The $400 for unemployed people is a bust because it would require the states to sign an agreement to pay $100 of it, and to set up a new payment program because Congress has not authorized the extra payments. Many states are already out of unemployment funds and have had to borrow from the Feds just to pay the state claims.

Eviction moratorium is useless as " "the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the CDC shall consider whether any measures temporarily halting residential evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably necessary to "prevent the further spread of COVID-19."

The payroll tax "cut", which is ridiculous on the face of it due to the need to fund SS and Medicare, is not a cut. It simply defers the SS and Medicare taxes until after Dec 31. So the meter would be running on that, and people would lose a large chunk of their checks next year in order to offset the deferment.

Oh, and the $1200 stimulus payments were not even mentioned.

Biggest, cruelest photo op in White House history.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2020 06:06PM by Sandy Shopper.

Well said, Sandy Shopper. Especially the last line ...

"Absurdedly unconstitutional."

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2020 06:40PM by pegc.

Wow, I don't know what to think.

Would Democrats oppose this?

Could that make them seem against helping people, even though we know they've been pushing for stronger extended stimulus?

I want to see the income limits adjusted depending on the city, living status, etc., so I can actually qualify for it....

@pegc wrote:

Sanctimoniously donating used clothing and a few boxes of food to a food pantry is a drop in the bucket.

I don't interpret Shopetal to be speaking or "preaching" sanctimoniously, pegc, but rather articulating and espousing a particular economic ideology that is limiting of the scope of government.

I could be wrong, but that is the economic-political view I sense in Shopetal. In my own circles, I don't have any close friends or family who hold this view, but there have been fellow Christians and some very conservative (economically) folks whom I've met that hold to such views, pegc.

They can be very kind individuals, who would help you personally with any of your needs. A person on a Christian forum I am a part of is like this. If you have home repair issues or need help in some practical way, he's always there to be supportive and helpful. However, whenever we've discussed politics and economics, he's known on the forum for being very unwilling to have government tax people and use that money to help others. He believes in private charity and very limited government (views taxation as literal theft). We all disagree with him very strongly and there have even been heated debates. But, over time and having experience with him and others like him in my personal life, I've come to see that they aren't "bad" people in some way, nor lack compassion. It's just that they hold a very ideologically strict view of how government should be run and what is best for citizens.

Shopetal's views fit that orientation from what I can gather. I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but that was just my impression.

For people of that persuasion, less taxes can mean more opportunity for private charity (and getting rid of the middleman - i.e., government, which can be inefficient and wasteful). Letting businesses and people fail is also seen as a good thing and a natural part of the market, as it leads to "creative destruction" and a chance for newer and more productive/societally useful businesses to replace them. Thus, they are not in favor of bailouts and want free markets to determine winners and losers. ...There are very good points that I often am sympathetic to in this view. I just think it can be ineffective at certain times...such as a crisis like the one we're facing.

I think bailing people out temporarily is fine. In a "disaster" situation, where it's no one's fault, I think it would be cruel to not help. Shopetal and others may think that help should be from individuals and not government. They may very much want to help, but simply see the means to doing so as best through free individual choices (as government involvement creeps more and more into individual liberties and is often done by "force" ). They may also be opposed to money printing (I'm not sure).

I really feel that differences in discussions on politics are often more often from misunderstandings or miscommunications (or the limits of) in an online forum setting vs. malice or lack of compassion in people. I've had so many instances where people thought I had a particular intent or view and I did not, so I'm just giving a possible reading of Shopetal's comments in the thread.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2020 01:51AM by shoptastic.

@Tarantado wrote:

I want to see the income limits adjusted depending on the city, living status, etc., so I can actually qualify for it....

Oh yeah. Another good point. I brought that up in a thread before too. I doubt, unfortunately, it will get done, as the mass roll-out of things means trade-offs, such as tailoring the bailout to be region specific for COL considerations.

