Sen. Bernie Sanders opposes cutting the income cap for $1,400 stimulus checks

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: CNBC

Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that he opposes cutting the income threshold for receiving $1,400 direct payments in the next coronavirus relief bill, underscoring a split Democrats will need to resolve before they can pass the $1.9 trillion package.

The caucus' most conservative member in Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., has raised concerns that stimulus checks as currently targeted would go to too many high-income people who did not lose their jobs during the pandemic. President Joe Biden has said he is open to negotiating eligibility for payments, which as proposed would go in full to individuals making up to $75,000 and couples earning up to $150,000.

Sanders, a Vermont independent and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and some colleagues have argued Democrats should not lower the income cap. Eligibility for checks has emerged as the main sticking point within the party as it tries to pass a rescue package without Republican votes in the Senate.

A single defection would sink the bill.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen-bernie-sanders-opposes-cutting-the-income-cap-for-dollar1400-stimulus-checks/ar-BB1dtjPl?li=BBnb7Kz

[Uncle Joe]

1. I believe 75,000 to be the sweet spot

The average U.S. household income is $87,864, and the median is $61,937. Asian households have the highest median income -- $87,243 -- among all other races. Women earn a median income of $42,238 while men earn $52,004. Householders aged 45 to 54 have the highest median income among all age groups at $84,464.Feb 18, 2020

Thanks for the thread Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

[George II]

12. It's not $75,000 it's for each adult. The total for a married couple is $150,000. Lowering it....

...to $100,000 and $50,000 would still be above that "sweet spot". And I believe there's an additional $300 per child (there was in the first payment last spring), but not sure about this one.

We received $2400 in April and $1200 in early January.

[oldsoftie]

19. I havent heard any mention of extra money for kids in this bill

I'm afraid they're scared to try to send it just to those who need it because they know government is likely to either screw it up or take forever to figure it out

[Uncle Joe]

20. If that's your primary concern then I believe a better way to do it would be

75,000 for each individual but 50,000 each for a married couple.

[SunSeeker]

2. We need to stop negotiating against ourselves. This is nuts.

[DENVERPOPS]

15. Could not agree more SunSeeker

A lot of times, we are our own worst enemy, and we end up shooting ourselves in our foot........

[marble falls]

3. Once again, Bernie is on the ball looking out for us. My dad just does not need it, but we do.

[My Pet Orangutan]

4. In this instance he is right

An explicit premise was made to top up the $600 checks to $2000. Changing the income thresholds, so that some who got $600 first time round would get nothing or next to nothing more, breaks that promise.

It's 'read my lips, no new taxes' grade stupid.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215065076

[msongs]

5. what campaing promises did biden make about who gets stimulus checks? nt

[dsc]

18. Actually it is a clear promise that those who got the 600 would get the 1400

since the total of 2000 is mentioned. I know I will consider it a broken promise if I don't get one, though I will not be basing my vote on it nor am I hurting. But it would clearly be a broken promise and I think people who need those checks but don't get them will likely have a different attitude about it than I do in terms of the extent to which it matters in terms of their vote.

[yardwork]

6. Sanders is right. Biden needs to keep the campaign promise and give everyone $2,000.

Anything less is a bad political mistake.

[not fooled]

7. Yep

Last edited Sun Feb 7, 2021, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

and there are several significant points that rarely get mentioned in press coverage (Thom Hartmann has discussed these recently on his show):

1. It will take time and reviewing projected income for 2020 to figure out who crosses the threshold, which works against the goal of getting aid to people ASAP. The efficient way to implement an income threshold would be to pay out now, then recover from higher incomes after tax returns have been filed and actual income known.

2. The number of people who exceed a threshold will not be large, and so what if they get some extra money--many of these are the same people who benefited from red don's tax scam, yet the GOPee and misguided Dems going along aren't talking about those people. It's possible the cost of determining who meets income levels would EXCEED the amount of money going to people over the threshold.

3. Means testing is a well-used scam by pukes and conservidems to turn assistance into easily demonized "welfare." Once a threshold for aid has been established, the program is subject to cuts, block granting, and successive diminution, i.e. make the eligible pool smaller and smaller. That's why pukes are desperate to means-test Social Security.

4. Most if not all major industrialized countries are supporting their citizens to a much higher degree, with monthly payments. These countries are not seeing the devastation and mass suffering apparent in this country, with huge food lines, high unemployment, loss of healthcare DURING A PANDEMIC, and closing of many businesses. Once again, Americans' ignorance of the rest of the world and belief in American Exceptionalism work to their detriment.

This morning, in disgust I turned Jonathan Capehart's show off after he had a segment on this matter with zero mention of the above vital aspects, or really any pushback against the idea that establishing a threshold is a good idea.

