Trump signs stimulus executive actions: 1) +$400 for unemployment but States pick up 25%. 2) Suspend Medicare/Social Security withholding. 3)...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Lol there is literally funds left over from the FIRST stimulus in regards to state and local funds. Republicans agreed to lax spending requirements to let them more freely spend what is left

What Dems are trying to pass is bullshit like raising the cap on SALT deductions. Which is entirely unrelated to COVID and is entirely related to them being salty over the cap that was introduced in the tax reform bill years ago.

SALT deductions isn't something related to COVID or Americans about to get evicted. It's literally targetted at the Top 10% of income earners lol.

remember when every. single. time. the Dems propose something, you and your kind's first and only response is, without exception: "WELL HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR IT, DUMDUMS????!!!"

See, even when you get the answer right off the bat, you claim it is somehow meaningless and nefarious.

holy shit, your brain is just overrun with feces. ffs.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,156
18,647
146
I disagree. The shortage is buyers with the necessary funds.
Look around, there are millions of acres of land to build on, there are tens of thousands of people ready and willing to do the work, but the building isn't happening at the required rate. There is no shortage of land, material, or labor, yet we don't have enough homes for everyone. The supply could easily be there, it's the market that's missing.

People go where the jobs are. But like others are saying, maybe remote workers will be more inclined to move out of the densely populated areas if they don't have to report to an office everyday. My employer uses unscrupulous tactics of remote workers "checking in" in person for really no sensible reason. The reasoning seems to be harass the employee. If people can be assured that remote work will stay remote work, it could be good for spreading things out a bit
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Incorrect. All the reporting I've read is the Democrats came down a trillion and the Republicans just didn't budge. The Dems have publicly said meet them halfway

well, you know the guy who never ever watches Fox News and claims to get his news from a very diverse array of sources, yet only ever spouts quick, empty, rightwing talking points (straight up lies, every fucking time), says otherwise.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,527
15,406
136
I disagree. The shortage is buyers with the necessary funds.
Look around, there are millions of acres of land to build on, there are tens of thousands of people ready and willing to do the work, but the building isn't happening at the required rate. There is no shortage of land, material, or labor, yet we don't have enough homes for everyone. The supply could easily be there, it's the market that's missing.

Where the hell did you pull that from?




 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Top CA rate is 13.3%. Rogan is leaving because he wants to dodge that for his 100m deal.

I love the "Joe Rogan says!" that is becoming more and more popular these days.

I mean...just listen to one of his podcasts and if you had the minimal inclination towards critical thought, you'd understand that the guy is interesting, and at least a very curious person, but you have to understand that not only is he stoned 90% of the time, he commands a dilettante's interest in the complicated problems, and through the very nature of his interview form: i.e: "Well, don't you think that...?" he is one that primarily seeks bias confirmation, not data-driven challenges to his pre-established biases.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I disagree. The shortage is buyers with the necessary funds.
Look around, there are millions of acres of land to build on, there are tens of thousands of people ready and willing to do the work, but the building isn't happening at the required rate. There is no shortage of land, material, or labor, yet we don't have enough homes for everyone. The supply could easily be there, it's the market that's missing.
This is absolutely not the cause. If there were a lack of buyers with sufficient funds then the price of existing housing stock would decline as there wouldn’t be anyone who could afford to pay for it. Instead we have seen the opposite - skyrocketing prices. Large increases in prices indicate that the market is very much there and demand is much higher than supply.

There may be millions of acres in the middle of nowhere where people could build a house but in the places where the jobs are, the government bans development. That is why we have a nationwide shortage.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The Constitution gave us a divided government. You can see how well that works in a time of crisis. It doesn't. Congress cannot act.

Should nothing be done for the American people? The President is acting as a tie breaker, beyond the scope of the Constitution. Founders had no concept of the federal budget being the linchpin for family budgets. The world today did not exist back then, how we live and finance things today was entirely beyond their imagining. Our form of division lacks the ability to solve real issues. America is a nation divided and paralyzed. Changes will be necessary for the United States to survive.

In this moment we should open a dialog on how to address crises in the future. And the Courts are free to try and block the President - but god help us all if they do.

