|
smoobles posted:I'm actually not convinced it will... 99% of the electorate isn't plugged in enough to politics/twitter to even know there's a debate in the party. The vast majority of people don't live in Georgia. They'll get a $1400 check and think "oh cool" and get on with their lives. Is that a risk you want to take in a state you just won by a razor thin margin? Especially when bumping up the extra $600 is a drop in the bucket compared to the relief people actually need?
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Thom12255 posted:He literally didn't lol. The messaging was bad but he always meant $1400. And so did Bernie. Someone needs to make a timeline of what was on the table when to sort out the context of what was actually being offered as relief money. My understanding at the time was that Democrats wanted $1200 checks early in December which was cut in half to $600 due to Republicans hating poor people. Then Trump ran his mouth about $2k so Democrats immediately passed a bill (the CASH act) in the House to increase the checks from $600 to $2000. At that time the Democrats in the GA runoff were saying vote for us to make sure you get the full $2k rather than being stuck with just the $600 because the Senate had no plans to pass the CASH act. CASH act posted:INGENERAL.—Section 6428A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 272 of the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020, is amended by striking ‘‘$600’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘$2,000’’, and by striking ‘‘$1,200’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘$4,000’’. But it seems a lot of people are now claiming they saw it as $2k being in addition to the $600. I can't tell if they really thought the total would be $2600 or if they're feigning anger now in an effort to pressure Democrats to go for $2k now instead of $1.4k. It's an arbitrary number anyway. As others have said whether it's $2k or $1.4k or $1.2k it won't last long for the people who really need it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
It's the Yanni/Laurel of 2021, except if you hear Yanni you can't pay your rent and end up homeless
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The stimulus plan also includes $4400 in relief for people who are actually unemployed, and state and local aid that will keep state workers (like me) from getting shitcanned when tax revenues are down 40%, but by all means keep pretending that the only relevant issue is the size of your anime import subsidies. #BidenLied "Actually unemployed" seems, how to put this politely, it seems really bad that people are viewed as "faking poverty" when a lot of people who are on the edge of unemployment don't deserve it and creates the idea of a "deserving and undeserving poor" angle that doesn't seem particularly good. 7of7 posted:But it seems a lot of people are now claiming they saw it as $2k being in addition to the $600. I can't tell if they really thought the total would be $2600 or if they're feigning anger now in an effort to pressure Democrats to go for $2k now instead of $1.4k. A lot of people people are/were expect a full $2000 dollar cheque and don't see the $600 as passed to be enough. There is also a lot of overlap between people who want more money and people on the left critiquing the democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
bobjr posted:https://twitter.com/ElieEweka/status/1355588812873883655 I worked for them for sixteen years. The leadership in Lakeland was benign “low taxes” Republican til Obama. Still sad to see it, lotta good people work there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
7of7 posted:Someone needs to make a timeline of what was on the table when to sort out the context of what was actually being offered as relief money. https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1349177374047428608 This is Kamala Harris calling for $2k stimulus checks on January 12, a full week after the GA runoff and over two weeks after the $600 checks started going out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
The boost in SNAP benefits and unemployment benefits is the lifeline that targets the people relying on food aid or who don't have current employment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:48
|
|
Josef bugman posted:"Actually unemployed" seems, how to put this politely, it seems really bad that people are viewed as "faking poverty" when a lot of people who are on the edge of unemployment don't deserve it and creates the idea of a "deserving and undeserving poor" angle that doesn't seem particularly good. Seems more utilitarian than you’re trying to make it here. Who’s in more dire straits generally - someone without a job or someone with a job? What do you mean by ‘edge of unemployment’?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1349177374047428608 All that proves is that the messaging was indeed 2K checks but that the plan was always to get the $600 up to $2000. They already won the elections - they didn't need to keep lying about it if that's what you think she was doing here? Here's a tweet of Bernie doing exactly the same thing - read the picture attachment to see he really means $1400. https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1349880150041780227
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:He literally didn't lol. The messaging was bad but he always meant $1400. And so did Bernie. Hi, I live in Georgia. Everyone I know was promised a "$2000 check" either by canvassers or phone calls. The two groups of Warnock canvassers that caught me two separate times started off their pitch with "How would you like a $2000 check in your bank account?" While Warnock/Ossof were campaigning with pictures of $2000 checks on their twitter and sending out flyers that said "$2000" on them. You can't just pretend like everyone is wrong on this. 7of7 posted:At that time the Democrats in the GA runoff were saying vote for us to make sure you get the full $2k rather than being stuck with just the $600 because the Senate had no plans to pass the CASH act. This is objectively incorrect.  There were explicit promises, multiple times, from every politician involved of a $2000 check being sent out if they won. You can rules lawyer all you want but there is a reason this will not go away, the fact that a lot of people rightly feel lied to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
