"I got it under Trump, but not Biden"

[Proud liberal 80]

That’s what we are going to hear if the stimulus checks are targeted to lower income Americans while others who received the initial checks don’t get it...and people don’t pay attention to the details regarding congressional negotiations and trying to be bipartisan....all they will know and see is that we have a Democratic POTUS, Senate and House.

[Squinch]

1. I got it under Donny Bodybags but I didn't need it. I'm sure there are many like me out there.

If not giving it to me means it can go to people who don't have enough for food and shelter, I'll be glad of it.

[MuseRider]

14. Buy supplies for

your local shelter. You have a good heart.

[Squinch]

15. I will with this one. Last one went to Joe, which I thought was the best way to help people in need.

But thank you. That's kind of you.

[SlogginThroughIt]

17. That isn't how stimulus packages work

It is to stimulate the economy. Your spending is part of that as well. It doesnt matter that you "need" it. That is a benefit of the program, that yes those that desperately need it will get the money, but any money that is pumped into the economy will benefit people beyond just you.

[Squinch]

20. Theoretically, you are correct. In the real world, however, it doesn't work that way. The money

tends to be spent by those who do not have a financial cushion, but has little to no effect when given to those who do have a financial cushion.

Here's a UC Davis study that shows what happened to the last stimulus:

https://www.ucdavis.edu/curiosity-gap/did-1200-stimulus-payment-boost-economy
The people who had $3,000 or more in their checking accounts had no response to the appearance of their stimulus check. So the stimulus checks to those with cash in the bank did nothing to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, those who maintained accounts with $500 or less spent almost half of the deposits—44.5 cents per every dollar—within 10 days. The stimulus checks to those with little cash in the bank, resulted in 44.5% of the check amount going back into the economy in 10 days, which further stimulated the economy.

The other finding of the research was that people used the stimulus checks to pay for food, household items, bills, and rent. Unlike stimulus funds in the past, this money wasn’t used for purchase of durable goods such as electronics, furniture, or cars. So the stimulus checks didn’t stimulate the hard-hit areas of the economy like manufacturing or retail.

[dawg]

32. Sticking it to the middle-class would not add one red cent to the amount going to the poor.

It would just reduce the overall size of the package and hand a massive political victory to the Republicans.

If you really want more money going to help the poor, then use your check that way if you get one.

[brewens]

2. While the $1400 would certainly help me, I can't claim I need it because of the pandemic.

I'm retired on disability, so I've actually gotten a little ahead with the previous stimulus checks. The next one with my tax refund will get my credit card debt down to where I should have it paid off easily be this time next year. That will make it possible for me to actually be saving a little money each month.

That's huge for me, and I feel lucky to be able to do that with the money when a lot of people will still be sinking. If it made the difference, I'd say forget about me and give it to only those that really need it. You're right though, cutting some people out that got the payments before will be risky.

[Happy Hoosier]

7. Then it sounds like $1400 would help you a lot!

It would help you pay off debt and even position yourself to handle a future financial need.

Sound like a great idea for a country looking to blunt the worst economic effects of this pandemic.

[greymattermom]

3. Why not give it to everyone.

But make it taxable. How would the cost compare?

[Happy Hoosier]

6. Making it "taxable" doesn't really make sense to me...

I'm not sure of the moral hand flailing on this issue.

This isn't about who "deserves" payment and who doesn't. It's about getting money into the hands of consumers NOW. And if someone is well off enough that they don't need it to pay rant, or a mortgage, or whatever, then maybe they use it to pay extra on a student loan, of a credit card, or whatever, so that the economy is in that much better shape when it recovers in earnest.

[gab13by13]

12. Exactly,

It's the millionaires who hoard their money, like the permanent tax cuts that Trump gave them. People making 100k will spend their stimulus money and stimulate the economy, but here we are arguing over giving working people too much money, right wing propaganda works, I see that cable news has already shifted to right wing talking points.

[Happy Hoosier]

19. I completely agree.

It's nuts... and we'll wind up watering this down until it's impact is minimized.

It's part of that weird puritanism about "welfare" that permeates most of the country, even the Democratic party.

But we have to see this as being about how to manage the economy on a macro-scale, rather than worrying about whether or not some "undeserving" person might be getting some benefit. That's not the point.

In reality, the percentage of people who would get this and and not "deserve it" would be a pretty small percentage. And the benefit of ensuring the money is widespread and gets out quickly has WAY more benefit than being parsimonious about this.

[SlogginThroughIt]

18. Exactly.

[aikoaiko]

4. Its a big mistake to change the plan now.

Maybe for another round after changing campaign language.

[Zoonart]

9. Agreed... The means-testing horse is out of the barn.

FWIW... we never received the first stimulus at all. We have received the $600.00. Go figure.

