MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Bolsonaro announces 13th month payment for 14 million of Family Fund recipients
Brazil's right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro announced Thursday an expansion of a social welfare program that was created by his jailed left-wing foe Lula da Silva. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“The more than 14 million recipients of the “Bolsa Familia” or “Family Fund” will get a 13th month payment, Bolsonaro said at a ceremony celebrating his first 100 days in office”
Apr 13th, 2019 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The PT, besides claiming to be the founders of the BF concept (not entirely true) and liking to take credit for being so “socially-minded”, always looking out for the poor, is extremely upset with this move......only because it was not them that thought of it.
Sounds a lot like Lula's criticism of the concept before he was elected....but rushed to implement it after he was......the PT will always be the PT....voting against every government project, even if it might be good for the country, if not presented by them.
“Sounds a lot like Lula's criticism of the concept before he was elected....but rushed to implement it after he was”
Apr 13th, 2019 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Bolsonaro had said in 2017, when he was still a congressman, that he would not expand the program. “I'm not going to do demagoguery to get votes,” he said.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I'm curious what the PT found to criticise in this....
REF: “Bolsonaro announces”
Apr 14th, 2019 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ANNOUNCES”!
Please DO calm down - it's just an announcement - a STUNT at its BEST - unless of course if the gullible are BENT UPON blindly believing - and eagerly too - in the Cooked-Up Fairy-Tales!
DT
Apr 14th, 2019 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Bolsonaro had said in 2017, when he was still a congressman, that he would not expand the program. “I'm not going to do demagoguery to get votes,” he said.”
I really can't recall, but I believe you....So he did not lie....he did NOT use it get votes....he announced the 13th contribution AFTER being elected. Very different to Lula, who lied his way in...“fome zero”, the reform of various systems - social security, labor, political, tax - which were never done.
Perhaps it was B's intention all along to implement it if he won, but he decided not to use it (inorder to not be accused of 'demagoguery'), and to avoid Haddad from trying to promise the same thing....which he indeed did when he saw his progress starting to stagnate. Ever thought of that ? I'm sure you didn't.
Historically, the PT has voted against several important issues....simply for the sake of voting against them, because it was not their idea or project...they will never vote for anything that can be seen as political credit for their enemies...in the past, I have already listed several projects which they voted AGAINST, in block, despite, at the time, seen as beneficial to the population....Some are :- the election of the 1st civilian prez in 1985 , Tancredo Neves / the 1988 Constitution - they refused to sign it / the BF when introduced in its incipent form, by FHC / The Plano Real (curbed inflation) / Law of Fiscal Responsibility (control government expenditure, principally the pay-roll ) / Privatization of the phone system - mentioned very recently / opening Petrobras to investments by private citizens in 2001..
And, without even having seen the final text of the social security reform proposal, they have already instructed all their members to vote against it. If they were the ones to have proposed such a reform, they'd vote in favor of it......what more do you need ?
With the PT, its always PT first, screw Brazil. When are you going to understand this ?
@JB
Apr 15th, 2019 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0That was a quote from the article. But it would be naive to think politicians don't care about popular support after they are elected. There have been several articles recently saying how much B's popularity had fallen after 100 days in power. This move should help a bit, don't you think?
Speaking of voting against things while in opposition, did B vote for the original program under FHC? Or for the later BF expansions under Lula? My impression was that he was critical of the program until now...
As for Lula, his original Fome Zero plan didn't work, but he did achieve zero hunger, or something close to it. Goes a long way to explaining his popularity. But I think the obstructionist policy you mention (while out of power) is pretty foolish. For example, there are parties in Congress who object in particular to cutting benefits for the rural, elderly and disabled, and they might be able to get those bits changed by agreeing to support the pension legislation if they are removed. Much more sensible than opposing it under any circumstances.
Apart from all that, what do you think of the policy itself? Is a 13th month benefit for the BF a good or bad thing?
