Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. $3000 per child economic stimulus

$3000 per child economic stimulus

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
46 Posts 14 Posters 479 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • jon-nycJ Offline
    jon-nycJ Offline
    jon-nyc
    wrote on last edited by
    #6

    @george-k said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

    Wow, that money tree in the backyard of the White House sure grew quickly!

    Actually it grew last year. The problem with this proposal is they're assuming it doesn't have to shrink back.

    Only non-witches get due process.

    • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
    1 Reply Last reply
    • Catseye3C Catseye3

      Maybe they're setting a high amount so as to allow themselves to "compromise" at a lower amount?

      I'm with George on this. What will the bill-due look like?

      AxtremusA Offline
      AxtremusA Offline
      Axtremus
      wrote on last edited by
      #7

      @catseye3 said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

      What will the bill-due look like?

      I estimate $200B to $250B for a full year, a bit over 1% of US GDP.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ Offline
        jon-nycJ Offline
        jon-nyc
        wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
        #8

        In fact this program would cost "only" 200B a year or so. Compare that to three separate trillion dollar+ bailouts last year.

        Considering that even pre-covid, federal spending was ~4T, this is only 5% of that.

        And it's probably a better use of funds than many other similar expenses in the budget.

        Only non-witches get due process.

        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
        1 Reply Last reply
        • MikM Offline
          MikM Offline
          Mik
          wrote on last edited by Mik
          #9

          That it has merit in terms of effect on people is clear. But its borrowed money. Money we don’t have. If you can cut out other programs to find it then maybe.

          “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

          Catseye3C 1 Reply Last reply
          • AxtremusA Offline
            AxtremusA Offline
            Axtremus
            wrote on last edited by
            #10

            https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/opinion/sunday/mitt-romney-family-plan.html

            Ross Douthat on Romney’s plan, focusing on its objective to boost birth rates.

            George KG 1 Reply Last reply
            • AxtremusA Axtremus

              https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/opinion/sunday/mitt-romney-family-plan.html

              Ross Douthat on Romney’s plan, focusing on its objective to boost birth rates.

              George KG Offline
              George KG Offline
              George K
              wrote on last edited by
              #11

              @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

              its objective to boost birth rates

              Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."

              "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

              The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

              CopperC AxtremusA 2 Replies Last reply
              • MikM Mik

                That it has merit in terms of effect on people is clear. But its borrowed money. Money we don’t have. If you can cut out other programs to find it then maybe.

                Catseye3C Offline
                Catseye3C Offline
                Catseye3
                wrote on last edited by
                #12

                @mik said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                If you can cut out other programs to find it then maybe.

                Silly Mik.

                37bda1ba-2d3a-473b-aaa4-549fae83e078-image.png

                Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka

                1 Reply Last reply
                • George KG George K

                  @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                  its objective to boost birth rates

                  Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."

                  CopperC Offline
                  CopperC Offline
                  Copper
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #13

                  @george-k said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                  @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                  its objective to boost birth rates

                  Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."

                  Planned Parenthood is going to demand inclusion and equity.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • George KG George K

                    @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                    its objective to boost birth rates

                    Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."

                    AxtremusA Offline
                    AxtremusA Offline
                    Axtremus
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #14

                    @george-k said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                    Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."

                    When the high income folks don’t reproduce (or do so at a pace significantly below the population replacement rate) and leave the burden of population replenishment to the lower income folks, it’s only fair that some of the resources get redistributed to help with raising the replacement population under the care of the lower income folks. With that rationale, I would argue that the means testing for such welfare to also take the # of children as an input. So the more kids you raise, meaning the more you contribute to the care for the nation’s replacement population, the more wealth gets redistributed your way.

                    What’s in it for the high income folks? New blood to continue paying into their Social Security and Medicare trust funds, able bodies to care for them in healthcare facilities, to maintain their senior living infrastructures, to maintain civilization for these old rich people to live out the rest of their lives. 😁

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • AxtremusA Offline
                      AxtremusA Offline
                      Axtremus
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #15

                      Romney’s two-page brochure for his proposed “Family Security Act”:
                      https://www.romney.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/family security act_one pager.pdf

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • taiwan_girlT Offline
                        taiwan_girlT Offline
                        taiwan_girl
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #16

                        Falling birth rates are a problem in developed countries. The only reason the US population is not decreasing is because of immigration.