Thought I'd throw this out there for those who are interested:

Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism - book by sociologist, Arthur Brooks

He looks at which groups of people give the most to charity (their time and money). Surprisingly, he found those who were conservative in political orientation gave more than those of a liberal one and also those who were of lower-incomes gave more than those of higher incomes.

Lower-income conservatives gave the most and higher-income liberals gave the least. Lots of other very interesting findings too. It's very surprising, because liberals often "preach" a message of compassion and of helping others, but they give the least via personal charity (often wanting government to do the work). On the other hand, we sometimes have stereotypical views of conservatives as not being very socially caring, but they, as a group, give the most privately.

I think, for me, this taught me to better understand those who hold different views of politics and economics. Not all are heartless, selfish individuals looking out for themselves only. It's too bad our politicians can often be that way. They are typically bought and paid for by big money donors (whose will they do) and use their constituents' good intentions to gain their votes and dupe them, only to often do the opposite of what they say or things that hurt them.

Voters of different persuasions can be good people. Politicians, on the other hand,...(not all, but most...at least, until we get big money out of it)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2020 02:10AM by shoptastic.

OK... about individuals, Christians, conservatives, and the church giving and donating..... Either they're not enough of them in this country doing it to meet the needs, or there ARE enough of them and they just ain't doing it. In other words, they're just like everyone else.... Many people live by the motto, "Get all you can, and can all you get." In the best of times there are people living in the margins, broke, busted, disgusted. Homelessness is ever present. If individuals, Christians, conservatives, corporations, and the church are doing all this giving, why is homelessness or near homelessness and hunger an issue? It's because there isn't enough donating and giving, or the problems so massive you can't privately donate and give enough to meet the needs.

I am no Bible scholar, but I know that Jesus once told a rich man, to sell all you have and follow me. The rich man put his head down. I think this rich man is like most churches and Christians. Sure, they might give, but how much? Is it enough to make a difference? I think people give, but they make sure they maintain their status quo. Ask any church pastor and he will tell you that only about 20% of church members tithe. So, if these Christians (conservative and liberal) aren't even giving the tithe to their own church, do you think they are gonna give and donate enough outside the church to meet the needs of a lost and dying populace? Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, every church should be giving away a major percentage of what they bring in. Why? Again, I'm no Bible scholar, but I think one purpose of the tithe to the church is to make sure if there is anyone in need, the church would fulfill that need. There a whole lot of folks in need, so the money coming in churches should be pouring right back out.

Anyway, I think there is only so much the conservatives, Christians, churches, and others can do. In order for charity to work exclusively, it will require all to do their all. I don't see that happening. So, a little proper government intervention can go a long way.

@shoptastic wrote:

Surprisingly, he found those who were conservative in political orientation gave more than those of a liberal one and also those who were of lower-incomes gave more than those of higher incomes.

This is true for a bunch reasons. First he did not make the distinction between charitable giving and church giving. Most money that is tithed to churches go towards the church itself (buildings, upkeep, salaries) and do not get filtered down to the needy. A majority of charitable giving in the US is given to churches and this result makes sense considering people who tithe are more likely to also be conservative. Filter out church overhead and the numbers are more aligned. Also, liberals, by their ideology, think that the government should use taxes to help provide for the needy. There are a few reasons for this but mostly it's because they think needy should be helped regardless of who they know or what religion they belong to, and a fair tax system would even out contributions so the more fortunate people would be helping based on ability. The other thing, which I'm fairly certain he mentioned but I'm not sure, is that lower income people tend to give a bigger percentage because they understand the need is there more than richer people.

Post removed

But the government is stalled.

@1forum1 wrote:

... Anyway, I think there is only so much the conservatives, Christians, churches, and others can do. In order for charity to work exclusively, it will require all to do their all. I don't see that happening. So, a little proper government intervention can go a long way.

Stalled? I'm laughing, but it's not funny. By the way...... I like the Churchill quote!

@1forum1 wrote:

OK... about individuals, Christians, conservatives, and the church giving and donating..... Either they're not enough of them in this country doing it to meet the needs... If individuals, Christians, conservatives, corporations, and the church are doing all this giving, why is homelessness or near homelessness and hunger an issue?