@DT/@JB
Apr 15th, 2019 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “politicians don't care about popular support after they are elected”:
Of course, they DO - they make sure of it - but only when they are facing the public, cameras, smartphones!
DT
Apr 15th, 2019 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“....a quote fm an article”....Ok, I believe you.....
“But it would be naive to think politicians don't care about popular support after they are elected”.
Of course they do, but when they can get it without delivering on their promises, as most do, then what ? they keep on promising, making excuses and the average (or below average) voter laps it up...Now, if the population were smarter, who knows if they'd be elected.
The polls that say his popularity has fallen drastically, imo, are presented in a distorted manner. By what I recall, roughly 1/3 still approve ; another 1/3 say his govt is ok, and the remainder disapprove.......so the poll, as presented on TV, says his popularity has fallen to 33%.... but afaic, it's irrelevant....it's just something for the opposition to gossip abt.
I don't know how B voted under FHC...he was not a nationally recognized politician. But I would say he was critical of 'how' it was administered under the PT....they lied and explored it politically in every way they could. The PT turned a blind eye to fraud...trying to eliminate it would mean losing votes...
It's not abt the “fome zero” failing, it's about making 'n plugging a promise he could not keep
(and never admit it)...and people believed him...he said what they wanted to hear...pure populism, lapped up by those who knew no better.
I agree, if the opposition does not like certain points in the pension reform, negotiate them....don't simply oppose 100% of it.
The 13th salary for the BF recipients will make their end of year a bit happier....I think it's OK...and, imo, IF the govt manages to root out most of the fraud, it might compensate the extra expense.
According to O Globo, Bolsonaro opposed the BF under Lula, but before his election he wanted to expand it to all Brazilians(!)
Apr 15th, 2019 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/bolsonaro-defende-bolsa-familia-para-todos-os-brasileiros-22977355
(Can you tell me what this bit means please? “A quem se acomoda,” referring to those who receive the BF. Google says it's “those who settle”, which doesn't make any sense.)
”it's about making 'n plugging a promise he could not keep
(and never admit it)...and people believed him“
I think convincing the hungry they were fed was beyond even Lula's abilities. A lot of the progress made has gone backwards now, but while in power he could truthfully claim to have lifted many out of poverty. That's why people believed him.
”The 13th salary for the BF recipients will make their end of year a bit happier....I think it's OK”
Would you have said the same if Haddad had done it? In some ways B also goes in for populism, with his twitter account and his 'family soap opera'. Plus he has an uneasy coalition to keep happy, with the military wanting to keep their privileges, the people wanting cheap fuel and pensions, and Guedes trying to keep him on a free-market track (the latest incident is quite amusing). He's just as much in need of support as the PT was.
@DemonTree
Apr 16th, 2019 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: According to O Globo, Bolsonaro opposed the BF under Lula, but before his election, he wanted to expand it to all Brazilians(!)
Making contradictory statements is a privilege - a 2nd nature of the politicians - normal+justifyable! Deal with it! Why are you so bent upon destroying their credibility which they never had in the first place?
DT
Apr 17th, 2019 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“…but before his election he wanted to expand it to all Brazilians” …”ALL Brazilians“ ? that's the press interpretation…what he meant was he would like to implement a program whereby every ‘poor’ Brazilian would be guaranteed a minimum income, similar to the value of the BF, or slightly higher. It was not a promise, simply what he hoped for.
In any case, any benefit would have strings attached, not meant to be early retirement or a life-long benefit. The press did its best to make it sound absurd.
”a quem se acomoda” refers to what he said in 2011, meaning that, “in 2011, the program served those who were too lazy to work”…time, 'n fraud, has proved him right.
Lula promised anything that would convince the people, whether rational, possible, or not.
The “progress” you talk about was based on credit and weak foundations….first crisis, it all crumbled. It was not sustainable, just a short-lived illusion, which many bought into.
