Clearly she learned her lesson

I’m sure you woke up in a great mood. �� pic.twitter.com/4Ep2RDdqFt

— Parlertakes���� (@parlertakes) February 5, 2021

I love one of the responses

Imagine waking up literally laughing.

I’m pretty sure that’s like a 99% indicator you’re a Batman villain.

— ButGorsuch! (@Ignorem62281500) February 5, 2021

SI

If only Biden could have ramped up Covid production as quickly as he mobilized tyranny in *checks notes* 2 weeks, we'd all be vaccinated by now!

Saw Air Force One was trending on Twitter and thought to myself, I wonder where Biden is off to. Only to find out it was due to Fox News pushing this as a message, “ Biden flying to Delaware despite CDC warnings to” with a bunch of replies that he’s vaccinated, on AF1 and on and on.

These clowns at Fox are something else

Just wait until his first golf trip!

Looks unlikely for bipartianship with the $1.9B bill.

The messaging of "risk is not too much, risk is too little" resonates well with me. Unless the economy doesn't come back, the Dems should leverage that mantra in 2022. But the talking heads on CNBC were pretty optimistic about 2H with all the good vaccine news.

I cant find it. Are they giving $2000 for dependents over 17 in this new package?

Yes. Unless they pull something shady in the last hour, adult dependents are getting the full $2,000.

Looks like they are gonna reduce the income thresholds though

Though apparently there is still a moving target. Wyman and Sanders still want to keep the same income limits. Depends on how strong Manchin and Tester are for further limits.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Any idea what that threshold might be?

The latest version under discussion would send $1,400 payments to individuals earning under $50,000; and $2,800 to married couples earning under $100,000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...rce=reddit.com

That might be the right decision policy-wise.

Seems really stupid politically. You don't want to give anything that seems "less" than what Trump did.

Right, and it starts phasing out from there. That article did say Adult Dependents are still going to be in.

The whole “people making 300k could get a stimulus” is dumb. A family with 4 kids would get $900. Seems pretty minor given the same people wanting to waive $50k in student loans, and someone making 300k probably is paying a lot in taxes.

Are Democrats going to take 2 months to figure out means testing on disaster relief? Good lord.

Also basing it on 2019 income seems really dumb when people had their problems in 2020. So my friend who works in theater lighting likely made over $50k in 2019 but practically nothing but unemployment in 2020 thanks to every theater being shut down.

They can take solace that they won't have control of congress in 2 years. The party loves being in the minority.

This is an interesting aspect of the payments. Saying that people who earn over X don't need the money is being very assumptive. A family with a yearly income of $125K in LA or Chicago or (insert high cost of living areas here) probably lives differently than a family making $125K in a small town. Also, people have different expenses and live differently even in the same area.

There's too much concern over who doesn't need it instead of getting the money out to those who do, especially since the amount is based on what was earned before the lockdowns started.

This is the part that bothers me the most.

They do have to take whatever time is required to find something their own members will pass or that will peel off a few Republican votes. That's simply the nature of a divided Senate, is it not? It's not as if 'Democrats' is a monolithic entity that all wants the same thing, just like 'Biden voters on FOFC' is a group of diverse interests.

I'm all for some sort of means testing. It makes pretty good sense to me that "as a whole" (because there will be exceptions) family making $150+K in 2019 don't need it as much as family making < $50K. I rather those "excess" funds get reallocated for other things (e.g. extending unemployment, small business etc.).

The assumption many make is that the stimulus check will get spent vs being saved. There is enough evidence that there is a substantial amount of people that is not spending the money but putting it into savings/debt repayment. See couple articles below.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/fewe...heres-why.html

Article on first stimulus. Savings rate ranges from 23% (those collecting UI) to 36% overall. Rest is on consumption and debt repayment.

How Americans Spent $1,200 Stimulus Checks

To me the issue is really using 2019/2020 income as a placeholder for wealth, but those don’t necessarily correlate. But I’m not sure how best to address a complicated Situation. Again, is this stimulus or “survival” payments. If its not stimulus, expand unemployment and the general safety net instead of direct payments. It is easy to slice other people out as well - why are retirees getting anything? Their situation didn’t change

Ideally, it's for both survival and stimulus. But if I had to pick a priority order, it should be survival first which, as a side effect, will help some stimulus.

