$2000, not $600
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 00:11 last edited by
@larry said in $2000, not $600:
We shouldn't be handing out money at all.
Sadly people have come to believe the government's job is to make sure no one ever feels any pain, even the result of their own decisions. I clearly do not share that view.
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 00:15 last edited by
Yet millions of people who decry any socialistic turn they fear our new government will take, are also crying very loudly for their stimulus money
-
Yet millions of people who decry any socialistic turn they fear our new government will take, are also crying very loudly for their stimulus money
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 00:18 last edited by@nobodyssock said in $2000, not $600:
Yet millions of people who decry any socialistic turn they fear our new government will take, are also crying very loudly for their stimulus money
So based on that observation you think we should just go full Socialist, right?
-
Yet millions of people who decry any socialistic turn they fear our new government will take, are also crying very loudly for their stimulus money
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 00:32 last edited by@nobodyssock said in $2000, not $600:
Yet millions of people who decry any socialistic turn they fear our new government will take, are also crying very loudly for their stimulus money
Not me. I think it should be used more wisely and only where it is needed.
-
$1400 more debt per taxpayer, that is not targeted. At all.
In March/April there was some excuse for it. We didn't know what to expect and we had to do something fast. But now we have had 10 months to develop a better, more focused approach and our elected officials failed us miserably. Again.
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 01:10 last edited by@mik said in $2000, not $600:
$1400 more debt per taxpayer, that is not targeted. At all.
Not true. The $600 payment in the most recently enacted legislation starts phasing at $75k income and reaches zero at $87k income. The proposal for the additional $1400 can be similarly phased out, thus targeting the lower to middle income people.
That said, personally I much prefer beefing up and extending unemployment benefits and backfill states and municipalities’ coffers to cover for loss of wages/revenues due to COVID-19 rather than the one-time $1200 or $600 or $2000 lump sum.
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 01:18 last edited by Mik
That's 68% of US workers before it STARTS phasing out. $145 I believe for couples. Do you believe 68% of US workers are in trouble? I don't. I sure as hell don't see evidence of it.
-
$1400 more debt per taxpayer, that is not targeted. At all.
In March/April there was some excuse for it. We didn't know what to expect and we had to do something fast. But now we have had 10 months to develop a better, more focused approach and our elected officials failed us miserably. Again.
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 02:10 last edited by@mik said in $2000, not $600:
$1400 more debt per taxpayer, that is not targeted. At all.
Oh it’s targeted. Towards the 50% of households that qualify based on income level. In other words, half the country doesn’t get a check, even though they pay taxes...actually more in taxes (based on % of income).
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 02:14 last edited by
This is ridiculous. I’d be willing to bet that a helluva lot of people in this income bracket haven’t missed a paycheck during COVID. On top of that, their overall costs are drastically lower. They are in better financial shape than they were before.
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 02:30 last edited by
Agreed. I’d even be fine with a rough and imperfect system where you can apply online and “digitally sign” (under penalty of perjury) that you’ve lost substantial income and/or cannot pay rent or utility/food bills. Then you immediately get a check sent to you. Would at least have a little logic behind it since I think we’re behind the “flood the market with cash!” days in the spring.
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 02:50 last edited by
$600 is better than $2000
$0 is better than $600
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 03:10 last edited by
@copper said in $2000, not $600:
$600 is better than $2000
$0 is better than $600
How about -$600 or -$2000?
Say, because your expenses have gone down because you have no where to spend your money, so you send $600 or $2000 to the United States Treasury to pay down the national debt (and only to pay down the national debt).
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 03:15 last edited by
It’s already a negative number. It’s debt.
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 12:54 last edited by
So it passed the house with bipartisan support.
Bernie said he’ll filibuster the Defense Authorization Act vote (veto-override really) unless McConnell agrees to bring it up to a vote.
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 13:02 last edited by
Whatever... It would be nice to be altruistic and put the funds back into struggling businesses, but it’s Lucas and Finley that will need to help pay this back, so it will all go into a 529 for Finley and an IRA for Luke.
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 21:07 last edited by xenon
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2020, 21:37 last edited by
@xenon said in $2000, not $600:
Like the lead from Momento.
Not at all. Lenny knew he had a condition.