IF Haddad had done the same thing, while trying to get the economy and country back on track – instead of carrying on with the usual PT policies – yes, I’d have supported the move. Though I suspect he might have approved such a measure even without trying to fix the mess….all you have to do is look at the PT's past performance.
Even if a measure is good, 'and' is viable, some will always call it populist….knowing what's behind it, will determine 'how' populist.
B's twitter / family soap are quite independent to what is being done in govt…while undesirable, it is hardly paralyzing the country. I can see where your pessimistic streak comes from…it’s your personality…you always prefer to see the negative side, w/o considering there might be a good side.
The uneasy coalition is unfortunate, but reflects the shit we have in Congress, especially when several parties just want to see the house catch fire. The military has cooperated far more than Congress, and are more useful.
What do you suggest i/o PG's free-mkt track ?
REF: Track - NYT has suitable comments:
Apr 17th, 2019 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/world/americas/brazil-bolsonaro-100-days.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimesworld
@JB
Apr 18th, 2019 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm, it said a minimum income for each Brazilian, not just for those who work. And to achieve that he'd either have to expand the BF, or replace it with something very similar.
So I guess Bolsonaro is just doing wht he promised.
“a quem se acomoda” = ”those too lazy to work“
I thought it must be something like that. Google is not too good these days; not only has it started giving me Brazilian articles in my newsfeed, it translated a headline ”Moro e Guedes escanteados“ as ”Moro and Guedes scooted“. WTF? I had to look in a dictionary to find out it's more sensibly translated as ”pushed aside”.
And I do tend to be pessimistic, but it's the times we're living in. Until a few years ago it seemed the world was gradually improving; people were getting richer, we were protecting the environment better, reducing hunger, nations were working together, and developing countries like Brazil seemed to finally have broken the cycle of poverty. Now it's all gone to shit. And I'm still a raging optimist compared to :o))! ;)
“What do you suggest i/o PG's free-mkt track ?”
Dunno tbh, I'm not an economist. I can't say Haddad's (really Lula's) plans impressed me either. It would probably help if the government building works weren't paralysed by LJ.
@DemonTree
Apr 19th, 2019 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Now it's all gone to shit”
I'm not all THAT optimistic!
https://i0.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/fernandes-7.jpg?resize=580%2C354&ssl=1
DT
Apr 19th, 2019 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Hmm, it said a minimum income for each Brazilian, not just for those who work.”
I think you meant “not just for those who DON'T work”....anyway, it was NOT for EACH Brazilian, and far less for those who DO work.....impressive how the press tries to distort what he said.
By “escanteados” the writer did mean “pushed aside (”canto“ = corner, ”escanteio“ = a corner, in soccer, so ”escanteado” was slang he invented to get his idea across....which couldn't be more inaccurate....just another journalist trying to create a situation.
OK, the times we are living may not be the greatest, but there's always a positive side...to most things. Well, in the case of Brazil, we only have Lula and the PT to thank for putting us in the shit...forget what he might have done inbetween, think of the final result, which is the only thing that matters, in economic terms.
Well, I am an economist, and although I did not work as one, I understand enough about economic policy, signs and tendencies (understanding the writing on the wall), and quite frankly, I think PG is on the right track...obviously I can't stick my neck out for him, because unfortunately, he cannot decide alone ....he has big hurdles ahead of him, namely our shitty Congress, that is loath to give up it's old ways, of corruption and populism....even if the country is coming apart at the seams.
The paralyzation of many of the projects was a necessity, in view of the need to stop the bleeding of public funds (bribes, etc) until thorough investigations can be concluded...again, the result of the PTs disastrous administrations. The consequences speak for themselves, and there is no easy way out.
No, I meant those who do work, because if B thinks the BF was talking money from the workers and giving it to lazy unemployed people, it would make more sense to ensure those in work are earning enough to live on, right? Rather than giving more money to the unemployed. Anyway, O Globo make it sound more like a universal basic income, an idea that becomes popular every so often, before people realise it's impractical and forget about it again.
