Poll of the Day > So there's like a new $1200 stimulus check?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If I qualified for the last one do I qualify for this one automatically?

no in fact you have to pay back that first one now since you asked

---

Mead posted...

no in fact you have to pay back that first one now since you asked

I hear so many things like this I dont know what to even believe. Am I just borrowing from my future with these?

There is another plan in the works, but currently the Republicans and Democrats are pretty far apart on what it will entail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/us/politics/coronavirus-relief-bills-house-senate.html

---

Haven't gotten the first one yet. *shrug*

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Haven't gotten the first one yet. *shrug*

Did you owe taxes last year? You'll have to wait until September

---

rjsilverthorn posted...

There is another plan in the works, but currently the Republicans and Democrats are pretty far apart on what it will entail.

yeah, for some reason democrats think people who aren't working should make more per week than people who are working
---

There will most likely be another one yes. Because if there isn't, the housing market is going to collapse.

---

rjsilverthorn posted...

There is another plan in the works, but currently the Republicans and Democrats are pretty far apart on what it will entail.

Also this. But it's not just democrats and republicans. Republicans and republicans are pretty far apart on what should be in it. They just slapped together a proposal and like half of them are threatening to vote no.

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

yeah, for some reason democrats think people who aren't working should make more per week than people who are working

It's almost like that's the whole point of an unemployment benefit or something

Krazy_Kirby posted...

yeah, for some reason democrats think people who aren't working should make more per week than people who are working

yeah........

---

Republicans came together to easily pass a $3T tax break for the top 1%.

But theyre really grappling with giving the 99% of us one third($1T) of that.

---

I still think some form of aid that goes directly to rent makes more sense, the whole ban on evictions is going to be a serious problem long term if home owners still have to make mortgage payments.

Just giving out tons of money isn't a solution at all, it devalues the dollar and is going to have negative ramifications eventauly.

Some form of rent assistance or moratorium on mortgage payments along with a food assistance/stamp program for the majority of americans, would be the best solution I think, and would save a ton of money, and could be passed much easier.

Even 200$ a week (with $200 base as most states minimum), is $1600 a month, and is still gonna cost another trillion or so. There has to be a better way.

---

LB1 posted...

It's almost like that's the whole point of an unemployment benefit or something

It's almost like why go back to work when I can collect free money..

xjayguyx posted...

It's almost like why go back to work when I can collect free money..

Because maybe you have a job that pays more than the benefit would, or care about your long term career prospects? You people act like it's some kind of luxury proposition and not some thing that (debatably) just keeps people afloat lmao

I've mentioned this before, but there is an underlying problem that is behind the whole (people won't go back to work), and that is the fact that 40% of US citizens make $15 or less an hour.

This in many places is not enough to actually rent your own place with and still eat and pay your other bills.

It also means that your only making about $2400 a month (Before taxes) for a 40 hour week (and that is for those making $15 an hour, most make less).

Meanwhile the min with unemployment is about $800 a week, or $3200 a month.

The solution isn't to say lets just give everyone $1600 a month (which is what is being proposed right now), and it's not even to boost the wages of people so they make more then $15 (because that has too many negative effects).

The solution should be to ensure rental prices are reduces significantly across the board, perhaps by reducing mortgages, or paying portions of rent or something, and ensuring they stay down in the future, so EVERYONE has more money to spend on other things.

Right now supposedly 30% of renters are not paying rent at all, which means eviction once it's possible. They just said they are going to ban them until march 2021, which is a TON of people not paying rent for the next 8 months.

That is going to seriously hurt people with mortgages that were paying them by renting properties etc.

It's going to end eventually and cause a massive crisis. The solution would be to ensure rental prices were lower and everyone could pay them (perhaps with a combo of unemployment and rent reduction/mortgage freezes etc).

By mortgage freeze, I don'tjust mean not having to pay the mortgage, but a freeze on interest as well (basically these months don't count AT ALL for the loan, no interest, and no payments).

Get rid of rent for EVERYONE while this is going on, find a way to make food available as well, and then don't just throw out money like it's candy.....give a small amount to everyone for additional expenses and leave it at that.

So no rent for all, + no mortgage/property taxes for all + free food ($50 per person per week) + $100 per person per week till this is over.

Additionally help companies give free services, free utilities, free internet, etc....gove assistance for those companies to make them not go bankrupt etc.

