What are your thoughts on the Government Stimulus Checks?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Ailaena said:

What does that mean?  I DO have to have made a certain amount of money?  Or less than some amount? What if I didn’t make it then but do now? Or did then but now don’t?  What about new kids?  Deaths?  

My point is that there’s no way it will make sense in the short amount of time needed for the money to do any good for the many of the people that need it most.  Like, people who actually need it to pay rent next month.   

YES! This is what has messed up our FAFSA for years. We made a bunch of money a few years ago from selling houses and lots. But not this year. 

We are dependent on people paying their rent for part of our income. But people who rent are most often those without big cash reserves and who work in service industries. One tenant works in an ice cream shop. Is he getting any income right now? I highly doubt it...

[Farrar]

I’d rather they targeted the money better. I especially liked the idea of raising SS payments a little over a long period, for example. And outright forgiving a large chunk of student debt. 
 

I’m furious that we will receive this money (at least, I’m pretty sure - we file jointly - dh is over the maximum but together we’re under) and poor folks will not. Furious. Romney’s original proposal was to give it to everyone because that was much easier than figuring out who should get it. And the first version capped it, which, okay, and then McConnell excluded poor folks, which is horrifying. It makes me livid.

Because we’re nearly positive (no one can be completely sure in this environment) that our income is secure, we have already decided to give it away. Probably half to food banks/soup kitchens locally and half to hard hit arts organizations locally. I was just thinking I might let the kids decide where to donate their $500 themselves.

[Farrar]

You know what else would help more? Pay for everyone’s CV19 treatment. I read an article where a woman already got a $30k+ bill.

[J-rap]

I don't have strong feelings either way.  I don't see this as a real solution, of course, but more as a quick action to help people out a little bit and keep money circulating.  For some people, I imagine it will be a very big help.  I'm not sure if we'll be getting one or not -- we're in a very unusual category.  But if we do get one, we'll be put putting it directly back into our local community.

[maize]

The government is going to be bleeding money to try to hold the economy together through this thing one way or another.

For once, I'd like to see some of those funds going to regular folks and not just mega corporations.

Just propping businesses up isn't gonna work because we need people to stay home, not go travel, not go work, not go buy. 

Funding we the people so we the people can keep staying home until a real economic recovery is possible seems smart.

Edited March 21, 2020 by maize

[maize]

And no I'm not happy about the national debt load, but this administration has shown zero inclination to limit national debt. It didn't act to limit debt when the economy was roaring. 

I'm not going to say let families suffer so we can limit debt now, after policies that have let lots of folks suffer and increased debt so rich folks could get richer.

Edited March 21, 2020 by maize

[SamanthaCarter]

I am not happy about the stimulus checks. I think all of that money needs to be funneled into state unemployment commissions, and the states can determine if and how to increase benefits. They are better tasked for it.

With deferrals on mortgages, evictions, utilities, and student loans, free school lunches, those things should buy people enough time to get benefits flowing into the household. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by SamanthaCarter

[SamanthaCarter]

I guess I won’t get it based on what you ladies are saying. That’s good that I won’t have a personal moral dilemma over it. We had $0 tax liability in 2018. Worst income year in well over a decade for us. 

[Farrar]

I wish that they’d regulate the corporate welfare more. This money is a drop in the bucket. Ban stock buybacks and bonuses for these companies and enforce shareholder voting.

[SereneHome]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I agree, but I am using the term facetiously .

Distributing $1K checks to the public to the tune of $1 trillion is exactly the sort of social welfare system Republicans would vehemently oppose. If a Democrat was in office right now and this same exact situation were happening, the Republicans would lose their minds! 

 

I don't know who was or was not loosing their minds, but that's exactly what happened under Obama. People got checks. It didn't help the unemployed or the whole recession.

[SereneHome]

Whoever suggested funneling to unemployment has the right idea. 

another thing to consider - with stock market crashing, I am sure there will be people who were going to retire this / next year but now might have to reconsider.  That is another area where govt should be addressing....

[mommyoffive]

30 minutes ago, SamanthaCarter said:

I guess I won’t get it based on what you ladies are saying. That’s good that I won’t have a personal moral dilemma over it. We had $0 tax liability in 2018. Worst income year in well over a decade for us. 

 

Where are you reading this from?  I haven't seen anything about that, only income restrictions. 

