Political Discussion

[nolalady]

Do we expect the democrats to cave and reduce the range to appease republicans? Or do they plan on pushing it through as is? I haven't been following closely enough to know what to expect.

I do know they want it to be bipartisan and the republicans are accusing it of being anything but that.

It's all up in the air right now. There are a lot of people on both the left and the right that don't want to send direct payments to people and would prefer that people jump through hoops of unemployment system navigation and stand in food bank lines for food instead of being given cash with no strings attached. They are blatantly ignoring that food, housing and medical expenses have all gone up in price and that the only recovery is being seen in the top 10% of households, while the other 90% aren't close to where they were prepandemic.

But if the dems don't deliver on 1. the amount of money they promised voters with 2. the exact same criteria for payments as before, they will lose their senate and house majority because they will be seen as completely untrustworthy. I don't know how they plan to retain the voters they gained in places like GA where they promised to pass another stimulus bill if they don't actually pass it or gut it so that a large portion of people (who still need help) are left out of receiving payments (and this is currently based on 2019 data for eligibility so their "targeting" data is horribly out of date and doesn't show who is currently in need). If they want to keep power, they are going to have to capitulate to the people eventually.

 

[wokeupnew]

I would want them to take my share and move it forward and not just deduct it from the pot

It is your money via taxes so you are entitled to it. That would be so difficult for the government to figure out who waived their payment etc. I guess you could just pay it forward by donating to a food shelter or another charity. I also don't really need the stimulus. I've been keeping it but also donating to my local food shelter every other month.

 

[AnthonyI]

It is your money via taxes so you are entitled to it. That would be so difficult for the government to figure out who waived their payment etc. I guess you could just pay it forward by donating to a food shelter or another charity. I also don't really need the stimulus. I've been keeping it but also donating to my local food shelter every other month.

Oh, I get that it's my money, but even then it depends on the narrative the government is pursuing at the moment to determine if they deem it my money or not, look at all the things the Orange Cheeto did with OUR money.

.......but I get what you're saying and we do pay it forward on our own.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Just a reminder of how much of a giant twat Glenn Greenwald is...

watched both. He’s pretty shitty. He’s expecting her to extend an olive branch to someone who encouraged people who threaten her life.

 

[AnthonyI]

As long as the 1% and politicians (on all sides) are just playing a big game of "Let's Make a Deal", we're screwed.........which is why we need people like Katie Porter and AOC, but even that transition will take time, and some people don't have that kind of time.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

It's all up in the air right now. There are a lot of people on both the left and the right that don't want to send direct payments to people and would prefer that people jump through hoops of unemployment system navigation and stand in food bank lines for food instead of being given cash with no strings attached. They are blatantly ignoring that food, housing and medical expenses have all gone up in price and that the only recovery is being seen in the top 10% of households, while the other 90% aren't close to where they were prepandemic.

But if the dems don't deliver on 1. the amount of money they promised voters with 2. the exact same criteria for payments as before, they will lose their senate and house majority because they will be seen as completely untrustworthy. I don't know how they plan to retain the voters they gained in places like GA where they promised to pass another stimulus bill if they don't actually pass it or gut it so that a large portion of people (who still need help) are left out of receiving payments (and this is currently based on 2019 data for eligibility so their "targeting" data is horribly out of date and doesn't show who is currently in need). If they want to keep power, they are going to have to capitulate to the people eventually.

Don't even get my started on the cost of healthcare going up.

I need the $1400 stimulus check to cover my medical expenses from when I had Bell's Palsy last October.

My doctors office sent me to the medical groups priority care center because I had a headache and congestion as well with it's onset. I got flagged as possibly having COVID and sent for a COVID test.

Apparently the priority care center bills as a ER. And my insurance has a $500 co-pay for ER visits. So I got hit with that. The COVID test it self hit my deductible because it was covered by my insurance as the priority care center was not one of the states testing sites where the tests are free. $50 in co-pays for 2 follow up visits with my doctor and another $300 or so for labs my doctor had done hit my deductible as well.