Most retirees are probably living on less than <$50K AGI so they would benefit. But your question is valid, why not exclude retirees. They are getting fixed income already. The obvious answer is the political impact if they exclude seniors (e.g. anyone drawing social security & medicare).

FWIW, there are 61M collecting social security or 1 in 5.

I think I mentioned that in the other thread. My wife is a private consultant with business that dropped about 90% during the pandemic. Our 2020 income filing will be significantly less, but we get very little based on the formula.

How are you going to use 2020 income? Wait to send out checks until after April?

That also sounds problematic.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

This reinforces what i have said before. give everyone the stimulus. The people making 300-400K a year would put a lot of it back into the local economy. I know we would.

What I am wondering is could they do some kind of voucher system. Give cash to people making under X/ year. For anyone above that threshold they get a voucher, coupon book, whatever you want to call it that they can only use at local business or business with under X employees. I realize this would require some logistics, but seems like something that would really help small businesses.

Why not just get it to everyone and correct it at tax time next year? Not an unsolvable problem.

It just shifts the time frame of when we decided who should not get the money. That is what all this discussion is about. Who is worthy and who is not worthy of getting the money.

I suspect a lot of people would just stow it away so they wouldn't have to be in the hole come tax season

[/list]
Why not just give it to everyone? It is disaster relief.

Some additional evidence that not everyone needs a stimulus check. Find a way to means test and give it to those families/small businesses really in need.

American Spending Outlook Survey 2021 | Money

I would imagine many of the folks that do not meet the income limits, and/or do not need it, already pay quarterly estimated taxes and/or are used to owing at tax time. If they know or expect they are going to make enough to not qualify, it is not going to have much of a negative effect if they hold it. If we are doing relief checks because it is the humane thing to do for people that are suffering and struggling, it should be ASAP in my opinion. It should be about providing immediate assistance, with the impact to the economy a good, secondary benefit.

I think the overall economic impact is the primary reason for it.

I think it sounds great :)

Once you file, you are eligible for your stimulus. I would likely get close to the full amount based on 2020, based on 2019, not even close. I'm almost ready to file, I'd gladly wait a few weeks to actually get something.

Just the opposite for me. I'll wait to file.

I thought the point, which I basically agree with, is that it's late as it is and economy can't afford to wait. If it can't, then we can't wait for 2020 numbers. Not to mention that a lot of the people who need it the most are not the kind of people who will file early, which kind of defeats the purpose

So Democrats are arguing that a $15 minimum wage can be a part of budget reconciliation because the CBO says it will raise the deficit (albeit by a measley $54 billion, but who's counting at this point).

I guess that's the creative legislating that many of you are looking for.

The R's didn't care about the 800bln or so they bumped it for the rich. Now I haven't looked at the specifics, but it seems like one of those might have a wider ranging impact for the cost.

Not sure what thread to put this in, but I'll put it here for now. Being a professional shopper for the past 9-10 months now has taught me a number of things. One of those is to be more negative and pessimistic on climate change than ever before as I get a picture of people's purchasing habits. I am stunned by the number of people who regularly buy things like disposable plates, not because they need them but just because they can't be bothered to do dishes, so they just want to 'make them a memory', as it were.

We are so screwed as long as this kind of mindset is ingrained in our approach to modern life, and I'm definitely personally having struggles with being judgemental towards it.

I could see that. I struggle with justifying even the tiniest bit of my endless plastics consumption, let alone considering anybody/everybody else.

Remember when Democrats promised stimulus checks in a week if they got control of the Senate.

The glacial pace is nothing compared to the last few months under the Orange Shit-gibbon. I never expected a check in my hand within the first week. I'm amazed at what progress there's been considering Turtle didn't want to give up the Senate until like last week.

so happy Biden isn't going to negotiate with these assholes and just getting on with it.

I understand that they figured out what was going on before the public was harmed but this feels like it should be a slightly bigger deal.

https://www.wfla.com/news/local-news...maging-levels/

While we continue to wait on that promised stimulus check, Democrats have already lined up a tax break for the wealthy.