Please. Trump usurps the power of Congress & of the People. He's imposing his Will in violation of the Constitution. It's been the precursor to every authoritarian takeover in History.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,080
10,880
136
I disagree. The shortage is buyers with the necessary funds.
Look around, there are millions of acres of land to build on, there are tens of thousands of people ready and willing to do the work, but the building isn't happening at the required rate. There is no shortage of land, material, or labor, yet we don't have enough homes for everyone. The supply could easily be there, it's the market that's missing.

I wonder what would happen if we actually helped people accumulate wealth and build capital instead of holding them down in an effort to extract profit by keeping them as renters and wage slaves....
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,002
136
Please, the president is certainly not acting like a tie breaker here. He's doing his usual schtick

Tell that to 40+ million homeless when they are evicted, and someone stopped the President from assisting. You do not want to be that person. Or live in a country where that happened. Our people need help, now.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,920
5,543
136
This is absolutely not the cause. If there were a lack of buyers with sufficient funds then the price of existing housing stock would decline as there wouldn’t be anyone who could afford to pay for it. Instead we have seen the opposite - skyrocketing prices. Large increases in prices indicate that the market is very much there and demand is much higher than supply.

There may be millions of acres in the middle of nowhere where people could build a house but in the places where the jobs are, the government bans development. That is why we have a nationwide shortage.
Why does it have to be in an existing city? Why not move the jobs to where the land is cheap? The only jobs that require a specific location are those that require the mass movement of goods. The silicon valley here in CA is a prime example. All of those jobs could be moved to bumphuck Idaho tomorrow morning.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Tell that to 40+ million homeless when they are evicted, and someone stopped the President from assisting. You do not want to be that person. Or live in a country where that happened. Our people need help, now.

And Trump could have easily made a deal with the Dems to provide a much more meaningful amount. You know that's true. Your schtick here reminds me of the time the feds snatched 500 Colorado ventilators & Cory Gardner played hero by getting back 100...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Why does it have to be in an existing city? Why not move the jobs to where the land is cheap? The only jobs that require a specific location are those that require the mass movement of goods. The silicon valley here in CA is a prime example. All of those jobs could be moved to bumphuck Idaho tomorrow morning.

Ask the Jerb Creators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,527
15,406
136
Why does it have to be in an existing city? Why not move the jobs to where the land is cheap? The only jobs that require a specific location are those that require the mass movement of goods. The silicon valley here in CA is a prime example. All of those jobs could be moved to bumphuck Idaho tomorrow morning.

You need the jobs first, people don’t typically migrate to where the jobs aren’t.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Why does it have to be in an existing city? Why not move the jobs to where the land is cheap? The only jobs that require a specific location are those that require the mass movement of goods. The silicon valley here in CA is a prime example. All of those jobs could be moved to bumphuck Idaho tomorrow morning.
It doesn’t have to be, but that’s where companies want to be because that’s where the talent is. It’s a positive feedback cycle and we can either try to use the government to stamp it out at great cost, or we can support it, to our great benefit. And no, they could not be moved to Idaho tomorrow because the people they need to work them don’t want to live in Idaho.

Unless you’re arguing for the federal government to create new cities instead of letting the market decide where people want to live?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Why does it have to be in an existing city? Why not move the jobs to where the land is cheap? The only jobs that require a specific location are those that require the mass movement of goods. The silicon valley here in CA is a prime example. All of those jobs could be moved to bumphuck Idaho tomorrow morning.

There is no educated base in bumphuck Idaho to populate those jobs. And you aren't just going to move the highly educated out to cornfields and hog lagoons when there is no available services that the educated like: higher scale shops, food sources and restaurants, little hipster boutiques. Museums, outdoors activities that aren't limited to "walking in some flat place."
So, no, you can't just make culture happen overnight. ...It's an absurd proposition that you are making to counter generations of how we understand cities are created.

And these places aren't just created--they are born from the local area that already has the necessary resources, largely untapped. Basically, established highly-educated and entrepreneurial individuals. Palo Alto was, essentially, a "poor sleepy, middle class" town as recently as the late 70s. But it would be wrong to assume that Silicon Valley just happened there overnight--the people that started their and moved out there to start things, understood that the workforce was already there. Stanford, Berkeley, UCSF, Davis...all of it was already there. Good luck finding it anywhere else.

