AOC to the Rescue Calls out Democrats on Stimulus Amounts

[liskddksil]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Call your Senators and Represantive and tell them that anyone who makes up to $100,000 who got a Trump check, needs to get a Biden check or we will likely lose our majority in 2022.

Capitol Switchboard
[phone]

Link to tweet

Update Pennsylvania Lt. Gov and Senate candidate claps back as well.

Link to tweet

[jcgoldie]

1. Dammit AOC!

Be careful running up them stairs! 😂

[comradebillyboy]

2. AOC really isn't very helpful. nt

[liskddksil]

3. More helpful then anything these "moderates" are doing nt

[comradebillyboy]

6. Those moderates will actually get a stimulus bill

through the Senate despite unanimous Republican opposition. I have yet to see any legislative accomplishments from AOC.

[liskddksil]

7. and the 12 million who were promised checks but don't get them will blame us and we will lose our

majority in 2022.

[comradebillyboy]

9. Sure thing...

[liskddksil]

10. You laugh, but this in an own goal of epic proportions nt

[comradebillyboy]

12. The all or nothing approach usually yields nothing.

A big stimulus will pass, promise kept.

[PatSeg]

19. That's for sure

My way or the highway rarely ever works in politics or one's personal life.

[liskddksil]

36. Sounds great in theory. But 12-17 million stand to lose out on their check. They will blame us

for that not the Republicans.

[Bettie]

41. And Republicans will make sure they mention it

in ALL of their ads.

It won't matter that none of them voted for it, it will be all about "Democrats think you are rich, that you don't need money!"

True? No, but hey, look at what Rubio is already saying.

[liskddksil]

42. Yep and all of this nonsense to save only 12 billion dollars that isn't even going

anywhere else in the bill.

[Bettie]

83. And all in the name of "moderation"

yet, any election losses will be blamed 100% on the existence of progressives.

[bdamomma]

98. Should I

say if the GQP was still in office what would they have done in this case a big NOTHING.

It's something not nothing. Just my opinion.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

38. You are correct.

This is going to hurt in the midterms. Of course, the usual crowd will blame everyone but the people responsible.

[kcr]

35. Glad you think it's funny

Out of touch.

[SharonClark]

16. No they won't. Especially the people who said they didn't need it and that it should

be prioritized for people who do.

[Hortensis]

44. Agree. Most people aren't outrageously greedy and grasping,

and we're talking about individuals making over $75K annually, etc. Dreadfully, that's more than some people have earned in a lifetime. Btw, I figure those who are like that are far more likely to vote Republican anyway.

[qazplm135]

17. so this one thing

this one thing is all it will take for them to switch or stay home? Really?

If that's the case (spoiler, it isn't) then there are going to be ten things "worse" we do between now and 2022 that would cause such a fickle lot to abandon us.

[PatSeg]

21. Exactly

And yes, I'm quite sure there will be "worse" down the road. Doing nothing to avoid political repercussions is hardly the answer.

[liskddksil]

24. Yes, they were promised $2000

$600 Trump
$0 Biden
----
Broken Promise

[qazplm135]

43. who is they?

The people from 80-100K?

Biden went to each of them and specifically said "You will get 2000?"

Nope, and we know it isn't true because the drop off starts at 75K and finishes at 100K so people over 80K were NEVER going to get the full 200K.

I make 82K. So on paper I don't get squat. Which is fine. It really isn't huge to me. Now, in reality, I will get it because 20K of that is tax free military disability pay so in reality, I only make 62K. But it's just going to go into my account. Because making that much money single with no dependents is plenty.

[liskddksil]

48. Yes for those making $80-100K, the promise is broken.

During the campaign for the two Georgia Senate races, Joe Biden repeatedly promised to pass $2,000 stimulus checks if the Democrats won. After they did, the administration argued that $2,000 really meant $1,400 in addition to the $600 that had already gone out in the December rescue package.

