Because our government didn't #### up the entire response and take a bad issue and turn it into a calamity. Sucks that once again Dems gotta bail out a GOP created problem, but what else is new? It's not complicated, the longer it takes to get the money out, or the less money that goes out, the easier it's going to be for the GOP in 2022. As always Dems can't see the forest through the trees, continuously thinking trying to find a "perfect" solution is better than taking a cheap win.
The Government's response kill hundreds of thousands of people that didn't need to die. Financially, Canada seems to be faring somewhat worse than the US from COVID though. I don't see why the US has a greater need to send out money than Canada does.
Get the people who are hurting $10,000 even if it takes an extra month or two to figure it out.
This process of figuring out who should get 10k and who should get 0, is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. In all honesty, it's probably impossible to ever find a reasonable solution to it.
What criteria do you use to figure out who should get the money and who shouldn't? What information do you base these decisions on? And how do you discern those who are in massive debt due to covid, vs those who are in massive debt due to bad spending decisions?
People need some desperate help to get their life back on track. Getting $2000 to cover overdue bills is not going to make much of a dent in that. I don't know why right now is the magic date. This pandemic has been going on for over a year. My message has always been the same. Get the people who are hurting $10,000 even if it takes an extra month or two to figure it out. Giving everyone $2000 now takes away that ability.
The whole $1400 or $2000 idea should be scrapped. That's a huge pool of money that can be better spent to actually really help people who need it. There's a limit to how much is the right amount of money to borrow and put back in the economy without starting to create problems. This bill is already probably over that, so there is not going to be another chance to spend this much money.
Can somebody explain what problem is being solved by sending $2000 as a one time payment to everyone? I see it as a slap in the face to the people who really need help.
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
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.
People need some desperate help to get their life back on track. Getting $2000 to cover overdue bills is not going to make much of a dent in that. I don't know why right now is the magic date. This pandemic has been going on for over a year. My message has always been the same. Get the people who are hurting $10,000 even if it takes an extra month or two to figure it out. Giving everyone $2000 now takes away that ability.
$1400 today to someone who has a bunch of overdue bills is a lot better than $0 now. And it is better than $10k later.
Do you even know anyone that is personally affected by job loss as a result of the pandemic?
There are still thousands of people going to food banks and who aren’t paying their rent because, wait for it, they don’t have a job. You are aware that some people have committed suicide because of their financial situation—which has undoubtedly been made worse by the pandemic and congressional dithering, are you not?
Do you honestly think that these hurting people would rather just suck it up now and continue to live a bleak and suicidal existence in hopes that, somehow and someday they might get $10k instead of $1400 now?
I just can't believe that $1400 keeps getting pushed away as "won't even make a dent". Seems out of touch with a lot of low income families I know. If you were out of work for awhile during Covid and got back at some point, $1400 could easily be the difference between continuing on or declaring bankruptcy/foreclosing/not making rent and having to leave.
I don't think this poster understands how massive a $1400 influx can be to those that live paycheque to paycheque.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Two things that any government or manager really needs to remember:
1. Perfection is the enemy of good
Don't not do a good thing because it isn't perfect. Inaction can be worse, be sure to weight the status quo when determining options.
2. Anything worth doing, it worth doing poorly
Basically, that means if something it worth doing, do it. Brushing your teeth poorly is better than not brushing at all. Running half a block slowly is better than not exercising at all. Eating a few veggies a day is better than not eating vegetables at all.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
$1400 today to someone who has a bunch of overdue bills is a lot better than $0 now. And it is better than $10k later.
Do you even know anyone that is personally affected by job loss as a result of the pandemic?
There are still thousands of people going to food banks and who aren’t paying their rent because, wait for it, they don’t have a job. You are aware that some people have committed suicide because of their financial situation—which has undoubtedly been made worse by the pandemic and congressional dithering, are you not?
Do you honestly think that these hurting people would rather just suck it up now and continue to live a bleak and suicidal existence in hopes that, somehow and someday they might get $10k instead of $1400 now?
