It may also depend upon what 'they' are saying. I had to dig back in memory for this one (large chunks of the necessary classical education have been tossed from recent view by people who did not know what was important). Now, we are supposed to say amen and awoman in order to avoid the gender situation. The problem is, amen is a non-gendered Latin word for so be it. It. It, mind you. It!!!!!

Just sayin'.

And may it always be so.

*eta*

Before that, it was Hebrew word. In the same tone with which the legislation was proposed, I salute the late, lovely, very nearly perfect lady who taught me the nuances of the various 'oy' phrases. To her, for her, and for all of humanity, I smack my forehead and say, "Oy!"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2021 01:18AM by Shop-et-al.

Looking like a likely Dem. sweep in Georgia. If they control the WH, House, and Senate, we could certainly see a lot more stimulus.

-student debt cancellation could be on the table.
-$1-3 trillion infrastructure project
-FHA mortgage bailouts
...who knows...possibly even commercial real estate bailouts (as a more far-fetched thing, as some cities are seeing huge issues from COVID)
-state/municipal level bailouts

We shall see. I'm up late/early . . .reading. I hope they sweep!

As of 4:43 a.m., Warnock has been declared a winner. Ossoff's race has not been called. Loeffler has not conceded. I applaud this based upon what I have been learning about questionable tactics and outcomes.

Some methods of increasing voter registration are inherently at odds with existing laws. For now, any votes from certain situations must be tossed because they really are illegal. This does not have to happen again. Mind you, it will be easier to revamp election law wording and accommodate situations and intentions than it will be to, say, end homelessness altogether. But if tptb will make a few changes, it should be possible in future to include votes from more people than it is in the current election cycle.

I started with a simple question: could it be sensible for the Electoral College to cast votes remotely-- at least during the covid era-- considering that most members must travel and incur Covid-19 risk? I ended up enthralled with the end of the 2020 elections and a look at allegations of irregularities. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but even I see how the conditions of some lives and the election laws make it impossible for some people to register and vote legally. I see that laws can be changed. But how did I and others miss this disparity for so many years? Why did it take a Trump to question what has been wrong with some registration conditions and election laws as these pertain to certain situations, such as homelessness? What is wrong with all of us?????!?

Oy.

I never found out what anyone important thought of remote electoral votes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2021 11:59AM by Shop-et-al.

[www.cnbc.com]
CNBC piece on possible rental help with Senate control. Possible 12-month eviction bans.

Very good Bloomberg piece on what victories will mean (what Biden can and cannot do with slimmest control of Senate): [www.bloomberg.com]

@ wrote:

Almost all legislation will need cooperation from Republicans because they require 60 votes in the Senate. There’s a narrow exception for fiscal related measures that can pass with a simple majority using the budget process, and Biden has two chances this year to use that so-called reconciliation process for items like his economic stimulus plan.

On other areas, the 60-vote requirement to cut off debate and proceed to a vote, necessitates getting GOP support, which will temper the more ambitious elements of Biden’s agenda, as well as the biggest hopes among progressives. . .

Democratic control makes a massive difference here. McConnell and the GOP had consistently opposed aid for state and local governments in stimulus negotiations last year, and Democrats will now be able to pass a package that includes that element. The Senate refused to vote on a House measure to boost stimulus checks to $2,000 from $600 last month, and that’s now likely to go ahead as well. Further unemployment assistance and health care measures are also in the cards.

Schumer said at a press briefing Wednesday that the $2,000 checks will be “one of the first things” the new Senate does.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2021 07:23PM by shoptastic.

Keep the fourteen hundred bucks. There are important issues to consider.

I prefer that each senator help their state to clarify issues or at least manage/clarify/update the verbage associated with voter registration, voter education, voting procedures, etc. so that the maximum possible number of voters is clearly established and the popular and electoral votes are reliable. What we have now is a disgrace, and it is everyone's fault because we have not made voting and elections the honored privilege that it should be for all voters and all political parties. Lesson one? Perhaps Jill Biden can assist with civics education for all grade levels. While it is good to have one's say, it is not necessarily good to twist and warp an entire system in order to have one's way. I have done some checking: what we learned way back in the last century is not what is being modeled or taught today. Something is missing. Restraint and self-control are awol Something is needed. An educator in the WH might find this to be an interesting one of their chosen causes and issues.

A good place to start is with existing registration laws, election laws & procedures, and the realities of many voter lives. I do think there might be unavoidable illegal votes unless/until laws are rewritten and can accommodate changes in the USPS (bar codes more often now than rare postmarks), definitions and understandings of addresses and residences, and any other things in each state's verbiage that are problematic. These situations have existed for years now. What were we doing all this time instead of studying the election process from registration through canvassing and certification? I have no confidence that the current Congress is certifying legal popular votes which led to the electoral votes. I believe that most if not all Congresspersons are sincere in whatever position they have taken regarding this election.

