like COVID and have to wait on federal aid. States can only:

-raise or decrease local taxes (including the state-level Earned Income Tax Credits)
-raise the local minimum wage
-offer subsidies for the needy, such as free housing and food

But, in order to spend, they need money quickly. That is just not possible in a pandemic like this (again, they have no ability to run deficits). Without extra aid, essential services will be cut (police, firefighters, health workers, social workers, transportation, etc.) and the resulting layoffs could lead to a downward and vicious economic spiral. Here is one way it impacts states I hadn't even thought of:
[www.huffpost.com]

@ wrote:

It’s one of countless examples of how austerity can make it even more difficult for ordinary people to get federally funded benefits, like food stamps, that are distributed by the states.

When COVID-19 hit, most states saw a huge surge in food stamp applications but didn’t have enough staff to keep up. In Virginia, where the food stamp caseload has grown by more than 30,000 since March, a government hiring freeze has caused intractable delays for new applicants.

“It’s a crisis. Every day you’re not able to process their application is a day that that family goes hungry,” said Duke Storen, commissioner of Virginia’s Department of Social Services. Other states are going further and cutting the staff that oversee food stamp distribution outright, Storen said. “In the new year, I think it’s only going to get worse.”

The Huff Post article has good examples of how state/local cuts affect communities. Good read.

I think another argument is simply that the U.S. economy is interconnected. Having multiple states fall apart will ultimately bleed into the larger economy. So, one might argue that helping worse off states more ultimately helps the better ones too. Anyhow, this shall be the next stimulus fight. ..

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2020 08:44PM by shoptastic.

Oh, puulease. To date, President Donald Trump and his two immediate predecessors are the three presidents who have run the largest budget deficits in U.S. history. But almost every president in the past half-century has run a record budget deficit at least for a time. Why are the last three presidents noted as having the largest deficits? Inflation. When you quote fiscal data, you need to account for inflation.

Now, do you want to see fiscal defect spending in a more local venue? Take a look at most all American cities. They virtually all run fiscal deficits and have begged for more Federal support during this pandemic, but it's not directly used for pandemic needs. Nope. It's to plug holes in the fiscal deficits of the poorly run DEMOCRAT cities from years prior. (Go ahead, fact check this.)

@maverick1 wrote:

Oh, puulease. To date, President Donald Trump and his two immediate predecessors are the three presidents who have run the largest budget deficits in U.S. history. But almost every president in the past half-century has run a record budget deficit at least for a time. Why are the last three presidents noted as having the largest deficits? Inflation. When you quote fiscal data, you need to account for inflation.

a.) To be clear, I stated that Trump ran the largest fiscal deficit, pre-COVID, outside of war times and recessionary times (WW2 era spending trumped Trump - pun intended). Obama inherited the 2008-9 global financial crisis his first term in office. It's normal (under Keynesian counter-cyclical economics) to spend during those times.

To be fair to Trump, the economy was in shambles too when he took office (but nowhere near as bad as Obama's first term).

b.) Inflation by CPI numbers has averaged around 2% the past decade. Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 immediately added $1.445 trillion to the national debt from deficit spending. 2% annual inflation did not lessen the impact of that. Looking out longer in time (the 10-year outlook), the impact is $2.2+ trillion without macroeconomic feedback and $1.8+ after macroeconomic adjustments from that CBO chart.


Even still, this all pales in comparison to the trillions given to the Big Banks in 2008-9 and again to them (via QE) in 2020 and to debt-ridden corporations.

@maverick1 wrote:

Now, do you want to see fiscal defect spending in a more local venue? Take a look at most all American cities. They virtually all run fiscal deficits and have begged for more Federal support during this pandemic, but it's not directly used for pandemic needs. Nope. It's to plug holes in the fiscal deficits of the poorly run DEMOCRAT cities from years prior. (Go ahead, fact check this.)

Yes, lots of states are bankrupt. I agree.

I think we can fairly criticize them.

Could we PLEASE return to the topic at hand ???

But...this is kind of fun.

I am trapped at home and bored!

I thought I read that the US Treasury recovered the funds spent to prop up the financial system in 2008-09 and even made a profit from the distressed assets and derivatives...

Yep, it's been fun shoptastic...unfortunately others are bored. Bored with the politics and financial matters that impact their lives. But we see reality as it is.

Looking ahead, herd immunity by May 2021. May-be herd immunity, get it?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2020 01:38AM by maverick1.

@msimon-2000 wrote:

I thought I read that the US Treasury recovered the funds spent to prop up the financial system in 2008-09 and even made a profit from the distressed assets and derivatives...

You're probably referring to TARP's ($700 billion) bailout and not the Fed's $16 trillion in corporate and financial institution loans and ~$4.5 trillion in QE from the 2008 crisis. It's a little tricky.

TARP is associated with the Treasury and most people remember the $700 billion bailout, as it was what was being debated in Congress (much like CARES and today's second round stimulus). That was fiscal policy.

What was less known were the Fed's "secret" (as some called it) loan program totaling $16 trillion (number from Bernie Sander's GAO mandated audit of the Fed) and ~$4.5 trillion in QE from 2009 through 2014. These are monetary policy and do not require Congressional approval. The Fed's "secret" bailouts made our government no money at all. Quite the opposite, as we bought up crappy toxic assets at marked up prices (with no buyer in sight) and lent out money at zero interest to financial institutions and corporations.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2020 03:38AM by shoptastic.

@shoptastic wrote:

. . .Although (again, pure politics aside), there might be a chance we do get a big stimulus bill (I doubt it) if there is some horse trading going on that enriches the elite/wealthy in return. Maybe we lower the tax rates further for the super rich or something and in return we get a bigger stimulus. After all, under Obama/Biden, we unexpectedly saw them make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the rich. So, there could be "compromise" scenario like that for a bigger stimulus for everyday folk. Still, my base case going forward is that a big bill is off the table.

Speaking of horse trading, buried in the 5,000+ page (who the heck reads that!!!????) new stimulus bill is a tax cut for the rich that amounts to about $200 billion. Wouldn't ya know it. That is roughly equal to the sum total of the $600 stimulus checks that will be sent out.

[www.nytimes.com]

*not surprised*

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2020 03:11AM by shoptastic.