Schumer Traps #MoscowMitch Into Taking All The Blame If He Blocks $2,000 Stimulus Checks

[634-5789]

Leader Schumer said in a statement provided to PoliticusUSA:

Following the strong bipartisan vote in the House, tomorrow I will move to pass the legislation in the Senate to quickly deliver Americans with $2,000 emergency checks. Every Senate Democrat is for this much-needed increase in emergency financial relief, which can be approved tomorrow if no Republican blocks it – there is no good reason for Senate Republicans to stand in the way.

There’s strong support for these $2,000 emergency checks from every corner of the country — Leader McConnell ought to make sure Senate Republicans do not stand in the way of helping to meet the needs of American workers and families who are crying out for help.

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/12/28/schumer-mcconnell-stimulus-checks.html

[abqtommy]

1. Over the years I've seen that Moscow Mitch and the reTHUGS have made certain that there's

much blame to lay on their shoulders. Being corrupt and venal this is the outcome they've chosen
and it's up to us to make sure they pay the price.

[BlueNProud]

2. They'll block it and suffer no consequences

they never do

[DFW]

3. I haven't gotten one of those checks since the $300 Cheney-Bush check early in their term.

Back then, I endorsed my check over to the DNC and sent it to them.

I have no idea what data base will be used to decide who gets a check and who doesn't. There is no reason I should get a $2000 check, but if i do, I'll just endorse it over to some food bank in the USA somewhere, and send it on.

[George II]

7. I think the criteria to be used will be $75,000 income or lower. Signing it over to a food bank....

....is a great idea. We gave about half our payment earlier in the year to our local food bank. They're getting hard pressed as the days go by, lots of people are really starving. I don't buy that "food insecure" BS, they're STARVING!

[DFW]

10. Thanks, I didn't know if there was a threshold.

So, I shouldn't be getting a check, which is as it should be.

We have a local food bank here in our town, and it is well visited, though now it needs official overseers--a real shame, but necessary. There were problems with immigrants and gypsies from out of town grabbing not what they needed, but everything they could carry, and the local low-income elderly and/or partially disabled people who counted on it were sometimes going away in tears empty-handed. We are a small medieval town (been here for about 800 years), but near two big cities, and it takes someone from the city longer to find a parking space here than it does to get here.

[flotsam]

14. I believe though couples incomes combined under $150K are eligible. N/T

[DFW]

15. Not us

My wife is a German citizen living in Germany. Though retired, she does get a meager pension, which counts as income, but only here in Germany. She is of no consequence to the US. I did get her a Social Security number, when such things were relatively uncomplicated (1985), but it stated plainly "not valid for work in the United States." No big deal, though, we'll manage just fine without it, and I prefer, anyway that it go to those who can't.

Many forms I had to fill out back in those days requested that I provide, if married, my wife's social security number. The concept of an American being married to someone from another country, who had no US social security number, was apparently too exotic for the paper pushers of the day. The people at the U.S. embassy in Bonn were aware of this, and issued her a Social Security number on the spot. I was there in 1985 to get my younger daughter her U.S. citizenship a month after she was born. Within two hours of my walking in there, I walked out with my new daughter's US birth certificate, her first passport, her social security number, and that of my wife. These days, I would probably have been lucky to have gotten that done in a year. It took my daughter 11 months to get her first daughter's US passport and birth certificate. As it was, the US consulate in Frankfurt praised her for having all her necessary paperwork in order so there were no "delays." These days, eleven months is not considered a delay, even though thirty years ago, the whole procedure took me two hours.

Ah, progress.

[flotsam]

16. Ah yes Republican "efficiency"...

I figured your case would be a bit more complex. I would rather you got the 600 or 2000 than it remain in the treasury-I know you would use it for actual good uses instead of as a pool for you-know-who's greens fees...

[DFW]

17. On the other hand

If it doesn't go to us, then it probably won't go to those who need it even less than we do, and we contribute to charitable causes regardless if it's excess cash from the Treasury or from after-tax income.

One reform that I hope Biden-Harris takes up quickly is re-instituting the deduction from Federal Income Taxes for all charitable contributions and for state income taxes.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Food insecure is actually a more accurate term

I used to feel as you did - that "food insecure" was a weird euphemism for "starving." But I did some reading and discovered the term is actually more accurate.

Many people aren't actually starving - they are getting enough food and nutrition to survive. But they struggle daily with uncertain access to a quality diet, have disrupted eating patterns and/or must rely on food pantries and other outside sources for meals.

Food insecurity can lead to starvation, but food insecurity and starvation aren't the same thing.

[whopis01]

4. McConnell was just re-elected

Having the blame fall on him will have little or no consequence.

The focus needs to be on all the Republican Senators up for election in 2022 or sooner.

[questionseverything]

6. McConnell knows this will kill the repubs in Georgia

I am very pleased with the democratic coalition

[Lucinda]

13. +1

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Republicans already having an epic outbreak of

austerity. So yes, I expect they will block this, because if they don't it would go against what some of them are already saying about the Biden Administration, and they would have to do back flips to return to austerity next month.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

8. They may attach some kind of...

“poison pill” to the Bill. Repealing Section 230 comes to mind.

[gab13by13]

9. I don't believe they can do that,

this 2,000 dollars is an amendment to the original bill, that's why it needs a 2/3 majority.

I hope Democrats get more than 2 Senators to filibuster.

[onenote]

12. You're right about the Senate not being able to add Section 230 repeal, but for a different reason

The legislation authorizing $2000 payments was not technically an amendment to the original bill -- it was a standalone piece of legislation (known as the CASH Act). It required a 2/3 vote to pass because the House suspended its rules in order to bring the bill to an immediate vote without referral to Committee.

And my understanding is that the reason the Senate can't add Section 230 repeal to the CASH Act is that that, under the Senate's rules, new substantive legislative matter cannot be added to an appropriations bill.

[liskddksil]

18. See what happens when we stop being afraid of our own shadow and lead. More of this Dems! nt

[Blue Owl]

19. Let Mitch choke on his iceberg lettuce