 

Never mind.  I found something on it.   It keeps changing all the time I read something on it.   If it passes, who knows what form it will be.   Not every article that I have read has that lower amount for people with $0 tax liability.  Honestly this is the first article that I have seen it in. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/see-who-s-eligible-coronavirus-checks-senate-gop-releases-details-n1164311

 

 

Under the plan, the details of which were revealed on the Senate floor by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., individuals making up to $75,000 annually would be eligible for a $1,200 check from the federal government.

 

The cash would be delivered in a one-time payment. President Donald Trump and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin had in recent days pushed for Americans to get two payments.

Married couples who file their taxes jointly would have to make less than $150,000 to qualify for their payment, which would be $2,400.

From there, according to McConnell's proposal, the payments would decrease. For individuals, the sum of the payment would fall by $5 for each $100 earned over $75,000.

The payment would phase out entirely for individuals making more than $99,000 annually, meaning people who make more than that would not get any money from the government, according to the proposal.

For married couples earning more than $150,000, the payment would also decline gradually, and it would phase out completely for couples making more than $198,000, according to the plan.

The checks, however, would reduce to $600 (or $1,200 for married couples) for taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability but have at least $2,500 in qualifying income, according to a GOP summary of the plan.

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by mommyoffive

[EmseB]

4 hours ago, Quill said:

I agree, but I am using the term facetiously .

Distributing $1K checks to the public to the tune of $1 trillion is exactly the sort of social welfare system Republicans would vehemently oppose. If a Democrat was in office right now and this same exact situation were happening, the Republicans would lose their minds! 

 

I don't  know, I think got a stimulus check in the early 2000s when Bush was president. I didn't follow politics then, so maybe Republicans were losing their minds about it.

[Farrar]

Yeah, I’m not sure what individual checks people got under Obama. There was a big corporate bailout after the 2008 crisis. Bush gave the last lump payments I know of - checks that were part of the budget surplus.

[Bootsie]

IMO a one-time measure of someone's income two years ago, or whether someone becomes unemployed in this situation, is really not a good indication of who might face severe economic hardship from this.  I know a significant number of people who are not even living in the same household that they were living in during 2018.  Students who were in college in 2018, have a new job (and haven't had a chance to accumulate significant savings) could be hard hit but not have been a household with income in 2018.  People marry, divorce, have more kids, die, and that doesn't even begin to account for significant differences in income in different time periods for some people.  

Other people, like my mom, rely on a state pension, which will probably not be impacted, and her expenses probably would not be impacted.  But because of her low retirement income, she would qualify for the maximum benefit under most of these plans.  Other senior citizens who have defined contribution retirement plans may be very hard hit by the stock market downturn.  Some people are seeing a significant reduction in income without becoming "unemployed".

[lynn]

Isn't this more of a relief aid for those who need immediate funds vs economic stimulus?  Are they not trying to get families immediate relief for sudden unemployment they are facing?

Edited March 21, 2020 by lynn

[Guest]

3 hours ago, SereneHome said:

I don't know who was or was not loosing their minds, but that's exactly what happened under Obama. People got checks. It didn't help the unemployed or the whole recession.

I don’t remember Obama sending out checks. (Not saying he didn’t; just that I don’t remember it.) 

I remember Bush’s checks. And the Republicans were not losing their minds over that, either. (I was a Republican at the time.) 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

I don't  know, I think got a stimulus check in the early 2000s when Bush was president. I didn't follow politics then, so maybe Republicans were losing their minds about it.

Republicans were perfectly content with Bush’s checks. The rhetoric was “It’s a surplus, so the money goes to the American people.” 

[Alte Veste Academy]

5 hours ago, Farrar said:

...then McConnell excluded poor folks, which is horrifying.

I feel exactly the same. It is reprehensible to me to be paying money out without regard to need and exclude or reduce the amount for those who obviously need it the most. I am disgusted.

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

Yeah, I’m not sure what individual checks people got under Obama. There was a big corporate bailout after the 2008 crisis. Bush gave the last lump payments I know of - checks that were part of the budget surplus.

Yes, I remember a check from Bush. Don’t know where people are getting Obama giving us money.

My retired, Republican parents, each collecting social security, with healthy military and civil service retirements and  Tricare for Life and Medicare are eagerly looking forward to a $2400 payout that they do not need. The hypocrisy of their opinions is mind numbing. My sister, working OT at a minimum wage job which she will probably be laid off from soon due to COVID-19 will get little to nothing. My parents don’t have a comment on that. Just waiting for their government handouts like a couple of people who don’t always complain about Democrats always wanting to dole out government handouts. 🙄

We will get nothing, but if I did, I’d give it to my sister or a food bank or someone who had actually been confirmed to need it.

