Can someone explain to me why the US will put random things together in the same bill?
Doesn't it make the most sense to have bills deal with specific issues? Why would you link stimulius payments, internet regulation and defense spending in the same bill?
On the face of it, that doesn't make sense. What's the technical reasoning behind it (the actual reasoning is to kill a bill the exact say McConnell is doing it).
technically it was done to hide the vast levels of appropriations senators and congress could bring back to their districts in order to say they were representing their community
Can someone explain to me why the US will put random things together in the same bill?
Doesn't it make the most sense to have bills deal with specific issues? Why would you link stimulius payments, internet regulation and defense spending in the same bill?
On the face of it, that doesn't make sense. What's the technical reasoning behind it (the actual reasoning is to kill a bill the exact say McConnell is doing it).
I’ve worked in local government for over two decades and we know better than to do that.
Can someone explain to me why the US will put random things together in the same bill?
Doesn't it make the most sense to have bills deal with specific issues? Why would you link stimulius payments, internet regulation and defense spending in the same bill?
On the face of it, that doesn't make sense. What's the technical reasoning behind it (the actual reasoning is to kill a bill the exact say McConnell is doing it).
Canada has omnibus bills as well. Stephen Harper loved them.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Can someone explain to me why the US will put random things together in the same bill?
Doesn't it make the most sense to have bills deal with specific issues? Why would you link stimulius payments, internet regulation and defense spending in the same bill?
On the face of it, that doesn't make sense. What's the technical reasoning behind it (the actual reasoning is to kill a bill the exact say McConnell is doing it).
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
Canada has omnibus bills as well. Stephen Harper loved them.
Not quite the same when the government has a majority and can pass what they want. An omnibus in Canada is usually done to hide things as opposed to force the opposition to vote against their own interests so they can use it in the next election. With Canada the opposition days where they can introduce legislation to the house essentially alleviates the problem the US is facing.
This is much more akin to calling every motion a confidence motion to force parties to decide between an election or supporting the bill.
The fact that only the senate majority leader can control the legislation that gets voted on and uses that power to prevent compromise across party lines is so undemocratic and promotes polarization.
It’s not at all. The idea of policing how people spend their own money or that everything is on merit when we know most of the “merit” is what class and race you’re born into is pretty common especially around those who are in a comfortable place.
$600 is pissing on people and telling them it’s rain. 2k and demanding they spend it as you see fit is pissing in their mouth and asking them to swallow. Help the people and let them do with it what they want.
Is it all going to go to amazon? A chunk of it yeah I bet so. But if it’s to buy what people need who the hell is anyone to tell them what to do? If theyre a freedom loving American that’s the thing right? The freedom to do what you want with your money. The cries of it being hoarded or spent incorrectly harken back to the Reagan “welfare queen” hysterics Americans are so prone to. Argue about the exception instead of focusing on the rule.
And yet, there is something to be said about restricting how people can spend money that was given to them by the government. In the UBI thread, someone made an apt point about how some people would just spend an extra $1000/month on drugs if you gave them a $1000/month UBI. We can clamour all we want about how that's tone deaf or offensive to say, but it's simply a fact that some people buy drugs on the black market and would buy even more if they were given money to do so.
In this thread, someone made an apt point that a lot of people would use the stimulus money to simply put down a payment against their debts, and then that money would flow to a rich person's bank account, doing nothing for the economy.
And don't even get me started on those pay-to-win apps that get people addicted and end up extracting inordinate amounts of money from people who get hooked on them...
So simply giving people money with no strings attached does not seem like the best approach to dealing with the current situation (albeit it's far better than letting people fend for themselves during these troubled times, but still...)
Here's what I'm thinking could be done instead... how about issuing each adult a prepaid card with $2000 loaded onto it, but the card only works when paying in person at an approved business, and can only be used to pay for rent/mortgage payments or groceries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
It should at least be a lower income cut off. It makes no sense to be giving these checks to salaried white collar workers working from home. Taking the money from unemployment boosts/extensions and giving it to people not affected seems like the worst possible idea. A one time payment of $2000 does not help the people who are really hurt one bit, and 75% of those checks will go to people not financially affected.
