#46 President Joe Biden

1…1718202223…609

Comments

  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,008
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    tbergs said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    i think you guys are setting the bar a bit low on this. i'm not comparing her to the sludge that trump employed. i'm talking about just doing the job as it is meant to be. 
    She's doing it mostly like previous press secretaries before the Trump admin. There was always some snark, dodging of questions and back and forth, but never a barrage of lies and attack against journalists like the last 4 years. Psaki is being normal for that role.
    there was snark lobbed at the previous admin? I'll admit I'm ignorant on this one, since before sean spicer, I have never known the name or any "newsworthy circumstance" of any press sec. 

    I get it that it can be considered somewhat loose with the press, especially with dodging of questions, I guess I just assumed the role would be a touch more dignified than that. 
    There's always been back and forth during the pressers.  How it takes shape depends on the personality of the sec'y.  These people travel together, they talk daily, they talk on the record, off the record, so there's a degree of familiarity.  So if Psaki is a smart ass by nature, it's going to come out in these.  From what I've seen, she's fine.  You're talking about a few moments out of fair amount of conversation.  
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,008
    Opinions on the stimulus plan?  I think Biden has lived up (thus far) to his commitment to negotiate with the GOP.  Things are moving fast and what I read today is that he's open to dialing back the $1400 to a narrower group of people.  It's not clear whether a broader group will get a smaller check.  Either way, I think so far he's struck a good balance between negotiating, but still pushing the House forward.  
    I don't think the min wage gets through because Manchin isn't voting for it.  So if it's in the bill, and everything goes party line, it won't get through even with reconciliation.  Plus, I don't see how you justify min wage going through reconciliation.  

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/537129-biden-commits-to-1400-checks-in-call-to-house-democrats
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,513
    mrussel1 said:
    Opinions on the stimulus plan?  I think Biden has lived up (thus far) to his commitment to negotiate with the GOP.  Things are moving fast and what I read today is that he's open to dialing back the $1400 to a narrower group of people.  It's not clear whether a broader group will get a smaller check.  Either way, I think so far he's struck a good balance between negotiating, but still pushing the House forward.  
    I don't think the min wage gets through because Manchin isn't voting for it.  So if it's in the bill, and everything goes party line, it won't get through even with reconciliation.  Plus, I don't see how you justify min wage going through reconciliation.  