I mean, it is the first bill being pushed by the Biden administration. Democrats are putting it ahead of Trump's impeachment trial. They're also going straight to reconciliation instead of the bipartisan first bite strategy. You have significant pressure on Manchin after his appearance with the Sweey 16 Senators where they suggested limiting the checks more. I think maybe the Biden administration and the Democratic leadership under the importance of fulfilling the promise as quick as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
i am a moron posted:Seems more utilitarian than you’re trying to make it here. Who’s in more dire straits generally - someone without a job or someone with a job? What do you mean by ‘edge of unemployment’? People who are forced to work in order to continue living in the midst of a pandemic. Like my countries response has been shite, but at least I have been getting paid 80% of my wage to hunker in place for a few months. I cannot imagine what it is like for so many people in the USA who are being told "work and die of Covid" or "don't work and die of no money". When people say things like "The actual unemployed" I tend to get bad vibes from it because it's based on the idea that there is some moral standard that people have to adhere to in order to be truly unemployed or people are somehow faking being unemployed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:Everyone I know was promised a "$2000 check" either by canvassers or phone calls. The two groups of Warnock canvassers that caught me two separate times started off their pitch with "How would you like a $2000 check in your bank account?" While Warnock/Ossof were campaigning with pictures of $2000 checks on their twitter and sending out flyers that said "$2000" on them. This argument has been hashed out 50 different times in this thread the past month. The messaging was not great - the plan was never to give $2000 on top of the $600 - it was to increase it so that you did get a TOTAL of $2000 into your account at the end of the day. I think they should've just given out $2600 and be done with it but they clearly were not lying to people, the messaging was just poor enough that a fair few people mistook it to mean something than what was publically being discussed in Congress. It is legitimate to call out Warnocks campaign team for doing that dumb picture sure but not Biden or Harris or Pelosi or anyone else really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
tehinternet posted:I worked for them for sixteen years. The leadership in Lakeland was benign “low taxes” Republican til Obama. Still sad to see it, lotta good people work there. I know what you're trying to say here but it's important to note that there is no such thing as a benign “low taxes” Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:All that proves is that the messaging was indeed 2K checks but that the plan was always to get the $600 up to $2000. I don't see how the Harris tweet proves this at all. You're reading a lot into a very simple tweet that isn't there. Why would she not say "an additional $1400" instead of "$2000" if that's what she meant?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I don't see how the Harris tweet proves this at all. You're reading a lot into a very simple tweet that isn't there. Why would she not say "an additional $1400" instead of "$2000" if that's what she meant? Tell me why Bernie did the same thing? Was he trying to trick you? The proof is they decided the message was everyone was going to get $2000 at the end of the day. We are getting $2000 in split payments. There is no lie, just misunderstandings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:This argument has been hashed out 50 different times in this thread the past month. What they meant might have been 1400. What the messaging was though, was 2000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
eXXon posted:I know what you're trying to say here but it's important to note that there is no such thing as a benign “low taxes” Republican. This. See: Lee Atwater's infamous admission that "low taxes" is what Republicans say when they really mean "n----r n----r". Also, the check debate is really stupid. Why wouldn't the Democrats use this opportunity to say "hey we realize Americans need a little bit more help let's pass additional $2,000 checks for everyone" It's the easiest layup in political history. Totally in character that they'd use racist, imaginary concerns over the debt to stomp on their own dicks right after being given perhaps the last Senate majority they will ever have as a Party. FLIPADELPHIA fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jan 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:56
|
|
