Trump and Pelosi have reached agreement that the American people should get $2,000 of stimulus - paid out very soon as so many Americans are currently struggling to get by due to the impacts of the coronavirus at peak levels across much of the country.

Unfortunately, on Christmas Eve, House Republicans blocked the unanimous consent effort to approve the $2,000 stimulus that was put forward by Nancy Pelosi. Undaunted, Pelosi will bring the House back together on Monday for a full floor vote. It will likely pass the full floor vote, thanks to the Democratic majority in the House. Then it will go to the Senate, where Senate Republican leadership, including McConnell, has never expressed any support for stimulus above $600. Will Senate Republicans move the Pelosi / Trump stimulus forward?

Pelosi and House Dems passed a $2,000 stimulus today. Trump has expressed his support. We'll see what the Republicans in the Senate do.

I believe Republicans in the House voted against the $2,000 stimulus by 44 - 132.

The party of working people

I believe Dems voted in favor by 231 - 2

dajo9 said:

---

Today Mitch McConnell blocked the $2,000 stimulus checks in the Senate, going against Pelosi, Schumer, and Trump.

---

Remember when the GOP was called the Party of No? We are going to see a lot more of that now that a Dem is POTUS.

Targeted money to those who have been put out by this pandemic is one thing. Spending money specifically to suppress the pandemic is the same thing. $2,000 to everybody under a certain income-level whether they are in need or not is an entirely different thing.

Easy to see why Trump wants this: his popularity as he leaves office. Easy to see why the Democratic leadership wants it: partly because they like giving people money and partly to make Republicans look bad for trying to hold the line against it.

I can certainly use the money, but I don't NEED it. What ever happened to the idea that the government isn't supposed to just "print money" and give it out to everybody? It's just a bad idea for a number of different reasons.

sycasey said:

---

Wow, Yogi is now paying for Premium accounts under his old handle just to continue trolling this board.

That's dedication.

---

color me skeptical, in spite of acct's boilerplate
https://bearinsider.com/account/profile/13447

> BADGES
> Premium Subscriber
> Rookie
>
> STATS
> Joined Dec 30, 2020
> Total Posts 13
> Posts/Day 13.000
> Blue Stars -2

smh said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Wow, Yogi is now paying for Premium accounts under his old handle just to continue trolling this board.

That's dedication.

---

skeptical, in spite of account boilerplate https://bearinsider.com/account/profile/13447
> BADGES
> Premium Subscriber
> Rookie
>
> STATS
> Joined Dec 30, 2020
> Total Posts 13
> Posts/Day 13.000
> Blue Stars -2

---

I suspect the negative stars are stars from Yogi's other fake accounts being removed.

Yogi_Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Here's a little-known fact: Anyone can bring a bill up for a cloture vote in the Senate, not just Mitch McConnell. But that power is rarely used, because it's viewed as something that can shut down the Senate. It's time to shut the Senate down to block Barrett.

---

As I said before, people on this forum prove every day that they don't understand how our government works. Most of the time, it's you, but sometimes it's someone else.

---

Did you know that literally millions of people could run for President of the US, yet they rarely do. You know why? There's almost zero chance of success, so most people being rational, understand, and that power they have is rarely used. Sure Democrats could do this any time they want. It would have the same result, every time. So, what is the point?

Yogi_Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Here's a little-known fact: Anyone can bring a bill up for a cloture vote in the Senate, not just Mitch McConnell. But that power is rarely used, because it's viewed as something that can shut down the Senate. It's time to shut the Senate down to block Barrett.

---

As I said before, people on this forum prove every day that they don't understand how our government works. Most of the time, it's you, but sometimes it's someone else.

---

Did you know that literally millions of people could run for President of the US, yet they rarely do. You know why? There's almost zero chance of success, so most people being rational, understand, and that power they have is rarely used. Sure Democrats could do this any time they want. It would have the same result, every time. So, what is the point?

---

There are over 50 senators who would vote for the $2,000 checks, so that's not it. Try again.

