#46 President Joe Biden

mrussel1 · February 2021

cincybearcat said:

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?

It was 75 individual and 150 for joint, based on AGI 2019 taxes I believe.

Gern Blansten · February 2021

The stimulus payments are a 2020 credit. The payments were based on 2019 returns (if filed) but if your 2019 income was too high to get you an advance payment you will get the credit on your 2020 return.

If you got the advance payment based on 2019 and then it turns out you shouldn't have (because 2020 income was too high) they are not requiring that it be paid back.

PJPOWER · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

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?

It was 75 individual and 150 for joint, based on AGI 2019 taxes I believe.

It seems dumb to base it off 2019 taxes, when so many have lost jobs since the beginning of 2020...

tbergs · February 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

But we could spend more money in a more effective way. I haven't heard anyone here arguing that it's too much, just that it could be directed better to the industries and citizens hit hardest. Spend 1.9 trillion, but make sure it's not just feel good $1,400 checks to people who aren't going to spend it and it won't help the economy.

The argument about losing voters seems pretty unrealistic to me. No republican is going to flip if Biden lowers the amount and no democrat is going flip if he doesn't give everyone 1400. The spinsters will spew BS either way, but that shouldn't be the influence on how best to get this stimulus money out.

HughFreakingDillon · February 2021

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

But we could spend more money in a more effective way. I haven't heard anyone here arguing that it's too much, just that it could be directed better to the industries and citizens hit hardest. Spend 1.9 trillion, but make sure it's not just feel good $1,400 checks to people who aren't going to spend it and it won't help the economy.

The argument about losing voters seems pretty unrealistic to me. No republican is going to flip if Biden lowers the amount and no democrat is going flip if he doesn't give everyone 1400. The spinsters will spew BS either way, but that shouldn't be the influence on how best to get this stimulus money out.

this is exactly what at least I'm saying. a one-time cheque for $1400 or $2000 is fucking stupid to me anyways. for the vast majority who need it, it's like giving a penny to a homeless person.

for a country that is more than willing to give trillion dollar tax breaks on a whim to billionaires, it's utter insanity that they are arguing this much over this mere pittance for people who actually fucking need it.

cincybearcat · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

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?

It was 75 individual and 150 for joint, based on AGI 2019 taxes I believe.

Yeah I mean why? What was the reasoning and process? Anyone know? I couldn't find it in quick search

mace1229 · February 2021

Has everyone received their check who qualifies here? I checked again last night and the IRS listed mine as "no information available" or something like that. I'm guessing I will have to claim it on my taxes this year to get it.

Ledbetterman10 · February 2021

mace1229 said:

Has everyone received their check who qualifies here? I checked again last night and the IRS listed mine as "no information available" or something like that. I'm guessing I will have to claim it on my taxes this year to get it.

I received mine in direct deposit immediately, but someone I work with still hasn't gotten hers, and dealing with the IRS to correct it has been like pulling teeth for her.

mace1229 · February 2021

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

Has everyone received their check who qualifies here? I checked again last night and the IRS listed mine as "no information available" or something like that. I'm guessing I will have to claim it on my taxes this year to get it.

I received mine in direct deposit immediately, but someone I work with still hasn't gotten hers, and dealing with the IRS to correct it has been like pulling teeth for her.

Yeah, dealing with the IRS is a joke. A few years ago we got a notice that we forgot to pay taxes on some retirement we pulled out to pay off medical bills. We kept getting notices after we paid it, even to the point where I got served at work. I called them and the response I got was "Sorry about that, its 2 different departments that send notices and handle the taxes and we don't really communicate. You're fine, ignore the notice." Yeah, okay, but not cool to get served at work.

mickeyrat · February 2021

POTUS visit to State Dept....

1:05 p.m.
Biden to pledge to build relationships with allies, saying they have ‘atrophied from four years of neglect and abuse’
During his foreign policy speech on Thursday afternoon, Biden will pledge to strengthen relationships with U.S. allies, saying they have “atrophied from four years of neglect and abuse” under Trump, according to excerpts of his speech released by the White House.
During the speech at the State Department, Biden will argue that diplomacy should be at the heart of America’s foreign policy and signal a new direction from Trump’s “America First” mantra.
“Over the past two weeks, I’ve spoken with the leaders of many of our closest friends — Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, France, NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia — to begin reforming the habits of cooperation and rebuilding the muscles of democratic alliances that have atrophied from four years of neglect and abuse,” Biden plans to say. “America’s alliances are among our greatest assets. And leading with diplomacy means standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies and key partners once more.”
Biden also plans to address staffers at the State Department directly.
“This administration is going to empower you to do your jobs, not target or politicize you,” he plans to say. “We want a rigorous debate, that brings in all perspectives, and makes room for dissent. That’s how we’ll get the best possible policy outcomes.”

mickeyrat · February 2021

Joe Biden Diplomacy Jake Sullivan Yemen United States

Biden to end US support for Saudi-led offensive in Yemen

By ELLEN KNICKMEYER

Today

President Joe Biden will announce an end Thursday to U.S. support for a grinding five-year Saudi-led military offensive in Yemen that has deepened humanitarian suffering in the Arabian peninsula’s poorest country, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said.

The move would fulfill a campaign pledge by Biden, whose administration plans to pursue diplomacy to end the overall conflict in Yemen. Biden sees the United States “playing a more active and engaged role” to end the war through talks, Sullivan said at a White House briefing.