Whether that is true or not, now Biden is inarguably breaking his promise. Under pressure from moderate Senate Democrats, he has reportedly agreed to cut down the formula under which the checks will be sent out. In the previous packages, the amount started phasing out at $75,000 in income for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers, and vanished entirely at $100,000 and $200,000 respectively (as of 2019). Now the phase-out will start start in the same place but end at $80,000 for singles and $160,000 for couples.

The $1,400 promise clearly implied at least that the checks would go out according to the previous formula used under Trump. But now singles making between $80,000-100,000 and couples making between $160,000-200,000 will get nothing. The Washington Post's Jeff Stein reports that roughly 17 million people who previously got checks now will not.

https://news.yahoo.com/joe-biden-just-yanked-away-183549948.html

[qazplm135]

66. it's not true

which tells you all you need to know that they had to add that line to the article. The previously formula didn't have people from 80-100K getting the entire amount. And no it didn't imply that the exact same formula would be used.

But hey, you clearly want to believe all is lost because of this one thing, so who am I to stop you.

[liskddksil]

73. People want simple and fair policies. We continue to lose elections because we try to get cute and

make this stuff so complicated, that people don't trust us.

[qazplm135]

74. yeah

those 2020 elections were just filled with losses...we control absolutely nothing.

[liskddksil]

75. We lost Seats in the House, only won the Senate because of Georgia, and lost almost

every competitive Governors and state legislative race as well.

[qazplm135]

78. we won the House, Senate and White House

but sure, it all sucks. lol

[Hortensis]

46. No, but shame on those who'd feel cheated at not getting handouts

from the public till.

My husband and I are and know retired people whose income is all or mostly from modest SocSec checks, and many of us agreed all along that we'd be okay with not being included. At one point I sort of assumed folk on SocSec wouldn't be.

We'll put it to good use, finish catching up our credit cards after our necessarily modest holiday spending, stimulate the local economy, but we didn't lose jobs and don't need and didn't ask for a handout.

I'm sure far more people feel as we do than that sorry lot you're imagining.

[liskddksil]

49. "Handouts", are you kidding me? These are survival checks. And $80,000 in many cities

is barely making ends meet, especially with cost of living increases this year.

[Hortensis]

65. Sorry, but a single person making $80K without savings, without

credit to borrow on, without even extravagant possessions to hock can move in with friends, rent a bedroom to friends, move into their cars, sell their cars, move back with their parents or grandparents, who can explain the lesson they should take from this.

A world that's normally weighted heavily in their favor has temporarily lost some of the "heavily" part of that. Oh, well. They'll still have themselves.

[liskddksil]

70. What world is weighted in anyone's favor right now? This is a pandemic! Plus millennials have never

recovered from the last recession and they are clearly being targeted by this change. Your world-view is quite interesting.

[Hortensis]

77. These days skilled people are their own production centers. Do you imagine

unskilled labor is living on $100K per year? Those who earn that are ambulatory money machines, accountants, dentists, production managers, logistics analysts, loan officers, attorneys. They'll be able to come around. So they have to sell their Manolos, relocate to a walkup in Elmhurst, trade down their leased cars for a while? Their future earning abilities are where they always were: in their heads.

There are limits to how much people should expect others to take care of them. Our first duty is always to take care of ourselves, then help others.

[PatSeg]

85. You know, I can't begin to imagine making $80,000

or $160,000 if I was married. And if I did, I can't imagine that $1400 would be a matter of life or death, food or starvation, shelter or homelessness. Meanwhile, there ARE people out there who desperately need that check. Holding up this bill any longer will hurt so many people, businesses, hospitals, and schools. I get the feeling that some people are trying to create more of controversy than actually exists in the real world. Sure feels like an overreaction.

[Hortensis]

102. Yes. Some beyond doubt.

Right now I'm suspecting shockingly unrealistic overreaction might be real in some few perniciously manipulated into believing all things were possible if we chose, only to have Biden and company prove they still just want to screw the nation over and keep children in poverty. Oh, well. Regrettable, but has to be their problem.

