Americans angry they may no longer qualify for $1,400 stimulus checks,

[Liberal In Texas]

say it feels like a ‘targeted attack’ on middle class.

Though she has kept her job as an executive assistant throughout the pandemic, Marie, who asked to be identified by her middle name to protect her privacy, says her budget has still been stretched thin.

The mother-of-two’s employer reduced her salary by 15%, she no longer picks up extra income as a part-time Uber driver due to safety concerns, and she had to pay for her son’s daycare to keep his spot despite the fact that he was at home with her at the beginning of the pandemic. She’s accrued around $4,000 in debt over the course of the pandemic and is currently two months late on daycare payments.

Now, with the news that Congress is considering lowering the income eligibility threshold for the third round of stimulus payments from $75,000 to $50,000 for individuals and from $150,000 for married couples to $100,000, Marie’s money worries are compounding. She is “terrified” that she will no longer qualify because she earned around $60,000 in 2019. (The Washington Post reported that heads of household earning up to $75,000 would still qualify for the full $1,400 payments under the new thresholds.)

“I was banking on that money,” says Marie, who lives in Maryland. “The fact that they’re changing it and setting this strict cutoff is totally unreasonable for anybody who lives in a high-cost-of-living area. It’s wrong.”

More:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/08/americans-angry-possible-stimulus-check-income-limit-changes.html

I think this is a sly way for the repubs to try and win back the middle class voters they lost in the last election. To try and appease their demands is a really bad idea. And this amount of money is a drop in the bucket in the broad scheme of government funds.

[thucythucy]

1. I agree.

In fact, I would view ANY changes to the plan that has any support among the Republicans with suspicion.

There's always an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with serving the American people.

[Demsrule86]

32. Last I hesrd, they were not lowering the threshold.

[bdamomma]

2. Just a question

is this really being considered?? not giving Americans the money they need. Has this anything to do with Manchin?

[ooky]

7. Good question.

I don’t expect to see this happen though. I think lowering the threshold now would be a big mistake and democrats know it.

[bdamomma]

16. But Biden is against this.

Plus Senator Warren has been appointed to a Committee, and we also have Bernie. It won't hurt to call our Reps and Senators and tell them not to compromise.

[Liberal In Texas]

8. I think it was being considered as a way to bring some of the repubs on board

making it "bipartisan." Historically every time we accede to put their demands into a bill to benefit the average joe, they don't vote for it anyway.

[JT45242]

3. Exactly -- it isn't just unemployed --

My wife has had her hours cut by over half. The major local hospital gave an across the board 15% pay furlough without decreasing hours. I know lots of people who have lost significant wages without being unemployed.

I have many friends who have had salaries slashed who based on 2019 would be between 100 and 150K and would have reduced or no benefits.

I understand the need for a cutoff point -- but 100K as a family is still in the middle class (and lower middle class in many places NYC, San Fran, Seattle, etc).

We cannot allow this to not help people who could use the money who are middle class.

[Hugin]

5. I haven't lost my job, but, I'm carrying two who have...

So my income is essentially 1/3 of what it was pre-COVID.

[Hugin]

4. Exactly who is talking about lowering the income eligibility is the real question here...

I'm guessing it's not the Democrats or at least most of them.

[Ligyron]

6. How would this help repugs win back middle class voters who no doubt need that 1400 dollars?

I know they're trained to vote against their own interests, but what am I not seeing here?

[durablend]

9. "THE LEFT LIED TO YOU!!!!!"

"You voted for them and they screwed you over!"

See how easy that is?

[Ligyron]

18. As poorly informed as they are, you're right, that just might work.

"Lord, what fools these mortals be."

[Liberal In Texas]

10. They will campaign on "The Dems promised you the money and then

flip-flopped and screwed you."

[dixiechiken1]

11. Lowering the income eligibility threshold is a poison pill...

If the Dems do this, they run the risk of angering and alienating voters who received the first two stimulus checks (under Trump) but are cut out of the third (under Biden). I point out who was/is President at issuance of each stimulus because believe you me, Republicans will pounce on this. They will use it to bludgeon Dems in the midterms.

Dems need to leave this one alone. It's a solution looking for a problem. Appeasing the Repubs with this still won't bring them to a 'yes' vote but it runs the risk of pissing a lot of people off.

