Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, March 29, 2020

The check is a one-off.

While Senate Democrats like Michael Bennet (CO), Cory Booker (NJ), and Sherrod Brown (OH) called for additional checks to be triggered by changes in the unemployment rate, and left-leaning members of Congress like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) called for monthly payments, the Senate bill's cash portion won't re-up unless Congress explicitly authorizes additional cash assistance.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had signaled he wanted two installments but faced pushback from some Senate Republicans like Lindsey Graham (SC).

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The conservative Tax Foundation estimates that 93.6 percent of tax filers will get a check. Using a conventional measure (that is excluding "dynamic" effects), they find that the poorest fifth of Americans will see their income grow by 16.33 percent due to the bill while the top 1 percent won't see their incomes grow at all.

One hundred percent of the poorest households would potentially be eligible for a rebate, a huge change from the earlier Senate GOP proposal in which as little as 80 percent of poor households were eligible."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2020-03-29 05:18 PM | Reply

"the poorest fifth of Americans will see their income grow by 16.33 percent due to the bill"

LMFAO.

These fools think people are still going to be working.

China would correct this sort of politically motivated economic disinformation with two bullets to the back of the head.

We give it the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-29 05:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Also of note, this is non-taxable because it is really a "rebate" on your 2020 taxes, that you might have gotten anyway.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2020-03-29 05:24 PM | Reply

"Get your iPhone 11 now for only $1195!!"

- Verizon

**+$5 dollar activation fee

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-03-29 05:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Mnuchin believes that people can live on $17 a day. I guess that they can survive on that if they don't have a phone, car, housing, or medical expense that needs paying (then it might get a little tougher, a good pull yourself up by your bootstraps learning moment) I'd say that this 2-bit Boris Badanov wannabe is completely out of touch to the reality that the majority of the people have to face, except I believe he knows exactly what's what.

If relief doesn't line the pockets of the master(s) he serves then it does not need to be offered. You can enjoy the crust of bread being tossed to you, but you'll need to fight for it first. That is their entertainment.

#5 | Posted by Sezu at 2020-03-30 01:49 PM | Reply

$1200 is probably great in Alabama or North Dakota. You can probably buy your wife/daughter a new house.

But, in New York or Washington or California. That money will barely cover rent.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-03-30 01:53 PM | Reply

Why would people who haven't experienced any adverse consequences of COVID get a check at all? I can understand giving money to those people who have been put out of work...but the others? My income situation hasn't changed. No point in wasting more taxpayer dollars on me.

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-03-30 03:38 PM | Reply

I agree #7. The relief should be targeted to those who have suffered as a result of the pandemic.

Where we likely differ is i think those people should be getting a lot more than $1,200.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 03:44 PM | Reply

Why would people who haven't experienced any adverse consequences of COVID get a check at all?
#7 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You can't count on the unemployed to win elections for. You have to buy the votes of people with jobs too.

#9 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-03-30 03:45 PM | Reply

Oh, and given the income limits you probably don't qualify for a check anyway. I don't.

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 03:45 PM | Reply

Why would people who haven't experienced any adverse consequences of COVID get a check at all?
#7 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

And who might that person be?
Let's take the DR. Anyone here not experiencing adverse consequences?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-30 03:47 PM | Reply

The relief should be targeted to those who have suffered as a result of the pandemic.

I'm sure the idea is to give money to all voters, not just sick/displaced voters.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-03-30 03:47 PM | Reply

7

there is no way to prove you've been put out by it.

BTW, a worker earning $15 an hour with 2 kids gets $2,200. That's probably 5 weeks of take home income + unemployment.

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 03:49 PM | Reply

"there is no way to prove you've been put out by it."

It's pretty easy to prove it to the State o California.
You check the "I am out of work because of Coronavirus" box on your unemployment application.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-30 03:51 PM | Reply

there is no way to prove you've been put out by it.