THAT could work well, set things up for lowering rental prices in the future even after the pandamic is over, and set things up for food delivery as well (not only $50 per person per week, but also have some people set up systems that can be used to order food delivery (free) from local stores with that money, and you can pay extra money for more stuff if you have it as well.

We should be moving forward with a contactless delivery system at this point since it looks like things are not going to end in the near future.

But whatever, that would make too much sense.

---

Believe or not Im not an economist, but since money isnt really on a gold standard anymore, what are the downsides of the US just creating more capital digitally? Would that cause inflation? I guess I dont really get how money works

---

Mead posted...

Believe or not Im not an economist, but since money isnt really on a gold standard anymore, what are the downsides of the US just creating more capital digitally? Would that cause inflation? I guess I dont really get how money works

Yeah it would basically devalue the dollar, so any money people already have would be worth less. Doesn't really matter how you make the money, the more there is, the less it is worth.

You would think those with the most money would be hurt the most (billionaires etc) but actually they have enough to get whatever they want anyway.

It's those who have worked hard and saved, those on fixed incomes (retired) etc that are really hurt the most.

Sadly there are alot of people who saved for retirement, or are on SSI, etc that get seriously hurt more and more as the cost of living goes up, but they would also get hurt more if the value of the dollar goes down as well.

---

Mead posted...

Believe or not Im not an economist, but since money isnt really on a gold standard anymore, what are the downsides of the US just creating more capital digitally? Would that cause inflation? I guess I dont really get how money works

Yeah. Supply and demand. Money is more in supply, so items cost more of it. Id like to know more about economics, thats probably the next big topic for me.

blu posted...

Yeah. Supply and demand. Money is more in supply, so items cost more of it. Id like to know more about economics, thats probably the next big topic for me.

Yeah this is right. If supply outpaces the demand the value of a dollar decreases.

---

LB1 posted...

Because maybe you have a job that pays more than the benefit would, or care about your long term career prospects? You people act like it's some kind of luxury proposition and not some thing that (debatably) just keeps people afloat lmao

I was being sarcastic..

blu posted...

Yeah. Supply and demand. Money is more in supply, so items cost more of it. Id like to know more about economics, thats probably the next big topic for me.

they can just delete old money to balance it out

---

Ted Cruz had an awesome idea about essential workers getting more rather than dishing out ridiculous amounts to people who get more from sitting at home than working

But yeah, Dems are holding things up wanting to keep the 6 hundo bonus and the 4 mil workers that went back to work last month

---

JixHedgehog posted...

Ted Cruz had an awesome idea about essential workers getting more rather than dishing out ridiculous amounts to people who get more from sitting at home than working

But yeah, Dems are holding things up wanting to keep the 6 hundo bonus and the 4 mil workers that went back to work last month

I honestly think ANY essential workers making less than (whatever the new unemployment amount is) should get money bringing them up to that amount and it's insane that was not already done.

Before the min you could get was $3200 pretty much a month, so everyone working essential jobs should have had their income supplimented to that amount.

In the future, I don't think $600 extra is a good idea, it is too much. I would split the diff and do $400 (extra) which is $600 min, and $2400 a month.

There are still A TON of essential workers making less than that though, and they should get a suppliment to their income to bring them up to that amount.

It would probably cost about as much as the $600 a month for the unemployed was costing, but would be way more fair.

Wouldn't help those retired etc like me though, or on fixed incomes.......for that you'd need a UBI, that that would cost a ton more, and would probably hurt those on fixed incomes/retired more in the long run.

---

Dems are holding things up? The house passed the HEROES act in May. The GOP is still trying to draft a bill that the GOP likes for something that should have passed a week ago, with a soft deadline of Friday, and a hard deadline of next Friday then they go for a month recess. The GOP in the senate is composed of like 3 or 4 factions that all want different things in this bill, then the White House keeps stuffing in irrelevant crap like a new FBI building for shits and giggles. The Dems are not the problem here.

---

JixHedgehog posted...

But yeah, Dems are holding things up wanting to keep the 6 hundo bonus and the 4 mil workers that went back to work last month

hey dude if you want this pandemic to get way worse than it already is, go ahead and force millions of people out of their homes and see how well it works out

---

Unfortunately they made this one so dead people can't get it. My late spouse got one last time because the IRS took four months to process my taxes and I guess nobody thought to check with Social Security.

