Red Mosquito

Biden considering lowering the income limits

asshole move to the middle class GA voters that gave him the senate

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

they're still trying to do a bipartisan bill, so this is pressure coming from the GOP. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number checks if they go the reconciliation route?

What gave the democrats the idea that voters give a remote shit about bipartisanship or procedure, and why aren't they simply doing what they said they would do?

for better or worse, they're trying to agree on this bill so future legislation won't be fucked. but understanding the importance of the stimulus needed, they've lined up the reconciliation route as plan B. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number of checks if they go the reconciliation route?

Where are you getting this?

That doesn't even make sense as a strategy. What if republicans say yes to this? Are democrats going to go along with it? And if they say no, then dems will just do it their way instead? So this was all just theater?

There is absolutely no reason to consider the Republican position on this at all. You might have to accept the fact that dems just don't want to do it, and won't do it unless pushed.

i'm mostly spitballing - more fun than just regurgitating tweets all day homey - but here's an article.

It was part of a two-track strategy that Mr. Biden and Democrats are employing to speed through the relief package: Show Republicans that they have the votes to pass an ambitious plan with only Democratic backing, but offer to negotiate some details in hopes of gaining Republican support.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/p ... check.html

There is absolutely no reason for Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to "signal a limited willingness to scale back direct payments for Americans in hopes of attracting Republican support" at all, and their voters have given them no mandate to compromise on this in the slightest. They just don't actually want to pass what they said they would.

republican voters want checks too

To say nothing of the fact that stimulus checks limited by income is a terrible idea supported by people who don't understand what stimulus payments are for (they aren't welfare for poor people).

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

they're still trying to do a bipartisan bill, so this is pressure coming from the GOP. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number checks if they go the reconciliation route?

What gave the democrats the idea that voters give a remote shit about bipartisanship or procedure, and why aren't they simply doing what they said they would do?

for better or worse, they're trying to agree on this bill so future legislation won't be fucked. but understanding the importance of the stimulus needed, they've lined up the reconciliation route as plan B. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number of checks if they go the reconciliation route?

Where are you getting this?

That doesn't even make sense as a strategy. What if republicans say yes to this? Are democrats going to go along with it? And if they say no, then dems will just do it their way instead? So this was all just theater?

There is absolutely no reason to consider the Republican position on this at all. You might have to accept the fact that dems just don't want to do it, and won't do it unless pushed.

i'm mostly spitballing - more fun than just regurgitating tweets all day homey - but here's an article.

It was part of a two-track strategy that Mr. Biden and Democrats are employing to speed through the relief package: Show Republicans that they have the votes to pass an ambitious plan with only Democratic backing, but offer to negotiate some details in hopes of gaining Republican support.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/p ... check.html

There is absolutely no reason for Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to "signal a limited willingness to scale back direct payments for Americans in hopes of attracting Republican support" at all, and their voters have given them no mandate to compromise on this in the slightest. They just don't actually want to pass what they said they would.

Sure there is. They can pin the scaled back checks squarely on the other guys. Leads to a bipartisan agreement, fewer checks was the Republicans’s fault. If they go reconciliation, it was because the Republicans forced their hand by denying the American people their stimulus money. It’s a win win for Democrats, under the circumstances.

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

they're still trying to do a bipartisan bill, so this is pressure coming from the GOP. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number checks if they go the reconciliation route?

What gave the democrats the idea that voters give a remote shit about bipartisanship or procedure, and why aren't they simply doing what they said they would do?

for better or worse, they're trying to agree on this bill so future legislation won't be fucked. but understanding the importance of the stimulus needed, they've lined up the reconciliation route as plan B. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number of checks if they go the reconciliation route?

Where are you getting this?

That doesn't even make sense as a strategy. What if republicans say yes to this? Are democrats going to go along with it? And if they say no, then dems will just do it their way instead? So this was all just theater?

There is absolutely no reason to consider the Republican position on this at all. You might have to accept the fact that dems just don't want to do it, and won't do it unless pushed.

i'm mostly spitballing - more fun than just regurgitating tweets all day homey - but here's an article.