We're doing good after all. Every day's more of the giant to-do list hit.

[PatSeg]

106. Yes, this administration is off to a great start

and things are really looking hopeful right now. This particular issue will be forgotten in a few weeks. Not everyone will get everything they want, but clearly not everyone understands how government and legislating works. Of course, there are always some who will make a lot of noise no matter how things are going.

[qazplm135]

94. 1400 bucks

ain't changing that particular hypothetical reality. It barely makes a dent in it.

And you've provided no evidence that even the average person who is single and makes 80K or more a year is:

without savings
Has no meaningful possessions

1400 helps neither of those things.

1400 buys some things sure, and for that reason alone, for the stimulus value, it has merit and I certainly was in favor of it.

But the argument that those who make 80K to 100K are somehow just eking by (but apparently once you make 100K it's champagne and caviar?), sorry, not buying it. It's an arbitrary cutoff, just like 100K was, but no one was complaining about 100K too much because it seems like a big enough number and we love round numbers.

If you are talking 40-60? Yeah, 1400 can make a difference. It's a rent check for a lot of those people. Or a 2-3 months of car payments. Or a year of insurance or cable/internet. 80? Most people at 80 to 100 are not one paycheck away from oblivion. And if they are, then why stop at 100?

[Hortensis]

103. Well, this is also meant to be stimulus, and some dollars

shaved off the top won't keep it from stimulating. The more straightened the circumstances, likely the more of the stimulus will be spent locally.

You know, the point isn't all about the expenses higher earners tend to have. There's something also fucked up in just assuming the counter people who serve them should pay to keep them in residences they can't possibly afford, so they don't have to rent out their extra bedrooms to strangers or (gasp) down-scale to the kind of affordable rentals the service workers live in.

Most people do want to take care of themselves. One of the biggest problems has been uncertainty, lack of information about what's best to do. In the last year a lot of people would have finished up their leases, packed up, and moved back with family in Elko IF they'd had any idea how long this would last. They would have taken the empty unit in a favorite waitress's building. Instead, the Republicans were telling them it never started and kicked the "it'll be over by" can from holiday to holiday, opening and closing all year long.

[PatSeg]

105. If someone is making $80,000 (or $160,000 for a couple)

and they are eking by, then I think they need to reconsider their life choices. Like you said, I cannot see how $1400 would make a big difference to these people and it is possible it wouldn't even get spent, which is the purpose of a stimulus.

[MichMan]

82. Minimum wage should be $40 per hour because people making 80k are barely surviving

[betsuni]

92. +1

[lagomorph777]

23. Yup. The average voter is far more interested in their own pocketbook, than any

macroeconomic voodoo. Such voodoo has always been used to benefit billionaires and disadvantage the disadvantaged.

[liskddksil]

25. Yep, Republicans are already tearing into us for this

Link to tweet

Meanwhile, all we can do is mock how bad we are at negotioting.

Link to tweet

[qazplm135]

45. lol

no one cares what Marco freaking Rubio says. Republicans don't even care what he says.

[Autumn]

88. Guarantee it voters will care when they use this later when the 22 and 24 campaigns ramp up.

[qazplm135]

91. no

they won't. There are three and a half years of other things good and bad that will happen between now and then.

[Autumn]

96. They will use that and people will remember.

[qazplm135]

100. nah

right wingers will remember to try to use it as some sort of lame attack, and left wingers will remain to try to use it to attack Dems. The vast majority will look at the next three years and ultimately decide based on where they are economically, socially and safety wise when they walk into the voting booth.

But if you want to believe this dooms everything for Dems, feel free.

[bdamomma]

99. And I don't care

what GQP says. They have NO PLAN.

[Doremus]

72. This is the point that gets me. How stupid do we have to be to capitulate ANYTHING to them?

Is there some kind of rule that we can only negotiate downward from zero? We are patsies!!

[George II]

54. Nobody knows that. The proposal was just released an hour or two ago AND it's not final.

Has anyone, ANYONE, read the final bill yet?