---

captpackrat posted...

Unfortunately they made this one so dead people can't get it. My late spouse got one last time because the IRS took four months to process my taxes and I guess nobody thought to check with Social Security.

Im sorry for your loss, bro.

---

captpackrat posted...

Unfortunately they made this one so dead people can't get it. My late spouse got one last time because the IRS took four months to process my taxes and I guess nobody thought to check with Social Security.

how dare they stop fraud
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

how dare they stop fraud

It's not fraud if they're the one sending the checks using the data they already had on file. I never applied for anything, the money just showed up in my account one day.

---

wolfy42 posted...

I honestly think ANY essential workers making less than (whatever the new unemployment amount is) should get money bringing them up to that amount and it's insane that was not already done.

Before the min you could get was $3200 pretty much a month, so everyone working essential jobs should have had their income supplimented to that amount.

In the future, I don't think $600 extra is a good idea, it is too much. I would split the diff and do $400 (extra) which is $600 min, and $2400 a month.

There are still A TON of essential workers making less than that though, and they should get a suppliment to their income to bring them up to that amount.

It would probably cost about as much as the $600 a month for the unemployed was costing, but would be way more fair.

Wouldn't help those retired etc like me though, or on fixed incomes.......for that you'd need a UBI, that that would cost a ton more, and would probably hurt those on fixed incomes/retired more in the long run.

Yeah honestly Im kind of pissed that as an essential worker on the frontlines, Im making less money while busting my ass at the grocery store than people who get to actually stay home.

Still holding out hope that well get some kind of good bonus or something.

---

"It's terrible that people on unemployment get more money than people who are working."

So you're saying we need to raise the minimum wage?

---

rexcrk posted...

Yeah honestly Im kind of pissed that as an essential worker on the frontlines, Im making less money while busting my ass at the grocery store than people who get to actually stay home.

Still holding out hope that well get some kind of good bonus or something.

For awhile the safeways were paying everyone $2 an hour more, but I think that stopped awhile ago, and honestly that wasn't enough considering everyone made min wage (and some of the people working there didn't even notice/know about it cause the amount didn't change enough).

I have noticed some of the people working are not very happy/disgruntled. I'm a very friendly person so I know a bunch of them, and have actually had people I know come and help me (especially at the butcher department) when they saw others acting rude/unhelpful, which I really appreciated.

I don't blame them for being unhappy, but it's not the customers fault (course rude customers are a diff story).

I believe that aproximately 40% of americans get paid $15 or less an hour, so I think they should just give a flat amount to EVERYONE who either makes under a certain amount per year, or is currently unemployed (Which would probably end up being about 50% of americans total).

That amount might need to be less, but it would be fair. The current setup is not fair to a bunch of people, and isn't doing a good job of helping those who need it either.

---

captpackrat posted...

"It's terrible that people on unemployment get more money than people who are working."

So you're saying we need to raise the minimum wage?

I've talked about this in other posts, but raising the min wage (rapidly) has had REALLY negative effects, on everyone (other than the rich), even those who were making min wage before. Basically as more money is available to the poorest people, the cost of everything skyrockets due to supply and demand and now you have ALOT more people making minimum wage (which still goes only as far as it used to, or less far even sometimes.

Rent has doubled in my area in the time min wage has increased by 30% basically.

---

captpackrat posted...

"It's terrible that people on unemployment get more money than people who are working."

So you're saying we need to raise the minimum wage?

no, i'm saying lower unemployment
---

the whole point was to make people on unemployment stay the fuck home.

the actual reason people aren't going back to work is because we're in the middle of a fucking pandemic.

but when you let the richest people in the world tell you that the people staying home safe are the problem and not their lobbying against raising wages, and you believe them, then they won

---

there are plenty of people who decline work as long as they can make more on unemployment
---

blu posted...

If I qualified for the last one do I qualify for this one automatically? Coworker told me I was getting one and theres a new one.

Are you sure you got the first one?

---

The extra $600 per week is fucking insane, and shame on the Democrats for fighting so hard to keep it when it basically just fucks over the (often lowly paid) "essential" workers who can't collect it and wouldn't be ineligible for it if they quit in disgust over the injustice.