Josef bugman posted:People who are forced to work in order to continue living in the midst of a pandemic. Like my countries response has been shite, but at least I have been getting paid 80% of my wage to hunker in place for a few months. I cannot imagine what it is like for so many people in the USA who are being told "work and die of Covid" or "don't work and die of no money". When people say things like "The actual unemployed" I tend to get bad vibes from it because it's based on the idea that there is some moral standard that people have to adhere to in order to be truly unemployed or people are somehow faking being unemployed. Gotcha. Agreed - but also if I recall part of what is being proposed is unemployment insurance for those who chose not to work due to the pandemic. Which for a lot of people isn’t great compared to a full wage, but is way better than the nothing they’d get for opting out now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:This argument has been hashed out 50 different times in this thread the past month. Who cares. What's the loving difference? This poo poo has been going on for a year and no end is in sight at the current rate of vaccination, give people 2000 and you have the benefit of actually helping people and side stepping this hairsplitting bullshit of WELL AKSHUALLY WE MEANT 2000 INCLUSIVE of the 600 you already got Giving people money is popular but they just can't quite bring themselves to do something that is both popular and materially helps people in need
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:This argument has been hashed out 50 different times in this thread the past month. I know what the plan was. It was not what people were told. If people were told one thing and are now being told another then they were lied to. I don't care how many times this argument has been hashed out in this thread, I literally had the Warnock campaign promise me a whole, intact, singular $2000 check to my face twice and now you are trying to gaslight me by telling me this was all part of some intricate plan I should have realized was true and not the actual things everyone, including the vice president, were saying in explicit and no uncertain terms? The point with this isn't that I actually expected to receive $2000 it's how this is going to affect the elections going forward, and you now being a liar yourself along with a lot of the party trying to cover very obvious and explicit tracks is not going to go well. You can call in the mods to ban this uncomfortable topic of discussion but you can't probate the millions of people in Georgia alone who were promised one thing and are now being told they are the problem with not getting it. Rectal Death Adept fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jan 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Again, this is probably less pressing than getting improved SNAP and unemployment insurance. Here's a great research report from JPMorgan: https://www.jpmorganchase.com/insti...nal-perspective    For people still employed, the major financial stressor is childcare (hence the $3,000/child credit). For those unemployed, it's loss of income. The Recovery Act targets the people who the pandemic has most harmed in the interests of helping those who have been financially harmed, recover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Everybody knew it was a new $1,400 to bring the total to $2,000. Pretending you thought it was a new $2,000 to bring the total to $2,600 is completely disingenuous and transparent. It's also complaining about the wrong thing. Don't complain about the "lie" that wasn't actually a lie. Complain that the amount is too low. Either $2,000 or $2,600 is too loving low as a one time payment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
the correct answer is to take republicans up on the idea of a $600b bill just on a net basis funded by repealing trump tax cuts which gives you a lot more room to boost everything
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:The point with this isn't that I actually expected to receive $2000 it's how this is going to affect the elections going forward, and you now being a liar yourself along with a lot of the party trying to cover very obvious and explicit tracks is not going to go well. The bill does a lot of great things and I'm fairly happy with it honestly. It could do more and if I was in charge it would but there's already enough blue dogs complaining about it not being targeted enough that this is probably the best we can get on short notice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Pass the Republican bill then turn around and do the 1.9 trillion in reconciliation anyways for maximum fun.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:The bill does a lot of great things and I'm fairly happy with it honestly. I'm fairly happy with it also but I also think it should be $2000 and haven't really heard a good argument about why it can't be $2000. What's the harm with doing the better thing they were saying they would be doing even if it wasn't what they meant, which is a good but not quite as good thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Can we please probate $1400 vs $2000 discourse or something? It is completely exhausted and transparently motivated by bad faith at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
i am a moron posted:Pass the Republican bill then turn around and do the 1.9 trillion in reconciliation anyways for maximum fun. The GOP would love this as it would be much harder to pressure Manchin and Semina to vote for a partisan reconciliation bill that doesn't do the very obvious and visible stuff of giving people checks and unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Everybody knew it was a new $1,400 to bring the total to $2,000. Pretending you thought it was a new $2,000 to bring the total to $2,600 is completely disingenuous and transparent. This is absurd. Warnock, Ossoff, Biden and Harris were explicitly campaigning on sending out $2000 checks after the $600 had already gone out. You can argue "well, if you read the tea leaves, you should have known this is what they meant," but that was absolutely not the message coming from the campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1349177374047428608 AOC, Rashida Tialib, Sanders, Schumer, Kamala, and Biden all were saying $1,400 to $2,000 total in December. A full 3 weeks before that. The bill they introduced said and did that. They specifically campaigned on passing this bill and said Republicans were holding it up. I guess if you want to argue it was bad messaging or that people who aren't tuned in to political