This isnt black v white. This is poor and middle class v rich. One day we will be either a true democracy or a world like The Running Man or 1984.

Shit is going to hit the fan. I hope Im dead when it does.

Which tax break is that?

SALT deduction

I've haven't seen that as any part of an immediate legislative package, do you have a link?

Schumer and Gillibrand launch new push to permanently restore NYS’s full salt deduction | WIVT - NewsChannel 34
I am no tax expert, but the suggestion is that the SALT tax cap hurts the poor and middle class way more than it helps the rich. It seems pretty crazy if it doesn't seeing that Trump imposed the cap and the rich praised it.

No doubt that Biden should not get involved and just stay focused on the coronavirus situation. Not much Biden can do to change the inevitable acquittal so why spend the political capital now when the Dems are doing it.

Week 3 and wheels are moving but still not happy with the seemingly slow pace of vaccinations. We are still in Phase 1a in GA.

Biden’s strategy for Trump’s impeachment: Sit back and STFU - POLITICO

Trump imposed the cap because it most affected states likes New York and California.

Limiting the deduction does help the wealthy and we shouldn't be cutting taxes for the wealthy when our deficit is in the trillions. We should be talking about eliminating the deduction.

The cap is $10,000 which is not going to hurt the poor at all. Maybe some middle class get mixed in but it is mostly a handout for the wealthy.

It looks more like a middle finger to Blue states. Rich people can easily change residency so they don't pay as much local taxes. Middle class in more expensive states don't have that ability.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A lot of middle class residents in NY get hit with SALT. We pay @8K in property taxes alone and lots of homes we looked at were over 10k. It's no surprise that the two NY senators are trying to restore the deduction when it impacts so many frequent voters.

i live in NYC, work in NJ. the wife and i make good money, but we are far from rich. putting one kid through college (state school) and another one right behind him. we always had a refund of about $4K in federal every year. the first year of trump's plan, i owed $400 federal. so having the SALT capped at $10K, cost me around $4500. i did get about $30 extra in my biweekly paychecks, so overall for the year the trump tax plan cost me about $3K. i have many friends and relatives in the same situation. we all work non executive corporate jobs. middle class (for NY) got killed by the SALT cap.

Agreed Biden has nothing to gain by getting involved, just like I thought he played it perfectly by staying above the fray and letting Trump show he was increasingly deranged between the election & the inauguration, but no his Presidency and his potential 2024 re-election chances won't be defined by Covid. Covid will be mostly gone in the US by the end of 2021 (at least as a deadly threat - i.e. vaccines don't prevent the disease but prevent most hospitalizations), or I guess vaccines will have been a failure and we'll go back to semi-normal lives regardless because it's been too long. Either way by 2024 something else will be the issue the President is being judged on.

The median property tax paid in New York is $3800. The income tax in the state is between 4%-9%. You'd have to be in the six figure range before this impacts you. And even then you're still getting a $10k deduction.

For this to cost you $3000 a year, you'd have to be making almost $200k or living in a very pricey house.

Maybe the question should be why are you paying $8000 in property taxes and what are you getting for it?

And I'd be fine with moving it up to $15k or $20k. But removing it altogether is a handout to the rich.

combined, we make around $200K. which puts us solidly middle class in NYC. we have a nice 1900 sq ft house, 2 cars since we both work, and putting kids through college. property taxes are $6500 (on a 41x100 lot). we have friends who are a school teacher/NYPD sergeant and they had the same issue we did. we're doing just fine, and i'm fine with them leaving it as is to target the help where it is needed more. just trying to point out that the SALT deduction helped a lot of people in NYC (and CA, NJ, etc) that are far from what would be considered rich.

"solidly middle class" in NYC equals rich in the rest of the country. You are in the 89th income percentile.

Yeah, if $200k a year is middle-class, it's on the upper rings of it.

I'm in Illinois and got hit with it too, but it wasn't really that dramatic. Like I said, I'd be fine moving it up a bit but eliminating it altogether just gives massive deductions to people in $4 million homes.