Yes, quite a few, and am helping some of them pay their bills every month. These one time payments help for a month or two but do very little for their overall picture. Extended UI benefits, SNAP, and the PPP all were much more helpful for their month to month needs than random payments.
The Following User Says Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
Two things that any government or manager really needs to remember:
1. Perfection is the enemy of good
Don't not do a good thing because it isn't perfect. Inaction can be worse, be sure to weight the status quo when determining options.
2. Anything worth doing, it worth doing poorly
Basically, that means if something it worth doing, do it. Brushing your teeth poorly is better than not brushing at all. Running half a block slowly is better than not exercising at all. Eating a few veggies a day is better than not eating vegetables at all.
If you are the steward of the government or a company, you have a responsibility to ensure your resources are being allocated properly.
I'm of the opinion that these one time payments with no targeting towards the people is probably about the worst possible way to allocate that money right now.
This is supposed to be about helping people hurt financially by COVID right? Checks to everyone made some sense when the entire economy immediately tanked a year ago. It got money quickly back into the system and the hardships were more widespread.
A year later, it is an entirely different situation. The majority of sectors are booming, and everyone who makes a living in those sectors is generally unaffected financially.
However, there are other sectors that are completely being crushed. Basically 20% of the population is in crisis, and 80% have completely recovered from where they were or improved.
A system that allocates an aid package evenly to the 80% and 20% is terrible use of resources, in my opinion. The only way it could be worse is to give it all to the 80%. To make matters worse, most of that money will be spent on sectors in the 80% that are thriving since the other 20% is still shut down or drastically hobbled.
I wasn’t a fan of Biden getting the nomination over Sanders because I didn’t think he’d actually do much to address or support the needs of working class people. He’s starting to change my mind though with statements like this:
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
I know people don’t want to hear this, but sometimes the US government does actually need to fire rockets in the Middle East.
It’s an imperfect world.
I mean if they weren't in Iraq, where they never should have been in the first place...
But Biden was obviously never going to be a positive influence on the endless wars/military industrial complex, so none of this should surprise anyone.
I mean if they weren't in Iraq, where they never should have been in the first place...
But Biden was obviously never going to be a positive influence on the endless wars/military industrial complex, so none of this should surprise anyone.
That’s an 18 year old decision at this point.
In the here and now, they have alliances and relationships on the ground that are fighting forces that need to be fought.
It’s not like Syria magically got better sometime in the last 18 months.
__________________
Mom and Dad love you, Rowan - February 15, 2024
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
I mean if they weren't in Iraq, where they never should have been in the first place...
But Biden was obviously never going to be a positive influence on the endless wars/military industrial complex, so none of this should surprise anyone.
Except, they - and we - should have been in Iraq back in the 90's, but we chickened out of doing the hard work then, and that bad decision is still having consequences that include people dying 30 years later.
In the here and now, they have alliances and relationships on the ground that are fighting forces that need to be fought.
It’s not like Syria magically got better sometime in the last 18 months.
World leaders have no choice but to accept the death of history. We can't blanket reject the circumstances we live in because we don't like them. All present choices need to be couched in the reality we are currently living in.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
I'm not holding my breath for a smoking gun here, but it looks like the investigation into the Capital riot is about to get very interesting. Watching a few GOP lawmakers get dragged away in handcuffs would be so fun.
Federal law enforcement officials are examining communications between insurrectionists and members of Congress to determine whether lawmakers aided members of the mob who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, according to CNN.
Investigators want to know “whether lawmakers wittingly or unwittingly helped the insurrectionists,” a US official briefed on the matter told CNN, and so far they have gathered data that includes “indications of contact” between “alleged rioters discussing their associations with members of Congress.” More than two dozen prosecutors are assigned to help the effort.
So far investigators are not yet targeting any individual member of Congress, and they have not issued any warrants. But they are still gathering communications, including cell phone data for people to help identify people in the Capitol during the attack who were not authorized to be there.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