[regnaD kciN]

34. A stimulus bill guaranteed to piss off anyone who gets cut off...

...because of our "compromises" with Manchin. Especially if, as noted above, they got relief from bills passed under Trump, but not this one under Biden.

This could seriously be enough to cost us both chambers of Congress in 2022.

[George II]

52. So positively comparing trump to Democrats is good?

[Cha]

57. "Moderates" are the Reason we Won

the House in 2018 and Saved Democracy!

Which some conveniently ignore.

[grantcart]

79. These moderates in States like WV and AZ are occupying a seat that has been red.

I like AOC but it's easy to be for everything when you sit in pure blue districts where the only issue is a primary.

[jorgevlorgan]

26. More helpful than Manchin and Sinema, that's for sure.

Also more helpful than any other democrat keeping their mouth shut about our side giving into the extremism of the right, and doing little to help people right now.

[Magoo48]

37. No, she's not.

She is extremely helpful, a cool breath of fresh air blowing through stuffy, stagnant doldrums of moderate, lethargic disconnect.

[Autumn]

87. She's more helpful and realistic than any other politician. If you think that this won't piss off

people you are wrong. This is a big deal and it will have blow back. Deny all you want but AOC has warned the party.

[JohnSJ]

4. What doesn't she understand? Let me make this simple, Manchin, and a couple of other

Democratic Senators. The implication that she seems to want to include Biden in the blame game, only demonstrates she has a naivety on how the Senate works when you only have a one vote tie breaker, and not every Senator is on the same page

[liskddksil]

5. Its not just Manchin sabotoging this. Jeanne Sheehan and other "moderates" wanted this change

which only puts our majority in peril 2022, when people who got Trump checks don't get Biden checks, and no longer consider the Democrats a viable voting option.

[mdelaguna]

13. There has gotta be a workaround ...

what do Bernie and AOC (who I agree with) suggest? Is there a back door way to help the excluded?

[liskddksil]

15. The only way is for the congressional progressives to announce they will not vote for

this in its current form, and force them back to the table.

[jorgevlorgan]

28. How possible do you think that is?

[liskddksil]

30. Unlikely but you never know nt

[jorgevlorgan]

31. I wonder if they will just take out the parts overruled by the parliamentarian

...from the original house bill they passed. Pass it again, and say "take it or leave it."

[jorgevlorgan]

33. ...and then any democrats voting to change it could be blamed for killing the bill

[leftstreet]

20. Some bold Dems need to threaten to vote it down

Everyone fixates on the revolving Manchins and Sinemas, etc refusing to go along unless the good stuff is removed, blah, blah, blah

Instead a handful of Dems need to threaten to refuse a vote until the good stuff is put back in

[JohnSJ]

18. Yes. That is why I referenced a generic couple of other Democratic Senators, also in my statement

This isn't on Biden though, this is on those Senators, and the reality there is very little that can be done unless we have more of a majority in the Senate.

As for your speculation that this puts our majority in peril in 2022, I don't agree. Those that voted for Biden in 2020, most of those folks will be voting for Democratic representatives in 2021. By representatives I am generically referring to both the Senate and House, though we are at more of a disadvantage in the House to redistricting. Anyone that is the way I see it.

There are more issues than just a one-time check. Unemployment Insurance extension is far more important, freeze on rent evictions, forbearance on mortgages, getting the pandemic under control, getting people back to work, etc.

[moonscape]

86. But they did not get 1400 under

Trump either, and not a single republican will vote for 1400 for anyone. The problem here is that we need to own the messaging.

[wellst0nev0ter]

8. Biden said he can unite Republicans

We're still waiting for him to unite the Manchins.