[airplaneman]

8. Good post - I agree with your points. n/t.

[yardwork]

16. All good points.

[oldsoftie]

22. I'm still very much in favor of SS means testing to prolong the funds.

Along with doing away with the cap. Which should've been done LONG ago!
A means test doesnt give anyone anymore ability to make additional cuts than they have now. It all still has to be voted on. There's no reason for the top 10% to get a SS check every month. Or at least cut them off after they've gotten back what they paid. in. They already have to pay more for Medicare if their income is over a certain amount

We give people money who dont need it. We dont tax nearly all earned income because we have a ridiculous income tax system that doesnt tax 1/2 the people. And we'll keep going deeper in debt because of it.

[not fooled]

24. The problem is

that once you let pukes means test, expect to see successive lowering of the threshold as to who qualifies. That's why it's dangerous. Plus, to reiterate, you've then turned it into a form of "welfare" that only the poorer qualify for. And we know the fate of those programs, which are relentlessly demonized and cut. Again, we are not dealing with an opposition who approaches Social Security in good faith, but who rather has always hated it and is hell-bent upon achieving its destruction. I would much rather see Charles Koch continue to get Social Security than let pukes start means testing it.

There are better ways to bolster the trust fund, which is in far better shape than as portrayed by decades of radical RW SS-hater propaganda.

[oldsoftie]

25. It cant successfully be called a welfare program when we all pay into it.

Set a sliding scale & index it to inflation. Its always been the "3rd rail" of politics as it is; trying to drop it below what 99% would consider "wealthy" would get old republicans on the phone just as well as democrats. Hell, thats why nothing gets done NOW.

[not fooled]

27. You are correct

it's not welfare, but start implementing means testing and the very fact that lower income earners get it will start the idea that it is something that benefits lower income folks, i.e. in some sense a form of welfare. Also, note how pukes have moved to suppress (steal) the votes of Social Security voters, by requiring drivers licenses etc. that old voters might no longer have. They don't want old folks voting to preserve Social Security.

And, the decades of relentless propagandizing against Social Security's viability have inflicted damage among younger voters, many of whom have been conned into believing it will not be there when they retire (getting the marks to buy into the con).

[oldsoftie]

31. I dont know about other states, but in GA its easy to have an ID if you dont drive.

When my mom quit driving she was issued a state ID that really looks just like the license. It was very simple. Heck, just accept a Medicare ID as proof. Every senior has one of those! Besides, seniors have always been considered a more GOP vote I dont know why they would want to stop them. Seems more likely they'd want the younger ones to not vote.
We cant just start increasing the withholding; nobody will like that. But most would go along with not giving full payments to someone making 400k a year. Plus doing away with the cap. Its going to go broke otherwise.

[roamer65]

11. Definitely yes.

[George II]

13. His campaign promise, in late December, was $2000. Everyone got $600 in January.....

....after the promise. An additional $1400 would fulfill that promise.

[JoeOtterbein]

9. K n R ! Thanks for posting! nt

[PoliticAverse]

10. "A single defection would sink the bill." - pass the $1,400 as a separate bill and it might

Last edited Sun Feb 7, 2021, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)

get Republican votes.

[FBaggins]

21. It would probably get most of the republicans - but that's the problem

The remaining parts of the bill have less support and would be easier to oppose without the part that even Trump was pushing just a few weeks ago.

[oldsoftie]

23. I agree; do a standalone bill "for the people". It'd get 60+ easily I believe nt

[George II]

14. If the level is lowered to $50,000 and $100,000 would he vote against it?

[CaptainTruth]

17. I say don't lower the income criteria. Everyone who got a check last time should get one this time.

[helpisontheway]

26. The main thing is Biden promised people the $2,000.

It will backfire if he now tells people that qualified before that they can’t get it this time.

[George II]

30. He promised people $2000 in late December. The first $600 went out in early January....

....meaning $1400.

Even Sanders yesterday agreed on CNN that the $2000 includes that first $600.

Link to tweet

[helpisontheway]

32. I agree with the amount. However, if he changes the maximum that a household

could make to qualify them a lot of people will not get the additional $1,400.

[shawn703]

28. Capping it at $50,000 punishes people for being middle class in a blue state

Hardly a good look to screw over a bunch of your constituents to bring a couple red state senators on board.

[pfitz59]

29. I earn more than $50K, and less than $75

but live in a very expensive city. My income looks like $30k after factoring in cost of living. $75K in some cities barely covers a studio in the bad part of town..

[obamanut2012]

33. same

I have to have a roommate in a meh apartment, drive a 10-year-old car, need dental work done I can't afford, and going out to eat, even to Five Guys, is a once a month thing. Vacations? lolz