Biden also is announcing the choice of Timothy Lenderking as special envoy to Yemen as soon as Thursday afternoon, when the president is due to speak at the State Department. A person familiar with the matter confirmed the selection, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement. The Gulf-based newspaper The National first reported the pick.

Lenderking has been a deputy assistant secretary of state in the agency’s Middle East section. A career foreign service member, he has served in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Saudi Arabia began the offensive in 2015 to counter a Yemeni Houthi faction that had seized territory in Yemen and was launching cross-border missiles at Saudi Arabia.

MORE STORIES:

Biden to freeze withdrawal of US troops from Germany
US exploring new bases in Saudi Arabia amid Iran tensions
Biden administration suspends some sanctions on Yemen rebels

A Saudi-led air campaign since then has killed numerous Yemeni civilians, despite U.S. assistance with the Saudi military's command and control that U.S. officials say was meant to minimize civilian casualties in the bombing campaign. The Obama administration initially greenlighted the Saudi-led offensive. Some of the U.S. officials involved have since said they regret that decision, and are now in the Biden administration as it moves to stop U.S. involvement and end the multiparty conflict.

Survivors display fragments showing the bombs to be American-made. The conflict also has deepened hunger and poverty in Yemen, and international rights experts say both the Gulf countries and Houthis have committed severe rights abuses.

Full Coverage:

World News

static111 · February 2021

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

Aha. Yes. Well those are good plans and that usually means that politicians will not implement them.

static111 · February 2021

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.

Exactly. And when new legislation is put forth that wasn’t based on some promises that helped turn people and donations out in Georgia, then you start messaging and delivering a new plan to implement.

mrussel1 · February 2021

static111 said:

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.

Exactly. And when new legislation is put forth that wasn’t based on some promises that helped turn people and donations out in Georgia, then you start messaging and delivering a new plan to implement.

I think that's been Biden's point all along. He promised the people in Georgia this check, so he means to deliver. Good on him.

BTW - I'm officially changing my position. While eating lunch I had a chance to read a Moody's brief on the stimulus and the anticipatory effect of a higher and lower one. According to them, the higher stimulus will bring back full employment several months to a year earlier than the smaller one. That's good enough for me. I still don't think min wage should go through reconciliation but we shall see. The parliamentarian may kill that herself, making the argument moot.

mrussel1 · February 2021

Best news all day. The war is criminal and our support has been criminal. It's time we turn the screws on KSA.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/537346-biden-to-announce-end-to-us-support-for-offensive-operations-in-yemen

SPEEDY MCCREADY · February 2021

Stimulus checks

I have no problem with them lowering the income level to $50,000-$100,000 as far as which individuals/families receive this money. Anyone who has been working all along since the pandemic started, and has not suffered financially because of this pandemic, really doesnt need the stimulus checks to begin with, right? My wife and I have not skipped a beat since the pandemic started. We realize we are blessed in that regard. Did her and I really need those 1st 2 stimulus checks? Of course not.

Now lets hope our government uses some common sense in regards to sending these checks out. If someone made $52K in 2019 yet was laid off for the entire year of 2020, then by all means give this person some help! I dont want to hear that they are going to base these checks on your 2019 tax returns. That would be fucking ridiculous. That would be asinine. That would be fucking insane.

Which probably means our government will base the stimulus checks on our 2019 tax returns.

cincybearcat · February 2021

SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

Stimulus checks

I have no problem with them lowering the income level to $50,000-$100,000 as far as which individuals/families receive this money. Anyone who has been working all along since the pandemic started, and has not suffered financially because of this pandemic, really doesnt need the stimulus checks to begin with, right? My wife and I have not skipped a beat since the pandemic started. We realize we are blessed in that regard. Did her and I really need those 1st 2 stimulus checks? Of course not.

Now lets hope our government uses some common sense in regards to sending these checks out. If someone made $52K in 2019 yet was laid off for the entire year of 2020, then by all means give this person some help! I dont want to hear that they are going to base these checks on your 2019 tax returns. That would be fucking ridiculous. That would be asinine. That would be fucking insane.

Which probably means our government will base the stimulus checks on our 2019 tax returns.

I read it did screw some people for the checks...but I cannot find the article again so it was likely not very many people.

tbergs · February 2021

They can't send any checks until the middle of the year if you wait for 2020 earnings filings. I mean, people understand that, right? I think they send what they stated now and reassess another more targeted round mid-year.

cincybearcat · February 2021

tbergs said:

They can't send any checks until the middle of the year if you wait for 2020 earnings filings. I mean, people understand that, right? I think they send what they stated now and reassess another more targeted round mid-year.

It’s always good to make decision without any data. Errrr I mean, means based decisions are too hard or something.

mrussel1 · February 2021

SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

Stimulus checks

I have no problem with them lowering the income level to $50,000-$100,000 as far as which individuals/families receive this money. Anyone who has been working all along since the pandemic started, and has not suffered financially because of this pandemic, really doesnt need the stimulus checks to begin with, right? My wife and I have not skipped a beat since the pandemic started. We realize we are blessed in that regard. Did her and I really need those 1st 2 stimulus checks? Of course not.

Now lets hope our government uses some common sense in regards to sending these checks out. If someone made $52K in 2019 yet was laid off for the entire year of 2020, then by all means give this person some help! I dont want to hear that they are going to base these checks on your 2019 tax returns. That would be fucking ridiculous. That would be asinine. That would be fucking insane.

Which probably means our government will base the stimulus checks on our 2019 tax returns.

How would the govt know who lost a job in 2020, but were over the income threshold in 19? Unemployment is state run. This might be challenging.

#46 President Joe Biden

Comments

Categories