WHEW !

Or, those years can be fabulous in ways that are unrelated to money. Some people are happy no matter what. Others, not so much...

@shoptastic wrote:

.... I don't envy someone who is poor and unemployed and shall be getting temporary stimulus. The years ahead could be brutal.

Hello, all! Do we need to apply for this stimulus? Where and when? TY, Night Owl at 2:56 am

From what I have heard, the $600 checks will go out the same way that the former $1200 checks did earlier this year. Of course, the extended unemployment benefits depend oon a weekly certification by your state unemployment office. It looks like the UI $300 per week will not be "retroactive" so those who have been claiming for the last 11 weeks will not get them for THOSE weeks. Instead, the $300 will probably kick in for those filing for the weekending 12/26 and for up to a total of 11 weeks.

Yippee...Woohoo... Wowee.... am thankful for the people that truly need it. I am fine, but of course can use every penny. I don't have kids, house, pets...oh my I'm crying again over this. Sorry, but there is NO reason why this should have taken this long. I am hoping it will help a LOT and it's not too late. Happy holidays you won't starve now.

Shopetal asked if people were wise with their stimulus money the first time around. This article seems to think they were: [finance.yahoo.com]

@ wrote:

The New York Fed surveyed 1,200 households and asked what they did with their economic impact payments, which included $1,200 checks for qualifying adults and an additional $500 per child. (89% of the respondents received a payment.)

Of the stimulus money that went out, 29% was spent, 35% was used to pay down debt, and 36% was put away in savings.

Interestingly, most plan to spend even less of their second round benefits. That's good and bad. Less money circulating means the economy may not grow as much, but at least people can pay down debt and have more in emergency funds (which was lacking heading into this crisis). Of course, those needing it most will likely spend it all. I thought $600 checks/$300 enhanced UI seemed okay personally with a vaccine and virus end in sight.

This study shows that the lowest income group (quartile 1) more than doubled their income this year from stimulus and enhanced UI. Pretty amazing, on the one hand, but they also spent that down faster than everyone else (probably out of necessity). Look at the slope for q1 compared to other groups.

I hope this second stimulus sustains people until April-ish. Pfizer is supposed to have 100 million doses (1/3rd of U.S. population) distributed by March. Moderna's vaccine is under way too. Weather should improve around April too. . . .Maybe by late-April/early May we have a huge economic rebound and high levels of virus immunity. I hope!!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2020 08:10PM by shoptastic.

Shoptastic,
That same study really emphasizes that higher UI payments do more to help the demand-fueled American economy than direct payments to all. That is also one reason to consider making those direct payments larger AND lowering the maximum income to qualify, i.e., instead of full payments up to $75K of 2019 income, lower that lid to about $40-45 K.

@walesmaven wrote:

Shoptastic,
That same study really emphasizes that higher UI payments do more to help the demand-fueled American economy than direct payments to all. That is also one reason to consider making those direct payments larger AND lowering the maximum income to qualify, i.e., instead of full payments up to $75K of 2019 income, lower that lid to about $40-45 K.

That's a good point!

What is known as the marginal propensity to consume/spend is higher with lower income groups. The more money you have, the less you're likely to spend it if you just add on more and more beyond a certain point. I was "okay" with this bill, given light at the end of the tunnel. But, I would have liked a March-like stimulus and lower income caps for stimulus too.

I also think an infrastructure bill NEEDS to get done next year. That is a jobs creator and not just a cash handout (although, demand will create jobs too if increased spending occurs with cash). I just think there is something tied to human dignity with work. There is unspoken shame when someone is unemployed or out of luck. I've been there before (2009). Your head is a little lower. You don't want to talk with friends who are doing well. You feel there is nothing to talk about. You go to a dinner with others and everyone is talking about what they're doing, what's the latest thing they want to buy, what they are planning two or three weeks from now. They have plans and are moving forward with their lives. You have nothing to say. You don't know what you're doing next week other than trying to get by and look for work. You feel ashamed. You "hide" away more. I have been there!
That social isolation can cause depression. I don't think anyone should feel this way (esp. not with this act of nature pandemic that was no one's fault), but I know it's common.

