Urgent: 9 Senate Democrats sponsor amendement to screw middle-income earners out

[liskddksil]

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2021, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

of their promised stimulus check (those making $50,000 - $75,000). Call your Senators and House Representative to oppose this. If People who received checks in the prior 2 packages do not receive this go round, we will be seen as betraying our promises and it will cost us in 2022 and 2024 elections.

Capitol Switchboard: [phone].

Link to tweet

Update with more details about who is (Ossoff, Sanders and Wyden) and isn't on our side:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-split-who-should-receive-1-400-checks-n1256788

[House of Roberts]

1. So, nine 'Democrats' need the concept of

aggregate demand in an economy explained to them?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Everybody gets a check = Socialism

Only those that NEED a check, get a check = Communism

Pick your poison

[sweetloukillbot]

2. Where does that say anything about changing from $75-$50K?

[liskddksil]

5. This is under discussion.

Link to tweet

[sweetloukillbot]

9. So it doesn't actually say it - gotcha.

[liskddksil]

33. If you put 2 and 2 together it does nt

[sweetloukillbot]

38. If you immediately assume the Dems are going to buckle, then maybe

But when you consider that the big sticking point with this last year was that people making 300K would still be entitled to SOME small amount of stimulus, then maybe when they say "upper-income" they don't mean 75K.

[liskddksil]

40. Yes, but we don't have a lot to go on, other than hope that enough Senators get it. So far, Ossoff,

Wyden and Sanders seem to get it, but until I hear otherwise I need to be on high alert and expressing my concerns here and to my representative and Senators.

[sweetloukillbot]

41. Do you honestly think it would be brought to the floor for vote if they didn't think they could pass

I mean, seriously, you think our leadership is so incompetent that they don't know how to count votes?

[liskddksil]

69. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. The question is would leadership put out a bill

that reduces the thresholds to a level that many people who got checks in the 1st rounds get left behind this time in order to get Manchin and some Republicans? Yes, this is exactly what exactly of what I'm afraid of. I've been let down too many times to not believe this is a possibility.

[sweetloukillbot]

70. Again I say, show me where in that amendment any of that happenz

And by the way, Sanders Wyden and Ossoff all voted for it as well.

[Blue_true]

52. Unfortunately, $75,000 or $150,000 per couple is in the lower upper middleclass

in like 80% of America. A household income of $150,000 where I live is pretty significant. Most households make close to half that amount.

[Kingofalldems]

47. No, not a good effort there.

[Firestorm49]

31. Quite honestly, I don't need it and I don't want it. I'd rather it go to those more in need.

I donated the first $600 to the Hunger Taskforce.

[liskddksil]

32. Great but we don't have the time to figure out who does or doesn't need it. We need

to get the money into people pocket books now.

[Yavin4]

48. This is why I fear that this pandemic will destroy us.

We simply do not have the public resources in place to fight it. Hell, basic public insurance for everyone is being debated more hotly than tax cuts for the rich.

If this virus lingers well into this year, we're doomed.

[Tommymac]

62. Bullshit. Cancel the F-35 boondoggle and we'd have plenty of money.

Cancel the Trump Millionaire Tax cut and we'd have plenty of money.

Put a tax on the Stock Market and we'd have plenty of money.

Bottom line if we don't give everyone who got the last $600 relief check the promised $1400 then we will LOSE in 2022.

This means Democracy loses.

Is that what you want?

[Yavin4]

66. We need more public resources to adequately fight this pandemic, and we don't have them.

Everything you listed requires cooperation from Republicans, and they won't cooperate.

This pandemic will destroy us.

[Blue_true]

53. A lower income target than the original seems reasonable.

We must be aware that when the first package was passed, companies were sorting out how people could work. A lot of people with higher incomes that were covered now work from home and are fully employed. There are even people moving from high cost of living places to less expensive places because companies have made it possible for them to work almost exclusively from home, with minimal travel.