ETA: The Bush checks came out in 2008. Maybe that is why people are thinking Obama? He didn’t take office until Jan 09.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Alte Veste Academy

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, SereneHome said:

I don't know who was or was not loosing their minds, but that's exactly what happened under Obama. People got checks. It didn't help the unemployed or the whole recession.

 

Sorry, that is demonstrably false. We were headed for depression and the stimulus money extended unemployment benefits for millions, myself included, during one of our many PCS moves. The free-fall was not only halted, it was reversed with a nearly 10 year run of economic growth that followed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/17/obamas-2009-recovery-act-kicked-off-over-10-years-of-economic-growth/#1fabdb0968b7 Stimulus works.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Sneezyone

[TechWife]

I think it would be better to spend the money to increase funding to existing programs that are going to get slammed: SNAP, Medicaid, Unemployment. In addition, they need to spend it on paying for covid-19 related needs in the medical setting, including any infrastructure, supply, rural health care and increased personnel costs.

[EmseB]

11 minutes ago, Quill said:

Republicans were perfectly content with Bush’s checks. The rhetoric was “It’s a surplus, so the money goes to the American people.” 

Right. My example was to say they've done it in the past so it's not like they vehemently oppose it. My experience is that politicians of all stripes like giving people cash as far as is legal because people like getting cash. Like, in times of crisis it's something everyone tends to get behind because they think it gets them votes.

I definitely vehemently oppose it, but I'm an evil person who thinks we should just let people die, so, grain of salt and all that.

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, lynn said:

Isn't this more of a relief aid for those who need immediate funds vs economic stimulus?  Are they not trying to get families immediate relief for sudden unemployment they are facing?

 

It's both. Democrats are negotiating improvements to unemployment compensation (as they did in the 2008 package) coupled with Republican efforts to dole out money in lump sum payments. There are also bipartisan efforts to shore up corporations with an effort by some members to impose restrictions on those who accept aid (like keeping people employed and raising the wage floor and adding rank and file employees to boards of directors).

Edited March 21, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I think it would be better to spend the money to increase funding to existing programs that are going to get slammed: SNAP, Medicaid, Unemployment. In addition, they need to spend it on paying for covid-19 related needs in the medical setting, including any infrastructure, supply, rural health care and increased personnel costs.

 

All of that is included in the updated package.

[Alte Veste Academy]

6 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I think it would be better to spend the money to increase funding to existing programs that are going to get slammed: SNAP, Medicaid, Unemployment. In addition, they need to spend it on paying for covid-19 related needs in the medical setting, including any infrastructure, supply, rural health care and increased personnel costs.

100%

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Right. My example was to say they've done it in the past so it's not like they vehemently oppose it. My experience is that politicians of all stripes like giving people cash as far as is legal because people like getting cash. Like, in times of crisis it's something everyone tends to get behind because they think it gets them votes.

I definitely vehemently oppose it, but I'm an evil person who thinks we should just let people die, so, grain of salt and all that.

Yes, I get that. What I was inelegantly saying is there’s so much hypocrisy it makes my ears steam. The same people who think UBI is an absolutely horrible “nanny state” welfare waste don’t see that this is the identical thing, only sporadic instead of consistent like an income. 

I grant you I am more bothered than many by inconsistent rhetoric. 

I *know* most Republicans will not be opposed to it, vehemently or otherwise. 

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

I don’t remember Obama sending out checks. (Not saying he didn’t; just that I don’t remember it.) 

I remember Bush’s checks. And the Republicans were not losing their minds over that, either. (I was a Republican at the time.) 

Yeah, I remember bc 1) I got laid off bc I worked for a mortgage company and 2) we just moved and 3) my oldest was born and people were ecstatic and I just kept shaking my head bc....well, like I said in my other post - it doesn't solve anything. And it didn't. And it won't now. 😞  i wish it did solve things, but I don't believe it will

I don't remember Bush's checks -  which Bush?

[maize]

I will be upset if a final version of this sends less money to those with lower income. I will never understand how some people's sense of fairness thinks it is right to give less to those who already have less.