It was part of a two-track strategy that Mr. Biden and Democrats are employing to speed through the relief package: Show Republicans that they have the votes to pass an ambitious plan with only Democratic backing, but offer to negotiate some details in hopes of gaining Republican support.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/p ... check.html

There is absolutely no reason for Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to "signal a limited willingness to scale back direct payments for Americans in hopes of attracting Republican support" at all, and their voters have given them no mandate to compromise on this in the slightest. They just don't actually want to pass what they said they would.

Sure there is. They can pin the scaled back checks squarely on the other guys. Leads to a bipartisan agreement, fewer checks was the Republicans’s fault. If they go reconciliation, it was because the Republicans forced their hand by denying the American people their stimulus money. It’s a win win for Democrats, under the circumstances.

That ship sailed a month ago. Establishment Dem can't be that stupid. Anyone with basic math skills can see right through that. They just know that they have two years for people to forget and they know voters have very short memories.

they’ve fucking released trillions in stimulus so far and at the finish line for the Dems they want to alienate $100k-$150k households just to save another $100 B

great strategy

who needs the suburban vote anyway in the midterms

idiots

BUT Bernie appears to be digging in. Everyone thinks Manchin holds the power- oh no- Bernie holds the deciding vote

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

they're still trying to do a bipartisan bill, so this is pressure coming from the GOP. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number checks if they go the reconciliation route?

What gave the democrats the idea that voters give a remote shit about bipartisanship or procedure, and why aren't they simply doing what they said they would do?

for better or worse, they're trying to agree on this bill so future legislation won't be fucked. but understanding the importance of the stimulus needed, they've lined up the reconciliation route as plan B. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number of checks if they go the reconciliation route?

Where are you getting this?

That doesn't even make sense as a strategy. What if republicans say yes to this? Are democrats going to go along with it? And if they say no, then dems will just do it their way instead? So this was all just theater?

There is absolutely no reason to consider the Republican position on this at all. You might have to accept the fact that dems just don't want to do it, and won't do it unless pushed.

i'm mostly spitballing - more fun than just regurgitating tweets all day homey - but here's an article.

It was part of a two-track strategy that Mr. Biden and Democrats are employing to speed through the relief package: Show Republicans that they have the votes to pass an ambitious plan with only Democratic backing, but offer to negotiate some details in hopes of gaining Republican support.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/p ... check.html

There is absolutely no reason for Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to "signal a limited willingness to scale back direct payments for Americans in hopes of attracting Republican support" at all, and their voters have given them no mandate to compromise on this in the slightest. They just don't actually want to pass what they said they would.

There is if you want to keep Joe Manchin happy, which you have to do to pass with no GOP support.

Norris wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

they're still trying to do a bipartisan bill, so this is pressure coming from the GOP. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number checks if they go the reconciliation route?

What gave the democrats the idea that voters give a remote shit about bipartisanship or procedure, and why aren't they simply doing what they said they would do?

for better or worse, they're trying to agree on this bill so future legislation won't be fucked. but understanding the importance of the stimulus needed, they've lined up the reconciliation route as plan B. has there been any indication that they'd reduce the number of checks if they go the reconciliation route?

Where are you getting this?

That doesn't even make sense as a strategy. What if republicans say yes to this? Are democrats going to go along with it? And if they say no, then dems will just do it their way instead? So this was all just theater?

There is absolutely no reason to consider the Republican position on this at all. You might have to accept the fact that dems just don't want to do it, and won't do it unless pushed.

i'm mostly spitballing - more fun than just regurgitating tweets all day homey - but here's an article.

It was part of a two-track strategy that Mr. Biden and Democrats are employing to speed through the relief package: Show Republicans that they have the votes to pass an ambitious plan with only Democratic backing, but offer to negotiate some details in hopes of gaining Republican support.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/p ... check.html

There is absolutely no reason for Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to "signal a limited willingness to scale back direct payments for Americans in hopes of attracting Republican support" at all, and their voters have given them no mandate to compromise on this in the slightest. They just don't actually want to pass what they said they would.

There is if you want to keep Joe Manchin happy, which you have to do to pass with no GOP support.

Then do whatever it takes to make him very unhappy. Go to his fucking house by the thousands. Threaten him with every strongarm political maneuver you can think of. Make him public enemy no. 1. Why is the first dem response always that of capitulation?

they already sent Kamala in to WV to do that local interview and set the agenda

that was a shot across the bow

they did the same in AZ

Anybody notice how we're actually talking about politics?

Biden 2024 on lock!

Burt!! You're getting $1400, brother!!