Apr 21st, 2019 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So “escanteados” would literally mean something like 'pushed in a corner'? I understood it after I checked the dictionary, but I didn't think the article was too accurate, either. Seems B's preference is to intervene in the economy, as we saw with the Petrobras prices, but when Guedes came back the fuel prices were raised and B promised not to interfere again. Still, I agree he has an uphill struggle. Wonder if he'll end up carrying out his threat to quit if he can't get support?
Re economics, how much do you really remember from your degree after 50 years? I've already forgotten most of what I learned in mine because I haven't used it. Economics isn't an exact science anyway, even when some theory seems to work, you never know if it's just coincidental factors. That's kind of why I don't think the final result is the only thing that matters. Suppose a country gets richer due to external factors (eg demand from China), that's good, but not repeatable. If circumstances change, it might all be reversed. Whereas if a country can find a way to improve their own economy (eg improving infrastructure or signing a trade deal), that's much better because they can keep doing it. And it seemed the PT had found a way to do the latter, but if it actually was due to external factors, it's like a double loss.
DT
Apr 21st, 2019 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, either way, I don't see how it would make any sense to give money to those who work, especially with the deficit he inherited.
To me, if Globo even insinuated what you understood, I wouldn't put it above them to create a situation 'n then claim he didn't keep a promise....the fact he authorized a 13th salary to the BF recipients, and only them, should end their 'sour grapes'.
B has no intention in “intervening” in the economy, that's BS...'n the PB incident was blown out of proportion by the press...once again...he simply said he did not like the idea of the announced increase 'n wanted the Pres of PB to explain / justify it. B's comments were distorted, as clearly explained by Guedes.
Guedes knows the shit he's up against, but I don't think he's a quitter....IF B were to unauthorize him, I think he might then consider it...interesting to watch was a recent meeting with lower house reps, rgdng the pension reform - the PT reps were sitting at the front - as they always do, so they can be the loudest - 'n started to screech 'n criticize the reform...PG got a bit pissed off, and told them point-blank : “you are the ones with the power....I'm just explaining the proposal, from a technical point of view....you are the ones who will discuss and vote it...and what's more, most of you are in your 4th term, 'n what did you do to correct the situation, years ago ? you largely ignored the problem, so now it's up to you to decide what you want to do”. Some laughed and the PT shut up.
It's not a matter of remembering the textbook details, which I don't, but the ability to understand what is being proposed 'n be able to evaluate whether a proposal is practical or not. Economics usually has to deal with a load of variables, which all need to be considered...but the final result is the main measure of sucess, or failure. As I've said b4, each case is different. The PTs main problem was insisting on failed policies....more of an internal cause, than external.
They're already giving money to people who work, someone with a job can get the BF if they don't earn much. And so does our government, and the US one. You've never heard of Walmart workers claiming food stamps? And Americans with kids often get given money by the taxman, instead of having to pay. (And then they turn around and complain about other Americans getting benefits, but that's a different story.
Apr 21st, 2019 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the PB incident was blown out of proportion by the press”
The planned price increase was cancelled, no? And PB's share price fell as a result. Besides that, the press reported Guedes threatened to quit if B didn't support him, as well as if Congress wouldn't work with him. Isn't that true?
Guedes's reply to Congress was a good one. They could and should have done something earlier, but it's easier and less risky to kick the can down the road. And besides that, if they don't like G's plan, they should suggest changes, or put forward their own idea. Reminds me of the Republicans constantly criticising Obamacare, but when they finally had the chance, they couldn't repeal it, because they had no idea what to replace it with.
“the ability to understand what is being proposed 'n be able to evaluate whether a proposal is practical or not.”
That just sounds like experience, and I always suspected there is a lot of guesswork involved. And besides that there are different schools of economics, who often disagree, so how are you supposed to know who to trust? And what failed policies did the PT insist on? IIRC most of the things you criticised them on were just continuing other peoples' policies instead of reforming them, and corruption, which isn't exactly a policy.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!