A new package must reflect new realities.

[Blue_playwright]

3. That would hurt us.

I’m down $2k a month in income and without selling the house, we’re struggling and are going to until this is over. 50k isn’t much these days

[roamer65]

4. That's fine.

I can make $1400 worth of budget cuts as retaliation.

Hell, I’ll make it $2800.

[mr_lebowski]

6. I'm not against the idea of giving less the more you make

But an absolute cutoff at only 50K seems a bit on the low side.

[liskddksil]

10. Bernie had a much better approach in his interview last

night on the Situation Room, where they look at some issues involving those making about $150,000 getting checks in the last go rounds, which I am ok with fixing.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. It is on a sliding scale, so it won't be a complete cutoff even at 50k.

[liskddksil]

17. Devil is in the details. If I got the full amount, it would immediately go into the economy nt

[Blue_true]

54. It seems like under the new proposal, you WOULD get the full amount if you

make $50,000 ($100,000 per household). In fact, a person making $60,000 likely would not get much less than you did, but would not get the full amount.

[mr_lebowski]

21. Okay. Depending on how harshly it slides, I could possibly get behind this (nt)

[50 Shades Of Blue]

7. Done! This really pisses me off!

[Lochloosa]

8. CALL THE WHITE HOUSE....and your Reps and Senators.

The White House is the one that needs to hear from us.

[liskddksil]

11. I haven't had luck yet with the Whitehouse comment line. Wonder if not everything

is in place there yet.

[Champion Jack]

13. Manchin......It's always Manchin

I wonder when he'll switch parties

[Hav]

44. So far he hasn't despite having been in the Senate minority

in a deep red state. So he'll hopefully never switch. Right now, he'd make McConnell majority leader again.

[Blue_true]

57. He won't switch parties because he is a true Democrat.

The guy votes with his party the vast majority of the time.

He has had plenty of chances and opportunities to switch parties, he has not, that should tell you something.

[crimycarny]

14. $50K not middle income in CA

Nor places like NY. Hell, even $75K not middle income. A chart was posted on this site with the minimum salary required to own a home in each of the 50 stores. Minimum salary in CA was $120K. $50K less than half of that.

[liskddksil]

16. These guys are so out of touch its not even funny. Reason #48763 for term limits imo nt

[obamanut2012]

19. Nor here in SOFL

50K means you have at least one roommate if you aren't married, drive a ten-year-old car or maybe a scooter, and never buy new clothes or furniture.

[Mr.Bill]

28. There are people living in Silicon Valley

living in derelict motor homes parked on the street who make 50-75k

[crimycarny]

39. Yep--saw that outside of Stanford

Rows and rows of campers on El Camino outside Stanford University. When I first saw this I said to my husband "wow, is there a football game today?" But then we were told it's people who work in Silicon Valley but have to live in their campers because they can't afford the rent. One whole family was in a camper, I saw the mom calling in her young toddler who was outside on the sidewalk.

Just nuts. These aren't "homeless", these are white collar high tech workers.

Oh, and on that subject---the hospital I work for just laid off almost it's entire IT staff. We're being outsourced to an India based company. I'm supposed to train someone to do my job. I'm a senior level engineer with over 20 years experience. The people I'm supposed to train are all entry level hires that know zilch. These outsourcing sales guys tell the executives they have all these skilled workers just "waiting in the wings" when in reality they hire at novices at bare minimum salaries. They count on the people left to basically train their novice workers and they hold the employees severance pay as ransom. They also try to transition the laid off workers to the outsourcing company but pay them far far less (in many cases less than 1/2 of what they were making). It's a win-win for the outsourcer and the executives of the Hospital. The employee is no longer on the Hospital payroll with costly things such as vacation pay and healthcare, the outsourcer gets already trained employees at bare bones cost. It's infuriating.

For my part, I'll be pointing my "trainee" to the manual and tell them to read the d*mm thing. It's what I had to do...

