Biden limits stimulus eligibility after deal with moderate Dems

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

The old earnings argument is so good. A lot of people took reduced pay and even lost their jobs. Just make the checks universal and then tax back the extras a year later smh...

Anyway... where’s the minimum wage? Is that safe?

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

3 hours ago, skaxboy said:

Are these earnings based off of their 2019 earning?

 

There are ppl who earned $100k in 2019. Then lost their job in 2020 and did not earn anywhere near that amount but still collected unemployment. Seems a little unfair to those in this situation who may be struggling. I was temporarily working a call center for UI in CA and it was a very common story that people lost their cars or had to relocate to a less expensive city/state because it’s not the amount they are used to. Plenty of those folks do not get a tax refund at the end of the year and have to pay a few thousand dollars. 
 

Im not making an argument for the “rich people” because I don’t think these $75k earners are rich. It’s also because I live in a rather high rent city. 

Most people who make that much money get their income from salaries, and salaried workers have almost completely been unaffected by this pandemic, as they can just work from home. Hourly workers, on the other hand, are a different story.

[Harris Walz 2024 1,451]

It's called compromise. You should really look it up.

[Whispering 18,865]

There were limits all along, even on the first stimulus checks.

The last stimulus checks phased out and ended at 87k (with people getting a couple hundred bucks if they made that much). The current stimulus check ends at 80k for individuals. 

The most important part of this stimulus package is the extended Unemployment benefits. That’s what will help those who have lost their jobs during Covid lockdowns.

Also, Biden’s Labor Department lets you file for Unemployment Benefits, not only for losing a job, but for losing hours due to Covid. It is also retroactive, meaning you can get back pay all the way back to the beginning of the Covid crisis.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

Trump's 2024 stump speeches just write themselves.

[HuffsAhoy 7,433]

5 hours ago, AJRocketMan said:

Most people who make that much money get their income from salaries, and salaried workers have almost completely been unaffected by this pandemic, as they can just work from home. Hourly workers, on the other hand, are a different story.

Um, I don't know what alternate reality you are living in but I know plenty of frontline salary workers who are not working from home; some were even furloughed for awhile. Why are so many people on here devoid of basic thoughts? 

[pachinko 10,757]

I can't with Biden. 

[Nickypie101 1,591]

And if he didn’t do that and Manchin votes no, the whole bill is out the window.  I’m sure many people would be 10xs more mad than over this, you just can’t win with everyone, if you guys are gonna be mad be mad at Republican ass joe manchin 

[PunkTheFunk 125,719]

So Trump gave out more stimulus checks than Biden? 

[Morphine Prince 109,724]

2 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said:

So Trump gave out more stimulus checks than Biden? 

Under Trump we got $1,800 

and under Biden we will hopefully be getting $1,400 

[Married the Night 3,955]

This was the threshold Biden has wanted since day one. So good. 

[Luc 4,776]

Maybe give an argument based on economics or on why people with high incomes deserve these (pretty ridiculous) cash hand-outs rather than "Democrats need to do this to earn more votes and because I base my moral compass on what is a good electoral strategy I now hate Democrats"?

This package will bring the deficit up by 9% so there better be a very good reason why you'd spend it on cash hand-outs. Money is scarce, and this is money that could have gone towards education, infrastructure and healthcare reform instead. Besides, I can't think of a single other country that is giving these type of checks to people, and if they do, never this size. Relatively speaking (so compensating for economic output), 1.9 trillion in pandemic spending is almost more than what countries like the UK and Spain spent on stimulus in an entire year. Biden (but also Manchin's) focus on unemployment insurance instead of cash hand-outs is more appropriate imo.

 

Also, these type of means-tested distributions may be unfair to people who live in the most urban areas who have very high rents on the short term, but if these hand-outs are going to be more common (which I think they will, esp. around election time), in the long term their rents will just adjust downwards to compensate for the lost cash hand-outs hence people in places like San Francisco do not actually lose purchasing power whether they get the hand-out or not.

[Economy 52,910]

12 hours ago, FudgeyBear said:

Good, that’s fiscally responsible. When we got our first checks I wondered how it made sense to give money to you rich people who haven’t been affected. There should be a cap on it.

I still never understood this. Were the checks targeted to those who lost work or was it randomly for everyone?

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

7 hours ago, Lion Heart said:

Trump's 2024 stump speeches just write themselves.

How? It's not like Trump a "republican" could get Republicans in the senate to pass $2k. They barely passed the $600.

Nice selective memory you got there. 

[PartySick 173,098]

My main issue is that it's based off of outdated earnings.

I'm happy to see that people who make less than $75k won't have to wait for the debates about the eligibility of people who make more than $75k to get the help they need

$75k is more than twice the average US income ($31k in 2019). If you make that much as a single person then you make enough to live on  the problem comes when you consider that people who made that in 2019 may very well be unemployed now.

But as usual, something >>> nothing

You want to be mad at someone? Be mad at the Republicans that control half our government despite representing less than a fifth of our population.