SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-billion-here-a-billion-there-pretty-soon-you're-talking-about-real-money dept.
Biden signs $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, making $1,400 checks and child tax credit official:
President Joe Biden on Thursday signed the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, which includes a third stimulus check, for up to $1,400, and an expanded child tax credit. The IRS and Treasury will begin to send the new stimulus checks as soon as this weekend, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday at a press briefing.
The bill signing comes just one day after the amended bill passed in the House by a vote of 220-211. The House initially passed the bill on Feb. 26, and the Senate approved it last week, albeit with some changes.
[...] Democrats had been pushing to get the stimulus package signed into law before current unemployment benefits expire March 14. Biden was originally scheduled to sign the bill on Friday, but it got moved forward after Congress sent the final bill to the president more quickly than anticipated, Psaki said on Thursday.
The stimulus package, called the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, includes changes made by the Senate last week, such as reducing income limits for the third stimulus payment and lowering proposed weekly unemployment benefits from $400 a week to $300 a week (though they'd extend through Sept. 6 rather than the end of August). The Senate also dropped a federal minimum wage increase from the legislation, but proponents say they'll reintroduce that at a later date.
How to watch President Biden's national address tonight.
House passes $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill, sends it to Biden to sign:
[...] Here are the proposal's major pieces:
- It extends a $300 per week jobless aid supplement and programs making millions more people eligible for unemployment insurance until Sept. 6. The plan also makes an individual's first $10,200 in jobless benefits tax-free.
- The bill sends $1,400 direct payments to most Americans and their dependents. The checks start to phase out at $75,000 in income for individuals and are capped at people who make $80,000. The thresholds for joint filers are double those limits. The government will base eligibility on Americans' most recent filed tax return.
- It expands the child tax credit for one year. It will increase to $3,600 for children under 6 and to $3,000 for kids between 6 and 17.
- The plan puts about $20 billion into Covid-19 vaccine manufacturing and distribution, along with roughly $50 billion into testing and contact tracing.
- It adds $25 billion in rental and utility assistance and about $10 billion for mortgage aid.
- The plan offers $350 billion in relief to state, local and tribal governments.
- The proposal directs more than $120 billion to K-12 schools.
- It increases the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit by 15% through September.
- The bill includes an expansion of subsidies and other provisions to help Americans afford health insurance.
- It offers nearly $30 billion in aid to restaurants.
- The legislation expands an employee retention tax credit designed to allow companies to keep workers on payroll.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Snotnose on Friday March 12 2021, @12:55AM (31 children)
Biden wanted to spend 1.9 trillion $$$ before he even came into office. The bill is maybe 10% Covid related. You get a $1400 check? Guess what, you, rather your kids, are going to pay much more than that on this chunk 'o pork.
It's really too bad the GOP turned into the complete assholes they've turned into in the past 4-12 years.
I'm in that boat where I agree with the GOP 90% of the time, yet can't stand the party. And I seriously hope Trump gets to spend some jail time before 2024 cuz that's where he belongs.
Someone tell me who to vote for. The GOP, who is morally corrupt to it's core; or the Dems, who can't resist spending money they don't have and make stupid assed laws (Political Correctness, Woke, etc) that seriously fail the "you kidding me?" Fark headline.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Friday March 12 2021, @01:19AM (21 children)
If you really agree with the GOP 90% of the time then you must be in favour of budget deficits, because that's been republican policy since at least Reagan.
The democrats are spending money now because that is how you go about stimulating the economy. This has been agreed upon as the best solution to prevent depressions since the great one hit in 1929 and Hoover made it worse by trying to balance the books.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday March 12 2021, @02:20AM (14 children)
In addition, for some reason the "deficit hawks" all worried about spending money the federal government doesn't have never raise the issue when the Republicans vote in tax giveaways, almost all to people who have been getting incredibly rich without them, that cost the federal government even more than the Democrats' allegedly irresponsible spending.
And about those Republican deficits, it's worth noting that the long-term plan the GOP has been trying for since at least 1980 is as follows:
1. Whenever a Republican is president, cut taxes, running up massive deficits. This is popular, because most people don't like paying taxes.
2. Whenever Democrats are both president and controls Congress, complain about the deficit endlessly.
3. Whenever a Democrat is president and Republicans control at least one house of Congress, use the federal budget to force the Democratic president to agree to social spending cuts.
4. Blame any cuts that occurred as a result of step 3 on that Democratic president.
A key part of this plan is that the Republicans get to keep the poor elderly voting for them in the mistaken belief that the Democrats are the ones taking away their Social Security and Medicare.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Acabatag on Friday March 12 2021, @02:54AM (1 child)
That's like calling it a 'giveaway' when a generous thief doesn't steal your wallet.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday March 12 2021, @03:25AM
The truly rich are getting extensive government services, most notably the violent-if-necessary protection of their persons, assets, and businesses. When they're getting those services, and not paying for them, that's a giveaway.
Now, I'm well aware the libertarian or anarcho-capitalist view of taxes is that the proper rate of all taxes is 0%, but that's actually not what the Republicans are about. They're totally fine with your taxes and my taxes being somewhere in the 20-35% range, they just want to make sure that a handful of rich people's taxes are as close to 0% as they can get away with because those rich people are bribing them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 12 2021, @03:14AM (9 children)
They have no principles. Understand this: the entire GOP (and a fair chunk of the Dems, mostly the DNC) are sociopaths by any working definition of the term. They're not functioning humans. They don't have your or my interests at heart. The *least* dysfunctional of them, like Mitt Romney, are straight-up Lawful Evil with a slightly above-normal IQ and an ability to think medium-term about their own stock portfolios and assets. It's all downhill from there.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Friday March 12 2021, @06:04AM
Sounds like you're a temporarily embarrassed GOPer. Call me back when your principles are more important than vilifying people you disagree with.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by qzm on Friday March 12 2021, @06:55AM (7 children)
You understand how this money is supposed to work?
Since you are so (correctly..) against making the rich richer.
So, the Democrats are handing out a ton of money - this should result in a massive inflationary bubble, which is desperately bad for the poor, so lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there is some thinking/plan for how that can not happen.
Now, the only actual way that cannot happen is if the money quickly gets 'frozen' - ie: leaves the day to day transactional economy.
If the money is in the hands of the lower/working/middle class (not so many of them left now.. downward mobility has been rather effective) then it will be very active, and highly inflationary - so it is likely the Democrats do not intend it to rest there.
The only places t can sit non-active would be the government (who could reduce debit with it, but that would seem odd.. since they just made the debt), or the rich - and I dont mean the 1% here, I mean the 0.0001%.
Now those very rich (lets just call them the Elites) DO sit on huge piles of cash that they do not spend - so if the vast majority of this money ends up in their hands quickly enough - little or no inflation.
So, you have two possible outcomes.
Either the Elites are about to get richer by around 1.9T over the next 6/12 months, or the rest of us are about to be destroyed in an inflationary bubble that is unlikely to leave and working/middle class.
Its pretty simple economics, really.
Just wondering, which outcome do you prefer?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday March 12 2021, @08:31AM (6 children)
The most idiotic argumentation I heard later.
"This is how the money works: either you give them to the rich, who will sit on them; or you give to the poor which will create rampant inflation and the rich will collect the after a while t sit on them"
A thing that is contradicted by the experience of heaps of other countries, where proper managed fiscal policies don't produce boom/bust cycles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @12:14PM (1 child)
Money is just a tool, it works however we want it to. All money problems are inherently political, which is why people in the US always freak out about even potential inflation, because it would mean we are losing grip on global hegemony. It's not gonna happen, inflation has been low despite every attempt to increase it to target levels, this is due to declining birthrates and stagnant wages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @11:11PM
This of course depends massively on which inflation measure you use. It even changes from time to time. But, for example, produce price index isn't the same as consumer price index, and the chain CPI is different again (and arguably a fraud).
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by qzm on Friday March 12 2021, @10:45PM (3 children)
Lolz, good to see your well thought out response.
Care to name those 'heaps of other countries'? Or even one of them?
Or say why boom/bust cycles are even slightly relevant to my position?
I am guessing not, since i suspect you know almost nothing about economic theory..
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday March 12 2021, @11:28PM (2 children)
Australia - where I live - injected $1.3T between June and December into population. The inflation dropped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13 2021, @12:00AM (1 child)
Before we leap to conclusions, how was the velocity of money? How were discretionary purchases? How much was sunk into financial assets?