Nonsense.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 03:51 PM | Reply

15

fine...how do the tens of millions of tax filers prove it in an efficient and simple way?

not saying it's impossible (well, I am actually) but I'm open to ideas....

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 03:55 PM | Reply

That's a whole lot of additional weasel words you've added to your position. But i'll play anyway.

How do people prove they've lost their job when they file for unemployment?

How do people prove they have children when they claim dependents on their tax return?

How do people prove they meet the requirements to receive any government benefit provided to Americans?

Just because you don't know how things work, doesn't mean they don't work.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh snap!

#18 | Posted by bored at 2020-03-30 04:06 PM | Reply

"how do the tens of millions of tax filers prove it in an efficient and simple way?"

I don't understand the premise from which this question arises.
What's the harm if we simply take their word for it?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-30 04:07 PM | Reply

"How do people prove they've lost their job when they file for unemployment?" They contact the former employer
"How do people prove they have children when they claim dependents on their tax return?" SS numbers
"How do people prove they meet the requirements to receive any government benefit provided to Americans?" You probably know that better than me.

How does any of that get you closer to your solution?

Are you just just typing and drooling over your keyboard because I'm playing with you? But you don't have any earthly idea how you prove you've been affected by this more than someone else?

you get unemployment if you lose your job. THAT is how one person can get more benefits than someone else.

My company just handed out $1,000 to everyone (netted out). It was to help the young mothers who are faced with additional daycare problems get through this time.....but we needed to give it to everyone in order for it to be compliant and legal.

People are put into all sorts of hardship over this. How do you, other than by income class, determine who is more impacted than others?

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 04:10 PM | Reply

"But you don't have any earthly idea how you prove you've been affected by this more than someone else?"

^
Great reason to give up the demand for proof.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-30 04:14 PM | Reply

#20 So you acknowledge there are ways in which innumerable federal benefits programs with eligibility criteria are administered.

And this (a federal benefits program with eligibility criteria) can't get done - why, exactly?

#22 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 04:16 PM | Reply

Eberly also didn't think it was feasible for the Feds to cut illegals a check for $1200.
He's just being his usual ornery self.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-30 04:17 PM | Reply

Even this bill requires businesses to prove they have "incurred covered losses such that the continued operations of the business are jeopardized" as a condition to receiving certain aid.

I really want Eberly to explain why that's impossible, or why it would be impossible to impose a condition on individuals to prove losses.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 04:22 PM | Reply

22

1. what eligibility criteria exists for folks who are more affected? (excluding the existing stimulus program where eligibility is based solely on AGI)?
2. what criteria would you use? IOW, how am I more impacted than you, for example......
3. The other benefit programs currently in existence already have a system in place to verify eligibility, and to distribute and manage benefits. This is
a likely 1-time stimulus distribution already costing a fair amount of money...how much additional costs do you want to endure so that a system can be
established for me to get more than you?

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 04:23 PM | Reply

"1/ what eligibility criteria exists for folks who are more affected? (excluding the existing stimulus program where eligibility is based solely on AGI)?"
You could require them to prove they lost their job (as they do with unemployment), prove they've incurred additional expenses related to the virus such as medical or childcare (by way of receipts). It's really not that hard to conjure up a set of criteria.

"2. what criteria would you use? IOW, how am I more impacted than you, for example......"
See above

"3. The other benefit programs currently in existence already have a system in place to verify eligibility, and to distribute and manage benefits."

So what? Mirror them and implement something before coughing up $2.2T: As i said above, there are eligibility criteria for other pieces of the aid in this bill. It wouldn't be hard, much less "impossible" as you claimed to do something similar for individuals.

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 04:28 PM | Reply

In reality the bill would only need to say the individual suffered a covered loss "as determined by the Secretary" of whatever agency will be in charge of administering the program, followed by the career officials at that agency using their decades of institutional knowledge to formulate something that works.

Not impossible by any stretch. Just not desired by those who wrote the bill.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 04:30 PM | Reply

businesses are different than individuals and business income losses are an existing coverage in most commercial P&C policies, subject to specific causes of loss.....so it's a fair point but businesses are different.