If they really want to keep a tighter rein on the stimulus, they should be more strict with who received the forgivable business loans.
That is where the lion's share f the dough went out the back door to donors who did not need the money

[Croney]

5. I don't need it but I hope I get it.

I passed the last one on to an extremely needy young relative who got Covid and lost her job.

[AmyStrange]

16. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

[AleksS]

8. Yup.

You hit the nail on the head. This is the time to go big. You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression.

And let’s not forget, if it was a tax cut for the rich, the only conversation the right would be having is that it wasn’t big enough!

There was no problem spending like drunken sailors for the last 4 years. Now that it can actually help
people and the economy, don’t let them slow it down!

[Proud liberal 80]

10. Yep

And you would think that Biden would be aware if this seeing first hand with Obama and the watered down 2009 stimulus

[JI7]

11. The 600 was limited to those who made under a certain amount. I would rather make more money than

get these payments . I would rather make 75 thousand dollars than get this and I would not be upset .

[dawg]

28. Yes, but we don't need to make the limits tighter than before.

We should use the same limits as the previous checks, otherwise lots of people will feel that the Republicans were willing to do more for them than us.

This is NOT the time to worry about spending too much.

[Johnny2X2X]

13. Stimulus...

This is a stimulus, need has nothing to do with it, likelihood that people will spend it should be the deciding factor. People under a certain salary will spend most of it and stimulate the economy, people above a certain salary will just throw it into savings.

Biden will make a big mistake if he lowers the threshold to $50K and $100K for couples. Leave it as it or maybe $60K at lowest.

So some autoworker making $65K a year is wealthy? That's the message Biden wants to send?

And here's the thing, the UE bonus and extension is more meaningful to most of those struggling than the $1400. Biden put $400 in, the minimum for PUA is $160 a week, PUA basically covers almost everyone, so $560 a week is how people will pay their bills, every 4 weeks that's $2240, way more than the $1400.

I have a good formula, but people wouldn't like it. If you or your spouse were unemployed for a month or more at any time in the last 12 months, you get not $1400, but $4000. That way people who were harmed financially are getting serious help to catch back up and the people who didn't suffer financially at all don't get help. If it were purely aid that would make sense, but this is stimulus.

[Dem2]

21. lol

Always looking for fail in a victory.

It's never been about the actual bill, it's always about messaging. Democrats will hold their message and this will be successful.

[Proud liberal 80]

23. There is no victory

Watering down a stimulus bill....and Democrats have always sucked at messaging

[bluestarone]

24. SAD your blaming DEMOCRATS!!!

[Proud liberal 80]

25. Yep, I sure am (not the House Democrats though)

I have seen this story before...this same crap happened during Obama’s first year....if you want to stick your head in the sand go ahead...if you want to report me, go ahead....but this crap will get us killed in 2022....and unfortunately it’s the House Democrats that are going to take the brunt of the losses

[bluestarone]

30. I DO NOT report!

Just sad to see you blaming DEMS.

[Tommymac]

34. Thank You for speaking reason and Truth.

We need the Stimulus as a Nation.

Middle Class people need to spend it to help keep the economy going.

This is bottom up relief, not top trickle down.

It works.

Democrat's who are trying to pinch pennies now are simply wrong.

We can put limits on the next round. If we don't follow through and everyone who got the $600 does not get the rest then the Media, The thugs, and independents will say Biden Lied.

We'll lose in 2022 for sure.

[Dem2]

29. So many grim posts

I see people criticizing you for your attitude, perhaps it's apt?

[Proud liberal 80]

31. I don't care

I am tired of Democrats getting played and not learning their lessons...criticize me if you want..

EDIT - and I can’t see those people because I put them on full ignore. Don’t have time for pompous attitudes

[forthemiddle]

22. I don't think we keep Georgia either

I really think a big part of winning both Senate seats in Georgia was due to the promise of another $1400.00 check.
Remember that one of the seats is back up for election in 2022. Without Trump on the ballot, it was going to be hard to keep, and add this to the mix, and I'm afraid it will be gone.

[dawg]

26. Kick.

Mabye I'm being subconsciously self-serving, because I was near the top of the income range for the $1,200 and $600 checks, but I think it kills us politically if people who got those checks under Trump don't get the $1,400 checks under Biden.

Sure, not all those people need the money.

But, FOR ONCE, can we stop to think about the politics of the thing?

[Proud liberal 80]

27. Thanks for the kick

But pretty sure this thread is going to get nuked because some people on here don’t want to hear the truth

[LanternWaste]

33. Is this the new variation of "when did $2000 suddenly equal just $1600?"

'cause if it ain't, it sure smells the same.

[Kingofalldems]

36. Remember all the 'Trump wins' posts?

I do.

[Tommymac]

35. Kicked and Rec'ed Vigorously for Truth.

Thank You for putting this out there.

[BannonsLiver]

37. I usually disagree with your posts

But politically you have it just right. Those who waste time debating whether or not “they need it” completely miss the point.