...this is also pretty much why RTP happened in ~central eastern NC (now the highest concentration of PhDs in the country). The potential workforce was already there, had long been established. So it's not like SAS and Glaxo and IBM just decided that they could "make it happen!" from nothing. They've tried to do the same thing along 70 in eastern NC...been trying for more than 20 years now. but hey, it's been abandoned. Why? because there is no work force. There are, however, a bunch of pigs and their lakes of pig shit. ...because that's what they do in Eastern NC. Good luck convincing the highly educated to move out to pig shit land to code and build their yuppy 3-flats. But, I guess you think this can "just happen" in Iowa...which is already pretty much dedicated to using up all of that "free land" to actually grow food and stuff.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
Building brand new cities in the middle of nowhere seems slightly less efficient than somewhat increasing allowable density (while still remaining well below what was historically ok) in existing cities.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Building brand new cities in the middle of nowhere seems slightly less efficient than somewhat increasing allowable density (while still remaining well below what was historically ok) in existing cities.

Well, it works really well in China!

SCHMIDT-ANGOLA-AIF41.jpg


oh, wait....
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Pelosi is an idiot for offering Trump $3T in election year stimulus. He's a moron for not taking it. This executive order nonsense is going to be a disaster because the unemployment part, if it even gets off the ground, will run out of money in September, so he's scheduling a fiscal cliff for himself before the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

Stryke1983

Member
Jan 1, 2016
176
268
136
Mostly because the Republicans have given in. They went from their original of 1 trillion to 2.2 trillion.

Democrats original was 3 trillion. Suffice it to say Republicans have already met over halfway.

Any source on that? The House/Democrat proposal was $3.4T. Republicans suggested $1T, but they can't actually agree with each other on that so it's not really a real plan as even their own party won't support it. The Democrats have since negotiated down to $2.4T and Schumer suggested a proposal in the middle which would be $2.2T, which implies they are willing to accommodate Republican desires even more than they already have.

So all the evidence that has come out so far suggests that the Democrats came up with a plan back in May and are willing to meet halfway. The Republicans waited until a few days before the existing plans lapsed and still can't actually come up with a coherent plan that they support. In addition to that lack of planning they've also not been willing to compromise anywhere near as far as the Democrats, otherwise they would have already accepted the halfway compromise that was offered.

As it stand the original Democrat plan has more support and more votes than anything else that has been proposed, so if anything they should be compromising even less than they already have. Never mind just going along with what a small, disorganized minority wants, which is what you propose.

This seems to go back to the "The Democrats are obstructing things until they give the Republicans every single thing they want" line of thinking that has come up a lot in the last few years.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Any source on that? The House/Democrat proposal was $3.4T. Republicans suggested $1T, but they can't actually agree with each other on that so it's not really a real plan as even their own party won't support it. The Democrats have since negotiated down to $2.4T and Schumer suggested a proposal in the middle which would be $2.2T, which implies they are willing to accommodate Republican desires even more than they already have.

So all the evidence that has come out so far suggests that the Democrats came up with a plan back in May and are willing to meet halfway. The Republicans waited until a few days before the existing plans lapsed and still can't actually come up with a coherent plan that they support. In addition to that lack of planning they've also not been willing to compromise anywhere near as far as the Democrats, otherwise they would have already accepted the halfway compromise that was offered.

As it stand the original Democrat plan has more support and more votes than anything else that has been proposed, so if anything they should be compromising even less than they already have. Never mind just going along with what a small, disorganized minority wants, which is what you propose.

This seems to go back to the "The Democrats are obstructing things until they give the Republicans every single thing they want" line of thinking that has come up a lot in the last few years.
The main sticking point I think is aid to state and local governments and it’s mostly because conservatives are hoping this gets them a free policy win the voters would never support on their own. Their hope is if they give cities and states minimal or no aid they will be forced into huge layoffs and budget cuts, which of course Republicans like. They just can’t admit this because they would get buried in an electoral landslide.

The federal government exists in large part to protect individuals and states from one-off events like this - to basically act as a national insurance company. Unfortunately it’s failing at that job now because it’s being run by incompetents.