BurtReynolds wrote:To say nothing of the fact that stimulus checks limited by income is a terrible idea supported by people who don't understand what stimulus payments are for (they aren't welfare for poor people).

Can you expound on this?

4/5 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:To say nothing of the fact that stimulus checks limited by income is a terrible idea supported by people who don't understand what stimulus payments are for (they aren't welfare for poor people).

Can you expound on this?

I would think he's talking about the difference between giving people money for relief of the hardships of COVID vs. giving people money to stimulate spending and improve the economy.

The former wouldn't go to people like me who still have a job and can afford my mortgage payment and food. The latter would with the hope that I would spend it on goods and services.

(Of course, what I, specifically, want to do is refurbish my kitchen, so I'm banking most of the cash until COVID is over, and I can have contractors sharing air with my kids.)

I had some people in my basement last week. I told them they didn't have to wear masks if they didn't want to and they took them off. I like to think they did a better job because of this.

verb_to_trust wrote:I had some people in my basement last week. I told them they didn't have to wear masks if they didn't want to and they took them off. I like to think they did a better job because of this.

I would be more comfortable with people in my basement than someone in my kitchen which is wide open to my living room, dining room, and 2 other rooms, where my kids and constantly running around all day.

B wrote:

4/5 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:To say nothing of the fact that stimulus checks limited by income is a terrible idea supported by people who don't understand what stimulus payments are for (they aren't welfare for poor people).

Can you expound on this?

I would think he's talking about the difference between giving people money for relief of the hardships of COVID vs. giving people money to stimulate spending and improve the economy.

The former wouldn't go to people like me who still have a job and can afford my mortgage payment and food. The latter would with the hope that I would spend it on goods and services.

(Of course, what I, specifically, want to do is refurbish my kitchen, so I'm banking most of the cash until COVID is over, and I can have contractors sharing air with my kids.)

That's why I asked. If the argument is that this is stimulus and not relief I think that's fundamentally not true, regardless of how it's being sold to the American people.

According to the Federal Reserve here's how the first relief bill was spent:
36% was saved
35% was used to pay down debt
18% spent on essentials, food, housing, etc.
8% spent on non-essentials
3% donated

This is not an economic stimulus. 71% of the money wasn't used to buy anything, created no potential jobs, etc. So not only was it not stimulative, this indicates that GDP will increase by less than the total amount of the money sent out.

These are very poorly targeted relief checks, not 2008/09 style stimulus. It's probably being sold this way because it's easier politically to sell checks to almost everybody than it is to sell targeted relief. You know how Americans feel about needs-based relief.

Also, it does make sense to phase out the checks because the more money a person earns the more likely they are to save a higher portion, the less money a person earns the more likely they are to spend a higher portion. Therefore, multiple series of relief to low income/those out of work/unable to work currently would be significantly more stimulative than a check to everybody.

4/5 wrote:Also, it does make sense to phase out the checks because the more money a person earns the more likely they are to save a higher portion, the less money a person earns the more likely they are to spend a higher portion. Therefore, multiple series of relief to low income/those out of work/unable to work currently would be significantly more stimulative than a check to everybody.

I thought the Democrats were going to consider that, but I guess not. It would have been a good way to demonstrate trying to work with Republicans.

B wrote:

4/5 wrote:Also, it does make sense to phase out the checks because the more money a person earns the more likely they are to save a higher portion, the less money a person earns the more likely they are to spend a higher portion. Therefore, multiple series of relief to low income/those out of work/unable to work currently would be significantly more stimulative than a check to everybody.

I thought the Democrats were going to consider that, but I guess not. It would have been a good way to demonstrate trying to work with Republicans.

I thought they were talking about reducing it to singles below $50k and married couples below $100k.

4/5 wrote:

B wrote:

4/5 wrote:Also, it does make sense to phase out the checks because the more money a person earns the more likely they are to save a higher portion, the less money a person earns the more likely they are to spend a higher portion. Therefore, multiple series of relief to low income/those out of work/unable to work currently would be significantly more stimulative than a check to everybody.

I thought the Democrats were going to consider that, but I guess not. It would have been a good way to demonstrate trying to work with Republicans.

I thought they were talking about reducing it to singles below $50k and married couples below $100k.

To be honest, I don't know what they voted on this morning. I thought is was $1400 for all.