Per Arthur Brooks, he might turn the question back on those who are secular in religious views and liberal in political orientation and ask why THEY aren't giving more of their income/wealth to the needy, 1forum1. His book shows that religious, conservatives, who are of the lowest income levels, give the most to charity.

But, to more specifically answer your question, I think that:
a.) private giving is not enough and is not the only Christian giving that the Bible teaches***
b.) a certain level of "poverty" (relative to those with more) may simply be the result of fair and normal free-market conditions.

***I disagree with the Christian view that the Bible teaches voluntary, private giving as the primary means society should deal with the poor and disadvantaged. Leviticus 23:22 clearly taught that the ancient Jews were to set aside a portion of what they produced to give to the poor. This was NOT voluntary, but compulsive. It's one of the primary verses I've used to try to persuade those who would think giving should be of our own free-will only. Additionally, there are countless mandates in the Scripture asking the early Jews and Christians to treat the poor (esp. widows, the elderly, and children) with care and aid in their times of need.

I think private giving is not enough also from a practical standpoint. You can think of a place that has mostly poor people in it and may be somewhat isolated from others. If they relied on the charity of their wealthier neighbors in a time of natural disaster, they may well be dead by the time it arrives if everyone else around them is poor and lacking. Having government provide a STRUCTURED means of delivering mass aid can be much more effective. So, I think both are needed (private giving and government structured aid).

Lastly, I think poverty in and of itself does not necessarily mean something is wrong with a society. The natural state of things on Earth is "lack." Our natural condition is to not have much. Cars do not grow on trees. Texas Roadhouse bread does not fall from the sky when it rains. Cures of bacterial infections don't magically blossom into existence from a flower burgeoning. ..etc. Someone had to put in work to create those things. Those who do a good job of it are rewarded in a capitalist society and their products benefit us all. The nature of things is that we don't have these things. In a sense, we're naturally poor. It is not necessarily immoral for someone to have more or lots of things in life and another person to have little. Having said that, I think it's important to give everyone as fair a chance as possible to succeed (which we have a lot of work to do in this area) and also prevent unnecessary suffering where possible as sort of baseline virtues of a society.

I don't know if I disagree with you on these things, but just wanted to elaborate on how I see things. *sorry for the long rant*

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2020 07:15AM by shoptastic.

Another potential problem with relying solely on private charity is that what if there is a society with bigoted, discriminatory people, who won't voluntarily help some individuals?

Remember all that drive and talent you mentioned some posts ago? Where is your support for the idea of basic, ordinary people helping other basic, ordinary people? Someone needs talent and drive to make this last until the govt. figures out how to advance the stimulus dialogue and actions.

Basic citizens who give stuff, money, and time are not working with infinite resources. At some point, programs will need replenished funding, volunteers will need time off, and people will need at least one more stimulus check.

Even without ongoing unemployment benefits, some people will streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch their few bucks. These are the ones who know how to make things last and cost less. I imagine that many people are returning to basics now and making their money go farther.

@ wrote:

If federal unemployment benefits were $200 a week, the researchers found that the replacement rate would decline by 44% and spending would fall by 28%. At $400 a week, the replacement rate would fall by 29% and spending would fall by 12%.

[www.marketwatch.com]
Unless Republicans want to lose by landslide across America as the economy collapses heading into an election year, I think they'll have to pass a robust stimulus.
[www.theguardian.com]

@ wrote:

Wave of evictions sweeps US amid impasse over coronavirus protections
Moratorium in federal housing expired at end of July
Trump stopgap measures seen as of doubtful efficacy

This is a scary read.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2020 08:20AM by shoptastic.