Please be assured that I prefer the preventive efforts of education to the recent efforts of violence, as a means to make a necessary point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2021 02:56AM by Shop-et-al.

.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2022 12:47AM by shoptastic.

@shoptastic wrote:

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Keep the fourteen hundred bucks.

$1,400? What's that number from, Shopetal?

Latest news: [www.bloomberg.com]

@ wrote:

President-elect Joe Biden on Friday called for trillions of dollars in immediate further fiscal support, including increased direct payments, after a surge in coronavirus cases caused U.S. payrolls to drop for the first time since April.

“The price tag will be high,” Biden said of his planned package in Wilmington, Delaware. He promised to lay out his proposals next Thursday, before taking office on Jan. 20. “It will be in the trillions of dollars”. . .

Biden made the call for new assistance -- including boosting stimulus checks to $2,000 -- after an unexpectedly poor December jobs report that reflected a plunge in restaurant employment. The 140,000 slump in payrolls highlighted how surging coronavirus infections are taking a greater toll on parts of the economy.

Good...get it done!

Latest Non-Farm Payroll report released today wasn't so good:

December came in at -143K (negative) jobs vs. +50K expected. It's the first time we've seen a decline in jobs creation since April 2020.[/quote


You are already getting $600 + $1400 more = $2000.

Yes. $2,000 minus the current issue of $600 = $1,400. This can be expressed in various ways, including but not limited to 'fourteen hundred bucks' and 'would you please re-think you position?' and 'oy oy oy! is this a product of the new math?'

Oh?!? They are doing it THAT way?

I certainly hope so. After all, the fed might have to mete out money carefully for a few years. Consider this: if it is true that people should have 3-6 months of expenses saved, and since the beginning of the pandemic effects many people have exhausted this money and have no reasonably expected options for more money, they will need to be given money periodically. For how long can the government maintain the larger payments for the current number of people who have exhausted their means and more who might reach this point in the next year or so?

Speaking of means, there should be a means test for all this money.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

After all, the fed might have to mete out money carefully for a few years.

Speaking of means, there should be a means test for all this money.

I haven't seen anything about $1,400, so we'll have to see.

a.) Agree that means testing could be more helpful. However, speed is also helpful when you're in a pandemic. A counter-argument is that they had six months to put together a more targeted aid package. There were stories of 16-year old with part-time jobs earning $200/week delivering pizzas, who ended up with state unemployment + $600/week + $1,200 stimulus. Perhaps that girl was from a wealthy family and didn't really need that stimulus. The problem is we don't want to punish the bar tender with an autistic child, who is several months behind on rent, because his governor shut down bars and the POTUS' administration botched COVID in America. Our nation owes it to him to help him out.

b.) Even a new stimulus will pale in comparison to the Fed's $16 trillion bailout and QE Infinity programs. One can Google "Bernanke wealth effect."

In 2009, Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, came up with the brilliant idea (*eye-roll*) of printing money and giving it to the rich (de facto, as it all went to the stock market) to create a "wealth effect." The idea was simple: If people feel wealthy, they'll be more confident and go out and spend that money. $7 trillion and counting of QE, it's created the greatest wealth inequality in America since the Gilded Age (hence why some call this "The Second Gilded Age" ). By my count, we can do another $10-20 trillion of stimulus for Main Street just to catch up to stimulus for the wealthy.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2021 07:05PM by shoptastic.

So you will use your substantial economic prowess to land a well-paid fed job, gently guide the stimulus money to where it needs to be (all the while mollifying the rich with whatever besides free money appleases them) and all will be well.

Job one? $1400.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Job one? $1400.

If you're asking whether we should expect more stimulus checks...possibly.

In the last recession, it took 6 years to get employment back to pre-2008/9. Because our stupid government botched our pandemic response (most developed countries took just one hit: either medical or economic - we took both!), hundreds of thousands (millions maybe?) of small businesses have gone under. The pandemic is still raging, although we have an end in sight later this year. The eviction ban only lasts through Jan. 31st.

We lost more jobs than created in December (-143K). Those losses seem likely to continue as the pandemic is raging at its absolute worst point right now. I think January will be another jobs losing month. ...Maybe even thru March. I do like our odds after March, as the vaccine will start to kick in for many and hopefully we can improve the curve and hiring can slowly pick up again. But, it could be years before we get back to normal. There are people months and months and months behind on rent. Even if you lift rent moratoriums, how can these people pay up to stay under a roof if they've got no money?

I could easily see us doing bailout after bailout all of 2021. There will be trillions to be printed, because the U.S. took massive hits from COVID. I support it, because this was not the people's fault. It was an act of nature mismanaged by our country.

re: savings . . .People don't have emergency funds anymore, because they cannot afford them. Yet another interesting chart.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2021 06:26AM by shoptastic.

