Yeah I think it was AOC I saw yesterday was arguing it should be 2000 not 1400. Do people always just have to find something to be upset about?
Didn't the house pass a stand alone $2000, and send to the senate, which wasn't voted on? And wasn't it $2000, not $1400+$600? If so, then that's the one that should be going through a vote again, since the only thing that has changed is the party in charge of the senate.
Is there a reason we are STILL giving money to everyone who falls within certain income brackets? I get that for the first round, it was an emergency, people needed money quickly, and there wasn't a ton of time to sift through who should get it and who shouldn't. Plus, we were at the height of the early days of the pandemic. It's been 9 months. How have we not uncovered a way to identify who specifically could benefit from these checks and set it up as some sort of additional benefit for unemployment or something? People who have seen no change to their employment status over the course of the pandemic shouldn't be in need of extra free cash. I'm working under the assumption that the main purpose of these checks going directly to individuals is to support the individuals, rather than as a "stimulus" to the economy, so if I'm off base there, feel free to correct me.
If the goal was to get $2,000 to Americans, and you were able to get $600 to them, why wouldn't you just focus on trying to get the other $1,400 to them? It seems like common sense.
Income brackets are based on last tax cycle, which could have changed. I imagine if you asked the left they'd say give everyone the full amount, and if you asked the right, they'd say bracket it. So to answer your question as to why the brackets haven't been figured out... you'd have to look at the ideology of the Republican Party, I guess.
They're wanting higher inflation too, so the money printing will help that. Expecting/wanting inflation and to be around 3ish CPI early summer.
The words explained why. Didn't the house pass a stand alone $2000, and send to the senate, which wasn't voted on? ... The rest.
it was 600, then trump said more so the house quickly passed a 2000 BEFORE 600 was signed and that died subsequently in the Senate. then eventually trump signed the bill with 600. the timeline of events is what is being ignored.
$1400 instead of $2000 is peak Democrats. The messaging was "$600 isnt enough, we're going to give $2000". And then turned into just "$2000 checks", which continued even after the $600 ones had already gone out and was dangled around as the reward for voting for Dems in Georgia. Now that it's getting close to time to deliver it's "Ackshually we meant $2000 total, so $1400 checks". Just send out $2000 checks and dont start this stupid administration off with weasel words and "What we really meant was..."
I thought House tried to pass with unanimous consent. Did not. Punted a floor vote to Monday, and Trump signed the $600 on Sunday?
I am not sure on the precise details, but I agree that the order of events was: trump wanted 2000 and not the 600 the gop negotiated down to, house puts forward 2000, senate balks, trump signs 600.
The democrats got everyone up in arms over a vote in the Senate on the 2,000 after Trump had 600, true or false?
if someone can find biden or Harris talking about 2600, help me out. i cannot. there is no weaseling, this is a moving of the goalposts.
No, this is absolutely weaseling out by the Democrats. After Trump had signed the $600, they made a lot of noise about the Senate not voting on the $2000, with Bernie holding up Near Years. It isn't Biden or Harris, this is the houses of Congress.