                        Look at the issues countries like Japan and Italy are facing.

                        L 1 Reply Last reply
                        • LuFins DadL Offline
                          LuFins DadL Offline
                          LuFins Dad
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #17

                          Romney's plan is such a bad idea on so many frigging levels. I am embarrassed to say I voted for him if this is his idea of good policy.

                          The Democrat idea isn't as atrocious if it's a one year expansion of last year's child tax credit. Still don't care for it, but it's not as big of a deal as it looks. If it's a permanent change, however...

                          The Brad

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

                            Falling birth rates are a problem in developed countries. The only reason the US population is not decreasing is because of immigration.

                            Look at the issues countries like Japan and Italy are facing.

                            L Offline
                            L Offline
                            Loki
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #18

                            @taiwan_girl said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                            Falling birth rates are a problem in developed countries. The only reason the US population is not decreasing is because of immigration.

                            Look at the issues countries like Japan and Italy are facing.

                            Bingo.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • AxtremusA Offline
                              AxtremusA Offline
                              Axtremus
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #19

                              More details ...

                              https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html

                              The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.

                              jon-nycJ LuFins DadL 2 Replies Last reply
                              • AxtremusA Axtremus

                                More details ...

                                https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html

                                The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.

                                jon-nycJ Offline
                                jon-nycJ Offline
                                jon-nyc
                                wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                                #20

                                @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                (much lower than what I previously estimated)

                                Me too. It's because it includes the already existing 2k child tax credit.

                                This adds 1k, and makes it refundable and 'advanceable'.

                                Only non-witches get due process.

                                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                1 Reply Last reply
                                • AxtremusA Axtremus

                                  More details ...

                                  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html

                                  The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.

                                  LuFins DadL Offline
                                  LuFins DadL Offline
                                  LuFins Dad
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #21

                                  @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                  More details ...

                                  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html

                                  The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.

                                  It's an increase of $1000 per year. $1000 per year will lift 4.1 million children out of poverty? Color me skeptical.

                                  The Brad

                                  jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                  • MikM Offline
                                    MikM Offline
                                    Mik
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #22

                                    The crack dealers are very excited about the prospect.

                                    “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

                                    JollyJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                    • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad

                                      @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                      More details ...

                                      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html

                                      The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.

                                      It's an increase of $1000 per year. $1000 per year will lift 4.1 million children out of poverty? Color me skeptical.

                                      jon-nycJ Offline
                                      jon-nycJ Offline
                                      jon-nyc
                                      wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                                      #23

                                      @lufins-dad said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                      It's an increase of $1000 per year. $1000 per year will lift 4.1 million children out of poverty? Color me skeptical.

                                      Sorta passes the sniff test. The poverty line is a discrete number for a family of a given size.

                                      Look at family of four for example, poverty line is 24k (says google). It makes sense that the number of households making within 23k-24k would be large, probably measuring in the single-digit millions. Then repeat that exercise for families of 2 and 3... and you could see it add up.

                                      Its just that 'lifting you out of poverty' has a life-transforming ring to it, whereas in reality, for a family of 4, going from 23.5k to 24.5k is welcome, but hardly game changing.

                                      Only non-witches get due process.

                                      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                      LuFins DadL 2 Replies Last reply
                                      • George KG Offline
                                        George KG Offline
                                        George K
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #24

                                        Screen Shot 2021-02-09 at 5.26.49 PM.png

                                        "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                                        The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        • 89th8 Offline
                                          89th8 Offline
                                          89th
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #25

                                          My wife and I have done well the last few years in terms of income. Not Horace-level, but still pretty good and I recognize we are fortunate to have the employment we do.

                                          While I understand the concept of phasing out all of these stimulus checks once you exceed a certain household income... the one-two punch of us paying a higher % of our income to the IRS than our neighbors and also not getting any of the distribution of cash back really is a weird and disappointing feeling. Disheartening? Unmotivating? Not sure the adjective.

                                          Aqua LetiferA brendaB 2 Replies Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups