"millennials shouldn't be arguing for more government intervention, but less"
Your argument that government intervention is bad for millennials is flawed. Without government intervention such as eviction moratoriums, unemployment benefits and federal government stimulus checks there would have been massive homelessness. Prior to the pandemic 40% of americans could not cover a $400 emergency, all of these people would have been on the street without the government stepping in. At one point the unemployment rate as 15%. I cant really see how this would have been good for them.
I would argue that specific and targeted government intervention such as complete student loan forgiveness would have a massive beneficial effect on millenials.
Burn it down is always a mistake in hindsight. There is alot of low hanging fruit to fix these issues; higher taxes; amendment to fix Citizen's United; revamp the Supreme Court..
All of these are easier then digging a shaft, jumping in, and trying to climb out.
Speaking as someone who has no assets, no 401k, no home.
Not to mention that if "shall not be infringed" and "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" are and indication they'd find a way to ignore it when they do abridge the freedom of the press.
I'm saying this couldn't work without explicitly including restrictions on the freedom of the press, since "the press" is the very vehicle by which money gets turned into political influence. Unless this amendment includes something akin to the fairness doctrine I can't see how it could possibly have the effect you are looking for.
Perhaps corporations are not people, however "the press" is made of corporations. If there is to be no restriction on the press then what is to stop any corporate entity from advancing the cause of their politics as a member of the so-called press?
> Don't be afraid of change. If something isn't working; we should fix it.
Furthermore, this is a binary line of thinking that isn't even fit for a children's book. The world is not split between those that want change, and those that are afraid of change. It is very much possible for intelligent adults to consider the details of what is being prescribed and conclude that "that sounds at least as bad or possibly worse than the status quo."
You're listing one possibly problem when this addresses dozens of issues. Removing corporate money from law making will make it was easier to address these issues in the future, with sensible legislation.
By all means, extrapolate your position. The press is corporate, but every story I've ever seen has a byline. That means the actual speech is from a person.
>Your argument that government intervention is bad for millennials is flawed. Without government intervention such as eviction moratoriums, unemployment benefits and federal government stimulus checks there would have been massive homelessness. Prior to the pandemic 40% of americans could not cover a $400 emergency, all of these people would have been on the street without the government stepping in. At one point the unemployment rate as 15%. I cant really see how this would have been good for them.
It wouldn't have been "good for them" but it will hurt a hell of a lot less than when (at some undetermined point in the future) things come crashing down so hard that the government can't prop them up.
We're preventing fire crackers from going off and eventually we're gonna get hit with a bomb.
Right now the Fed's back is pretty close to the wall in terms of policy levers it can pull. Imagine a financial crisis comes along in 2021 or something, we could really be screwed.
I don't really agree with that assessment. If there is mass layoffs for example, and renters can't pay rent, why would a landlord evict the tenant? Who is going to take their place? I think many landlords would prefer a potential to pay (owing rent) than full eviction and being forced to lower rent and uncertainty wouldn't they? I'm not saying there would be no evictions, but everyone homeless doesn't seem like a fully realistic outcome considering renting is a marketplace.
> I think many landlords would prefer a potential to pay (owing rent) than full eviction and being forced to lower rent and uncertainty wouldn't they
Every land lord thinks they'll be able to rent their apartment, hence the need for the eviction moratorium. Their view is: if I leave in a tenant who won't pay, definitely won't make money, but if I evict them I can find someone else.
Eviction moratoriums, unemployment benefits, and stimulus spending is the least the government can do when they're the arbiters of who is considered 'essential' and allowed to work. The real question is what happens when the restrictions on evictions are lifted and people are inevitably evicted into a second outbreak.
Some programs benefit them but the things you listed were secondary interventions, interventions. If there was no stimulus and business stayed open that would have benefited them.
Your argument that government intervention is bad for millennials is flawed. Without government intervention such as eviction moratoriums, unemployment benefits and federal government stimulus checks there would have been massive homelessness. Prior to the pandemic 40% of americans could not cover a $400 emergency, all of these people would have been on the street without the government stepping in. At one point the unemployment rate as 15%. I cant really see how this would have been good for them.
I would argue that specific and targeted government intervention such as complete student loan forgiveness would have a massive beneficial effect on millenials.