This isn't means tested stimulus, this is figuring out how to help the right people. Lower income people have been more likely to lose work from this, so at least a lower cutoff would target the help a bit better. But unemployment streamlining/boosting/extending is probably the best answer. As is helping businesses like restaurants survive.
Going to have to disagree on this one. The whole "money would be given to people who don't need it" argument is a superfluous one, IMO. If you want to do something about inequality, get serious about taxing the wealthy... and get serious about closing tax loopholes and cracking down on tax cheats. The Trump tax cuts were an absolute heist (and I'd argue the Bush tax cuts as well).
I also don't agree with the idea of helping businesses survive for the sake of helping businesses survive. Sure, if you run one of these businesses, you're going to be looking out for your own interests and hence will want to leave no stone unturned in your attempt to keep your business afloat. But from a overall economic standpoint, it seems like once economic conditions return that will allow for restaurants to survive, restaurants will naturally return.
And yet, there is something to be said about restricting how people can spend money that was given to them by the government. In the UBI thread, someone made an apt point about how some people would just spend an extra $1000/month on drugs if you gave them a $1000/month UBI. We can clamour all we want about how that's tone deaf or offensive to say, but it's simply a fact that some people buy drugs on the black market and would buy even more if they were given money to do so.
In this thread, someone made an apt point that a lot of people would use the stimulus money to simply put down a payment against their debts, and then that money would flow to a rich person's bank account, doing nothing for the economy.
And don't even get me started on those pay-to-win apps that get people addicted and end up extracting inordinate amounts of money from people who get hooked on them...
So simply giving people money with no strings attached does not seem like the best approach to dealing with the current situation (albeit it's far better than letting people fend for themselves during these troubled times, but still...)
Here's what I'm thinking could be done instead... how about issuing each adult a prepaid card with $2000 loaded onto it, but the card only works when paying in person at an approved business, and can only be used to pay for rent/mortgage payments or groceries.
What percentage of people do you think would use the extra money to buy drugs? 50%? 10%? Is anything above 0% too high and the spending needs to be monitored or controlled?
Sure. Give me $2k on a gift card. I’ll use that for my spending and use the $2k I have in my bank account for the “bad spending” instead of the other way around. Sure limited my spending.
I don’t get why the spending needs to be questioned or controlled at all. We trust these same people with drivers licenses, voting, etc. Should that be taken away too?
What percentage of people do you think would use the extra money to buy drugs? 50%? 10%? Is anything above 0% too high and the spending needs to be monitored or controlled?
0% is the ideal number. While it's true that only being a tiny bit above 0 is not necessarily a huge problem, any decrease is a good thing.
Quote:
Sure. Give me $2k on a gift card. I’ll use that for my spending and use the $2k I have in my bank account for the “bad spending” instead of the other way around. Sure limited my spending.
But this way you're not spending $4k on bad things.
Quote:
I don’t get why the spending needs to be questioned or controlled at all. We trust these same people with drivers licenses, voting, etc. Should that be taken away too?
It’s not at all. The idea of policing how people spend their own money or that everything is on merit when we know most of the “merit” is what class and race you’re born into is pretty common especially around those who are in a comfortable place.
$600 is pissing on people and telling them it’s rain. 2k and demanding they spend it as you see fit is pissing in their mouth and asking them to swallow. Help the people and let them do with it what they want.
Is it all going to go to amazon? A chunk of it yeah I bet so. But if it’s to buy what people need who the hell is anyone to tell them what to do? If theyre a freedom loving American that’s the thing right? The freedom to do what you want with your money. The cries of it being hoarded or spent incorrectly harken back to the Reagan “welfare queen” hysterics Americans are so prone to. Argue about the exception instead of focusing on the rule.
So what are we saying is the point of this $2000? I argue that there should be some attempt to distribute the pool to the people who have been badly hurt by COVID. At best, 25% of the proposed $2000/person would go to that group of that people. When 75% of an aid package is going to people who aren't affected or don't need it, then that is not arguing about the exception.