---

Dems can't force a vote on $2,000 checks in the Senate. Only on cloture, which will not put checks in the mail.

And $2,000 checks as a standalone won't get 50 votes. Republicans don't want it to happen so won't put it to a vote and would only vote for a bill with poison pills such as election investigations. That will allow them to pretend to be for $2,000 checks, even though they won't put it forward as a standalone.

---

---

Still don't understand the 2,000 proposal. Why not use that money to up the unemployment benefit further and help those who really need it more. Why not use it to help those who are behind on rent and not those who may not need it? The only reason to send a flat 2000 to almost everyone is to stimulate the economy. We don't need to stimulate the economy other than those industry we shut down. Sending 2000 to most Americans when they cannot spend it on industry that are hurting is wasteful when it could be spent more wisely on those who are most impacted or are about to lose their homes.

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Here's a little-known fact: Anyone can bring a bill up for a cloture vote in the Senate, not just Mitch McConnell. But that power is rarely used, because it's viewed as something that can shut down the Senate. It's time to shut the Senate down to block Barrett.

---

As I said before, people on this forum prove every day that they don't understand how our government works. Most of the time, it's you, but sometimes it's someone else.

---

Did you know that literally millions of people could run for President of the US, yet they rarely do. You know why? There's almost zero chance of success, so most people being rational, understand, and that power they have is rarely used. Sure Democrats could do this any time they want. It would have the same result, every time. So, what is the point?

---

There are over 50 senators who would vote for the $2,000 checks, so that's not it. Try again.

---

Dems can't force a vote on $2,000 checks in the Senate. Only on cloture, which will not put checks in the mail.

And $2,000 checks as a standalone won't get 50 votes. Republicans don't want it to happen so won't put it to a vote and would only vote for a bill with poison pills such as election investigations. That will allow them to pretend to be for $2,000 checks, even though they won't put it forward as a standalone.

---

---

Still don't understand the 2,000 proposal. Why not use that money to up the unemployment benefit further and help those who really need it more. Why not use it to help those who are behind on rent and not those who may not need it? The only reason to send a flat 2000 to almost everyone is to stimulate the economy. We don't need to stimulate the economy other than those industry we shut down. Sending 2000 to most Americans when they cannot spend it on industry that are hurting is wasteful when it could be spent more wisely on those who are most impacted or are about to lose their homes.

---

I agree. It's both over inclusive and under inclusive. Part of the impetus for the original $600 was that it was quicker to do it this way to get the money out so the people who needed it would have it. We've had 8 months to figure out a better way and this is just a bad approach. It won't pick up people who lost their jobs in 2020 and will go to people who've done well in 202 so long as they were under the thresholds in 2019.

Rather than being disciplined and doing it the right way, Washington failed again to do anything when it mattered most and is now jamming to get something in to appease people. The lack of coordination between the executive branch and Moscow Mitch is a big part of this but Pelosi should have argued for larger stimulus for people who actually need it and nothing for those who don't.

Go!Bears said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Here's a little-known fact: Anyone can bring a bill up for a cloture vote in the Senate, not just Mitch McConnell. But that power is rarely used, because it's viewed as something that can shut down the Senate. It's time to shut the Senate down to block Barrett.

---

As I said before, people on this forum prove every day that they don't understand how our government works. Most of the time, it's you, but sometimes it's someone else.

---

Did you know that literally millions of people could run for President of the US, yet they rarely do. You know why? There's almost zero chance of success, so most people being rational, understand, and that power they have is rarely used. Sure Democrats could do this any time they want. It would have the same result, every time. So, what is the point?

---

There are over 50 senators who would vote for the $2,000 checks, so that's not it. Try again.

---

Dems can't force a vote on $2,000 checks in the Senate. Only on cloture, which will not put checks in the mail.

And $2,000 checks as a standalone won't get 50 votes. Republicans don't want it to happen so won't put it to a vote and would only vote for a bill with poison pills such as election investigations. That will allow them to pretend to be for $2,000 checks, even though they won't put it forward as a standalone.

