All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (5 Viewers)

Saint by the Bay said:

Wait, what? This was always positioned as an additional $1400 to bring the total to $2000. Nobody ever once said an additional $2000.

Click to expand...

SaintForLife said:

I said Trump was a habitual liar multiple times in the past. You can search my posts to see that if you want. It's so refreshing to have Biden as President because at least his lies are eloquent.

Click to expand...

Yellen focuses on $60,000 threshold for stimulus checks

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Sunday that she thought income levels identified by conservative Democratic senators to restrict which Americans receive direct payments under the Biden ad…

thehill.com

Speaking with CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union," Yellen indicated that she thought individual Americans earning $60,000 per year ought to be eligible for the direct payments, a higher figure than the one identified by senators such as Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has called for the payments to phase out at the $50,000-per-year income level.

"If you think about an elementary school teacher or a policeman making $60,000 a year and faced with children who are out of school and people who may have had to withdraw from the labor force in order to take care of them and many extra burdens, [President Biden] thinks, and I would certainly agree, that it's appropriate for people there to get support," said Yellen.

Yellen went on to add that the White House is negotiating with Congress "to define what's fair" in terms of income level phaseouts for direct payments in a stimulus package, telling Tapper that struggling middle-class families "need help too."

"So, you definitely think higher than $50,000 per individual, but you're not necessarily willing to commit to $75,000, is what I'm hearing?" Tapper asked, referring to the level at which payments were phased out in the package passed in December.

"Yes," the secretary responded. "I think the details can be worked out. And the president is certainly willing to work with Congress to find a good structure for these payments.”

Click to expand...

Saint by the Bay said:

I'm not understanding why they want to change the eligibility requirement. I know quite a few people in the 75k range who have lost significant income due to the pandemic.

I think a more complex way to do it is the best way, but I understand we don't have the time to slice and dice by who has actually lost income and targeting only them. If you are just going with the shotgun approach I think you'll be hurting people dropping below the current income level.

Click to expand...

Saint by the Bay said:

I'm not understanding why they want to change the eligibility requirement. I know quite a few people in the 75k range who have lost significant income due to the pandemic.

I think a more complex way to do it is the best way, but I understand we don't have the time to slice and dice by who has actually lost income and targeting only them. If you are just going with the shotgun approach I think you'll be hurting people dropping below the current income level.

Click to expand...

wardorican said:

Good news on cases.. looks like, for the most part, cases are burning out. Few hot spots per capita remain. And, hopefully superbowl sunday doesn't have the same draw for gatherings that Thanksgiving and Christmas have. Also, when the cold front pulls back, things may have potential to pick back up.

Click to expand...

SaintForLife said:

I said Trump was a habitual liar multiple times in the past. You can search my posts to see that if you want. It's so refreshing to have Biden as President because at least his lies are eloquent.

Click to expand...

SoggyBottomBoy said:

I always thought that the plan was to get a total of $2K to the people. The $1400 was to make up the difference.

After seeing all of your responses, you seem to be looking for a gotcha moment that simply isn't there. There will be instances where Biden doesn't deliver on campaign promises. There always is. This is one he actually delivered on and you are trying to argue the opposite.

Click to expand...

wardorican said:

I'd also assume any quotes talking about 2000, were from before the bill was passed or signed into law. I don't recall the timelines, I'd have to look that up.

Click to expand...

wardorican said:

Funny too, since the republican response was either no stimulus/aid or a lot less. Even the $600 they finally passed in December was far less than the Democrats original proposal in May of 2020.. which was $1200 per person, including children.

Click to expand...

J-DONK said:

This isn't true. Nancy Pelosi held up a huge relief package for political reasons. She famously had a melt down on CNN when Wolf Blitzer mildly challenged her on it.

Click to expand...

House Passes $3 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Bill That Has Dim Future

The House approved the massive package with aid to states, local governments, individuals. Senate Republicans already dismissed the proposal and it's unclear when parties will reach bipartisan deal.

www.npr.org

House Democrats pass $3 trillion coronavirus relief package

The Senate has no plans to take up the coronavirus relief bill, though Democrats hope it can lead to talks on another aid package.

www.cnbc.com

The bill includes:

• Nearly $1 trillion for cash-strapped state and local governments
• A second round of $1,200 direct payments to individuals, with up to $6,000 per household
• $200 billion for hazard pay for essential workers
• $75 billion for Covid-19 testing efforts
• An extension of the $600 per week federal unemployment insurance benefit through January (it is currently set to go through July)
• $175 billion in rent, mortgage and utility assistance
• A 15% increase in the maximum Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit
• Repeal of the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions for two years, which would help certain states’ budget crunch but benefit higher-income taxpayers most
• Expanded mail-in ballot access, which Republicans oppose
• Relief funds for the U.S. Postal Service
• $10 billion in emergency small business disaster assistance grants
• Subsidies and a special Affordable Care Act enrollment period for people who lose employer-sponsored health coverage

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear he has no interest in taking up the proposal. On Thursday, he said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “published an 1,800-page seasonal catalog of left-wing oddities and called it a coronavirus relief bill.” The White House threatened to veto the legislation before the House voted.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, has characterized her party’s bill as an opening offer in what she hopes will become negotiations with Republicans on another round of fiscal relief. On Friday, she criticized Republicans who said they want to wait to pass more aid

Click to expand...

The legislation includes $300 weekly enhanced unemployment benefits through the end of the year, to replace a $600 weekly benefit that expired for some 30 million unemployed workers on July 31. It does not include any new money for cities and states, or new stimulus checks for individual Americans. The legislation does include more than $250 billion to allow small businesses to receive a second round of Paycheck Protection Program loans, $10 billion for child-care support and $10 billion to forgive a loan from the Cares Act to the U.S. Postal Service.

Click to expand...

Outlook Unclear For $2,000 COVID-19 Relief Payments As Action Shifts To Senate

Senate Democrats excoriated majority Republicans and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday, but the road ahead remains uncertain for more in direct disbursements from the government.

www.npr.org