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Sorry, that is demonstrably false. We were headed for depression and the stimulus money extended unemployment benefits for millions, myself included, during one of our many PCS moves. The free-fall was not only halted, it was reversed with a nearly 10 year run of economic growth that followed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/17/obamas-2009-recovery-act-kicked-off-over-10-years-of-economic-growth/#1fabdb0968b7 Stimulus works.

First of all, I wasn't talking about unemployment money, i was talking about people actually getting cash. I *think* we got $800 twice.

Second of all, it didn't help unemployment at all as rates kept climbing and many argued that people, knowing that they can get UE for 99 wks weren't looking for jobs and and that was not helping economy.

I can not intelligently argue about economics bc I almost failed it in college, twice. I can, however, say that economy took a looooong time to recover. I am not saying it was bc we got those $800 checks, simply that it really didn't help. And i don't think it will help now.

And also, this situation is completely different. But I think one thing is same - just sending cash to people is not the answer

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Yeah, I remember bc 1) I got laid off bc I worked for a mortgage company and 2) we just moved and 3) my oldest was born and people were ecstatic and I just kept shaking my head bc....well, like I said in my other post - it doesn't solve anything. And it didn't. And it won't now. 😞  i wish it did solve things, but I don't believe it will

I don't remember Bush's checks -  which Bush?

Bush the younger. As a couple of posters pointed out, this was in 2008, while Bush was still in office. I couldn’t have said what year it was but I 100% remember it being Bush. I remember his face on TV with his characteristic half-grin and him saying, “A surplus is money Americans overpaid. It belongs to the American people. “ 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Quill
Hoping to save a kitten.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

First of all, I wasn't talking about unemployment money, i was talking about people actually getting cash. I *think* we got $800 twice.

Second of all, it didn't help unemployment at all as rates kept climbing and many argued that people, knowing that they can get UE for 99 wks weren't looking for jobs and and that was not helping economy.

I can not intelligently argue about economics bc I almost failed it in college, twice. I can, however, say that economy took a looooong time to recover. I am not saying it was bc we got those $800 checks, simply that it really didn't help. And i don't think it will help now.

And also, this situation is completely different. But I think one thing is same - just sending cash to people is not the answer

 

Sorry, again, you're just plain wrong. Unemployment rates began to gradually improve almost immediately after the stimulus package was implemented and continued to do so. It may not have rebounded as fast as folks would have liked but the proof is in the pudding. We had more than 10 straight years of economic growth, lost only over the last month. This situation is different in terms of orders of magnitude. It's different in terms of the kinds of stresses people face (jobs are there but people are not allowed to do them to protect the health of all). The solutions may also be slightly different and include more conditions because (with luck) we learned from what worked and didn't work the last time. Still, there is ZERO doubt that targeted stimulus under these kinds of severe conditions works. It's been proven, repeatedly, in our history. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Arcadia]

14 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

 

I don't remember Bush's checks -  which Bush?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/politics/coronavirus-federal-stimulus-payments/index.html

“Rebates in 2001 and 2008

 

Bush opted to provide this type of stimulus in 2001and sent even larger checks in 2008, as the Great Recession bore down on the nation. Roughly 130 million households received tax rebates in the latter effort, with single Americans getting up to $600 and couples up to $1,200, at a cost of about $100 billion. Certain parents received $300 for each minor child. The rebate phased out at higher income levels.

And Americans did spend that money, said Claudia Sahm, director of macroeconomic policy for the left-leaning Washington Center for Equitable Growth and a former Federal Reserve economist. Research shows that individuals spent 50% to 90% of 2008 rebate within three months.”

[SereneHome]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

Bush the younger. As a couple of posters pointed out, this was in 2008, while Bush was still in office. I couldn’t have said what year it was but I 100% remember it being Bush. I remember his face on TV with his characteristic half-grin and him saying, “A surplus is money Americans overpaid. It belongs to the American people. “ 

I thought it was part of Obama's stimulus package...now I have to look it up! 🙂

OK, we got a $700 check in July 2008 - I just looked through my budget files

I was wrong!  I fully admit it!

[Arcadia]

We won’t qualify for any but I do think the checks would be a useful stop gap for those who get them. The California State lottery is already owing $36million that is meant for schools. So I don’t have that much faith that the state would be that efficient in getting unemployment money or food stamps out to people.

