Why do the states need bailouts from the feds?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by I justsayin, Jul 3, 2020.

  1. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's easy to say when McConnell refuses to allow a vote huh? Horse ****
     
  2. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    of course...just like when Nancy P doesn’t allow votes...even on bipartison legislation.

    why waste time?
     
  3. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Responding to your nonsense....
     
  4. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and that’s how the Senate majority felt about Nancy P and the dems 3 trillion dollar hostage ransom.
     
  5. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Heroes Act includes about $1.13 trillion of emergency supplemental appropriations to federal agencies, as well as economic assistance to governments at the state, local, tribal, and territorial levels. There would be about $485 billion in safety net spending, including the expansion of unemployment benefits, increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, increased funding utilities payments and job training for low-income individuals, and a 25% increase in aid to disabled veterans. There would be about $435 billion for additional rebates, which would include an additional $1200 stimulus check per individual. There would be about $382 billion for health care, which would include reimbursing health care providers for lost revenue, covering the COBRA premium costs for employees laid off between March 2020 and January 2021, increasing funding for testing and contact tracing, eliminating cost-sharing for coronavirus treatment, and increasing funding for health agencies and centers. Employers would also need to implement infectious disease control panels. There would be about $290 billion to support small businesses and employee retention, with modifications to the Paycheck Protection Program. This would expand employee retention credit, provide credits for employer expenses, extend and expand paid leave (such as paid sick days, family and medical leave), and provide a 90% income credit for self-employed individuals. There would be about $290 billion to reduce income taxes and $191 billion for student loan relief and funding for higher education. There would be about $202 billion for housing-related costs and expenses, including the establishment of a emergency rental assistance fund and a homeowner's assistance fund. Some eviction and foreclosure moratoriums would be expanded as well, being extended for up to another year and expanding the moratorium to cover all renters and homeowners rather than specific cases as previously done in the CARES Act. There would be about $190 billion for hazard pay for essential workers. In addition, there would be $32 billion for communication systems (such as the U.S. Postal Service), $48 billion for pensions and retirement relief, $31 billion for agricultural spending, and $254 billion for a limited business loss deductions.[3][4][5]


    Now tell us why the Senate couldn't even CONSIDER this
     
  6. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are 100% wrong...how many cars will GM sell if they set their average price at $100,000 in order to 'maximize sales'? This would be 'minimizing sales'!!

    A business can increase or decrease their prices anytime they wish...all that matters is how the price change will effect the viability of the business.

    What I said was accurate...all the costs of a business are included in the expense of running that business and it is passed on to the consumer. Use some common sense; a business is told they must start paying 50% more in taxation...what can they do? They can 'try' to increase prices but this has limits because consumers have limits how much they will pay. They can reduce all the profits and run a break-even business but owners and shareholders won't allow this. Lastly they can close the doors because the business is no longer viable! No matter the reasons, if business income is greatly reduced, or expenses are greatly increased, or some of both, if the options I mention above don't work, they close the doors! BTW; for the past 40-50 years, one of the easiest and quickest ways to reduce costs have been to outsource and/or move entire facilities offshore...this is what happens when you force higher costs on business. Bottom line; there is no single magic bullet to solve debt issues...the wealthy are not a solution, business is not a solution...the answer is 325 million Americans MUST step up and pay for the government which they are demanding...
     
  7. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WTF are you talking about?

    That would maximize PRICE...and KILL sales

    That made no sense. Go away
     
  8. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly you have never run a business nor do you understand how that works.

    You charge the highest price for your product that will guarantee the highest possible revenue in relation to your costs.

    You can not arbitrarily increase prices without affecting your total sales
     

Share This Page