Mark Cuban: Govt. should give out $1000 every 2 weeks...

[Ken g6]

...but claw back what's not spent after 10 days.

Mark Cuban says families should get $1,000 in stimulus checks every two weeks — with one big catch

Billionaire Mark Cuban says it’s time for the government to push “trickle-up economics” to save small businesses, because the Paycheck Protection Program...

www.marketwatch.com

Reminds me of that movie (derived from a book), "Brewster's Millions". Only everybody would be trying to spend their millions thousands at once. Also, Brewster had a lawyer follow him around tracking his spending; not everybody could do that.

And what would even count as "spending"? My checking account has better interest if I make at least 3 transactions a month. Deposits to my investment account count for that.

What about if people buy assets, like gold coins? A local coin shop prefers cash; but if I convert my thousands to cash how would the government track it? I just don't see how this could work.

 

[dank69]

...but claw back what's not spent after 10 days.

Mark Cuban says families should get $1,000 in stimulus checks every two weeks — with one big catch

Billionaire Mark Cuban says it’s time for the government to push “trickle-up economics” to save small businesses, because the Paycheck Protection Program...

www.marketwatch.com

Reminds me of that movie (derived from a book), "Brewster's Millions". Only everybody would be trying to spend their millions thousands at once. Also, Brewster had a lawyer follow him around tracking his spending; not everybody could do that.

And what would even count as "spending"? My checking account has better interest if I make at least 3 transactions a month. Deposits to my investment account count for that.

What about if people buy assets, like gold coins? A local coin shop prefers cash; but if I convert my thousands to cash how would the government track it? I just don't see how this could work.

Pretty sure investing and buying gold count as spending. Sticking it in a bank account does not. Buying something, selling it, and then sticking it in your account still counts as far as the economy is concerned.

As far as how to manage it, I think it would be pretty simple. Put the money on a card with a 10-day expiration date.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Meh I would just either pay down my mortgage or put it in a "just slightly above liquid" investment.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Yeah I'm not sure what the idea of the 10 day limit is. Even the richest of people can always find *something* to spend money on. I'd just shunt it into my mortgage every month. I'd have no interest in buying more stuff with it, but an extra $4,000 off the principle is meaningful.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Yeah I'm not sure what the idea of the 10 day limit is. Even the richest of people can always find *something* to spend money on. I'd just shunt it into my mortgage every month. I'd have no interest in buying more stuff with it, but an extra $4,000 off the principle is meaningful.

That's the point. Those who lost their jobs would have income to keep roof over their head and put food on their tables. Those who are still employed would spend extra money on something further stimulating the economy.

 

[zinfamous]

Meh I would just either pay down my mortgage or put it in a "just slightly above liquid" investment.

right, and it would keep our precious banks that much more solvent. ...which is fine. Those that need it for goods instantly, which are the people that are actually propping up the vast majority of the economy, would put it to their needs as they always have. Those that squirrel away their money for white collar needs will keep doing the same. I don't understand the difference in results from the perspective of the status quo...because there isn't one, really.

the benefit here is that it is actually direct stimulus, rather than approving money go to "small business," which are really giant conglomerates like McDonald's or Chipotle or the Gap, instead of their employees that literally can not work right now (floating them for ~2 months or so would be vastly cheaper, and vastly more effective that allowing corporations to "downsize cheaply" and just buy back more of their own stock), or directly to banks so that they can "benevolently wave piddling late fees" instead of covering actual mortgage and loan costs. ...that is literally what CARE is doing, and it is effing garbage. When I looked into the options, it is to "Delay payment," which simply means no late fees....but once your delay period is over (up to 12 months allowed), all payments are required to be paid back in a single lump sum, on the first payment....lol, wtf is that nonsense? How is anyone that isn't pulling in a pay check during all of that time supposed to suddenly have the money to pay it back? The alternative option is to "restructure the mortgage," which isn't any different than a normal refinance. It is utter dreck, and shouldn't be seen as anything but yet another handout to the type of assholes that have been stealing from the people for generations now.

lol, how benevolent of these lenders, to wave late fees in this troubling time!

 

[Homerboy]

wouldn't this work better with like a gov't issued "debit card"? They load it with $1,000. Then top it off back to $1,000 every month.
It would force you to actually buy things or pay for services. Sure there are a few businesses that don't take plastic, but those are very few and far between nowadays, and any of them can start taking plastic with Square etc.

 

[fskimospy]

It would probably be pretty hard to keep people from gaming the system but the basic idea of additional fiscal stimulus is a good idea. Not just a little more, a lot more.

 

[brycejones]

It would probably be pretty hard to keep people from gaming the system but the basic idea of additional fiscal stimulus is a good idea. Not just a little more, a lot more.

But Socialism! The Debt (please kindly ignore the massive tax cuts that required borrowing money so we could give it to rich people today and make your grandkids pay it off, the job creators needed it really bad)! Kill grandma for wal-mart! If we print 1 more dollar inflation will become 10000000000000000% per second, bring back the gold standard.

 

[fskimospy]

But Socialism! The Debt (please kindly ignore the massive tax cuts that required borrowing money so we could give it to rich people today and make your grandkids pay it off, the job creators needed it really bad)! Kill grandma for wal-mart! If we print 1 more dollar inflation will become 10000000000000000% per second, bring back the gold standard.

I agree fiscal stimulus could cause inflation but two things:

1) we have been consistently wrong at how much fiscal deficits will contribute to inflation so let’s just step on the gas u til we really see it.

2) a moderate increase in inflation would be good for the average American. Basically if you’re a net debtor, which most Americans are, a modestly higher rate of inflation would help you because it would decrease the cost of your debt.

 

[Mai72]

I want more of the government teet.

 

[brycejones]

I agree fiscal stimulus could cause inflation but two things:

1) we have been consistently wrong at how much fiscal deficits will contribute to inflation so let’s just step on the gas u til we really see it.

2) a moderate increase in inflation would be good for the average American. Basically if you’re a net debtor, which most Americans are, a modestly higher rate of inflation would help you because it would decrease the cost of your debt.

Agreed, I was just running through the list of conservative talking points that come up whenever stimulus is discussed.

 

[brycejones]

I want more of the government teet.

No teets for you!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

right, and it would keep our precious banks that much more solvent. ...which is fine. Those that need it for goods instantly, which are the people that are actually propping up the vast majority of the economy, would put it to their needs as they always have. Those that squirrel away their money for white collar needs will keep doing the same. I don't understand the difference in results from the perspective of the status quo...because there isn't one, really.

the benefit here is that it is actually direct stimulus, rather than approving money go to "small business," which are really giant conglomerates like McDonald's or Chipotle or the Gap, instead of their employees that literally can not work right now (floating them for ~2 months or so would be vastly cheaper, and vastly more effective that allowing corporations to "downsize cheaply" and just buy back more of their own stock), or directly to banks so that they can "benevolently wave piddling late fees" instead of covering actual mortgage and loan costs. ...that is literally what CARE is doing, and it is effing garbage. When I looked into the options, it is to "Delay payment," which simply means no late fees....but once your delay period is over (up to 12 months allowed), all payments are required to be paid back in a single lump sum, on the first payment....lol, wtf is that nonsense? How is anyone that isn't pulling in a pay check during all of that time supposed to suddenly have the money to pay it back? The alternative option is to "restructure the mortgage," which isn't any different than a normal refinance. It is utter dreck, and shouldn't be seen as anything but yet another handout to the type of assholes that have been stealing from the people for generations now.

lol, how benevolent of these lenders, to wave late fees in this troubling time!

Right, but there IS a REAL small business world that does need help. No amount of giving people money right now is going to pay for the mortgages, taxes, and utilities of small businesses that are closed.... and they still have to pay for their ACTUAL homes with those things. No amount of giving people cash is going to make them feel more comfortable to going to restaurants - that's just something that comes with more time. Same with shopping - majority of people aren't going to go shopping for jewelry, clothes, cars, haircare, massages, etc because not everything can be bought on Amazon. I mean, do you at least agree there? We have to keep those folks afloat somehow.

I agree overall though, give the SOURCE of spending money to spend instead of directly trying to give money is an overall better way to follow. I'm just saying that can't be the ONLY thing because plenty of industries and places STILL have bills to pay and aren't getting any business.