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/537129-biden-commits-to-1400-checks-in-call-to-house-democrats
    I'm mostly satisfied with it besides the minimum wage push. I also think if they don't do it now, it probably won't happen, but then again a blanket wage for every part of the country also doesn't seem like the most efficient plan. Similar to how I feel about the stimulus checks. I'd like it to be more focused on the under $50,000 income earners. I currently qualify again based on the income standards and certainly won't be using it or need it until Covid is over. Overall, I think Biden is being consistent and open to the Republicans proposal, even though the majority of the original plan may not change.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,232
    With all due respect to joe I think lowering the income threshold for the checks is a bad idea, especially if you are going by 2019 or 2018 taxes still.  We are in 2021. Let’s at the least use the 2020 tax figures. Like if couples made combined let’s say 110k in 2018-2019 and then made like 70000or less In 2020 are they going to get fucked? Additionally if the bar gets so low income wise that only those living just above poverty gets a check well that makes a pretty good case for UBI for people making under a certain threshold, which I am all for.  The checks were part of what delivered the senate, don’t shit on the checks and don’t add fucking means testing to the checks, especially when people are financially ravaged, covid fatigued and pissed of in general.  It isn’t worth pleasing manchin and the republicans now just to lose votes in 2022. That’s my take at least.  And the minimum wage thing.  I don’t even know how anyone could think that people don’t deserve at least 15 for doing any kind of work. And yes I believe if you can’t pay living  wages then your business probably isn’t providing a worthwhile service.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,008
    static111 said:
    With all due respect to joe I think lowering the income threshold for the checks is a bad idea, especially if you are going by 2019 or 2018 taxes still.  We are in 2021. Let’s at the least use the 2020 tax figures. Like if couples made combined let’s say 110k in 2018-2019 and then made like 70000or less In 2020 are they going to get fucked? Additionally if the bar gets so low income wise that only those living just above poverty gets a check well that makes a pretty good case for UBI for people making under a certain threshold, which I am all for.  The checks were part of what delivered the senate, don’t shit on the checks and don’t add fucking means testing to the checks, especially when people are financially ravaged, covid fatigued and pissed of in general.  It isn’t worth pleasing manchin and the republicans now just to lose votes in 2022. That’s my take at least.  And the minimum wage thing.  I don’t even know how anyone could think that people don’t deserve at least 15 for doing any kind of work. And yes I believe if you can’t pay living  wages then your business probably isn’t providing a worthwhile service.
    First, you can't use 2020 because no one has filed.  So if you wait for 2020, that means no checks until June so that's a non starter.  Second, it's not clear whether it's 1400 or nothing, or if 1400 is the most and then it moves down from there based on income.  
    The problem with Machin right now is that if he votes against it, it doesn't matter if you move it through reconciliation or not.  You have to get one GOP vote otherwise nothing passes. 
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,232
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    With all due respect to joe I think lowering the income threshold for the checks is a bad idea, especially if you are going by 2019 or 2018 taxes still.  We are in 2021. Let’s at the least use the 2020 tax figures. Like if couples made combined let’s say 110k in 2018-2019 and then made like 70000or less In 2020 are they going to get fucked? Additionally if the bar gets so low income wise that only those living just above poverty gets a check well that makes a pretty good case for UBI for people making under a certain threshold, which I am all for.  The checks were part of what delivered the senate, don’t shit on the checks and don’t add fucking means testing to the checks, especially when people are financially ravaged, covid fatigued and pissed of in general.  It isn’t worth pleasing manchin and the republicans now just to lose votes in 2022. That’s my take at least.  And the minimum wage thing.  I don’t even know how anyone could think that people don’t deserve at least 15 for doing any kind of work. And yes I believe if you can’t pay living  wages then your business probably isn’t providing a worthwhile service.
    First, you can't use 2020 because no one has filed.  So if you wait for 2020, that means no checks until June so that's a non starter.  Second, it's not clear whether it's 1400 or nothing, or if 1400 is the most and then it moves down from there based on income.  
    The problem with Machin right now is that if he votes against it, it doesn't matter if you move it through reconciliation or not.  You have to get one GOP vote otherwise nothing passes. 
    @mrussel1i don’t want to live in a world where the Trump administration gave more direct aid to Americans than a democratic administration. Very bad optics. Because you know even if he is forced to send out less because he’s compromising with them, they will frame it that he’s ebeneezer god damned Scrooge in 2022
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    For fuck's sake the fact that trump wanted his signature on the checks previously should tell you all you need to know about the the only reason that lazy ass effort is the one they are choosing.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,008
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    With all due respect to joe I think lowering the income threshold for the checks is a bad idea, especially if you are going by 2019 or 2018 taxes still.  We are in 2021. Let’s at the least use the 2020 tax figures. Like if couples made combined let’s say 110k in 2018-2019 and then made like 70000or less In 2020 are they going to get fucked? Additionally if the bar gets so low income wise that only those living just above poverty gets a check well that makes a pretty good case for UBI for people making under a certain threshold, which I am all for.  The checks were part of what delivered the senate, don’t shit on the checks and don’t add fucking means testing to the checks, especially when people are financially ravaged, covid fatigued and pissed of in general.  It isn’t worth pleasing manchin and the republicans now just to lose votes in 2022. That’s my take at least.  And the minimum wage thing.  I don’t even know how anyone could think that people don’t deserve at least 15 for doing any kind of work. And yes I believe if you can’t pay living  wages then your business probably isn’t providing a worthwhile service.
    First, you can't use 2020 because no one has filed.  So if you wait for 2020, that means no checks until June so that's a non starter.  Second, it's not clear whether it's 1400 or nothing, or if 1400 is the most and then it moves down from there based on income.  
    The problem with Machin right now is that if he votes against it, it doesn't matter if you move it through reconciliation or not.  You have to get one GOP vote otherwise nothing passes. 
    @mrussel1i don’t want to live in a world where the Trump administration gave more direct aid to Americans than a democratic administration. Very bad optics. Because you know even if he is forced to send out less because he’s compromising with them, they will frame it that he’s ebeneezer god damned Scrooge in 2022
    Trump would have given 10k to every one who voted for him or in a swing state if you gave him a chance.  He's not the barometer nor are his actions.  
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,232
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    With all due respect to joe I think lowering the income threshold for the checks is a bad idea, especially if you are going by 2019 or 2018 taxes still.  We are in 2021. Let’s at the least use the 2020 tax figures. Like if couples made combined let’s say 110k in 2018-2019 and then made like 70000or less In 2020 are they going to get fucked? Additionally if the bar gets so low income wise that only those living just above poverty gets a check well that makes a pretty good case for UBI for people making under a certain threshold, which I am all for.  The checks were part of what delivered the senate, don’t shit on the checks and don’t add fucking means testing to the checks, especially when people are financially ravaged, covid fatigued and pissed of in general.  It isn’t worth pleasing manchin and the republicans now just to lose votes in 2022. That’s my take at least.  And the minimum wage thing.  I don’t even know how anyone could think that people don’t deserve at least 15 for doing any kind of work. And yes I believe if you can’t pay living  wages then your business probably isn’t providing a worthwhile service.
    First, you can't use 2020 because no one has filed.  So if you wait for 2020, that means no checks until June so that's a non starter.  Second, it's not clear whether it's 1400 or nothing, or if 1400 is the most and then it moves down from there based on income.  
    The problem with Machin right now is that if he votes against it, it doesn't matter if you move it through reconciliation or not.  You have to get one GOP vote otherwise nothing passes. 
    @mrussel1i don’t want to live in a world where the Trump administration gave more direct aid to Americans than a democratic administration. Very bad optics. Because you know even if he is forced to send out less because he’s compromising with them, they will frame it that he’s ebeneezer god damned Scrooge in 2022
    Trump would have given 10k to every one who voted for him or in a swing state if you gave him a chance.  He's not the barometer nor are his actions.  
    Agreed but that’s not what the masses will see
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,232
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,008
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    So you don't believe in any means testing, is that right?  I support it based on 2019 numbers personally.  But you're saying even someone who made a million dollars plus in 19 shoudl get the check?
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    I've already posted articles about how stupid this is.  Use the systems in place...make them more robust, extended unemployment, increase unemployment payouts.  Freeze evictions and utility shutoffs.  The payout does not help those that need help enough and it does not stimulate the economy.  It's been like a year and here we are doing the same stupid thing that had zero effect last time.  I'm pretty tired of the excuse always being..."It's too hard".  Wah, do your fucking work.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,117
    mrussel1 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    tbergs said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    i think you guys are setting the bar a bit low on this. i'm not comparing her to the sludge that trump employed. i'm talking about just doing the job as it is meant to be. 
    She's doing it mostly like previous press secretaries before the Trump admin. There was always some snark, dodging of questions and back and forth, but never a barrage of lies and attack against journalists like the last 4 years. Psaki is being normal for that role.
    there was snark lobbed at the previous admin? I'll admit I'm ignorant on this one, since before sean spicer, I have never known the name or any "newsworthy circumstance" of any press sec. 