[leftstreet]

11. +1

[JohnSJ]

22. He said he would try, but that ended the moment they countered with a 600 billion package

Manchin doesn't care. He isn't up for re-election, and he likes the power he has right now. The best way to deal with that is get a larger majority in the Senate, because Manchin is not going to change

[George II]

67. Could anyone do a better job as President than Biden? Why the immediate negative connotation?

[wellst0nev0ter]

76. If Biden had better coattails during the election, we wouldn't be having this conversation

[PatSeg]

84. I honestly can't imagine any president doing a better job than Biden

I've never seen anything like it in my lifetime, though I suppose it might be compared to FDR's first 100 days.

If he had a magic wand, he could get more, but the expectations of some are unrealistic and totally unfair. Our opponents are probably enjoying all this inexplicable outrage.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

114. It's about what he said he'd do.

People here were certain that Biden was better than anyone else because he could get the bipartisan work done and the Republicans would just fight against anything anyone more left than Biden wanted to do. But, hey, surprise, he's not getting the bipartisan work done. And if you don't think he inability to get things done (you know, like his promise that if Georgia senate seats went blue the $2000 would be in the mail) isn't going to be brought up ad nauseam, you're fooling yourself.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

14. Pity she isn't in the Senate to vote against it nt

[treestar]

27. Why not call out the Republicans?

They are causing it.

[liskddksil]

29. No, the Democrats are the ones who negotiated this change. Republicans are already

using this against us.

Link to tweet

[OriginalGeek]

39. I sure wish I was that not rich.

But at least we'll get checks.

[treestar]

40. The Rubio statements doesn't even make sense

At any rate, if the Rs won't go along, that's on them.

[qazplm135]

47. just so I'm clear

the dividing line between rich and not rich is 160K v 200K for a couple?

What's the science on that one?

[George II]

59. Oh so now even Marco Rubio is better than our Democrats? By the way, do you even know what....

....the actual "change" is? I don't think anyone really does yet.

[liskddksil]

60. I'm just commenting on what's reported now in case its not to late to make things right nt

[PatSeg]

89. Marco Rubio's opinion is hardly relevant

here and $160,000 is a hell of a lot of money almost anywhere in the United States. Why are you even posting that? No one at Democratic Underground cares what Marco Rubio's thoughts on the stimulus checks are. He will criticize the bill regardless of what is in it.

[Celerity]

95. 160K, once income tax at state and federal levels, property taxes,

medical insurance/pharma/healthcare costs, childcare care costs, utilities/transportation costs, mortgage costs food, and if applicable, student loan costs for multiple people is HARDLY a hell of a lot of money for MANY families of 4 or 5 living in a large metro area, especially on the coasts.

ludicrous to claim that it is

If you live in NJ and are a family of 4 with 2 minors, for example, and own your own house, just income tax at all levels, property tax (insane rates there) healthcare total costs (and thta is assuming no catastrophic conditions), and an average mortage wipes out around 100K or so of that 160K, more than likely.

That still leaves student loans (will likely be a large combined payment per month at that AGI), utilities, all transportation costs (including fuel and likely car payments), all childcare costs, dental, food, clothing, etc etc. All that is coming out of the 50, 60K. Oh, and I left out any retirement savings as well.

Plus.. COVID has likely taken a chunk out of their collective balance sheet.

Yes! That family is just swimming in your 'helll of a lot of money'.. NOT

[PatSeg]

104. Only 8% of American households

make between $150,000 and $200,000 a year. To the vast majority of Americans, that is considered affluent and they would be viewed as a privileged minority. $160,000 can hardly be viewed as struggling middle class when 80% of American households are making less. Maybe it is not as well off as some people believe, but it is more than many people could ever dream of and for those people $1400 could be what keeps a family from ending up homeless.

[Celerity]

107. Now you are moving the goalposts. I stand 100% behind my analysis and I

Last edited Thu Mar 4, 2021, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)

am done here, sorry. 17 million people are arsed out now in terms of COVID cheques thanks to Manchin, Shaheen, and Sinema's little stunt. 12 or so million of those are old enough to be voters, the remainder are children of those voters. The entire cost of just keeping the cutoffs the same as the Rump cheques is only 12 billion usd, a drop in the bucket.