[Sneezyone]

19 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

We won’t qualify for any but I do think the checks would be a useful stop gap for those who get them. The California State lottery is already owing $36million that is meant for schools. So I don’t have that much faith that the state would be that efficient in getting unemployment money or food stamps out to people.

 

Targeted aid to states is also part of the revised package. State tax revenues, just like federal ones, are plummeting. Unlike the feds tho, states cannot deficit spend. Most have balanced budget rules/laws.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Yes, I get that. What I was inelegantly saying is there’s so much hypocrisy it makes my ears steam. The same people who think UBI is an absolutely horrible “nanny state” welfare waste don’t see that this is the identical thing, only sporadic instead of consistent like an income. . 

I would argue that they are not identical.  Those individuals may see that the UBI changes people's behavior and causes them to make different choices.  Giving people money they did not know that they would get when they made career/work/leisure choices cannot impact their choices.  

[Carrie12345]

Just want to throw it out there that many of the suggestions in this thread ARE being looked into, in addition to checks.

I know a good WTM’Er should include links, but I’m too info-fatigued to bother.

[BusyMom5]

Been thinking about this- do you think a check will cause mass buying and shortages?  Definitely something to consider.

 

For those saying it should only go to the poor, I think that would depend on your definition of poor.  Where I live, lots of people are on Medicaid and get checks already.  I do not think they need more at this time.  Their bases are covered, expenses and income the same.  The person (like me) who has high deductible insurance they are paying more than $1k a month for, and anticipating paying out 5K in a deductible at some point if they get sick would not spend the money, but save it bc I know the expenses coming (this not buying anything big right now, which would be a stimulus to the economy).  The person who has reduced hours needs a bit of a buffer (and that is coming with UE).  I think this year will see some people's income drop in half, easily.  Not many can absorb that big of a loss.  There is no one-size fits all package.   There is no way to address all issues people are facing.  It's going to be a rough year for everyone.   Everyone.   That includes rich, poor, middle class or wherever you fall.  

 

I do think that better leadership and planning would make companies feel more secure in choosing how to deal right now.  So much uncertainty.  I also think a concrete message of exactly what we should prepare for, and how to prepare would be helpful.  Assurance of food supply, medical supplies and equipment would be helpful.  Even if they are not ready, letting Americans know what to do and that there is a good plan in place would do a lot.

[QueenCat]

I think it should be solely for people who lost their jobs, are furloughed, or have drastically reduced hours due to COVID-19. Why only them? The purpose of the bill is supposed to be for people impacted by this specific emergency, not for people who are still getting paid. 

[QueenCat]

21 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I see it as the simplest way to get food dollars to families that need it. Going through applications will take too long.

Today, my family doesn’t *need it, and we’re relatively confident that we won’t at all, but I can’t actually guarantee that dh’s employer will feel the same way in, say, 4 weeks.

I don’t think it’s a perfect solution, but I do think it will help enough people to be worth it.

 

Good point... I hadn't really thought about it that way.

[QueenCat]

19 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

 

The Republicans who support this are likely to think that the president has handled this situation well. However, they also would normally not support this type of program and will admit that this is an entirely different situation than your other examples. I mean, it's all unconstitutional, but everyone in both parties seems to think that "piece of paper" doesn't exist.

 

It's been interesting to watch this aspect. The Democratic leadership wants something more focused to those actually in need while the Republicans want to send it to almost everyone. These are not normal times...

[SereneHome]

14 minutes ago, QueenCat said:

I think it should be solely for people who lost their jobs, are furloughed, or have drastically reduced hours due to COVID-19. Why only them? The purpose of the bill is supposed to be for people impacted by this specific emergency, not for people who are still getting paid. 

What about self-employed who had to close their business?

I am not familiar if a they are able to collect UE

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Sorry, again, you're just plain wrong. Unemployment rates began to gradually improve almost immediately after the stimulus package was implemented and continued to do so. It may not have rebounded as fast as folks would have liked but the proof is in the pudding. We had more than 10 straight years of economic growth, lost only over the last month. This situation is different in terms of orders of magnitude. It's different in terms of the kinds of stresses people face (jobs are there but people are not allowed to do them to protect the health of all). The solutions may also be slightly different and include more conditions because (with luck) we learned from what worked and didn't work the last time. Still, there is ZERO doubt that targeted stimulus under these kinds of severe conditions works. It's been proven, repeatedly, in our history. 

I never said I am against stimulus package, I am against sending people checks based solely on the numbers on their 1040.

