Pelosi could pass a $50 trillion bill through the House. That doesn't mean it would ever become law, and I'd argue it's meant to not become law. If her intention was to start high and meet in the middle, she's now won. If HEROES was never meant to be law, no deals can be allowed.
Mitch is playing the same game, except he is going low, with the intention of only wanting to create the impression that he wants to pass something, when what he really wants is voters to blame Democrats for not passing something.
Both sides are playing a giant game of chicken.
Who can win the battle of making the other side look like they are the ones responsible for the increasing misery of voters? With only three weeks left, whoever gives in by accepting a deal, will be taking off the table the misery of voters, which is seen as a high value card.
They should be fighting over who can help us the most, but we created a negative partisan system where we don't vote for who we want, and instead vote against who we don't want.
So, here we are, where it's all about feeding fear and anger as a way of making the other side lose.
It should not be politically advantageous to pass bills that aren't meant to become law, or to refuse to compromise regardless of time's passage. It should not be okay to just say you are representing your constituents, when they are standing in food bank lines month after month.
All that really matters is wellbeing. Just as we are the economy, we are also the government. The measuring stick of success is how we are doing, and we are not doing okay. Everything is failing us because it's just not built with our wellbeing as the goal.
We have to fix that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ THREAD: As someone who's been researching and writing about #UBI since 2013, I can tell you that @SteveForbesCEO just expressed a ton of assumptions that are either a complete misunderstanding of how UBI works or factually incorrect based on the evidence we already have.
@SteveForbesCEO 2/ His first claim in his video is that UBI is corrosive to the work ethic, but that's wrong because UBI pays people to do anything, not nothing. The existing system pays people on the condition they maintain a sufficiently low income.
@SteveForbesCEO 3/ Does Steve really believe that fewer people will work if they can work and keep their benefits, instead of losing their benefits with employment, leaving them no better off or even worse off, as happens right now?
Work requirements are back. If you can't find a job, it's because you're not looking hard enough, not because tens of millions of jobs no longer exist.
Is this stupid? Yes. Is it a waste of time and resources? Yes. So why do we do it?
In a story from ToK, a woman is told to cold call businesses in the phone book one by one to ask about a job. She came back the next day with classifieds and was told she missed the point, which was to do anything an employer says, no matter how stupid.
No one's life should be tied to a job. Just as this crisis has shown that healthcare should never be tied to employment, neither should food and rent be tied to employment. Survival income is a right, not something for politicians to argue over.
Income should *NEVER* fall to $0.
We should have had UBI decades ago. Pretend we did. What does right now look like with a $1200/mo UBI? Maybe the $600/wk unemployment boost would have been $300/wk and Congress would be arguing over whether to boost people from $1200 to $2400 instead of from $0 to $2400.
With everyone starting each month with $1200 instead of $0, how many more people would have been able to pay their rent/mortgage each month on time for the past four months, instead of one third of the population being unable to? Would we be looking at an eviction crisis at all?
Cash to reduce poverty in Indonesia led to a 30% drop in forest loss, even though the income came with no conservation conditions. The effect was larger in villages where more people got income (like UBI), and where the income lasted longer (like UBI).
Unconditional income has been shown to improve the mental health of those in poverty. Improvements in physical health, such as reduced symptoms of illness and more physical activity, translate into improved mental health, which also improves productivity.
New analysis by @DavidCalnitsky + @pilargonalons of Canada's Mincome experiment in the 1970s backs up @AOC's recent assertion that reducing poverty would reduce crime, because that's exactly what happened in Dauphin, Manitoba.
THREAD: Hearing protestors chant in unison "#ICantBreathe," is something that hits viscerally. It's a call for the importance of our individual lives. We have the right to life, and we want to stay alive. George Floyd was dispossessed of the air he needed to exist. He was killed.
Withholding air is also not the only way of dispossessing someone of their rightful access to what they need to live. We all need air, but we also all need food. We can't breathe if we can't eat, and understanding that is understanding that poverty itself is injustice. It kills.
Poverty is misunderstood as a lack of resources, but poverty as it exists today is a legal status. It's a violent act of dispossession that creates poverty. Hundreds of years ago, there was no such thing as having nothing, because we had the planet as a shared natural resource.
The reason we support ideas says something about those ideas, and ourselves. People who support UBI, by and large, want UBI so they and others can do what's important to them. People who support FJG, by and large, don't want to do FJG work, but want other people doing that work.
That's something that I find inherently problematic about FJG supporters, that so many of them have no desire to ever do FJG work themselves. They simply believe that there is work that needs to be done that would be beneficial to them for someone to do, so someone should do it.
UBI recognizes all the work already being done, both unpaid and underpaid, and makes that work more possible by more people. It recognizes that we oftentimes are terrible at determining what's valuable and what isn't, and that we should instead quit stopping people from doing it.