---

---

Well then, I guess Bernie Sanders is a big faker

---

No, they don't. A dem presents a motion. If R's want to kill it they vote to table the motion. It's done. It only works if R's actually want to send the checks as opposed to wanting to look like they want to send the checks. There are not R Senators willing to cross McConnell for this. So while theoretically Dems have the ability to get a vote, they do not have that ability practically. Saying they could do this, is just bs.

---

I'm gonna go ahead and not take your word for it. Better cite it. Minority party in the Senate has a lot more power than in the House of Representatives.

---

https://www.congress.gov/legislative-process/senate-floor

Executive summary: If you don't have 60 votes, it is going NOWHERE. You need 12 R's to cross McConnell and they don't have 12 because R's don't need to because they can vote for McConnell's $2000. w/ poison pills. They know it won't pass the House and they don't care. They look good while doing nothing. Mission Accomplished.

---

I think passing a 2,000 payment to everyone, including those who have not been impacted, because they didn't want to bother passing a bill that gives more at the same cost to the government to those who really need it is bull***** I am definitely not for passing it in its stupid lazy way when, unlike the first, it is not a surprise anymore that people are impacted by COVID-19. How hard is it to increase funding for UI benefits proportionately while making sure that there is still incentive to work (maybe slightly less than what they were making before but something close)? Why not use some of that also to allow gig economy folks to apply for benefits? Government workers who have not lost a penny do not need another 2,000 on backs of the future generation. Let's not be like the freaking baby boomers and keep enriching our generation at the expense of the future.

Yogi_Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

How hard is it to increase funding for UI benefits proportionately while making sure that there is still incentive to work

---

There is no incentive to work. Why would people put themselves in harm's way near other people who are infected?

Furthermore, if you'd bothered to pay any attention at all during the past year, you'd realize how horribly the unemployment system was doing at efficiently getting money to people that were eligible for benefits. And many more people that need the money aren't eligible for benefits.

Get the money out to everybody, get it back at tax time when people show whether they had a lot of 2020 income or not. This is not hard.

---

Just out of curiosity, how would the current tax law work to get the 2,000 back from people who don't need it? If you are suggesting changing the tax law, I would just suggest that there is better chance of hell freezing over than the current houses passing changes to tax law without killing it with pork.

And if UI benefits don't work, why did we put any money into it now and extend the benefits? Not sure any of this is thought through by smart people who can execute this.

And if there is no incentive to work, how are you feeding your family? Where is the food coming from? How is the trash being picked up or delivery being made? Sure there is no incentive for privileged folks like us to work on site. But to keep us fed and fat, others have to have incentive to work. There surely is incentive for minorities who are essential workers so that they can avoid homelessness while we fiddle on our keyboard upping each other on who is more generous by giving money to those who don't need it instead of more to those who do.

Yogi_Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi_Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

How hard is it to increase funding for UI benefits proportionately while making sure that there is still incentive to work

---

There is no incentive to work. Why would people put themselves in harm's way near other people who are infected?

Furthermore, if you'd bothered to pay any attention at all during the past year, you'd realize how horribly the unemployment system was doing at efficiently getting money to people that were eligible for benefits. And many more people that need the money aren't eligible for benefits.

Get the money out to everybody, get it back at tax time when people show whether they had a lot of 2020 income or not. This is not hard.

---

Just out of curiosity, how would the current tax law work to get the 2,000 back from people who don't need it? If you are suggesting changing the tax law, I would just suggest that there is better chance of hell freezing over than the current houses passing changes to tax law without killing it with pork.

And if UI benefits don't work, why did we put any money into it now and extend the benefits? Not sure any of this is thought through by smart people who can execute this.

And if there is no incentive to work, how are you feeding your family? Where is the food coming from? How is the trash being picked up or delivery being made? Sure there is no incentive for privileged folks like us to work on site. But to keep us fed and fat, others have to have incentive to work. There surely is incentive for minorities who are essential workers so that they can avoid homelessness while we fiddle on our keyboard upping each other on who is more generous by giving money to those who don't need it instead of more to those who do.