I do hope this stimulus gives people more hope. I shall speak for those who cannot speak for themselves (I've been there in 2009) that it's okay. You are valuable in God's eyes. Your human worth is tied infinitely more to your inner being than to money or employment. Keep striving. Take proper time to grieve (but never let thoughts of shame envelope you). Keep fighting. Know that there are people out there who care about you, understand your situation, won't judge you, and will also fight for you (I do it through politics myself). Be encouraged!

Just read a blurb about a welcome change. Effective in 2022, there will be no more 'surprise' medical bills for people who are out of network by default. For example, a traveler who is involved in a wreck is transported by out-of-network ambulance to out-of-network hospital and is attended by out-of-network providers. They were unconscious or otherwise unable to specify in-network or defer treatment until reaching their home or network. Until now, providers could charge astronomical fees to some patients who could not speak for themselves. This change provides a greater benefit for insurers (who will negotiate payments) and patients than it does for medical providers. For some people, this change will reduce or eliminate medical financial pressure and reduce stress while improving finances.


Back to topic: This legislation is separate from the covid bills. If covid is still with us in 2022, will this change help any covid patients?

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Just read a blurb about a welcome change. Effective in 2022, there will be no more 'surprise' medical bills for people who are out of network by default. For example, a traveler who is involved in a wreck is transported by out-of-network ambulance to out-of-network hospital and is attended by out-of-network providers. They were unconscious or otherwise unable to specify in-network or defer treatment until reaching their home or network. Until now, providers could charge astronomical fees to some patients who could not speak for themselves. This change provides a greater benefit for insurers (who will negotiate payments) and patients than it does for medical providers. For some people, this change will reduce or eliminate medical financial pressure and reduce stress while improving finances.

1 million%!

Those bills are finance killers. I had an uninsured hospital bill before. It took me three years to recover financially. Plus, insurance is already pretty ridiculous these days with huge deductibles (that I never draw down). ....A uniquely "freak" accident case that requires out-of-network care shouldn't destroy your life if you have insurance.

@ wrote:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signaled he may not sign a $900 billion coronavirus relief package just one day after Congress passed it with bipartisan support.

In a video posted on his Twitter account, Trump said the bill included “wasteful and unnecessary” items and demanded that lawmakers increase the stimulus checks due to go out to most Americans from the “ridiculously low” amount of $600 to $2,000, or $4,000 for a couple.

WOW!!!
[www.bloomberg.com]

CNBC tells me that the bill passed both houses of Congress with veto proof majorities: [www.cnbc.com]

Shoptastic,
But he can sit on it for quite a while, which is a problem because Congress wants to go into recess both for holidays and for that Georgia run-off campaign.

ETA
Moreover, quick action by Congress to amend the bill would require "unanimous support." One "no" vote in either house would doom the amendment under that rule.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2020 02:02PM by walesmaven.

So. We eat the pork. Again. Even if we don't eat pork. !
*sigh*

When will they get it right?????

It's certainly a bizarre move on the part of POTUS. It's taken six months to get this deal done to desperate Americans. Delays would obviously hurt a lot of vulnerable people and businesses. Is there any guarantee a bigger bill would pass?

If the end result was a bigger bill that was swift, then okay....otherwise, this is going to hurt.

According to NYT, some of the provisions will benefit the richest of the rich far more than humble folks like me. Will the richest of the rich then enrich me? Isn't the POTUS still among or near the richest of the rich? Good on him to ask for a different distribution of funds which will favor the neediest instead of the richest.

