Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I understand this, but you realise $10,000 to people is not on the table, right? That's not what is up for grabs here?
Sure, it's a slap in the face, sure it's not enough. But it is what it is. We're talking about reality here, not what we wish reality was. The reality is that $1400 is on the table, and everything they are doing is further delaying those that need it from getting it, and ensuring some people who need it won't.
So yes, there is an alternate reality where it is better. But it's not on the table.
That's why you disputing everything who is getting annoyed at this makes little sense. Your reasons for this actually being a good thing are not real. They are not delaying this to give an extra $8600 to people. That is not what is happening. You're debating theoreticals, we're talking about reality. So you really have no right to do the moral posturing thing when your view on this is based on fantasy. It's the equivalent to "why are we coming up with new cancer treatments when we should be focused on curing cancer? I would just cure cancer! you think you're doing anyone a favour by just treating their symptoms??" Like, cool, great, but that's a bit out of touch and you can see why it's hard to believe you actually care about affected people in a meaningful way.
And, for the record, at least some of the people discussing this in this thread are American and/or have family living in America. This isn't just a bunch of Canadians.
|
I do think there is an ebb and flow between how much money is spent on the one time payments, and how much goes to the other programs. Scoping down the one time payments and stretching out the UI top off longer would be a good thing in my idea. Or more money towards things like rent relief, utility relief, SNAP and EIC would help people more directly and more quickly. Those types of things are in and out of these bills and have gone up and down with negotiations.
At one point Pelosi was being criticized for not accepting $2000 stimulus payments in exchange for eliminating the EIC. That would probably sound great to a lot of people. But in reality it would eliminate tax credits of up to $5000+ to working poor, single parent families. Would that have been a good trade off for making sure everyone got $2000?
I don't see the price tag of the bill changing much with changes. I think it is a perfectly valid for some of these democrats to argue for more money to these more targeted policies and less to the one time payment for everyone. I don't think it is fair to label them or me all Reagan conservatives or some kind of boot licker because they are realizing that the one time payment is not the wisest way to spend the money.