I don't have the money sitting around to cover all of that. I'm counting on the stimulus. These extra checks never help me get ahead. They only to cover debt.

 

[nolalady]

Here's my problem with the stimulus checks. I actually agree with the idea of getting them to the people who need them most, we're not rich, we're not poor, honestly I don't know what we are. We kind of live paycheck to paycheck, but manage, the stimulus checks did help, but we wouldn't have "suffered" without them.

The problem, our Government has no idea how to function, look at how screwed up the vaccine deployment has become, if they could actually get the money into the hands of the people who need it most that would be great, but, I would want them to take my share and move it forward and not just deduct it from the pot......that's the problem, they want to reduce the dollar amount rather than adjusting who it goes to, $1400 is great, but for many, more is better. We spend trillions on things that have no "humanity" attached to them, but can't seem to do it when lives are at stake.

This country is a disaster and as you mentioned, when the powers that be have little to no understanding of what a huge number of Americans are actually having to deal with, its way beyond bad.

The problem I have is that they do this means testing to see if someone "really needs it". So they set up a website or do some sort of calculation. This all takes time and money to figure out who gets what. We could avoid expense and delay if we just sent out checks like we did before. We are wasting money setting up websites for people to register for aide, and we are wasting time debating who should get what. This whole idea of making sure you never give any money to anyone who doesn't "deserve" it only delays or outright cancels checks for people that need them. We paid for a $44m on a vaccine website that doesn't work (VAMS and Deloitte), but somehow we are "wasting money" on direct checks to people. Instead we must create a congressional team, and a website, and debate a few more weeks, and maybe some more calculations...until we've wasted more time and money than it would have cost just to send out the checks to the broader population.

 

[AnthonyI]

The problem I have is that they do this means testing to see if someone "really needs it". So they set up a website or do some sort of calculation. This all takes time and money to figure out who gets what. We could avoid expense and delay if we just sent out checks like we did before. We are wasting money setting up websites for people to register for aide, and we are wasting time debating who should get what. This whole idea of making sure you never give any money to anyone who doesn't "deserve" it only delays or outright cancels checks for people that need them. We paid for a $44m on a vaccine website that doesn't work (VAMS and Deloitte), but somehow we are "wasting money" on direct checks to people. Instead we must create a congressional team, and a website, and debate a few more weeks, and maybe some more calculations...until we've wasted more time and money than it would have cost just to send out the checks to the broader population.

Agreed, but they could just as easily bring down the income threshold to qualify.

 

[Dtknuckles]

There are a lot of people on both the left and the right that don't want to send direct payments to people and would prefer that people jump through hoops of unemployment system navigation and stand in food bank lines for food instead of being given cash with no strings attached.

In the name of protections from fraud they create more red tape to cut through wasting people time when they could be actually doing something towardS looking for work.

 

[dhodo]

The problem with the who "needs" the stimulus check narrative is that it seems to misunderstand what the purpose of stimulus is. The point of a stimulus isn't to get back rent and utility bills paid, that doesn't contribute much to stimulating economy because most utilities companies and landlords don't start splashing out because they finally got some overdue rent. If you don't "need" the stimulus, the point is that you should spend it on a business or someone else who does desperately need the money. If they were framing it as a overdue bill bailout, then the discussion would make more sense.

 

[nolalady]

Don't even get my started on the cost of healthcare going up.

I need the $1400 stimulus check to cover my medical expenses from when I had Bell's Palsy last October.

My doctors office sent me to the medical groups priority care center because I had a headache and congestion as well with it's onset. I got flagged as possibly having COVID and sent for a COVID test.