I can hardly believe that I agree heartily with AOC on something. She called this tactic of presenting a lengthy, multi-part bill just hours before a mandatory vote 'hostage-taking.' Others from both major parties expressed similar views. This is reassuring in that if enough legislators demand something better, there might be a steadier legislation in future. Potentially, there might be a measured approach to preparing, presenting, and considering legislation. Josh Huber says that unbound legislation will never happen again. I say, hope springeth eternal, and all that...

MY BAD. SCOTUS only vetoes the defense spending bills, which also contained $$$ for all departments to the end of September.
Scan down for what is happening with the relief bill. Whew. POTUS just vetoed the whole bill. Therefore, congress can do a simple over-ride vote in each house. And both houses passes the whole bill with veto-proof margins.
So what happens if everyone has left town? Can a simple 2/3 vote by just a minimum quorum vote over-ride? At least POTUS did not just sit on the bill any longer.

Congress has until just before noon Jan 3 to override or the whole bill fails and this Congress is over !

ETA: The following is a quote from the Washington Post, of 12 minutes ago:
"Congress has until Sunday, Jan. 3 at 11:59 a.m. to override the veto and force the defense bill to become law. If they do nothing, it will expire along with the end of the two-year congressional session at noon that day. The House is planning to reconvene on December 28 to hold a veto override vote, while the Senate is expected back in Washington on December 29, and will hold its veto override vote thereafter."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2020 10:07PM by walesmaven.

@walesmaven wrote:

Can a simple 2/3 vote by just a minimum quorum vote over-ride?

I thought it had to be full Congress's 2/3 vote, but I could be wrong.

I think if the members are pressured enough, they'll get it done. . . hopefully.............!! The whole country would be super mad if this falls apart.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

According to NYT, some of the provisions will benefit the richest of the rich far more than humble folks like me. Will the richest of the rich then enrich me? Isn't the POTUS still among or near the richest of the rich?

POTUS is in a lot of debt, but probably is still rich and can leverage his name for Trump News Network after office. I saw that corporate tax deductions for meals was thrown in there. Supposedly that may help the ailing restaurant/food service industry (many say only minimally, though).

re: the richest of the rich enriching us?:
This recent economic study says that 50 years of trickle-down economics helped one group: The Rich.
[www.cbsnews.com]

The main thing to understand is that both the marginal propensity to spend and the velocity of money are higher when you give money to less wealthy groups. Giving it to a bunch of billionaires and millionaires really doesn't get them to spend it all that much. They already have enough money to spend on what they want. People sometimes talk about "pent up demand." Coming out of wars, coming out of COVID, etc., there can be a lot of this. I personally think there is permanent pent up demand that already exists in an economy with many who are poor or working poor. They want to get their teeth fixed, they want healthier foods (which cost more), they want to own their own home, etc., but simply lack the means. Give them some extra cash and demand is there to be unleashed. Jobs are created from that extra demand.

Shoptastic,
Check out what I added to my post immdiately above yours.

@walesmaven wrote:

Shoptastic,
Check out what I added to my post immdiately above yours.

It's interesting. Would that mean a pocket veto described here is not possible?:

[www.vox.com]

This says it's Trump's only way to veto the bill.

Eeeek ! MY BAD MY BAD. SCOTUS only vetoed the defense spending bills, which also contained $$$ for all departments to the end of September.
He is threatening to veto the relief bill.

I mistakenly thought that the two bills had been merged.

Pocket veto of the relief bill, therefore, is still possible. Lots of Republic member only voted for both then they were put up as a take it all or nothing. Some of them are opposed to ANY extensions of relief.

IF something isn't done by Monday Federal workers will be furloughed and a good chunk of the government will come to a screeching halt.

According to new reports, Kathy, Congress has until late morning Jan 3 to override. The clock resets when a veto happens. It seems odd but shut down would have happened if SCOTUS had just waited, with no veto and not signing.