    I get it that it can be considered somewhat loose with the press, especially with dodging of questions, I guess I just assumed the role would be a touch more dignified than that. 
    There's always been back and forth during the pressers.  How it takes shape depends on the personality of the sec'y.  These people travel together, they talk daily, they talk on the record, off the record, so there's a degree of familiarity.  So if Psaki is a smart ass by nature, it's going to come out in these.  From what I've seen, she's fine.  You're talking about a few moments out of fair amount of conversation.  
    fair enough. thanks for the clarification. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,232
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    So you don't believe in any means testing, is that right?  I support it based on 2019 numbers personally.  But you're saying even someone who made a million dollars plus in 19 shoudl get the check?
    Pretty sure the threshold is 150k or 175k per couple.  Why would you raise that?  And no I’m not a fan of means testing.  Setting an income threshold is a completely different matter.  Arbitrarily changing the way things are done and attaching geographical sliding scales is nuts.  Creating a basic universal system for people under a certain threshold is in no way means testing. Nor is excluding someone that made a million dollars, that’s just arguing some minutiae. And yes if someone made a million in 19 and somehow dropped their income below the 150 or 175k cutoff due to te pandemic I would say yes their income has absolutely been affected. But based on 19 taxes alone heck no.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,232
    cincybearcat said:
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    I've already posted articles about how stupid this is.  Use the systems in place...make them more robust, extended unemployment, increase unemployment payouts.  Freeze evictions and utility shutoffs.  The payout does not help those that need help enough and it does not stimulate the economy.  It's been like a year and here we are doing the same stupid thing that had zero effect last time.  I'm pretty tired of the excuse always being..."It's too hard".  Wah, do your fucking work.
    But don’t make the work more expensive than a universal program.  We are really a disgrace compared to almost any other advanced country.  Here we are arguing about 1400 bucks when many other economic powerhouse countries have given thousands per citizen .
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    I've already posted articles about how stupid this is.  Use the systems in place...make them more robust, extended unemployment, increase unemployment payouts.  Freeze evictions and utility shutoffs.  The payout does not help those that need help enough and it does not stimulate the economy.  It's been like a year and here we are doing the same stupid thing that had zero effect last time.  I'm pretty tired of the excuse always being..."It's too hard".  Wah, do your fucking work.
    But don’t make the work more expensive than a universal program.  We are really a disgrace compared to almost any other advanced country.  Here we are arguing about 1400 bucks when many other economic powerhouse countries have given thousands per citizen .
    It's just wasted $.  It's not about spending less for me, heck I would have done payroll guarantee and that would have been stupid expensive.  But then once vaccinated...everything would be back to normal almost instantly with people having jobs, spending $...don't have to worry about rent, food, unemployment, etc etc etc.  I'm just continuously disappointed in the lack of work and creativity during a global pandemic.  