Again, I am not knowledgeable enough to argue whether last stimulus package improved but from the little I read - it said it didn't. And there is of course anecdotal evidence of people trying to dig up from that recession for a long time.

https://www.thoughtco.com/pro-cons-obama-stimulus-package-3325641

Quote

Unemployment has continued to climb at an alarming rate, despite passage of the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Explains The Australian News: "... only six months ago Obama was telling Americans that unemployment, then at 7.2%, could be held to a peak of 8% this year if Congress passed his $US787 billion stimulus package.

 

Quote

The Obama administration has stumbled in rapidly circulating stimulus funds back into the economy. Per all reports, as of the end of June 2009, only about 7% of approved funds have spent.

But the package also had benefits - as this article says.

And again, i truly can't intelligently have a conversation about it. I just remember the feeling that that recession lasted a long time.

[hippiemamato3]

23 minutes ago, QueenCat said:

 

It's been interesting to watch this aspect. The Democratic leadership wants something more focused to those actually in need while the Republicans want to send it to almost everyone. These are not normal times...

The Republicans don't want to send it to the ones who are most vulnerable and need it the most. I think it's completely typical. 

[Arcadia]

31 minutes ago, BusyMom5 said:

Been thinking about this- do you think a check will cause mass buying and shortages?  Definitely something to consider.

It would probably pay off a good chunk of grocery bills charged to credit cards and to rent/mortgage. 

My entire state is under stay at home. While Costco and other supermarkets are finally not running out of food that fast, replenishments are still not guaranteed. So people have to either do without or buy an alternative which may cost more.

My county went into shelter in place on Tuesday. We spent a few hundreds on groceries on Monday to minimize trips to the grocers. Some of my kids favorites are sold out but they are old enough to be able to do without. 

[hippiemamato3]

2 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Don't generalize. All Republicans I know who support checks support sending them to everyone. Just because the Congress says otherwise doesn't mean "the Republicans" all agree.  The thread did a great job not being entirely too political until people decided to once again throw an entire political party under the bus. 

Since we were talking about those who actually make the decisions, i think it's implied that it was 'Republicans in Congress.'  And if you voted for those people, they are speaking for the party, right? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I would argue that they are not identical.  Those individuals may see that the UBI changes people's behavior and causes them to make different choices.  Giving people money they did not know that they would get when they made career/work/leisure choices cannot impact their choices.  

Ok, that is a fair point. There is a difference between a sporadic govt windfall and a dependable, regularly-issued “free money” check. I was speaking to the philosophy, though. IME, there’s a constant ton of rhetoric out of the right wing strongly decrying anything they define as “socialistic”. That’s why all the outcry against ACA; that’s why there’s this big narrative pushing back against college educations and emphasizing trades (because if people can be convinced that tradesmanship is better, they won’t concern themselves with campaign promises expanding tuition-free college access); that’s why other social programs are constantly under the knife (cutting SNAP, for instance). But if a Republican President decides upon something with the same structure - that is, tax payer money being freely given to the public, whatever the explanation (i.e., whether it is Bush saying it’s “surplus” and therefore belongs to the people, or it’s Trump supposedly helping people with the pandemic fallout) - nobody bats an eye. 

The hypocrisy of it drives me bonkers. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, QueenCat said:

I think it should be solely for people who lost their jobs, are furloughed, or have drastically reduced hours due to COVID-19. Why only them? The purpose of the bill is supposed to be for people impacted by this specific emergency, not for people who are still getting paid. 

 

The purpose is not just to help those who've lost income but ALSO to stimulate the economy once people return to work. Those who receive lost-wage payments will be backfilling lost wages and spending on necessities like food and shelter. They won't be in a position to stimulate the economy with discretionary spending. Giving funds to people who will spend rather than save it but wouldn't ordinarily spend under these conditions WILL stimulate job growth. People who will buy a new appliance, car, etc. There are some people who can do these things out of their ordinary, ongoing, income but many middle class folks might be tipped into doing it with a modest boost.

[maize]

1 hour ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Since we were talking about those who actually make the decisions, i think it's implied that it was 'Republicans in Congress.'  And if you voted for those people, they are speaking for the party, right? 

Romney is a Republican and his plan did not call for smaller checks to lower income folks.

[hippiemamato3]

1 minute ago, maize said:

Romney is a Republican and his plan did not call for smaller checks to lower income folks.

ok...that's one. I believe the final plan did.