The fed cannot do this indefinitely.

Meanwhile, I think it would be better for Biden to slow down the stimulus checks, the vaccines, and anything else that might look like a dream come true at first blush.

Stimulus: if he must give us two thousand dollars, please parcel it out and build on the $600 that we received/will receive. Later, he can determine how much and how often as the year progresses. If vaccinations are effective worldwide, economic conditions might improve for a significant number of people. This could reduce the dollar amounts and frequency of payouts. If not, there is the last ditch effort of handing out still more money that must be conjured from thin air.

Vaccines: we are not in a race with Israel, who plans 100% vaccination by March, or with anyone else in the world. We are only required to remember what experts teach about these vaccines. Due to weather, transportation, storage, and timing of shots, it is imperative not to do anything that could cause some people to miss their second shots or be given vaccines that went bad if transportation and/or storage was limited.

Anything else: who knows what odd thing could pop up and make us re-think everything? Iran, Brexit, covid vaccines and studies, commerce conditions, and other concerns are looming. What will it all mean for this country? Biden can't necessarily control these things, but he can take a measured approach to anything that is not acute. Along these lines, I wonder if Biden can reign in banishment-mad legislators who might make better use of their time and attention that squandering in on a departing president. I don't know if impeachment is expensive financially, but it requires a great deal of time and attention. If they want to be rid of the one who is departing the office, they can simply stop talking about him. This costs nothing and frees them to consider current events. OTOH, the more attention they give to the one who does not have to be talked about today, the more media attention they receive. This is free advertising for them, especially if they plan to run for office again. Who doesn't love free advertising?!

Grocery unemployed boy due to COVID worries is still gainfully unemployed but still sitting pretty with PUA. He lives 4 houses from us. His neighbor tells me he buys pizza and takeout everyday and smokes pot religiously in his yard and bedroom.

[www.businessinsider.com]

@ wrote:

The pandemic has been an apocalyptic event for small businesses. The number of small businesses in the US has dropped by 29% since January and revenue has plunged by 31.9% over the same period. . .

Prior to the pandemic, roughly half of small businesses only had enough cash to stay in business for 27 days if they stopped bringing in money, according to a JPMorgan Chase Institute analysis. A quarter had a cash buffer that would last them fewer than 13 days. . .

The fact that the largest companies in America thrived in a year marred by pandemic is an uncomfortable reality of 2020. The S&P 500 is up nearly 16% in 2020. Amazon shares are up 73%, Walmart's shares increased by 22%, and McDonald's are up 7%. . .

This has been one of the saddest aspects of the pandemic economy.

It also speaks to how rigged our system is when it comes to big corporations vs. small businesses. Bailouts flow to the top, while the bottom mom-and-pop types get crumbs or nothing.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2021 05:00PM by shoptastic.

[www.nytimes.com]

@ wrote:

‘It Was a Joke’: Some Small Businesses Got $1 Relief Loans
Sole proprietors were eligible for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program only if they were profitable, but many got tiny loans because of the way rules were written.

And then there were the roughly 300 business that received loans of $99 or less.

Judith Less, who runs a thrift shop in New Jersey, got $27. Nikki Smith, a baker and caterer in Oregon, collected $96. A.J. Burton, the founder of a record label in Arkansas, got $78. And Susana Dommar, a chiropractor in Texas, received a loan for just $1.

Stephanie Ackerman, a self-employed college admissions consultant, was shocked when her loan deposit, for $13, showed up in her bank account.

Oh, how generous.

.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2022 12:34AM by shoptastic.

What about the small businesses that were screwed? BIg business got theirs quickly. I would really like something that would target businesses that have been hurt the most..... restaurants... bars....barbershops/salons. I would gladly surrender the $1400 I don't need to help those industries.

I'm glad more is being done regarding state and local government aid. Is it enough? Already, in virtually every state people are losing those jobs. If help doesn't arrive, another large pool will be added to the unemployed.

What about an intense scrutiny of the overall fed budget? Does anyone else find it ironic that the fed funds abortions which are the number one cause of death and does not fund all businesses equally in the covid era which involves a high number of deaths and other losses? It funds death, does not fund life, and... well... you do the philosophy and the math...

@my colleague on the other side of the aisle, I refer to the Hyde Amendment. It is a little disingenuous to state that the fed funds abortions. Personally, I wish people would care at least as much about the people who are born and they can see than about unborn who they cannot see.

@1forum1 wrote:

What about the small businesses that were screwed?

Trump's Dec. $900B stimulus bill had $284B in PPP loans (down from the March 2020 $521B allocation ).