My point is that it's basically impossible, politically and financially, to administer the stimulus the way you are wishing.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 04:30 PM | Reply

business income losses are an existing coverage in most commercial P&C policies

Who cares? That didn't stop the government from requiring businesses to prove their losses as a condition for receiving aid under this very bill.

If a business can prove "i was harmed by coronavirus" a person can do it too.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 04:32 PM | Reply

They just decided that almost everyone under a certain income level is being impacted adversely by this and that it was easier to give it to everyone rather than apply any further scrutiny.

And if you lost your job....unemployment.

this was the simplest formula based on a very tight time frame.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 04:33 PM | Reply

-That didn't stop the government from requiring businesses to prove their losses as a condition for receiving aid under this very bill.

We can discuss how this part of the stimulus program worked after we're through it.

I have my doubts this will work as it's being sold right now. It's either going to be extremely easy to make up a "loss" and thus easy to defraud, or it's going to be much harder than business owners think.

I forecast a lot of negative fallout over the business loss part of this.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 04:37 PM | Reply

It being the simplest does not make alternatives impossible. But that's enough backtracking for me to watch. Any farther and you'll fall off a cliff.

Fact of the matter is, there are plenty of federal benefits programs that require both individuals and businesses to satisfy eligibility criteria before receiving payment. You've yet to explain why that can't be done yet again, other than basically saying you don't understand it or "that's hard."

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 04:39 PM | Reply

This stimulus bill is just the rich (once again) stealing our tax dollars to put it their pockets.

By the way. What happened to the 1.5 trillion dumped into the stock market two weeks ago?

But remember. There isn't enough money for national healthcare or education beyond k-12.

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-03-30 04:42 PM | Reply

#31 There is a provision in the SBA loan program which states if the loans are used for the designated purposes, there is no enforceable means by which repayment can be demanded.

It's only $150,000 loan but it really ought to take the edge off for a few months.

And it's also a pretty solid indicator of how bad they think this virus is going to be for the economy.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-30 04:44 PM | Reply

32

Look at that....liljoe trying to provoke me. How cute.

You go on crapping in one hand and wishing in the other and whining about Trump, Bezos and capitalism all at the same time.

and don't forget to keep on crying about how this stimulus plan doesn't give you more than me...because by god you're entitled.

Are you getting the stimulus for your kids or is their mother?

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 04:47 PM | Reply

33

well they know that they are going to give you (metaphorically speaking) $1,200 and you'll turn around and give it right back to a rich person for something.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 04:49 PM | Reply

"By the way. What happened to the 1.5 trillion dumped into the stock market two weeks ago?"

Fun Fact:
As most of the stock market is held by institutional investors, and large chunks of that are in targeted allocation funds,
e.g. 85% stocks and 15% bonds is the mix they recommend even for long-term investors,
Now that stocks are worth 2/3 of what they were a month ago,
The algorithms have no choice but to sell bonds and buy stocks!

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-30 04:54 PM | Reply

Was #35 supposed to make any sense at all? My god man, you sure get stupid when anyone challenges you on anything. Must be an ego thing.

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-30 05:47 PM | Reply

-Was #35 supposed to make any sense at all?

sure.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-30 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From the Repug Sen point of view, this isn't a check to help anyone, it isn't really even a check to help stimulate the economy given to people who will actually spend it.

This is a check to the public from Republicans, see: signing ceremony... in an election year. A check in every pot. All Hail Trump! It will be a major talking point of his campaign.

Best of all, it's not even new spending; it's the rebate or credit from their 2020 tax filing that people are getting early.

Win, win. A paid for buy a voter program.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2020-03-30 10:35 PM | Reply

Was #35 supposed to make any sense at all?