I'd rather we get rid of most deductions and credits in order to get the marginal rate and the effective rate much closer than they currently are. My point wasn't that we need to restore SALT, just that it's no shock senators are responding to the desires of frequent voters.

That doesn’t account for cost of living so while $200k may make you a king elsewhere that’s not going very far in NYC, LA or the SF Bay Area as just a few examples.

Right, the average 2 bedroom apartment rent in NYC is $3,432 a month. That's not a typo

https://www.rentjungle.com/average-r...rk-rent-trends

Though in Queens the average 2 bdroom is around $2600, so that's nice.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

My first apartment was in Manhattan, for $800/month, in 1999. Though it wasn't really an apartment, it was an old hotel with one shared bathroom on each floor. And no air conditioning. And there were definitely cockroaches. Probably 100 square feet.

Great location though on the Upper West Side. My Google search about whether it still exists is returning conflicting results.

My mortgage payment in my 1,800 square foot house in Boise in 2021 is only about $150/month more than that.

(Not sure where to put this because it's somewhat political so doesn't really belong in the Random thread but it's not specific to Trump either. So using Biden as default)

In an earlier post, I said I'm good with Trump being banned from social media but concerned about where the line is drawn for others, when does it impact the 1A. Trump had that (actually "the") special position where he could do/encourage really bad/stupid things and he had a history of repeatedly doing it.

But RFK Jr. doesn't fall near into the same level for me. Should he be banned because of his anti-vaccine and false coronavirus vaccine claims? And if yes, why not a bunch of other anti-vaxxers who have some level of following?

For these next "level" of folks (e.g. let's say 2-4 rungs below Trump), I think a good compromise is tagging them false or misleading.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/10/tech/...ban/index.html

These are private companies with terms of service that these people repeatedly violate. Why is it so hard for you?

Sure I get that. My guess (and problem) is it's not consistently applied.

I did not find any specific details on why he was banned other than broad statement about false vaccination info or "notorious" anti-vaxxer. If that is the case, why aren't a bunch of others banned because of false vaccination info ... is it because he is a public figure? or the quantity of false vaccination info? or was it because he repeatedly ignored warnings from Instagram to stop?

Then they can be sued. It is not like RKFjr. or Trump doesn't have the means to fight it in court. I don't cry for them at all, and I wouldn't cry for a left-wing nut job that gets banned for pushing the rules. I find more problematic the number of people who have been banned that didn't have that number of following or the means to fight, but then I also don't think anyone has a "right" to have a social media account.

This is the same as people saying "why is it only politicians on the right are getting covid?"

If people on the left were throwing out dangerous conspiracy theories and outright lies they would suffer the same consequences.

As for specific details I'm not sure what you are looking for, or why you think you are owed anything from a private company that can allow anyone they want on their platform and remove anyone they don't want. Lets not act like they didn't give people like Trump plenty of chances.

Do we know if the accounts of other anti vaxxers have not been removed? I think we only know about RFK Jr because he is RFK Jr.

I think anyone who is in any way "controversial" on social media would love to know exactly where the line is between having their accounts suspended/removed and not.

It's capitalism. Nitpicking a terms of service means nothing. These are business decisions.

There are tons of social media creators who spew lies nonstop as part of their brand essentially without consequence. This will always be the case, since these platforms are far too big and far-reaching to police.

I agree with you and GrantDawg that people who do so deserve whatever comes to them, but it isn't and never will be applied equally. It really *cant* be.


This is definitely a concern - and one that there's never any good answer to as mentioned above - but I'm more concerned about the customer/user end. It may well not be a good thing the level of information that the average person increasingly gets from social media, but it's a fact that isn't going away. I agree with sentiments voiced that nobody has a right to place on a platform etc., but that still leaves us with a situation where the gatekeepers of what is true, a lie, too controversial, whatever are making such decisions based on what makes for the best platform PR. That's a very bad situation for the good of society and inevitable leads to decisions that aren't about what's really dangerous, true, etc. but merely what's popular.

If anything, I think most social media companies are too lenient on what they allow from big named members, and come down way too fast and hard on posters without large follower base. It is never going up completely fair, but they really should work on being better and more proactive in defining lines.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Dola: for instance. I follow several smaller "resistance" twitter accounts. Some of the responses they get are vile and nasty. Reporting those tweets usually does nothing. But if the "resistance" account then say calls Ann Coulter a nazi in a response, it gets banned (an actual thing that happened).


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

People got owned hard.

Pres. Biden said electing Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock to the Senate would mean ‘immediate’ $2,000 checks — but now it’s unclear who will get what and when. Here’s your update on the status of stimulus checks pic.twitter.com/gITtPKm54f

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 6, 2021

Right. They totally should have reelected the republicans so McConnell could then spend the next 2 years obstructing everything Biden wants to do. That would have been so much better for America.

Still clinging to that take eh? It was never 2000 on top of 600

Actually it is $0 right now.

I also wasn't talking about the amount. I was talking about how they promised stimulus checks out the door right away if they took the Senate. Everyone got played on that.

You realize he has been in office 3 weeks and inherited a total shitshow?

How about we blame the prior administration?

Other administration got $1800 out.

Also it was their words that they would have checks out in a week. Dont make promises you can't keep. And don't let them off the hook on lies just because they are your party of choice.

Other admin got 1800 out over 9 months. Is that really the hill you want to die on?

It beats $0.

If it is $0 in 8 months get back to us.

Pretty sure the campaign message wasn't "hey we will pass stimulus checks in the next 8 months". Ossoff literally said a week.

Which was a moronic thing to say with a divided Senate. Promise something completely unrealistic, and what's going to happen? Meanwhile they are still working towards getting it done for most of the people who reasonably expected it. When they give up/stop trying short of the point of putting it to a final vote, that's the time to get upset.

I don't see that happening yet, or any reason to expect it.

If a couple banks were in trouble, they would have a bill passed by tomorrow afternoon to give them a trillion bucks.

It must hurt to be so cynical

They passed $800 billion in TARP in like a week. AIG got $182 billion after a weekend of talks. The near trillion of dollars that were used to bailout financial institutions came together over an 8 day stretch.

And it's still going on. When repo rates quickly spiked last September, the Fed jumped in immediately and pumped half a trillion in to bail out Wall Street.

Is it cynical if it happens?

TARP took several months from inception to passage and the initial framing was voted down in the House. That's just how legislation works. The actions of the Fed are obviously different as, for better or worse, they have the power to just act or not as they see fit.

I mean if it's all about getting the money quickly sent out, they could've easily done that by making a deal to cut the amount and who gets it. Of course, then you'd accuse them of caving.

Of course a lot of this likely would have been done already if Congress didn't have to deal with Impeachment... But the howling of caving would be every greater.

Remember the Rescue Act is in reconciliation right now after initial bills have passed the Senate and House.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Are we still in the Trump administration?

https://apnews.com/article/tj-ducklo...652ce014923c8a

I can't remember a time before the last 4 years where the White House spin doctors brought so much negative focus on themselves. Of course the difference here is at least Ducklo was held somewhat accountable for his bullshit.

Own goal by the WH there.

They should have just fired the guy.

Or, if they aren't going to fire him, demote him to something where he's fetching coffee for the guys who fetch coffee for the other guys.

Glad it'll be over soon. I agree that we should go through the process (even though it was pre-determined) just to get folks and evidence on the record. But I'm sure Biden will be glad to get this distraction out of the way.

I read somewhere there'll be movement on Immigration next week. I'm sure the stimulus will come back to the forefront also. Didn't pay any attention to Psaki/task force briefings so looking forward to them again.

Blows my mind that this entire endeavor has gotten to the point where the going phrase is "I'll be glad when it's over."

I mean, we only had 6 years of Bengazi nonstop. This clearly exceeds that by leaps and bounds. Yet, it's something that must be pushed aside for 'real work'. I really hope that there continue to be congressional investigations into the who was there, and who helped them prior to it. The same thing is going to happen. The people who did it get some smacks, maybe someone goes to jail, but the people at the top get away mostly free. In other words. See 2008/9/10 to see how this ends. Oh, and fuck all those in the Senate who are essentially declawing an entire branch of government for the foreseeable future.