---

For your first concern, same way that any other credit works. Every fill out a dependent care credit worksheet? Just add a worksheet and if AGI is too high, you have to pay the $2,000 back.

UI benefits do work when you get them. When so many people needed them all at once, the system was overwhelmed and unable to process the large amount of requests. You claim to watch the news - did you not see the huge lines outside unemployment offices?

My family can work remotely. Others can't. Others would like to work remotely, but can't get hired. Others have no choice but to work in areas where their health is at risk. All of this would have been solved by payroll protection in March, but people like you didn't want to do it.

Deficit and debt hawks are just not remotely relevant right now. Their concerns are laughable.

---

People like me? OK, I think you are getting frustrated and making this personal because you cannot defend your position and your lack of humility in your position is impacting your ability to engage.

Did I say I was against payroll protection? Where? Show me. Don't lose your cool because your position doesn't make sense.

And if there were people who were not deemed essential and everyone could work remotely, were you going to grow your own food and do your own healthcare? You don't seem like to rugged type who will go hunting for food, chop wood and create an outhouse. You need people to work onsite for you to survive.

In order to do what you are proposing on the tax return, you would need to change the tax laws. Are you suggesting that will happen in time or at all? It won't happen so we are not getting the 2000 back from those who don't need it.

And again, losing your **** and referring to deficit hawk. Did I or did I not say use the same amount of money to give to those who need it. How is that being a deficit hawk? For those who are unemployed, even 2000 is not enough. Why am I being a deficit hawk by suggesting we send more money to those unemployed or to give more to food banks, increase food stamps, etc instead of sending to everyone below a rather higher end of middle class who don't need it. How is that being a deficit hawk? OK, I will do you one better. Let's send a million dollars to everyone who makes less than $2 million a year. Reduce wage gap and show that we care. Does that work? Why not, you deficit hawk?

Now that $2,000 checks have been blocked in the Republican Senate, the only hope for them is if the two Democrats win in Georgia and the Senate flips Democratic.

If Republicans hold the Senate there will be no $2,000 checks as Trump and Pelosi and Biden would like.

Unlimited helicopter money is not the solution.
It will lead to mass inflation, a future debt crisis, and ultimate destruction of the US economy and standing in global affairs.

That said, we have people suffering economically and a massive wealth gap.

So, what to do to help people on the lower end of the economic spectrum without running self destructive deficits?

Anyone have the solution to that?

$600 vs $2000 - it's not so simple.

concordtom said:

---

Unlimited helicopter money is not the solution.
It will lead to mass inflation, a future debt crisis, and ultimate destruction of the US economy and standing in global affairs.

That said, we have people suffering economically and a massive wealth gap.

So, what to do to help people on the lower end of the economic spectrum without running self destructive deficits?

Anyone have the solution to that?

$600 vs $2000 - it's not so simple.

---

Tax wealth
Universal health care
Boost wages at the low end so they contribute more
Deficit problem solved

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Unlimited helicopter money is not the solution.
It will lead to mass inflation, a future debt crisis, and ultimate destruction of the US economy and standing in global affairs.

That said, we have people suffering economically and a massive wealth gap.

So, what to do to help people on the lower end of the economic spectrum without running self destructive deficits?

Anyone have the solution to that?

$600 vs $2000 - it's not so simple.

---

Tax wealth
Universal health care
Boost wages at the low end so they contribute more
Deficit problem solved

---

Gabriel Zucman much?


I thought this was very illuminating. (Now I'm listening to a new one from him....)
From minutes 7 to 20 (only).

Pelosi was just re-elected as Speaker of the House pretty much guaranteeing the $2,000 checks she and Biden and Trump support will be passed in the House again in the new Congress. The only remaining question is who will be the Senate Majority Leader in the new Congress. The checks will only be sent out if it's a Democrat.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Pigs are sentient creatures. I hope they weren't killed for this.

---

Especially since they are more equal than others.

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Pigs are sentient creatures. I hope they weren't killed for this.

---

Especially since they are more equal than others.

---

> All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others