[Mr.Bill]

42. My wife is a retired RN.

during her career she watched hospital administrators change from medical degrees to MBAs. That's the problem. My daughter has a medical Masters degree and manages two departments at her hospital. Pretty much everyone above her has little or no medical education.

[crimycarny]

43. Business people making decisions based solely on the bottom line

No clue what is involved in making sure the hospital IT infrastructure stays up and running. They install MS Word on their personal laptop and think that’s what constitutes IT.

This is bound to affect patient care and it’s scary to me. We’re not talking business apps like the PowerPoint slides these MBA’s love to see, we’re talking MRI images being safely stored, archived, and backed up. We’re talking an ER doctor being able to quickly bring up a CT Scan of a patient—software needs to be able to find it within seconds and pull it up. We’re talking an Anesthesiologist being able to order additional drugs from the operating room. ALL of this requires a complex infrastructure and zero downtime. We are constantly monitoring to make sure all systems are up and running. We support over 8000 applications.

This is all going to novice level 1 support people overseas.

[Mr.Bill]

45. At our hospital, which is a small one,

There's lots of IT going on. The hospital issues laptops, you don't use your personal one. Lots of security IT, since hospitals have been the victims of ransomware. There's a full time staff of a handful of IT people. And they handle more than computers. The phone system, for instance. Lots of IT stuff in the lab and pharmacy, too, I would imagine. My daughter sits at a desk with three screens.

One year at the hospital Christmas party, they decided to shoot a video of each employee at the hospital quickly looking at the camera and saying Merry Christmas. I would say with the exception of the cafeteria and groundskeeping staff, about 95% of the people were pictured sitting in front of a computer. I joked that if they got rid of all those computers they could lay off half the staff.

[Initech]

15. This is the exact kind of thing that makes people not trust democrats.

And I feel like that could come back to bite us.

[liskddksil]

18. I'm already seeing it on Twitter and Reddit nt

[brooklynite]

24. ...which we all know is an accurate reflection of voter opinions...

[liskddksil]

25. Ok, they do represent a portion of our base, especially the Young voters that we need to turn out nt

[liskddksil]

22. Welcome! Hopefully we can talk some sense into them nt

[DesertRat]

30. Already concerned about the midterms?

Welcome to DU!

[liskddksil]

34. If you're not concerned about the midterms that's a problem. Every day we don't get results

is one day closer to being swept out. So lets not start off by breaking a promise, particularly with an own-goal on such a political winner, as giving checks to everyone. Obviously this reality, has upside as well, as we could be uniquely positioned as a party to be the party that governs as people's lives begin to come back to normal if all things go as planned.

That said we all need to be viscerally haunted by what happened in 2009 and 2010, so we do not make the same mistakes.

[Bettie]

63. It will give people the impression that they are being screwed over

and that Democrats are behind it.

If someone got the 600, they should get the next payment too.

Every dollar put into the economy will create economic activity and frankly, what people earned in 2019 isn't necessarily what they earned in 2020!

[Initech]

64. And that's exactly how RW radio will spin it.

And that could tip the power balance again in 2022. We won the battle in 2020, but the war isn't over. When the primaries come next year, these assholes will be firing on all fours.

[Bettie]

67. Yes, yes it will

and that is the last thing we need to happen.

We need to move ahead and be bold. Do what needs to be done.

Not waffle and wimp out for the sake of some Republican dickheads.

Fact is, the only reason the package didn't come up for a vote earlier is that they didn't want to go on record voting against much-needed relief for people.

[Initech]

68. I'm personally sick and tired of the Hannitys and Limbaughs controlling the narrative.

And it's time to start fighting back against the bullshit. That's how we got fucking Trump as president and I will be damned if we let another one slip through the cracks.

[Bettie]

71. To change the narrative, we need to get a voice on

AM radio. Those rural areas? They listen all day while they work, because it is everywhere.