I thought it was a sick burn.
Trump can "stimulate" the old bag better than Joe.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-30 10:41 PM | Reply

according to the logic of citizens united corporations are people or go deserve it of perhaps a one-time check rather than billions in taxpayer dollars. Hell, companies that received subsidies and paid nothing in local taxes should get nothing in return. Maybe the communities ire would be something corporate parasites should expect.

#42 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2020-03-31 02:25 AM | Reply

ergo, not "and go" - phone dictation still sucks.

#43 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2020-03-31 02:27 AM | Reply

Best of all, it's not even new spending; it's the rebate or credit from their 2020 tax filing that people are getting early.

I've been trying to find this out but so far have not really found an answer (besides reading a 1400 page bill) for those of us who owe most years does that mean we will owe more? Or will it be a credit like EIC and adjust out.

#44 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-03-31 09:56 AM | Reply

"Where we likely differ is i think those people should be getting a lot more than $1,200."

I agree. $1,200 might be OK for groceries...but it's going to do very little to help people pay mortgages or car payments.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-03-31 11:29 AM | Reply

"Oh, and given the income limits you probably don't qualify for a check anyway. I don't."

I qualify for the whole thing. Or at least I think I do. Between a quarter and a third is non-taxable. On top of that, I spent a few months in a hostile fire area. I don't really know if that's taken into account or not...it probably should be.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-03-31 11:32 AM | Reply

"And who might that person be? Let's take the DR. Anyone here not experiencing adverse consequences?"

Me.

The amount of money I'm paid by my employer hasn't changed.

But, I have had to deal with the adverse consequence of being stuck around teenage daughters non-stop...so maybe I do deserve something.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-03-31 11:34 AM | Reply

#47

Same here but teen son.

My wife is still working and as manager she is the only one in the company who hasn't had hours cut. So at the moment we have not been hurt financially. That could change as we both work for small companies so we don't know how long they can absorb the slowdown.

#48 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-03-31 11:47 AM | Reply

#48

I think that shooting for three months is probably an objective target. It looks like Italy is on track to stabilize a lot more quickly than China was. I expect the same will occur in Spain.

The thing that makes me a little nervous is people who will think that they need to run from this forever. Personally, I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in quarantine. Or three months indoors with teenage daughters. Hopefully boys are better...but mine have become a pain in the ass.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-03-31 12:39 PM | Reply

Was #35 supposed to make any sense at all?
I thought it was a sick burn.
Trump can "stimulate" the old bag better than Joe.

#41 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2020-03-30 10:41 PM | FLAG:

I see Snoofy been swinging that purse.. Eberly showed up.

#50 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-03-31 01:59 PM | Reply

Why would people who haven't experienced any adverse consequences of COVID get a check at all? I can understand giving money to those people who have been put out of work...but the others? My income situation hasn't changed. No point in wasting more taxpayer dollars on me.

----

So you can spend it. Order take out from local restaurants to help keep them afloat. Give them a large tip.

#51 | Posted by Pirate at 2020-03-31 03:42 PM | Reply

#48, I found this article to helpful:

So how does this work? Do I need to file anything to get my check?

Technically, the checks are advances of refundable credits. Treasury will advance your check based on your most recently filed tax return (2018 or 2019 tax return). If you haven't filed a tax return, the bill allows Treasury to use the information on your 2019 Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement, Form RRB-1099, Social Security Equivalent Benefit Statement.

Okay, I don't understand. What is a refundable tax credit?

A refundable credit means that you can take advantage of the credit even if you do not owe any tax. Unlike with a nonrefundable credit, if you don't have any tax liability, the "extra" credit is not lost but is instead refunded to you.

In this case, the stimulus check acts like a refund that you get in advance based on your 2020 income. That's confusing because you don't know how much you're going to earn in 2020, but it's why the IRS is using earlier returns. But this advance payment on the credit does not affect your "normal" tax refund for 2020: you won't lose out on your expected tax refund for 2020 with the check.

www.forbes.com

#52 | Posted by Pirate at 2020-03-31 03:49 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort