.... I don't envy someone who is poor and unemployed and shall be getting temporary stimulus. The years ahead could be brutal.
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.@ 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.
That's a good point!@walesmaven wrote:
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.
1 million%!@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.
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.
I thought it had to be full Congress's 2/3 vote, but I could be wrong.@walesmaven wrote:
Can a simple 2/3 vote by just a minimum quorum vote over-ride?
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).@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?
It's interesting. Would that mean a pocket veto described here is not possible?:@walesmaven wrote:
Check out what I added to my post immdiately above yours.
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.