Again, the overall economy is not in need of a stimulus at all. Certain sectors, and workers in those sectors are badly in need. It absolutely should be directed at them. Your arguments are just irrelevant platitudes that are missing the point.
So what are we saying is the point of this $2000? I argue that there should be some attempt to distribute the pool to the people who have been badly hurt by COVID. At best, 25% of the proposed $2000/person would go to that group of that people. When 75% of an aid package is going to people who aren't affected or don't need it, then that is not arguing about the exception.
Again, the overall economy is not in need of a stimulus at all. Certain sectors, and workers in those sectors are badly in need. It absolutely should be directed at them. Your arguments are just irrelevant platitudes that are missing the point.
It's like the commercial rent subsidies here. I talked a pretty prolific commercial realtor in Ottawa and he told me the wealthier ones are just shutting down for now and using the rent subsidies as a way to upgrade their businesses without taking the losses they would have otherwise. He thinks that once things go back to normal, those guys will pick up the leavings from small businesses that couldn't make it or are eager to sell. Basically, he said some people are going to make out great after this. They will have newer equipment, renovated spaces, and less competition. All helped along by a rent subsidy they didn't "need".
Net worth should be a factor when giving out money.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 12-30-2020 at 11:35 PM.
COVID relief currently includes a tax break for corporate meal expenses. We're giving corporations a break on their taxes for spending exorbitant amounts on expensive meals and drinks. Currently there are tax breaks for yacht owners. There are billions of dollars in tax revenue lost every single year because the IRS is horrendously underfunded, which means they don't have the resources to audit the wealthy who aren't properly paying their taxes.
But we're gonna split hairs over the idea that maybe some people who make <75k a year might possibly spend their big $2k on something that isn't rent/food. God forbid.
The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
COVID relief currently includes a tax break for corporate meal expenses. We're giving corporations a break on their taxes for spending exorbitant amounts on expensive meals and drinks. Currently there are tax breaks for yacht owners. There are billions of dollars in tax revenue lost every single year because the IRS is horrendously underfunded, which means they don't have the resources to audit the wealthy who aren't properly paying their taxes.
But we're gonna split hairs over the idea that maybe some people who make <75k a year might possibly spend their big $2k on something that isn't rent/food. God forbid.
The meals tax break is intended to help the restaurant industry, which badly needs help. Granted, it's probably not a very effective way to do it. It was also part of the deal to reduce income requirements for the EIC that people may have lost due to not working as much in 2020.
The meals tax break will likely result in less a billion of lost revenue. $2000 checks to everyone will cost in the 400-500 billion range. One bad idea doesn't justify the need for another much more expensive bad idea.
If it was truly <$75k earners who'd qualify, then it would probably better target the people who need it. But the $2000 proposal only starts phasing out at households making >$150k and doesn't completely phase out until $350k for some families.
These one time payments took from money that was going to go to propping up unemployment. How can you argue that is a good idea for helping the people that need it?
These one time payments took from money that was going to go to propping up unemployment. How can you argue that is a good idea for helping the people that need it?
So the money being given out is "taking from unemployment," but the bailouts that went to Wall Street and the defense industry was just extra money that was kicking around? I didn't see any hand-wringing from you about what those companies were going to be spending their relief money on.
Blows my mind that people are more hung up on a one-time payment that many people could use right now, but is still a paltry amount compared to the corporate welfare that continues to go on on a daily basis.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
COVID relief currently includes a tax break for corporate meal expenses. We're giving corporations a break on their taxes for spending exorbitant amounts on expensive meals and drinks. Currently there are tax breaks for yacht owners. There are billions of dollars in tax revenue lost every single year because the IRS is horrendously underfunded, which means they don't have the resources to audit the wealthy who aren't properly paying their taxes.
But we're gonna split hairs over the idea that maybe some people who make <75k a year might possibly spend their big $2k on something that isn't rent/food. God forbid.
I noticed there's a handful of posters that are particularly sensitive and outspoken about people receiving money without being in absolutely dire straits.
But people will rarely say anything about another that isn't in some way a direct reflection of themselves. And the amount of that talk and accusing going on is not reflective of merely casual observers. There's a personal attachment to it.