This is a completely self-inflicted wound. My cousin im Los Angeles is just furious. I finally talked her into voting for the first time (she is extraordinarily non political, hates it, her go is 'they all lies, they all never do what they say they will do') She is going from what would have been (under the old formula) 1150 usd to now getting zero, and she just got her hours slashed dramatically at her firm for the next two months. I probably have lost her for good as a voter. Thank fuck she is in a deep blue district in a deep bkue state. Many of those 17 million people are not.

You seem to have no clue how expensive life is nowadays in a major US metropolis.

[PatSeg]

110. Actually I do know

and that is also why I cannot see how $1400 would make a big difference to most of these people.

I understand there are going to be different opinions on this and I appreciate your point of view. I also know that not everyone will get what they want. I am very unhappy with the Democrats who have opposed the bill, but I also knew it wouldn't be easy. Manchin and Sinema are going to be a thorn in our side until we can get a larger majority in the senate. I honestly don't know what happened with Shaheen who is one of my senators. I'm trying to find out right now.

Sorry, I really wasn't trying to pick a fight.

[Celerity]

111. I do not want to fight either. I just think this was a self-inflicted wound that certainly doesn't

help us in 2022 and 2024. The same can likely be said of other blockages to come.

again sorry if I came across too aggressively

Hugz,

Cel

[PatSeg]

112. I think we are still going through withdrawal

after the last four years of outrage 24/7. Its nice to be able to debate about real substantive issues for a change, rather than anticipating the demise of civilization. I think I can live with these kinds of disagreements.

[Celerity]

121. I forgot to ask, you're in NH, what are the odds (given our shit record in first midterms for Dem

POTUS's, in 1994 and 2010 especially) that Sununu beats Hassan in 2022 if he runs? IF he doesn't run, who would be the worst (in terms of losing to) that could/would run against her?

NH, GA (Warnock), NV (especially if Sandoval runs v Cortez Masto), and AZ with Kelly (dodged a bullet with Ducey refusing to run) are the most 'at risk' Dem Senate races in 2022

Wild card is if Leahy retires and the very popular (he won re-election by 41%) Rethug Governor Phil Scott runs, it might be a dogfight

[PatSeg]

122. Honestly, I was surprised that Sununu

won reelection as governor. Perhaps his Democratic opponent was not a strong enough candidate, plus he seemed to handle the pandemic well. I think Hassan is pretty popular here, but being I am not originally from New Hampshire, I don't always have a feel for the politics. It is a pretty odd mix of voters.

Both Hassan and Shaheen have been governor and are well liked, but there is also a very right-wing element here, the "Live Free or Die" folks. I just don't know how much of the electorate they represent.

[Celerity]

123. the Rethugs flipped both the NH House and Senate to give them their 23rd state trifecta

it has me really worried for 2022



https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas




https://ballotpedia.org/Veto_overrides_in_state_legislatures

[PatSeg]

124. It is funny how many states elect Democrats

to national office, but are ruled at home by republicans. Too many voters don't pay close attention to state and local races and often regret it later.

[Celerity]

125. it so fucks us in terms of gerrymandering at state and federal levels and running elections as well

[Tommymac]

32. AOC is an asset to The Democratic Party. Glad We have her.

We could use more like her.

[liskddksil]

63. Nope nt

[George II]

68. Read her tweet again, please. Thanks.

[George II]

50. Why is it acceptable to "call out Democrats" especially when they're praising trump in the process?

[George II]

55. The number of people not getting a check is virtually zero, this is a proposal to scale down....

....the amount of the checks starting at the HIGH END of income earners.

Even so, it is acceptable to praise trump over our Democrats in the process? Surely a more sensible and less offensive analogy could be presented.

[liskddksil]

58. Where did I praise Trump? I'm just doing math

Voter in suburban Georgia district we need on our side to keep our majorities in 2022, who misses the cut off this time and was promised $2,000 when they went to vote in January

$600 Trump check
$0 Biden check
----
Not $2000

Who do you think they're going to blame?

