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.
  • A Offline
    A Offline
    Axtremus
    wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:29 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.

    G 1 Reply Last reply 7 Feb 2021, 15:31
    • A Axtremus
      7 Feb 2021, 15:29

      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.

      G Offline
      G Offline
      George K
      wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:31 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.

      C A 2 Replies Last reply 7 Feb 2021, 15:40
      • M Mik
        7 Feb 2021, 15:13

        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.

        C Offline
        C Offline
        Catseye3
        wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:36 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
        • G George K
          7 Feb 2021, 15:31

          @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

          its objective to boost birth rates

          Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."

          C Offline
          C Offline
          Copper
          wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:40 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
          • G George K
            7 Feb 2021, 15:31

            @axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

            its objective to boost birth rates

            Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."

            A Offline
            A Offline
            Axtremus
            wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:55 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
            • A Offline
              A Offline
              Axtremus
              wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 16:07 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
              • T Offline
                T Offline
                taiwan_girl
                wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 17:45 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 7 Feb 2021, 20:53
                • L Offline
                  L Offline
                  LuFins Dad
                  wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 18:04 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
                  • T taiwan_girl
                    7 Feb 2021, 17:45

                    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 7 Feb 2021, 20:53 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
                    • A Offline
                      A Offline
                      Axtremus
                      wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 21:58 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.

                      J L 2 Replies Last reply 9 Feb 2021, 22:22
                      • A Axtremus
                        9 Feb 2021, 21:58

                        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.

                        J Online
                        J Online
                        jon-nyc
                        wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 22:22 last edited by jon-nyc 2 Sept 2021, 22:23
                        #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'.

                        "You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
                        -Cormac McCarthy

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • A Axtremus
                          9 Feb 2021, 21:58

                          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.

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          LuFins Dad
                          wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 22:24 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

                          J 1 Reply Last reply 9 Feb 2021, 22:46
                          • M Offline
                            M Offline
                            Mik
                            wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 22:37 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

                            J 1 Reply Last reply 10 Feb 2021, 03:51
                            • L LuFins Dad
                              9 Feb 2021, 22:24

                              @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.

                              J Online
                              J Online
                              jon-nyc
                              wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 22:46 last edited by jon-nyc 2 Sept 2021, 23:10
                              #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.

                              "You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
                              -Cormac McCarthy

                              L 2 Replies Last reply 10 Feb 2021, 02:51
                              • G Offline
                                G Offline
                                George K
                                wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 23:27 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
                                • 8 Offline
                                  8 Offline
                                  89th
                                  wrote on 10 Feb 2021, 02:39 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.

                                  A B 2 Replies Last reply 10 Feb 2021, 02:47
                                  • 8 89th
                                    10 Feb 2021, 02:39

                                    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.

                                    A Offline
                                    A Offline
                                    Aqua Letifer
                                    wrote on 10 Feb 2021, 02:47 last edited by
                                    #26

                                    @89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                    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.

                                    It sounds like you're in favor of government handouts.

                                    Please love yourself.

                                    8 1 Reply Last reply 10 Feb 2021, 03:16
                                    • J jon-nyc
                                      9 Feb 2021, 22:46

                                      @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.

                                      L Offline
                                      L Offline
                                      LuFins Dad
                                      wrote on 10 Feb 2021, 02:51 last edited by
                                      #27

                                      @mik said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                      The crack dealers are very excited about the prospect.

                                      More likely meth and heroine. For a significant number of these kids, their lives are likely going to get worse from this.

                                      The Brad

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      • A Aqua Letifer
                                        10 Feb 2021, 02:47

                                        @89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                        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.

                                        It sounds like you're in favor of government handouts.

                                        8 Offline
                                        8 Offline
                                        89th
                                        wrote on 10 Feb 2021, 03:16 last edited by
                                        #28

                                        @aqua-letifer said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                        @89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                        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.

                                        It sounds like you're in favor of government handouts.

                                        Nailed it!

                                        My view on taxes and government support, etc... is basically, the government should help those below the poverty line (for a finite period) and those who truly cannot help themselves, whether through tax breaks or smart government benefit programs. But once you reach a certain level, treat all citizens the same. Same benefits. Same tax %. Keeps it fair.

                                        A 1 Reply Last reply 10 Feb 2021, 03:27
                                        • 8 89th
                                          10 Feb 2021, 03:16

                                          @aqua-letifer said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                          @89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                          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.

                                          It sounds like you're in favor of government handouts.

                                          Nailed it!

                                          My view on taxes and government support, etc... is basically, the government should help those below the poverty line (for a finite period) and those who truly cannot help themselves, whether through tax breaks or smart government benefit programs. But once you reach a certain level, treat all citizens the same. Same benefits. Same tax %. Keeps it fair.

                                          A Offline
                                          A Offline
                                          Aqua Letifer
                                          wrote on 10 Feb 2021, 03:27 last edited by
                                          #29

                                          @89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:

                                          My view on taxes and government support, etc... is basically, the government should help those below the poverty line (for a finite period) and those who truly cannot help themselves, whether through tax breaks or smart government benefit programs.

                                          That's why they're able to send the amount they can to those in lower brackets. If they gave the same amount to everybody, including government contractors, then those who could really use the assistance would get much less, at the "benefit" of giving that same amount to those who don't need it.

                                          Please love yourself.

                                          8 1 Reply Last reply 10 Feb 2021, 03:31
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes

                                          19/46

                                          9 Feb 2021, 21:58


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          19 out of 46
                                          • First post
                                            19/46
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups