Time to just drop the COVID relief payments...

[Westerly 61]

Let's consider a few facts.

- Covid has existed for a year now. Those who are hard-up due to the pandemic has been struggling for months now.

- Chances are that if they havent found a way to survive by now, the damage is long done for them at this point.

- $1000 is not going to do jack for a family who hasent been able to pay rent in 10 months...

- At this point, the vast majority of those who get the money dont really need it.

- Is it really worth it to give $1000 to everyone, mostly people who dont need it, in exchange for critical cuts to Medicare and other important services? probably not.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, Westerly said:

Let's consider a few facts.

- Covid has existed for a year now. Those who are hard-up due to the pandemic has been struggling for months now.

- Chances are that if they havent found a way to survive by now, the damage is long done for them at this point.

- $1000 is not going to do jack for a family who hasent been able to pay rent in 10 months...

- At this point, the vast majority of those who get the money dont really need it.

- Is it really worth it to give $1000 to everyone, mostly people who dont need it, in exchange for critical cuts to Medicare and other important services? probably not.

If you just round up every unemployed person and execute them, you have no unemployment problem.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, Westerly said:

- At this point, the vast majority of those who get the money dont really need it.

 

Please post your research proving this fact. So, just a little refresher for you, we are not hunter gatherers anymore: we have an economy. An economy relies on the circulation of currency. No circulation of currency = no economy. No economy means we are all fucked even those of us who can not connect the dots. Republicans believe that giving $1.5 Trillion to those of our citizens who are already filthy rich, and don't deserve it, will cause money to circulate from the top down thus giving needed stimulus to an economy in need. Democrats believe it makes better sense to bypass them and the middle men and circulate money from the bottom up giving it to those most in need. Obviously, the risk there is that some who won't deserve it will get more money to spend. That works out, oddly enough, because the entire goal is to get people spending money. In both cases the goal is the same which is to stimulate the economy so the whole shebang doesn't go to hell in a hand basket. So, once you understand what is actually happening it all starts to make sense and worrying about whether poor people are buying food or dining out becomes less of an annoyance.

[billvon 2,396]

45 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If you just round up every unemployed person and execute them, you have no unemployment problem.

And if you ignore anyone who needs money due to COVID-19 then no one needs COVID relief.  Simple!

[Westerly 61]

Yea, except there is no free lunch. This money that is being used for the $1000 payments is, among other things, being subtracted from Medicaid funding. I'd argue Medicaid funding is a lot more important than giving out a bit of money who 1. In most cases is not enough to actually help anyone and 2. mostly goes to people who dont need it.

[Westerly 61]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Please post your research proving this fact. 

Sure, it's called basic arithmetic. 'Most' means more than 50%. I claimed most people dont need it, or more than 50%. The unemployment rate in the USA is about 8%. That means 92% of people, which is a lot higher than 50, have a job. Yes, some people are unemployed and underpaid, but those issues existed long before Covid. Also, even with them included, still more than 50% of Americans are doing perfectly fine right now.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, Westerly said:

Sure, it's called basic arithmetic. 'Most' means more than 50%. I claimed most people dont need it, or more than 50%. The unemployment rate in the USA is about 8%. That means 92% of people, which is a lot higher than 50, have a job. Yes, some people are unemployed and underpaid, but those issues existed long before Covid. Also, even with them included, still more than 50% of Americans are doing perfectly fine right now.

That's not proof. Clearly, you have very little understanding of economics in general and being poor in particular. If you have an $8. and hour job in and area where $12. or $15. an hour is the required minimum then you are one of the employed poor. Maybe you scraped by and found some sort of way pre-covid but now cannot for all of the obvious reasons. Rich people rarely become not rich. Poor people, given the chance, often become not poor. That, in a nutshell is what economic growth means.

[Westerly 61]

9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

 If you have an $8. and hour job in and area where $12. or $15. an hour is the required minimum then you are one of the employed poor. 

Yes, but how is that any different from any point in the last 50,000 years? There are always underpaid people. That is a larger societal issue, and a single payment of $1000 will do absolutely nothing to solve that problem. You realize those payments are not free? Part of that money is being offset by a budget reduction for Medicare.

At the minimum, those payments should be limited to the type of people you are talking about. They are in negotiations about offering some of that money to people making over $150k. That is an utter waste. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Westerly

[billvon 2,396]

22 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Yea, except there is no free lunch. This money that is being used for the $1000 payments is, among other things, being subtracted from Medicaid funding.

No, it's not.  It's coming from more borrowing.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

4 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Yes, but how is that any different from any point in the last 50,000 years? There are always underpaid people. That is a larger societal issue, and a single payment of $1000 will do absolutely nothing to solve that problem. You realize those payments are not free? Part of that money is being offset by a budget reduction for Medicare.

At the minimum, those payments should be limited to the type of people you are talking about. They are in negotiations about offering some of that money to people making over $150k. That is an utter waste. 

Give me a day to circle back to this one. I'll need to consult with a few Forensic Economists to sort out how much $1000 would have equaled 50,000 years ago. 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

36 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Yea, except there is no free lunch. This money that is being used for the $1000 payments is, among other things, being subtracted from Medicaid funding. I'd argue Medicaid funding is a lot more important than giving out a bit of money who 1. In most cases is not enough to actually help anyone and 2. mostly goes to people who dont need it.

Unless you call the free lunch trickle down, in that case there is room for about $2 trillion in tax relief for rich people.

 

[airdvr 197]

There needs to be a means test for sure.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

31 minutes ago, airdvr said:

There needs to be a means test for sure.

Would the ability to invest in commercial real estate suit you?

[headoverheels 291]

39 minutes ago, airdvr said:

There needs to be a means test for sure.

You can say that about SSI and Medicare too.  Medicare sorta has one, in that they charge more for premiums if you make more.  Actually, if you made more on your return 2 years ago, since that is what they use for "means."

The R proposal does limit the stimulus checks to lower incomes, but that would probably be based on previous income, not current situation.  I donate payments when I get them, or before, to a local food bank.  Not sure what my wife did with her $600 payment, but she gave the $1200 one last May/June to a personal service provider who was shut down by the pandemic (and who doesn't exactly do great financially in normal times).

Edited February 3, 2021 by headoverheels

[ryoder 1,382]

28 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

You can say that about SSI and Medicare too.  Medicare sorta has one, in that they charge more for premiums if you make more.  Actually, if you made more on your return 2 years ago, since that is what they use for "means."

The R proposal does limit the stimulus checks to lower incomes, but that would probably be based on previous income, not current situation.  I donate payments when I get them, or before, to a local food bank.  Not sure what my wife did with her $600 payment, but she gave the $1200 one last May/June to a personal service provider who was shut down by the pandemic (and who doesn't exactly do great financially in normal times).

My second "Economic Impact Payment" was less than $600, but filing a 1040 this year, has provisions for getting a tax credit. (The payment + tax credit is still less than $600.)

See "2020 Instructions 1040" -> Line 30 -> "Recovery Rebate Credit Worksheet"

[Phil1111 910]

2 hours ago, Westerly said:

Yea, except there is no free lunch. This money that is being used for the $1000 payments is, among other things, being subtracted from Medicaid funding. I'd argue Medicaid funding is a lot more important than giving out a bit of money who 1. In most cases is not enough to actually help anyone and 2. mostly goes to people who dont need it.

Of course there is a free lunch ask the GOP senate and house members. Ask the airline industry.

Its hard to figure if this thread was authored by Stephen Miller or Lindsey Graham. Your use of "facts is straight out of FOX's. Teaching to "Q", the GOP and others with disabled intellect.

Here are the facts if you bothered to look.Inequality has been building for decades in the U.S., but experts say the pandemic ‘ripped it open’

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

No, it's not.  It's coming from more borrowing.

Who pays back the borrowed money?  At some point it will have to come from someone.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Who pays back the borrowed money?  At some point it will have to come from someone.

Nope. It comes from somewhere, sometime. I thought you had an MBA and worked in banking for a while. For sure, sovereign debt can collapse an economy. However, the invariable first warning sign is the inability to borrow at low rates. That is not now or on the horizon. So if you are intent on making the claims let us have some facts and projections not just your concerns.

[billvon 2,396]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

There needs to be a means test for sure.

There is.  Aid under "current plans would begin to diminish at $75,000 for individuals and couples making $150,000 a year."  Biden has said he is willing to reduce that further in the interests of compromise.

[airdvr 197]

I understand that.  Problem is $150K in some parts of the country is doing quite well...in others it's not.

 

[kallend 1,623]

57 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Who pays back the borrowed money?  At some point it will have to come from someone.

Time to roll back the Reagan/Bush/Trump tax cuts for the very wealthy.  The money never trickled down like the GOP promised, anyway.

[billvon 2,396]

48 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I understand that.  Problem is $150K in some parts of the country is doing quite well...in others it's not.

 

Agreed.  So you choose a value that works for most people.

[Westerly 61]

Over a year of covid so far... At this point $1000 is jack shit for a year of hell. In the end, that money is not going to do any value to anyone. What exactly is a grand going to do? help pay a few weeks of rent on a contract that is already 6+ months behind on rent? the time for congress to act is LOOOOOONG gone. Like 10 months long gone. The effort would be better put into extending unemployment benefits. That way at least you know it's going to people who dont have jobs and need it.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Westerly

[wmw999 2,121]

8 hours ago, airdvr said:

I understand that.  Problem is $150K in some parts of the country is doing quite well...in others it's not.

The infrastructure to support a changing-per-area number, and the cost to support it against litigation, would probably exceed the cost of the payments to people who are getting a "better deal" that you would prefer.

That's part of government too.

Wendy P.

[rifleman 61]

8 hours ago, Westerly said:

Over a year of covid so far... At this point $1000 is jack shit for a year of hell. In the end, that money is not going to do any value to anyone. What exactly is a grand going to do? help pay a few weeks of rent on a contract that is already 6+ months behind on rent? the time for congress to act is LOOOOOONG gone. Like 10 months long gone. The effort would be better put into extending unemployment benefits. That way at least you know it's going to people who dont have jobs and need it

And yet, the evidence is there that paying money to people at the bottom of the economic ladder actually stimulates the economy more than giving tax breaks to billionaires. This video was produced on behalf of the UK Labour party a few years ago.