Talk to your fellow Demo-rats about that shit - the folks proposing things like $2,000/month is led by a Republican. Not a fucking stupid shill that wants people to somehow magically survive on 1-time $1200 checks. The establishment democrats don't give two fucks about people suffering.

 

[zinfamous]

Right, but there IS a REAL small business world that does need help. No amount of giving people money right now is going to pay for the mortgages, taxes, and utilities of small businesses that are closed.... and they still have to pay for their ACTUAL homes with those things. No amount of giving people cash is going to make them feel more comfortable to going to restaurants - that's just something that comes with more time. Same with shopping - majority of people aren't going to go shopping for jewelry, clothes, cars, haircare, massages, etc because not everything can be bought on Amazon. I mean, do you at least agree there? We have to keep those folks afloat somehow.

I agree overall though, give the SOURCE of spending money to spend instead of directly trying to give money is an overall better way to follow. I'm just saying that can't be the ONLY thing because plenty of industries and places STILL have bills to pay and aren't getting any business.

Talk to your fellow Demo-rats about that shit - the folks proposing things like $2,000/month is led by a Republican. Not a fucking stupid shill that wants people to somehow magically survive on 1-time $1200 checks. The establishment democrats don't give two fucks about people suffering.

I agree that there are real small businesses that need help (the CARE act was made exploitable such that large megacorps magically qualify, so have the pull and power to get the vastly outweighed share), but anyway, the point I made is that money needs to go to those people to PAY THEIR MORTGAGES, to pay their employees, or directly to the employees WHILE THEY CAN'T WORK. They stay employed. THe business stays solvent as mortgages an loans get paied. Giving it to the mortgage and loan holders to "Wave late fees" is preposterously asinine.

You and I actually agree on this; I think the problem is that you don't understand what is actually happening, and what you want to happen can be achieved by means that you think are evil? You're like--"how can it work to give them the money if they still need to pay the bills?" I mean...this is what you said, but I feel like you didn't actually think about it--do you assume they will decide not to pay the bills, if given the support to do so? I am...perplexed by how this works out in your mind. I think you are biased towards this profound myth that the poor and lower class are thieves victimized by their own terrible choices, that if you just give them money they will blow it on cigs and lottery tickets, that they won't pay their bills....which then translates to you claiming that the same holds true of small business owners; if given money expressly to pay the bills. I really don't get it, but I see decades of GOP gaslighting influecing this thinking, and it really does you a disservice.

funny that you use this "Demo-rat" term when all of the coporate rat-fucking wealth redistribution has only ever come from GOP scum that has long taken your money to give the 1%--something that none of us will ever be a part of, despite your fantasy wet dreams that somehow ignore the plain fact that, whatever wealth you have now, is effectively 170% less than what it would have been had Ronald fucking Reagan never rat-fucked this country into decades-long stagnent wave growth for nearly 99.5% of this country. You don't see it, becaus eyou are satisfied with where you are and, as common to humans, find it difficult to understand "what isn't because of what it could have been," but there it is. :\

and lmfao that only the other day, you were bitching about democrats only planning to just give out checks and do nothing else, but now some glorious republican is offering to give out...more money on those checks and that makes it a better idea, suddenly. Dude, you can't help but expose your preposterous biases here.

 

[brycejones]

Right, but there IS a REAL small business world that does need help. No amount of giving people money right now is going to pay for the mortgages, taxes, and utilities of small businesses that are closed.... and they still have to pay for their ACTUAL homes with those things. No amount of giving people cash is going to make them feel more comfortable to going to restaurants - that's just something that comes with more time. Same with shopping - majority of people aren't going to go shopping for jewelry, clothes, cars, haircare, massages, etc because not everything can be bought on Amazon. I mean, do you at least agree there? We have to keep those folks afloat somehow.

I agree overall though, give the SOURCE of spending money to spend instead of directly trying to give money is an overall better way to follow. I'm just saying that can't be the ONLY thing because plenty of industries and places STILL have bills to pay and aren't getting any business.

Talk to your fellow Demo-rats about that shit - the folks proposing things like $2,000/month is led by a Republican. Not a fucking stupid shill that wants people to somehow magically survive on 1-time $1200 checks. The establishment democrats don't give two fucks about people suffering.