If I were to guess it bothers them because it holds up a mirror to their own history as they once cut corners or came into some money that they misused themselves when they weren't as well off and now hate the idea of others doing the same.
It also is reflective of people with a scarcity mentality in regards to money and believe nothing in life comes free of work or struggle, including gifts.
But those are the rigid limitations of their own personal paradigm speaking.
I have a different perspective on the subject. I'll still save money in my glovebox for the panhandlers, even the ones loitering in the drive thrus. I'm aware that they make good money over the course of a day, and could even be posing to benefit and be using it on things that don't help them.
But I recognize that's also not my business to know what people are doing and I can't control how they use it. But giving anyways in good faith feels good, and those people are always grateful. Giving and gratitude are way better vibes to live in than hording, scarcity and greed. It all comes back around eventually.
These are extraordinary times. I'm happy if these payouts to people can either serve as means of survival or just mental reprieve. People who are that sour about that have to live a pretty black and white, joy-free existence.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
I noticed there's a handful of posters that are particularly sensitive and outspoken about people receiving money without being in absolutely dire straits.
But people will rarely say anything about another that isn't in some way a direct reflection of themselves. And the amount of that talk and accusing going on is not reflective of merely casual observers. There's a personal attachment to it.
If I were to guess it bothers them because it holds up a mirror to their own history as they once cut corners or came into some money that they misused themselves when they weren't as well off and now hate the idea of others doing the same.
It also is reflective of people with a scarcity mentality in regards to money and believe nothing in life comes free of work or struggle, including gifts.
But those are the rigid limitations of their own personal paradigm speaking.
I have a different perspective on the subject. I'll still save money in my glovebox for the panhandlers, even the ones loitering in the drive thrus. I'm aware that they make good money over the course of a day, and could even be posing to benefit and be using it on things that don't help them.
But I recognize that's also not my business to know what people are doing and I can't control how they use it. But giving anyways in good faith feels good, and those people are always grateful. Giving and gratitude are way better vibes to live in than hording, scarcity and greed. It all comes back around eventually.
These are extraordinary times. I'm happy if these payouts to people can either serve as means of survival or just mental reprieve. People who are that sour about that have to live a pretty black and white, joy-free existence.
I've not argued once about how people should or would spend their money. This pandemic has hit about a quarter of the population extremely hard financially, and about 3/4s have not been financially affected at all, and some sectors are booming.
There needs to be some attempt to direct much more money in helping the 25%. What problem is giving money to the 75% solving?
The Following User Says Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
So the money being given out is "taking from unemployment," but the bailouts that went to Wall Street and the defense industry was just extra money that was kicking around? I didn't see any hand-wringing from you about what those companies were going to be spending their relief money on.
Blows my mind that people are more hung up on a one-time payment that many people could use right now, but is still a paltry amount compared to the corporate welfare that continues to go on on a daily basis.
It sounds like the money to the defense industry was supposed to be for purchasing ppe and pandemic supplies, so yeah that is bad. It's also 0.25% of the amount of money that would be required for $2000 checks for everyone.
Money was pulled directly out of the agreement for extended unemployment benefits to fund the $600. Are you arguing that is ok? I'd much rather see it going to people who are unemployed from this pandemic.
There needs to be some attempt to direct much more money in helping the 25%. What problem is giving money to the 75% solving?
Not a comment toward you because this sentiment makes sense, but it’s just so wholly disappointing of society.
We have Cali Panthers Fan a page back stating they’d try (I’m assuming the partner might put up a bit of resistance haha) of donating the entire amount they receive toward people in need. And I see you thanked his post so you appreciate that mindset.
If that was the general thinking of the population, “I’m not hurting for this money, so I will give it to the people who are,” the World, and specifically America would just be a better place.
But sadly Cali is by far the exception than the rule.
And then this morning you have Mitch McConnell still blocking the senate vote stating “The Senate is not going to be bullied into handing out more borrowed money into the hands of Democratic rich friends who don’t need the help.”
__________________ Would there even be no trade clauses if Edmonton was out of the NHL? - fotze