We may be getting rolling stimulus/bailouts throughout 2021 (as I predicted to Shopetal), given how damaged our economy is, but nothing is for certain. I feel for the small business owners who lost their businesses (some after decades of being profitable).

This will be a trying year. ...The 29% figure is staggering. That's a lot of closed small businesses! I hope these individuals don't lose their homes too (a double tragedy!).

PPP 2.0 is up and running.

Got my application submitted already.

Word of advice, having a business checking account with a bank puts you at an advantage.

They’ll ask for proof of income (2019 Schedule C should be enough) and proof that you’re operating in 02/2020 (provided an invoice from the MSC).

Good luck!

Formula is the same as last time: 1 month average revenue * 2.5 + EIDL loan (if you want that).

Funding Planned Parenthood is just a way for the fed to contribute to the payments made for for abortions. How so many people all around the world descended so low as to think that demanding a right to kill (and the arguments now include infanticide!) is somehow so good that they have to keep it up forever is tragic. My dissatisfaction with government includes the changes in education over time which included clever derision of values and simultaneous advancement of a death culture.This includes abortion and the so-called cancel culture. But back to the original topic: I should look for any information about business people in the pandemic. Who has a realistic chance of resuming business after covid payments end? Who needs to change to a different business altogether? What other things are business people doing? This would be interesting, possibly encouraging, and sometimes sad...

HELP!!! I need stimulus!!

[www.target.com]

My Funyuns have shrunk in size (now 6 oz.) and increased in price (now $3.99). INFLATION!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe we need $4,000 stimulus checks?

[www.cbsnews.com]
Biden signs two "stimulus" executive orders:

@ wrote:

President Joe Biden signed two executive orders on Friday, one of which would increase federal food assistance and streamline the delivery of stimulus checks, as the president attempts to stabilize the economy without congressional assistance amid the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. . .

Mr. Biden also issued a second executive order to improve collecting bargaining power and protections for federal workers, and direct the Office of Personnel Management to develop recommendations to increase the minimum wage for federal employees to $15 per hour.

The following part is worrisome:

@ wrote:

Mr. Biden has proposed a $1.9 trillion relief plan to Congress, but it is unclear whether it will garner enough Republican support to pass on a bipartisan basis. Until Congress is able to pass another relief bill, Mr. Biden's actions are intended as stopgap measures to stabilize the economy.

As noted in an article earlier on this thread page, the Dems. winning the Georgia run-offs means the Biden administration doesn't need a bipartisan majority in the Senate (60 votes) to get fiscal legislation through. Instead, they can use budget reconciliation to pass stimulus bills, which only require a simple majority (51 votes)...Kamala being the tie-breaker.

I only see three reasons why they would go the bipartisan route:
i.) An asinine attempt to embarrass the Republicans, who will vote down the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill (DUHHHH!!!) - after which they will pass it using budget reconciliation and claim a Democratic moral victory as the good guys. ...Time is ticking though...hence, why I think this is a stupid reason.

ii.) There are Blue Dog and/or centrist/moderate Dems. opposed to this and budget reconciliation could be a fight. Maybe they want to start with i.) to score some "points" with the base first before engaging that internal battle.

iii.) They have NO intention of really doing $1.9 trillion in stimulus and will blame the failure of it on Republican obstruction.

Not good.......but not entirely unexpected if iii.) is true, as this is standard Washington corruption and fooling one's base to get votes and then turning around and giving them nothing (as politicians are beholden to donors first and foremost). We'll see what happens....not a great start if they're not going straight to reconciliation.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2021 05:20AM by shoptastic.

Democrats earned this. They worked hard to get every vote imaginable and produced a prez who is likely to kill jobs that not even covid would have ended permanently. Despite their best (worst?) efforts, the Dems managed only a slim majority in the House and a 50-50 likely split on all significant votes in the Senate. Keep in mind that they have raised hundreds of billions of dollars for this. What if some of those hundreds of billions of dollars were re-directed to the common good instead of to individuals who can, essentially, buy votes? Hmm.

In spite of his flaws (which make him exactly like all other presidents because all have some flaws along with their strengths) the previous president was able to improve the economy substantially before covid. It is not unreasonable to think that he would have improved it more or again after the large covid economic effects were mitigated. This new office holder is likely to damage it irreparably, even if covid is mitigated to the point of having no significant economic influence during his term. pfffffft.

I did not earn this. I continued to work at my usual pace, did not apply for additional fed handouts, and voted for the candidate who was most likely to improve economic conditions for all persons in such were a possibility within the next four years. pffffft.

How to turn your $600 "stimmy" into $13K: [twitter.com]

@shoptastic wrote:

How to turn your $600 "stimmy" into $13K: [twitter.com]

She isn’t kidding.... Invested ~10% of my portfolio to TSLA as late as when the stock split happened. That alone has already given me gains of almost $25k. Absolutely insane.