minutia might be confused, but I don't understand how people in this thread who allegedly follow the news could say they were shocked to learn this a month later. It's been done to death over and over. If you think it should be a larger amount, then that is totally fine. But, pretending that it was something else is pointless. quote:In a December 14th letter, Schumer said to colleagues. “Democrats wanted to do much more in the last bill and promised to do more, if given the opportunity, to increase direct payments to a total of $2,000 — we will get that done.” quote:Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tried to bring the issue to a head again Friday when he objected to moving forward with a vote to override President Trump’s veto of a defense spending bill until McConnell allowed a vote on increasing the relief payments to $2,000. quote:Trump wanted to increase the amount to $2,000, and Democrats immediately pounced on the opportunity. Once again, McConnell refused to allow a vote, this time on a standalone bill to send an additional $1,400 out to struggling Americans. Biden took this opportunity to tell voters in Georgia that the only way he could ensure that they would get a vote on the additional $1,400 in relief is if they voted for Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in the Senate runoff races. https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1343370839673061377 https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1341572295769415682 https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1341568309955874818
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
i am a moron posted:Pass the Republican bill then turn around and do the 1.9 trillion in reconciliation anyways for maximum fun. this would be funniest
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Everybody knew it was a new $1,400 to bring the total to $2,000. this is absolutely 100% not true for people who aren't plugged into politics enough to be arguing about it on an internet forum. like just from my own anecdotes, several people on my facebook did in fact think it was going to be a separate $2000 check, because the democrats ran on 'want a $2000 check? vote for biden/warnock/ossof' and that was all they heard because they don't live and breathe politics. it is, at best, loving awful messaging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Piell posted:I'm fairly happy with it also but I also think it should be $2000 and haven't really heard a good argument about why it can't be $2000. My take on it is that if someone like Bernie isn't shouting for it to be changed then the bill that is already here is probably the limit of people like Manchin and Senima in the first place and he doesn't want to push it and end up blowing the whole thing up for weeks. Thom12255 fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jan 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
What if different people need different things from the bill? Say an employed person who doesn’t get a ton of hours but can’t file for unemployment? Like service industry folks need straight cash infusion not snap or unemployment benefits
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
That Warnock ad literally has a giant cheque with the number 2000 on it, the idea that everyone should know "we meant 1400" is ridiculous. Bernie doing it too doesn't make any difference. Everyone should know full well that most people just read headlines, so when Biden is saying our priority is getting 2000 dollar cheques out immediately, that is what people are going to expect. Blisster fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Zophar posted:Can we please probate $1400 vs $2000 discourse or something? It is completely exhausted and transparently motivated by bad faith at this point. IK Hat on Yeah gonna go ahead and echo what GJB said last night. GreyjoyBastard posted:i feel like the 1400+600 vs 2000+600 debate is played out for the moment, twitter post about ossoff notwithstanding, let's put a lid on that Nothing new has come to light so everyone can go ahead and either drop it in here or take it to the other thread specifically about 1400+600 vs. 2000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:AOC, Rashida Tialib, Sanders, Schumer, Kamala, and Biden all were saying $1,400 to $2,000 total in December. A full 3 weeks before that. The bill they introduced said and did that. They specifically campaigned on passing this bill and said Republicans were holding it up. Correct, that has never been in dispute. The original debate was in the context of working with the Trump admin and a GOP senate. The problem arises when they continued to campaign on "sending $2000 checks out the door if we win GA" after the original package passed and checks were in people's bank accounts, when Dems control the house, the senate and the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:06
|
|
Thom12255 posted:The GOP would love this as it would be much harder to pressure Manchin and Semina to vote for a partisan reconciliation bill that doesn't do the very obvious and visible stuff of giving people checks and unemployment. Yea I thought about that, and also how it would probably be impossible to keep a lid on trying to ‘trick’ Congress into doing both. But I’d at least think the Dems should act like they’re earnestly pursuing both to help out as much as they can. Let the Republicans kill their own bill and deal with the fact that they really aren’t interested in lifting a finger.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
uggy posted:What if different people need different things from the bill? Say an employed person who doesn’t get a ton of hours but can’t file for unemployment? Like service industry folks need straight cash infusion not snap or unemployment benefits You can file for partial unemployment and still get the boosted UI benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:07
|
|