Apparently the priority care center bills as a ER. And my insurance has a $500 co-pay for ER visits. So I got hit with that. The COVID test it self hit my deductible because it was covered by my insurance as the priority care center was not one of the states testing sites where the tests are free. $50 in co-pays for 2 follow up visits with my doctor and another $300 or so for labs my doctor had done hit my deductible as well.

I don't have the money sitting around to cover all of that. I'm counting on the stimulus. These extra checks never help me get ahead. They only to cover debt.

Woof.
I spent a few thousand dollars on routine blood work last year. My rheumatology labs (9 total) cost me $1400 out of pocket; my hematology labs were around $600; my endocrinology labs were about $400, and my regular blood work from the ER and a PCP were around $300--and they still couldn't figure out why my heart is (and has been for over a year) beating so fast.

For this year, it looks like my youngest might need some orthodontics so that's going to be fun to fund.

 

[dhodo]

The argument from the guys that brought you trickle down economics that we shouldn't give people who don't need it more money because they won't do anything but pocket it is fucking nauseating.

I generally agree with that about say, multi-millionaires, but not someone making $75k. Ridiculous hypocrisy.

 

[AnthonyI]

The problem with the who "needs" the stimulus check narrative is that it seems to misunderstand what the purpose of stimulus is. The point of a stimulus isn't to get back rent and utility bills paid, that doesn't contribute much to stimulating economy because most utilities companies and landlords don't start splashing out because they finally got some overdue rent. If you don't "need" the stimulus, the point is that you should spend it on a business or someone else who does desperately need the money. If they were framing it as a overdue bill bailout, then the discussion would make more sense.

That in itself tells you where the governments priorities are, regardless of what they want to call it. Again, it's all BS, the millions sent to companies to help them avoid laying off employees........ya, that was the intention, but far from what happened with the majority who received it.

 

[nolalady]

Agreed, but they could just as easily bring down the income threshold to qualify.

But they don't have accurate 2020 data yet, so they would have to wait until everyone filed 2020 taxes, unless they want to give out checks based on 2019 numbers. If they do that, there is really very little justification for changing the income threshold--how does someone who needs stimulus in May or December suddenly not need one in February? I actually don't think it's all that easy for them to bring down the income threshold if they want to back it with data. There is no real data that justifies bringing down the income threshold.

 

[dhodo]

But they don't have accurate 2020 data yet, so they would have to wait until everyone filed 2020 taxes, unless they want to give out checks based on 2019 numbers. If they do that, there is really very little justification for changing the income threshold--how does someone who needs stimulus in May or December suddenly not need one in February? I actually don't think it's all that easy for them to bring down the income threshold if they want to back it with data. There is no real data that justifies bringing down the income threshold.

The solution to this that I have heard, can't remember if it was mentioned here or not yet, is simple. Give everyone the check and tax the people who made over a certain amount in 2020 (or 2021 if it is too late) to take a certain amount back. I think the amount should be considerably higher than they are talking now, but it is still a simple, elegant solution either way.

 

[nolalady]

That in itself tells you where the governments priorities are, regardless of what they want to call it. Again, it's all BS, the millions sent to companies to help them avoid laying off employees........ya, that was the intention, but far from what happened with the majority who received it.

If you want to get really mad, have you seen how much money the Catholic church got from PPP? Remember, the Catholic Church pays no taxes. (Just to be fair, other churches did get funding--Methodist, Baptist, Jewish etc, but the Catholic church got about twice the funding that all other churches together got)

As the pandemic began to unfold, scores of Catholic dioceses across the U.S. received aid through the Paycheck Protection Program while sitting on well over $10 billion in cash, short-term investments or other available funds, an Associated Press investigation has found. And despite the broad economic downturn, these assets have grown in many dioceses.


Yet even with that financial safety net, the 112 dioceses that shared their financial statements, along with the churches and schools they oversee, collected at least $1.5 billion in taxpayer-backed aid. A majority of these dioceses reported enough money on hand to cover at least six months of operating expenses, even without any new income.