The message becomes the truth because it is ever present.

The right made a huge investment in it, lost a lot of money, but got their payback a thousand times over.

[Initech]

72. That's why we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

It'd be hard to enforce in the social media era but really any broadcast network that puts up 4 hours of Hannity should be required to air four hours of a liberal personality or have their broadcast license yanked. That would make a world of difference.

[Bettie]

73. Yeah it would

those AM stations ARE public airwaves and subject to licenses.

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

23. "The chairman of the committee may revise the allocations" - Read the whole thing.

No numbers are specified and, as we know, the chairman of the committee in question is Bernie Sanders, so this is a group of senators seeking to burnish their moderate / bipartisan credentials in a superficial way. Sanders could reallocate money from people earning over $150,000, for instance, and boost payments elsewhere. Moderate concern sated and lower income recipients helped.

[leftstreet]

26. Why do they need to burnish their 'moderate' credentials?

Their party took majorities

That would only make sense if the GOP had the WH/House/Senate

[liskddksil]

29. Because either they agree with the GOP framing or they don't have any political instincts

Giving checks to people is a winner, a no-brainer I'd say.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

27. ...50k is NOT 'upper income' where I live.

Nowhere near that.

[Celerity]

37. Manchin seems to think the entire nation has Nitro, West Virginia's costs of living and incomes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitro,_West_Virginia

Males had a median income of $30,086 versus $21,932 for females. The per capita income for the city was $17,453.

[Mr.Bill]

46. In Silicon Valley, you could add another zero to those home prices. n/t

[halfulglas]

35. Not again, the Dems are negotiating themselves down.

Right now the Repubs are sniping about the spending, but they're not getting serious yet, because of how popular this is with their own voters. Even Fox apparently this morning acknowledged how popular it is with even ordinary Republican voters (whoever they are now). Dems should fight to keep it high and only lower it if forced too. We can't guarantee another bite of the apple if it's needed. The chance might not come again when it's recognized that more stimulus is needed.

[liskddksil]

36. At least Bernie, Wyden and Ossoff so far are against this. Hopefully more have our backs nt

[dawg]

49. Whether any of us think we need the money or not ...

if lots of people who got the checks under Trump don't get them under Biden, we will lose in 2022.

Lowering the cutoff for the checks would be political suicide.

Surely to God we are smarter than this!?!?

[liskddksil]

50. I hope so, though not holding my breath nt

[Blue_true]

51. The new income range looks reasonable.

$75,000 per person, $150,000 per couple is lower-upper middleclass in most of America.

[Andy823]

55. Are this the official numbers?

I hadn't heard what they were, but I agree that they look reasonable also.

[Blue_true]

59. I don't think that they are official, or even real.

I believe some people are just flying off the handle

Even $50,000 per person, $100,000 per household, is doing decently in most of Florida and many places in other states. For urban areas, it is not much for some neighborhoods, but a tidy sum for others (like some inner city areas). A lower target would still get money to people that need it in all areas of the country.

[liskddksil]

60. Not in a lot of places nt

[gratuitous]

56. A little data point for everyone's consideration

Link here to the Eschaton/Atrios post

Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the more tightly targeted checks would cost $420 billion, as opposed to $465 billion. That’s what we’re fighting over? $45 billion in a $1.9 trillion package, to deny middle-class people (almost definitionally speaking; they make just over the median income) relief?

Emphasis added. A little more context: $45 billion is less than one month of the military's annual budget.

[Kaleva]

58. Would it be better to increase the amount given to low income?

Somebody living at poverty level may be in more need of an extra $100 or so then someone making $75k would have need for $1400.

[marie999]

61. My husband and I do not need the stimulus,

but if we don't get it, we can't give it away to people who do need it.

[Hortensis]

65. Yes. The big purpose of giving it to you and us

would be to spread the money around like manure, “encouraging young things to grow.”