Some good points destroyed by mindless rage at the end. 3/10.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I agree that there are real small businesses that need help (the CARE act was made exploitable such that large megacorps magically qualify, so have the pull and power to get the vastly outweighed share), but anyway, the point I made is that money needs to go to those people to PAY THEIR MORTGAGES, to pay their employees, or directly to the employees WHILE THEY CAN'T WORK. They stay employed. THe business stays solvent as mortgages an loans get paied. Giving it to the mortgage and loan holders to "Wave late fees" is preposterously asinine.

You and I actually agree on this; I think the problem is that you don't understand what is actually happening, and what you want to happen can be achieved by means that you think are evil? You're like--"how can it work to give them the money if they still need to pay the bills?" I mean...this is what you said, but I feel like you didn't actually think about it--do you assume they will decide not to pay the bills, if given the support to do so? I am...perplexed by how this works out in your mind. I think you are biased towards this profound myth that the poor and lower class are thieves victimized by their own terrible choices, that if you just give them money they will blow it on cigs and lottery tickets, that they won't pay their bills....which then translates to you claiming that the same holds true of small business owners; if given money expressly to pay the bills. I really don't get it, but I see decades of GOP gaslighting influecing this thinking, and it really does you a disservice.

funny that you use this "Demo-rat" term when all of the coporate rat-fucking wealth redistribution has only ever come from GOP scum that has long taken your money to give the 1%--something that none of us will ever be a part of, despite your fantasy wet dreams that somehow ignore the plain fact that, whatever wealth you have now, is effectively 170% less than what it would have been had Ronald fucking Reagan never rat-fucked this country into decades-long stagnent wave growth for nearly 99.5% of this country. You don't see it, becaus eyou are satisfied with where you are and, as common to humans, find it difficult to understand "what isn't because of what it could have been," but there it is. :\

and lmfao that only the other day, you were bitching about democrats only planning to just give out checks and do nothing else, but now some glorious republican is offering to give out...more money on those checks and that makes it a better idea, suddenly. Dude, you can't help but expose your preposterous biases here.

Da Fuq are you talking about? Also are you the one doing day drinking instead of me for once? God damn it's early. Jeebus I type better even when I'm shitfaced

I'm essentially saying I 100% agree you with you - I was just emphasizing that small businesses don't just pay a PERSONAL mortgage + bills... they also buy a BUSINESS one as well. So while $2,000 might cover the mortgage for the workers of the small business, it doesn't cover for the owner of the small business who has both a home mortgage and a business mortgage with bills inbetween both. So no - you can't just have them pay off their personal bills and then expect the small business to still be there. Where in any of what I said did you get that I am biased on the poor and lower class? Did my post somewhere somehow slip in "We should do $2,000/month for everyone except those damn poor people"?

As far as any scrutiny on the dems (because god forbid you scrutinize your own side) - try listening to some Jimmy Dore. He might just teach you something about the party you will defend tooth and nail... and he is 100% progressive in favor of full on socialism practically. The difference is - he isn't afraid to call out his own party like you shills you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I can spend it, no problem.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm essentially saying I 100% agree you with you - I was just emphasizing that small businesses don't just pay a PERSONAL mortgage + bills... they also buy a BUSINESS one as well.

I really don't understand what happened to your brain--where, in all the posts and threads I have commented about this, do you not think I understand this, and that I am explicitly saying this?

It's clear to me that you are governed by internal biases that prevent you from understanding what people are saying, because you simply don't want them to be saying it. I don't think you can appreciate that, for people that you have labeled as some sort of spiritual/political enemy, they simply can't understand the things the way you understand them (Well, god help us all if anyone's thinks the way you do, hahha), and you probably need to work on it. I think it's a rage thing.

I've ALWAYS suggested that business owners need to be helped directly with all of their debts. I don't know where you get, out of that, that this doesn't include any loans and mortgages related to their business. How the fuck do you not get this, when spoken quite plainly?

...it's honestly infuriating. We both agree that we both...agree here, but you still event nonsense that none of us have ever said, or ignored, just so you can argue against it.

seriously though--what is going on with you? lol.