    So I just want to be clear, I am not concerned about spending too much money....just wasting some while not actually helping hardly anyone
    hippiemom = goodness
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,117
    cincybearcat said:
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    I've already posted articles about how stupid this is.  Use the systems in place...make them more robust, extended unemployment, increase unemployment payouts.  Freeze evictions and utility shutoffs.  The payout does not help those that need help enough and it does not stimulate the economy.  It's been like a year and here we are doing the same stupid thing that had zero effect last time.  I'm pretty tired of the excuse always being..."It's too hard".  Wah, do your fucking work.
    But don’t make the work more expensive than a universal program.  We are really a disgrace compared to almost any other advanced country.  Here we are arguing about 1400 bucks when many other economic powerhouse countries have given thousands per citizen .
    It's just wasted $.  It's not about spending less for me, heck I would have done payroll guarantee and that would have been stupid expensive.  But then once vaccinated...everything would be back to normal almost instantly with people having jobs, spending $...don't have to worry about rent, food, unemployment, etc etc etc.  I'm just continuously disappointed in the lack of work and creativity during a global pandemic.  

    So I just want to be clear, I am not concerned about spending too much money....just wasting some while not actually helping hardly anyone
    i think it's more responsible for the government to spend more if it means doing it right then spending some and doing it wrong. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,008
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    So you don't believe in any means testing, is that right?  I support it based on 2019 numbers personally.  But you're saying even someone who made a million dollars plus in 19 shoudl get the check?
    Pretty sure the threshold is 150k or 175k per couple.  Why would you raise that?  And no I’m not a fan of means testing.  Setting an income threshold is a completely different matter.  Arbitrarily changing the way things are done and attaching geographical sliding scales is nuts.  Creating a basic universal system for people under a certain threshold is in no way means testing. Nor is excluding someone that made a million dollars, that’s just arguing some minutiae. And yes if someone made a million in 19 and somehow dropped their income below the 150 or 175k cutoff due to te pandemic I would say yes their income has absolutely been affected. But based on 19 taxes alone heck no.
    Fair enough.  I wasn't clear whether you were advocating no income cap  but sounds like you want to keep in place what happened last time.  
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    Sending checks to people that haven;t lost their jobs or any hours is just complete nonsense and lazy.  Sending the same amount of $ to someone in rural Iowa/Kansas/Wyoming as NYC is just more lazy nonsense.  
    The amount of resources needed for the means testing would probably make the whole thing go up in cost.  Especially since as Mrussel1 has stated all of the 2020 tax figures aren’t in yet.  Which makes it harder still to do what you propose, how could we realistically logistically figure out who lost income and at what threshold per region “deserves” some relief?  That’s Herculean.  Probably can’t be done.  Do a universal program and call it good.  To slash the amounts now or lower the income threshold, especially based on ‘18 and ‘19 taxes is really bad optics for a party and administration that wants to be seen as keeping promises. At the end of the day people are going to say DJT gave me $1800 dollars and Joe Biden gave me maybe $1400 if I made some crazy means testing threshold.   For this round keep it the same and if another round is needed renegotiate and put out different messaging.  Fucking with the checks to the people is going to have real negative effects electorally.
    So you don't believe in any means testing, is that right?  I support it based on 2019 numbers personally.  But you're saying even someone who made a million dollars plus in 19 shoudl get the check?
    Pretty sure the threshold is 150k or 175k per couple.  Why would you raise that?  And no I’m not a fan of means testing.  Setting an income threshold is a completely different matter.  Arbitrarily changing the way things are done and attaching geographical sliding scales is nuts.  Creating a basic universal system for people under a certain threshold is in no way means testing. Nor is excluding someone that made a million dollars, that’s just arguing some minutiae. And yes if someone made a million in 19 and somehow dropped their income below the 150 or 175k cutoff due to te pandemic I would say yes their income has absolutely been affected. But based on 19 taxes alone heck no.
    Fair enough.  I wasn't clear whether you were advocating no income cap  but sounds like you want to keep in place what happened last time.  
    How was the limit set?
    hippiemom = goodness

Categories