The financial resources of several dioceses rivaled or exceeded those available to publicly traded companies like Shake Shack and Ruth’s Chris Steak House, whose early participation in the program triggered outrage. Federal officials responded by emphasizing the money was intended for those who lacked the cushion that cash and other liquidity provide. Many corporations returned the funds.

Overall, the nation’s nearly 200 dioceses, where bishops and cardinals govern, and other Catholic institutions received at least $3 billion. That makes the Roman Catholic Church perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the paycheck program, according to AP’s analysis of data the U.S. Small Business Administration released following a public-records lawsuit by news organizations.

Sitting on billions, Catholic dioceses amassed taxpayer aid

When the coronavirus forced churches to close their doors and give up Sunday collections, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte turned to the federal government’s signature small business relief program for more than $8 million.

apnews.com

 

[AnthonyI]

But they don't have accurate 2020 data yet, so they would have to wait until everyone filed 2020 taxes, unless they want to give out checks based on 2019 numbers. If they do that, there is really very little justification for changing the income threshold--how does someone who needs stimulus in May or December suddenly not need one in February? I actually don't think it's all that easy for them to bring down the income threshold if they want to back it with data. There is no real data that justifies bringing down the income threshold.

But wouldn't they be using the same data their using for the current threshold on the new threshold....all that's changing is the income amount? I'm getting old and growing into the "Get off my lawn" guy, so maybe I'm oversimplifying.

We have a government being run by a bunch of Lloyd's and Harry's so I'm not holding my breath on anything

 

[nolalady]

But wouldn't they be using the same data their using for the current threshold on the new threshold....all that's changing is the income amount? I'm getting old and growing into the "Get off my lawn" guy, so maybe I'm oversimplifying.

We have a government being run by a bunch of Lloyd's and Harry's so I'm not holding my breath on anything

Yeah, they could always just do it, but when asked why, they would have no real data driven reason to do so. That was my point, that yes, they could do this cheaply and easily until people hear about it and start asking why. If they don't have a good why, they are going to lose voters.

 

[AnthonyI]

If they don't have a good why, they are going to lose voters.

Yep, we're "Voters" not people...........which is what's currently screwing over the republican party, but I digress, lol

 

[Joe Mac]

If you want to get really mad, have you seen how much money the Catholic church got from PPP? Remember, the Catholic Church pays no taxes. (Just to be fair, other churches did get funding--Methodist, Baptist, Jewish etc, but the Catholic church got about twice the funding that all other churches together got)

As the pandemic began to unfold, scores of Catholic dioceses across the U.S. received aid through the Paycheck Protection Program while sitting on well over $10 billion in cash, short-term investments or other available funds, an Associated Press investigation has found. And despite the broad economic downturn, these assets have grown in many dioceses.


Yet even with that financial safety net, the 112 dioceses that shared their financial statements, along with the churches and schools they oversee, collected at least $1.5 billion in taxpayer-backed aid. A majority of these dioceses reported enough money on hand to cover at least six months of operating expenses, even without any new income.

The financial resources of several dioceses rivaled or exceeded those available to publicly traded companies like Shake Shack and Ruth’s Chris Steak House, whose early participation in the program triggered outrage. Federal officials responded by emphasizing the money was intended for those who lacked the cushion that cash and other liquidity provide. Many corporations returned the funds.

Overall, the nation’s nearly 200 dioceses, where bishops and cardinals govern, and other Catholic institutions received at least $3 billion. That makes the Roman Catholic Church perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the paycheck program, according to AP’s analysis of data the U.S. Small Business Administration released following a public-records lawsuit by news organizations.

Sitting on billions, Catholic dioceses amassed taxpayer aid

When the coronavirus forced churches to close their doors and give up Sunday collections, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte turned to the federal government’s signature small business relief program for more than $8 million.

apnews.com

And yet they’re “too poor” to pay compensation to victims of institutional abuse.