So, Republicans object to the $2k stimulus check because it's too broad, some don't need it

[Xipe Totec]

Maybe they have a point... (cough!, cough!)

Maybe it should be needs based.

Those who have little or nothing should get more, those that have lots, should get less or, maybe, pay.

We could call it Universal Basic Income, or UBI for short....

I'm sure that having addressed their objections, Republicans would immediately embrace the new plan.

[Karadeniz]

1. Good idea, but the bureaucracy might get in the way...

[Xipe Totec]

2. I'd be surprised if they didn't. nt

[badhair77]

3. But isn't it to help the economy? Personally I can get by without it

but I will spend it in the community in small local businesses or give it to local charities, or help a needy family. Correct me if I’m wrong.

[Xipe Totec]

5. You help the economy by giving money tho those who don't have it, not to those who do.

Rich people get rich because they don't spend.

And when they do spend, they spend other people's money.

It's poor people that spend and keep the economy afloat.

[badhair77]

10. So I'm not wealthy but I will shop at

local businesses that are struggling and donate to those who need help. I will not pack it away in a savings account, thus stimulating the economy.

[Xipe Totec]

11. Go for it. Why wait?

[rurallib]

4. Means testing is the Republican way to cut a benefit for everybody

especially this who need it most

[TuskMoar]

27. Exactly Right

UBI with no means testing. No means testing results in not being able to look down your noses at those on the dole. Also, eliminating means testing eliminates fraud and bureaucracy.

[Walleye]

6. The main point is to stimulate the economy by putting money in peoples' hands, that they could spend

It’s not like a welfare check or something. The point is to pump money into local businesses. Means testing would defeat its purpose. And there’s the prospect that people would be humiliated by having to prove they were poor enough and deserving enough. Give the money to the people who are likely to spend it in the local economy which will bring jobs back

[Xipe Totec]

7. If you want to stimulate the economy, give money to those who spend it.

If you give it to people who already have money they just put it in the bank.

[Walleye]

8. Yes, and most middle-class people will spend it.

I just don’t think we should cut the payments at all, especially after promising it before the Georgia election, to mollify these stingy Republicans.

[Beartracks]

9. And adding that administratve layer onto the program would greatly increase its cost. n/t

[Walleye]

12. Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Republicans just want to complicate it and gum up that works

We all know they don’t give a shit about the debt.

[mitch96]

13. "too broad, some don't need it". Just like their fricken 1%er tax cut... fuckers...nt

[Xipe Totec]

15. I know, right? But this is a way to flip it on them.

Take their argument and point it right back at them.

[theneworiginal]

22. They refused to put conditions on the businesses getting the cash in the first package.

Well-off businesses squeezed the small fry out of keeping his/her mom-pop place afloat.

Remember the Lakers and Tom Brady getting the cash? It was a free for all...unless you really needed it of course.

[Mr.Bill]

14. They sure thought all those rich people needed a big tax cut.

The fact is, consumers with cash in hand are the real job creators.

I read an article years ago, I think in Reader's Digest. It was about a meeting of Fortune 500 CEOs. They were asked the question "What is the most important thing for the success of a company?" The answered varied. Those in retail said location, those in tech said R&D, those in sales said personnel, etc. No one had the correct answer, which is customers. Henry Ford knew this. When he raised pay for his factory workers to $5 a day, many though he was crazy. The reality was he was turning his workers into people who could afford to buy what they were building.

Trickle down does not work. Every republican since 1980 has proven this. Trickle up works.

[Xipe Totec]

16. Absolutely agree. My point is to take them at their word and stuff it down their throat. nt

[Make7]

17. The problem is the time and effort it would take to determine who needs what.

They have been using people's 2019 adjusted gross income to calculate where the previous stimulus/relief payments started to taper off. But for a significant percentage of the population, how much they made in 2019 is not a good predictor for their income in 2020.

It's better to just send the checks out - if they want to reduce the amount of money higher income earners receive, they can increase their taxes slightly over the next few years.

[Xipe Totec]

18. I know. You're arguing our side. We understand it; we're the choir

The point is to make a counteroffer to the Republicans that will make them crap their pants; the beginning of UBI.

[Xipe Totec]

21. Way to miss the point. It's not about you, it's about Republican intransigence. nt

[stopbush]

20. Why did someone making $75000 get a relief check while a college kid

living at home with their parents, working a minimum wage job didn’t get a relief check if their parents claimed them as a dependent on their 2019 tax return?

Seems like a very arbitrary decision that hurt a lot of low-income people while giving relief to people making plenty of money.

[judesedit]

24. But they were ok with giving 1.5T in tax cuts to billionaires no problem

Don't make me laugh. Everyone should just laugh in their faces when the try to pull the deficit bullshit

[Baked Potato]

25. Republicans are dividing and conquering with this tact.

There is no system to make sure rich people don’t get more tax breaks.

Think of it as a dividend for being an American.

[Xipe Totec]

26. Which is why I'm proposing to turn this against them using it to introduce UBI

To the American Public:

December 31, 2020

Major crises can effect rapid changes in public opinion that otherwise would have required years or even decades to develop. Among the permanent opinion shifts of the COVID-19 pandemic, I expect to see a new — and perhaps even bipartisan — move toward universal basic income (UBI) or something like it, an evolution influenced by Americans' experience with pandemic relief checks, both the fact of them and the drawn-out political fights surrounding their passage.

UBI is exactly what it sounds like: a government income program which is not tied to recipients' employment (like unemployment insurance), age (like Social Security), income (like TANF), medical care (like Medicare or Medicaid), or food purchases (like SNAP). It's simply a monthly cash stipend that goes to everyone. The stipend could be big enough to cover all basic expenses (this is called a full UBI) or it could merely supplement other income (former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang's proposal of a $1,000 per month "Freedom Dividend" is an example of this sort of partial UBI).

https://theweek.com/articles/957862/are-pandemic-relief-checks-making-ubi-inevitable

[Baked Potato]

29. Good article, I believe there will be some form of permanent UBI in the USA

within about 6-10 years. Maybe sooner.

[jmowreader]

28. But they had no problem with a budget-busting tax cut.