[Hugin]

12. +1

Yep.

It's a dumb move that will only result in a weakened position.

[Blaukraut]

14. I don't get why Manchin is on board with this

He must know that he is shooting himself in the foot. His constituents want this money just as much as the rest of the people who are struggling. And losing the Senate majority because of this makes him pretty unimportant again. He has a pretty big ego and he's, presumably, not stupid. So what the hell is wrong with him?

[Ligyron]

19. It puzzles me to know end.

Maybe he figure his people are so stupid they'll believe whatever BS he give them or the RW bubble they inhabit is totally opaque.

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. He wants to keep his job.

The Republicans have him in a corner. On one hand, if he doesn't deliver, it will piss people off in the immediate. On the other, if he signs off on the stimulus, Republicans will make the case years down the line, when all the happiness that $1400 brought has long since evaporated, that he gave money to people who didn't deserve it.

For the record, I'm as frustrated by this as everyone else. We're being held hostage by one fucking state, and it's absolutely goddamned ridiculous. But this is probably what's going through Manchin's head right now.

[liskddksil]

13. Good News in Initial House Draft On This

Link to tweet

Make sure you call your Congressperson and Senators in support of leaving thresholds as they were, as this could still change.

Capitol Switchboard: [phone].

[North Shore Chicago]

15. We need to control

the narrative on this by LEAVING the qualifying numbers alone! The repubs do not need an inch, because they will take a mile, we know this.

[bullwinkle428]

17. Rachel Maddow was legitimately angry over the idea that these numbers

may end up getting "tweaked". She stated flat-out that the politics of this would be terrible.

Seriously, are we considering doing this in order to make the Susan Collinses of the world happy?

[triron]

36. Bet she's right too.

It will piss off a lot of voters. Hell, it pisses me off and I always vote democrat.

[fescuerescue]

20. Trump must have left behind some crap in the legislation

I'm not worried.

Biden will clean that up.

[BComplex]

21. Why do the democrats continually shoot themselves in the foot? Do they love to lose?

They're going to have to start being smarter than this. I thought they had finally gotten it, but it doesn't look like it if they're going to do this.

[Turin_C3PO]

27. Well, it's all just discussion right now.

Dems haven’t yet decided so keep the pressure on your reps and Senators.

[BComplex]

30. N.C. My senators are both republicans. They're loving this. "Dems lied to their base"

type of loving it.

[Turin_C3PO]

33. There's no finished bill yet

so Repubs can say whatever they want. It doesn’t make it true.

[yardwork]

22. Democrats will lose in 2022 and 2024 if we don't keep our promises.

[Vivienne235729]

23. $50,000 is a VERY low threshold. It is ridiculous. It will essentially

Cut off millions of people who need help. People in blue areas will hurt the most as cost of living is higher there and (thus higher wages). Truly that is an unreasonable threshold. I hope dems see through this nonsense.

[cbdo2007]

24. They just need to push it through at the higher amount and worry about it later.

When the economy recovers nobody will be looking back questioning whether they should have done $75,000 or $50,000, they will just be happy it has recovered.

[pwb]

25. CNBC thinks that huh?

What a surprise. By Americans they mean the wealthy. too bad.

[MisterNiceKitty]

26. I think she should stop paying for daycare she's not using - Lord it's been a year

[Yavin4]

29. She has to pay for daycare to keep the kid's spot in the center. n/t

[honest.abe]

35. Our daycare said the same but that was misleading.

Many parents kept their kids at home so there were plenty of spots open.

[Liberal In Texas]

37. Yeah, that should fix her right up.

I think she needs a lot more than that would make up for.

[MisterNiceKitty]

38. We all need to take in some financial hygiene every now and then

You'll find cutting expenses you don't need can add up to some big savings especially for people who work from home.
Just be smart about it & you don't have to be sarcastic.

[Happy Hoosier]

28. I think Means testing this AT ALL is a bad idea....

But American sanctimony when it comes to macro economics is frustrating.

But cutting out a huge swatch of the middle class isn't simply a bad idea. It's a FUCKING TERRIBLE idea.

[Yavin4]

31. Either we take this fucking pandemic seriously or we don't. We cannot keep doing half measures.

If you want people staying home, avoiding large crowds, wearing masks at all times, etc., then you have to provide economic relief for everyone. Period. Full Stop.