[George II]

61. The subject of your OP is saying trump is better than our Democrats.

[liskddksil]

62. I don't think it is nt

[ChubbyStar]

69. You are correct it isn't

[jcgoldie]

93. Thats not at what it says even remotely

Come on.

[Autumn]

97. No it isn't. Not even close George.

[dansolo]

119. Your math is wrong

The people affected by this did not get a $600 "Trump" check. Above $75000/$150000 the amount was reduced down to where it became 0 at $100000/$200000. Anyone who got the full $600 will be eligible to receive the full $1400 in this package.

[aikoaiko]

51. AOC is right about this.

Joe needs to get this done.

[Traildogbob]

64. Simple solution.

Send zero checks to constituents of Ron Johnson and those opposed to helping anyone. They get their way, money is saved and elections will have consequences.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

115. So all of Wisconsin gets zero checks?

That's a winning strategy right there.

[Traildogbob]

116. Just registered republicans.

They voted for them to do as they are doing. Over 85 percent completely agree. Elections have consequences. There words!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

117. We don't register here, so...

[Traildogbob]

118. If all the

Republicans that vote for the Johnsons, Cawthorns, Cruz’s, Hawleys and GYM Jordan’s, call and “demand” the support relief for other than billionaires or they are gone, that would be a start. States with huge majority republicans have the power to force action. The problem is most agree with Russian Ron and love he owns the libs, even to their own detriment.

[Traildogbob]

120. Look, realistically

There are no easy fixes for this situation. I live in a state that gave us Tillis, Cawthorn, Burr and Meadows for gods sake. West of Asheville, a blue paradise, but step a foot outside city limits, it is Scarlett blood red. Poor as hell, and damn sure needs help. But all bow to Trump and those fools they put in. My county just told us property taxes will be raised 30-50 percent this year after the re-eval. That is based on new homes. Those homes are Florida seasonal multimillion fall or play houses that exploded after The Trump tax giveaway gave cash out the ass to the extremely wealthy and this is where the invested.
We have been told by judges that we are no longer considered a Democracy because of Gerry mandering and vote suppression. Yet these fools will blame Biden and vote all red 2022 and vote Trump 2024.
Fixing this deep stupid will take a decades.
But we can’t help most people with $1,400 of THIER taxes.
Most of these million dollar play house folks, pay less taxes than these lower middle class people voting for this crap.
Wish you best, hope the Dems get the minimal help to us, even the fools.

[electric_blue68]

71. Maybe she could have said it differently but I agree...

that not sending checks to everyone who got one is not good.

They could do that for a third one possibly after having a press conference explaining why. OTOH maybe even a third one should stay the same. Not completely sure.

I just know that we have to hold on to The Senate, and The House if at all possible in 2022!!!

Everytime the Repuglicans run up the deficit by either running it up directly, or indirectly by lowering taxes us Dems get "stuck" with the outcome. 😐

We should NOT be bullied by The Rethuglicans bullshit!
😠😠😠


And I did call my Senator - Sen Schumer. 👍

[mcar]

80. Who's she rescuing?

[liskddksil]

81. Unlikely she can stop the train at this point, but 12 million people who should be

getting checks, many in cities with higher cost of living, will not because of the change today.

[budkin]

90. She's right... there was absolutely no reason to do this

Totally unforced error.

[Celerity]

109. yes, yes it is

[betsuni]

101. Tweet threads blaming Biden/Democrats because zero Republican votes

and just 60 Senate votes making compromise inevitable, as it was with the ACA. Why blame Democrats for Republican obstruction?

I don't understand AOC's statement.

[BusyBeingBest]

108. If it's a stimulus payment, give it to as many people as fiscally possible.

Don't care if the truly wealthy get it, there aren't enough of them to matter. Hopefully they'll donate it.

[lame54]

113. Plus those who are still making money...

Are spending it on those who aren't