New Year's Resolution # 1:

Politely request that legislators be required to watch my soon-to-be-created lesson in governance and answer pointed questions regarding what happens when they cram too much crap into any bill. They will hate it so much that they will immediately vow to pass legislation requiring themselves and all future legislators to ban bundles unless there is such a clear relationship between bills that it makes sense to combine votes. Mind you, I will require them to ask me first whether it is sensible to combine pieces of legislation.This last factoid should make them groan, seal the deal, and guarantee independently formulated legislation which considers known information and possible upcoming bills but stands alone unless and until even I would approve of amalgamation.

SO confusing! An NPR story (which was updated at 3:26 p.m) says "Trump signed a one-week temporary spending measure Monday to keep the lights on as the bill made its way to his desk, but the government will shut down at midnight Tuesday if more funding isn't provided"

@walesmaven wrote:

According to new reports, Kathy, Congress has until late morning Jan 3 to override. The clock resets when a veto happens. It seems odd but shut down would have happened if SCOTUS had just waited, with no veto and not signing.

The foul bully just vetoed the Defense bill which overwhelmingly passed the House and Senate. And now he plans to veto the Budget/Covid bill that also was highly voted in favor of in both the House and Senate.

He also just pardoned a whole bunch of crony-criminals.

If you see any relationship between him and a temper tantrum throwing 2 year old, reconsider. There are ways to deal with a temper tantrum throwing 2 year old, but apparently no way to stop the wholesale destruction of democracy until after he is out of office.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2020 12:38AM by Sandy Shopper.

Hmm. I would suggest that the destruction of democracy has been happening over a period of years. Two instances are the presentation of the Affordable Care Act and this recent covid relief bill. With ACA, the legislators were not given sufficient time to read, study, question, and discuss the proposed legislation. They had to vote for it in order to see what was in it! That was irresponsible and antithetical to democracy. While the recent package has much to commend it, is also has some items that are unrelated to covid. Those non-covid items are not necessarily unwelcome, but they should have been handled separately from the covid legislation and from other unrelated issues. All these items should have been read, studied, understood, and discussed thoroughly before being voted on by any legislator.

Obama did not cause this situation for ACA any more than Trump caused it for covid packages. Rather, over the years it has become commonplace for [whoever does these things] to prepare legislation that is many pages long, would require hours to read and study, and still more hours or days to discuss and possibly amend. As a result, our legislators are not able to read and study some legislation thoroughly, if at all, before voting on it.

This is an abomination. I hope that the Biden administration will not have to deal with this oversized legislation. But who knows? The President does not write this stuff and does not package it for the legislators' consideration. Biden might experience the same situation unless someone, somewhere, gets a handle on the size and scope of legislation. Whoever prepares legislation should be instructed by supervisors or commanded by new laws to limit the size and scope of legislation so that each item can receive due consideration.

Shopetal - lobbyists often write legislation outright (they write "recommendations," which get magically adopted by politicians later in the real versions).

Yup, major conflict of interest. ACA had health insurer lobbyists contribute. That's why we never had a chance at even a public option too and why ACA led to increasing health insurer profits. Wall Street regulation post-2008/9 had the exact same entities that crashed our economy write the legislation to regulate it (Dodd-Frank). No wonder there are giant D-F loopholes letting them do the same stuff and why Sanders famously said:

"Congress doesn't regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress." Even if our legislators read what was in the bills, they'd have little power to stop a lot of it. Don't pass it? Ya don't get donor bucks on re-election and your opponents will get funded. Research shows 91% of the time the better funded candidate wins. The only time our legislators go against the will of their big donors is when public pressure is so huge, they have to.

"Ya don't get donor bucks on re-election and your opponents will get funded. Research shows 91% of the time the better funded candidate wins. The only time our legislators go against the will of their big donors is when public pressure is so huge, they have to. "

Which is a great reason for limiting congressional terms to two 4-year or one 6-year term. If Congress was not set up to be a popularity contest but instead, a place where the welfare of our great country is at the front of their concerns, we would have more equitable and sane bills.