I believe the $600 a week should be lowered to at least $200-$300 a week If that. Many of those unemployed are making more from unemployment then they would if they were working. Example: I was let go after three years of employment making $15.00 an hour due to COVID-19 and was denied unemployment. Now, I don’t understand how NC is making there Decisions here but my family was extremely impacted by this. With that being said I didn’t even bring home what many are getting in unemployment, that’s Even before taxes. So yes, I feel many are being paid to stay home, that’s why many individuals don’t want to go out and work. Other places are hiring, and I feel that if you can wear a mask to go out and shop and Socialize then there shouldn’t be an issue with getting a new job until your previous Employer opens their business back up or you get put back on the payroll. But if you choose to stay home and not go to work then I think you shouldn’t be getting unemployment at all, except for the elderly of course because they have a higher risk of getting sick.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2020 11:35PM by maryr6881.

The real bone of contention, as I see it, comes from context. In some areas of the country $15 per hour is pretty close to a living wage while in other parts of the country it is far from that. 50 years ago we had a tiny walk up apartment in NYC that was $750 per month with a kitchen the size of a closet, a bedroom so small the door could not close with a queen size bed and the other 'room' was an everything room with TV tables for dining. The neighborhood was not good and the vermin were outrageous. 25 years ago we bought a 3BR 2BA house on 7+ acres of land in another part of the country for $120,000. Cost of living does not treat $600 per week the same in all parts of this country.

Job opportunities are also different in different contexts. A new hotel is completing construction. They had a hiring fair and had 100 positions to fill. They had 500+ applicants. Wanting to work is not the same thing as jobs being available.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Remember all that drive and talent you mentioned some posts ago? Where is your support for the idea of basic, ordinary people helping other basic, ordinary people? Someone needs talent and drive to make this last until the govt. figures out how to advance the stimulus dialogue and actions.

Even without ongoing unemployment benefits, some people will streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch their few bucks.

I am for both private charity and government support during this pandemic global recession. We seem to need both. Key word: both.

Many of us who are fortunate enough and/or also wise enough to have saved in the past can donate to those in need during this "gap" stimulus time. I am not sure how stimulus will unfold from here on out. It will likely leave many without funds for a while, as it takes time for people to get the money they need.

As always, we will have fools and those who are wise....and those who are just plain unlucky. Some have used their stimulus checks to gamble at casinos or trade stocks online instead of securing their basic needs first. Some have wisely used their money...including streeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it. lol. Some have tried to be responsible, but may have had a car break down or a fridge break down (we had both in my house).

@Flash wrote:

The real bone of contention, as I see it, comes from context. In some areas of the country $15 per hour is pretty close to a living wage while in other parts of the country it is far from that.

Also, we have seen huge food price inflation and some household goods inflation too (like paper products).

This has been slightly off-set by lower gas prices.

I have read stories of landlords even raising rents during this time. The rental situation is scary. The highest estimates are that 40 million could be evicted by year-end.

The House is returning to Washington to deal with the USPS funding crisis and also ready to work on a relief bill. So Senate, where the @#$%^ are you ?

When did anyone guarantee us the privilege of living as we believe that we ought to live-- the location, the space, the stuff, the funds, the other circumstances... ? This is an ego issue, not a thing for the fed to provide.

Meanwhile, the Senate is no villain and the House is no hero here. The House has to ramp it all down and bring their exorbitant demands in line with the most clamorous needs. Umm... why did the House ask for so much money in the first place?! The Senate can wait for better ideas from its group and/or for a more reasoned request from the House.

@shoptastic: This week, I have an unexpected car repair. There is no shop type for this brand and situation and there wasn't one pre-covid. But I will have the money to pay for it it when I get paid for recent shops and merches. Perfect timing! I surmise that some people do not want to do the types of work that I do. This is okay-- as long as whatever work they do or did will pay for their car repairs, etc. Am I lucky or living proof that wearing masks and gloves on the job have kept me free from covid?

Think covid is the great leveler. Shoppers who used to pick, choose, thumb their nose, and/or bid now have little to consider. People who had nice things might ditch them as they move down the housing food chain. And get in the food line because nice restaurant meals are gone, along with the jobs or the disposable funds that used to pay for them...

@maryr6881 wrote:

I believe the $600 a week should be lowered to at least $200-$300 a week If that. Many of those unemployed are making more from unemployment then they would if they were working.