The Republican suggestion of +$200 per week is already very generous. That's basically an extra $5/hr for a 40 hour work week.
Dems should just agree to that in return for gutting Republican's giveaways to the rich.
Unfortunately we all know that compromise only works in one direction in Congress, and it's never in the direction of "hey, let's not blow up the budget and fuck over future generations even more!"
So prepare for even more $20/hr unemployment pay and trillions of dollars to corporations that were recording record profits just before the pandemic and really shouldn't need all that free money.
'Murica!
Fuck the future!

streamofthesky posted...

The extra $600 per week is fucking insane, and shame on the Democrats for fighting so hard to keep it when it basically just fucks over the (often lowly paid) "essential" workers who can't collect it and wouldn't be ineligible for it if they quit in disgust over the injustice.

The Republican suggestion of +$200 per week is already very generous. That's basically an extra $5/hr for a 40 hour work week.
Dems should just agree to that in return for gutting Republican's giveaways to the rich.
Unfortunately we all know that compromise only works in one direction in Congress, and it's never in the direction of "hey, let's not blow up the budget and fuck over future generations even more!"
So prepare for even more $20/hr unemployment pay and trillions of dollars to corporations that were recording record profits just before the pandemic and really shouldn't need all that free money.
'Murica!
Fuck the future!

The $200 a week isn't meant to go to essential workers though sadly (and it should). I personally prefer a system that pays essential workers as well, over just those not working, even if it means less for everyone.

I've mentioned before that there could be multiple long term ramifications from having the bonus $600 a week, even just for the time it's been available. Alot of people live on around $1000-$1200 a month total (many min wage jobs don't offer 40 hours a week). That is their norm. If you give them more than 3x that for even 6 months, many won't spend the extra and hold on to it. IF they extend that even longer, you can end up with people hoarding enough money to not need to work for years.

Forcing people to work right now is wrong, except for essential services (and they should be paid more), but giving 40% of the population 2-3x as much money per month as they used to make AND allowing those who are unscrupulous to not pay rent at the same time, is a disaster waiting to happen.

So many people are forced to rent rooms/share apartments etc, and have costs down to around $1000 a month because of that. Heck right now 2 adults could be sharing a 1 bedroom apartment, actually be paying rent, but getting $7000 a month between them from unemployment (with no kids).

IF they just held on to the extra, they could be saving $5000 of more a month easily, and by this point have enough saved so neither of em have to work for the next 3 years or so. Not everyone will do that, but some will, others might use the money to buy property (while mortgage rates are at an all time low) which isn't a bad thing really.

The point though is that it's WAY more money than many need to survive, it's NO money to many people who are working their arses off in unsafe conditions and it's going to hit everyone hard long term even if we won't feel it right now as much.

---

As an essential worker, I'd appreciate better extra pay than what we had gotten for those couple months. As someone with a few expenses to finish paying off and a life to support, I'd appreciate more income than what I am getting.

---

Entity13 posted...

As an essential worker, I'd appreciate better extra pay than what we had gotten for those couple months. As someone with a few expenses to finish paying off and a life to support, I'd appreciate more income than what I am getting.

I was just in your store the other day actually (day before yesterday), aaaand, I'm moving near enough that I'll be shopping there again regularly!! I'm 15 minutes (Exactly) away from the safeway north of you, and that is literally the closest part of civilzation near me lol.

---

Anyone considered an essential worker should absolutely be getting some kind of pay bump or stipend for working in places open to the public during the pandemic

---

Mead posted...

Anyone considered an essential worker should absolutely be getting some kind of pay bump or stipend for working in places open to the public during the pandemic

Amen, i've been saying that since this whole thing started. All I can do is tell em I appreciate them when I shop. I could not do what they are doing with a mask on all day, but I'm sure glad they are doing it.

---

we should all be getting hazard pay. And more stimulus checks but not for those collecting muthafucking $700/week on unemployment and they aren't looking for a job for the future

---

I hope none of those people get jobs when the pandemic is declared over economically-speaking

fuck all y'all!

---

SpeeDLeemon posted...

we should all be getting hazard pay. And more stimulus checks but not for those collecting muthafucking $700/week on unemployment and they aren't looking for a job for the future

what jobs do you want them to be looking for? Numbers are going up exponentially in almost half the US states now. Places are closed down and have furloughed workers for a reason

---