There definitely have been some crazy stories.

One I heard was of a 16 year old pizza restaurant worker, who was making some extra part-time money. She made $150/week pre-COVID and then got unemployment afterwards on top of $500 in stimulus and $600/week in enhanced unemployment.

In general, putting aside the risks to returning to work if you're in a high positivity rate area and you have a pre-existing condition, I think there is a good case to be made that working is better (even if you "lose" greater benefits money) because it secures you a job in these difficult times that may last a lot longer than people think. Although nothing is for certain, I think high unemployment will likely last for several years and the loss of jobs we see in 2020 won't recover to 2019 norms for about 5 years (following 2008's recessionary pattern of taking 6 years for unemployment to recover). In that environment, having a job is safer than "hoping" that enhanced unemployment continues. The person who is purposely not going back to work to gain an extra X amt. of $ short-term may be greatly harming themselves in the longer run. They may not get back into the job market as easily later.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

When did anyone guarantee us the privilege of living as we believe that we ought to live-- the location, the space, the stuff, the funds, the other circumstances... ? This is an ego issue, not a thing for the fed to provide.

I agree no one should have an expectation of a guaranteed level of living standard of their own choosing. I don't think that's what's happening right now, though.

If the first round of "stimulus" for common workers (not corporations) was a bit inaccurate and gave some people too much, then I think that's understandable. Speed was important, so as to avoid economic disaster. They didn't have time to calibrate the best amount to give to people and some ended up with more from not working than working. Others got left out.

The second round of negotiations would have been fine too - with the current debates they're having (there are some legitimate points on how much to give) - but it should have not come down to the last minute. They should have been focused on this much earlier. If it was some giant corporation at risk of going bust, I'm willing to bet something would have been passed already.

@ wrote:

@shoptastic: This week, I have an unexpected car repair. There is no shop type for this brand and situation and there wasn't one pre-covid. But I will have the money to pay for it it when I get paid for recent shops and merches. Perfect timing! I surmise that some people do not want to do the types of work that I do. This is okay-- as long as whatever work they do or did will pay for their car repairs, etc. Am I lucky or living proof that wearing masks and gloves on the job have kept me free from covid?

Shopetal - That is good you are responsibly working to support yourself and have emergency savings to meet these unexpected needs. Yes, everyone should do this.

For me, that doesn't mean that:
a.) We shouldn't have some social safety net features in place to help those who fall through the cracks (whether from their own foolishness or being disadvantaged/unlucky/etc.).
b.) We should withdraw support in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic. There are more people willing to work than there are jobs. Much more. A big reason for our crushed economy's inability to get back on track is the stupid government response that's led to an out-of-control infection of COVID. Wealthy people, who account for 2/3 of consumer spending, aren't spending anymore largely for safety reasons. Much of the health and economic pain was due to colossal government mismanagement of the crisis.

[www.bloomberg.com]

Pelosi Favors Slimmed-Down Stimulus Now, Then More in January

How 'bout this. She waves her political wand, I am slimmed down now and more in future...

__#gettin'_rid_of_weight_but_dayamn!_it's hard__

@maryr6881 wrote:

I believe the $600 a week should be lowered to at least $200-$300 a week If that.

At that level, people won't be able to afford either COBRA or Marketplace insurance. Enrollment in Medicaid will skyrocket.

Yeah, that's the thing about COBRA. Employers have to offer it, but they don't have to make it affordable. Over 20 years ago, my COBRA would have cost nearly a thousand a month. Went a few months with no insurance until the new job's insurance kicked in. A very scary thing to be single and uninsured!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2020 09:31PM by Sandy Shopper.

She said again yesterday that she won't go for a smaller package. "I don't think, strategically, it's where we should go right now" is what she told PBS Newshour.

Strategically. Ya like that? We are all pawns in her game.

@shoptastic wrote:

[www.bloomberg.com]

Pelosi Favors Slimmed-Down Stimulus Now, Then More in January