There's a lot more that goes into it than just how much a chancellor decides to print.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday March 13 2021, @12:26AM
Hence my "proper managed fiscal policies don't produce boom/bust cycles.".
In opposition to the "simpleton theory of money printing" tabled [soylentnews.org] by qzm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @03:18AM (1 child)
Speak for yourself. I worry, and I do raise it.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday March 14 2021, @10:30PM
Sure you do. As soon as the republicans lose power you're very worried. Just like last time.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday March 12 2021, @06:07PM (1 child)
Does the economy need more stimulus or does it just need to be opened back up?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @08:36PM
I've seen that porno.
This being the internet, I'm sure we've all seen that porno.
Many, many times.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 15 2021, @03:57AM (3 children)
What again is the point of "stimulating" the economy? I find it remarkable how we've been doing Keynesian economics for near a century and we still don't have evidence that it does anything positive for us.
What's the point of agreement that's not based on reality? The dirty secret to Keynesian economics is that it's a cargo cult, based solidly on confirmation bias. A recession hits, the Keynesian rituals are performed, and the recession goes away. It has been assumed for 90 years that's because Keynesian economics works. But historically, recessions have always gone away, even when we don't do anything about them. What's the difference between with and without?
Instead, the key to why Keynesian economics is in the last part of your sentence: "trying to balance the books". Funny how almost no one does actual Keynesian strategy - paying down debt when the economy is doing well. Instead, they borrow when times are bad, and borrow when times are good. The Keynesian approach provides ideological cover to the parties who want to spend the wealth of future generations. I think that's the real reason there is so much "agreement" on how well it's supposed to work. All the pigs at the trough agree that it works really well.
And most of the people who will pay for these consequences haven't even been born yet.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 15 2021, @08:04PM (2 children)
Every government I have lived under has done exactly that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 16 2021, @12:45AM (1 child)
You've already established you don't live under the US government and we're discussing US government policy. So that's one strike right there. Second, I granted with my phrase "almost no one" that there are governments that implement Keynesian economics more or less "properly" - the Scandinavian countries, for example.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday March 16 2021, @01:21AM
Good lord. What happens at strike three?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @01:30AM (5 children)
This bill might be more popular if they sent out the $2,000 checks they promised. No, not $600 plus $1,400.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @02:17AM (4 children)
Did you fail math like most republicans? Hint 600 + 1400 = 2000. And it was Moscow Mitch and his gang that broke it into only 600 in the first place.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @02:26AM
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/14/after-biden-vowed-2000-checks-will-go-out-door-ahead-georgia-wins-relief-plan [commondreams.org]
Stop gaslighting for your lying politicians.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @07:23AM (1 child)
You fail at optics just like the Democrats. Many people - Democrats included - believed that they would get $2,000 in addition to the $600. Now, given that, which is the better option: Sending out $2,000 and not disappointing anyone and pleasantly surprising people who thought they would get $1,400, or sending out $1,400 and angering some voters? Well, if you're looking to increase the chances that you win future elections, the answer is obviously the former.
Plus, $2,000 was always a pathetically small amount, as many people are thousands and thousands behind on rent. We should've had monthly stimulus checks to begin with. Instead, we're pinching pennies and trying to find the absolute minimum we can give people, while the Republicans vote against even these pathetic crumbs in lockstep. Not a good look for Democrats' chances in the midterms.
More importantly, they changed the income thresholds for the checks such that millions of people who received the $600 checks won't receive the $1,400 checks. Those people were straight up betrayed and lied to. And to make matters worse, the people in that income range also helped Democrats win states like Georgia.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @05:21PM
The thing is that even at $2600 for the total, that's still woefully insufficient. Most other developed countries were handing out that kind of money on a monthly basis as compensation for the need to shut businesses down. The Democrats deliberately took advantage of the "ambiguity" to cut down the checks and even under the most generous of interpretations they still lied when they promised $2k checks out the door immediately. They didn't even start the reconciliation process for weeks and the checks were just $1400, not $2k, and considering they got no GOP votes, they should have whipped their own caucus to make it happen. The voters of Arizona and W. Virginia were hardly opposed to the extra money.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @03:09PM
Biden promised $2k checks out the door immediately. They chose to break b those promises. This is why the democrats keep losing elections, they had to use budget reconciliation anyways, might as well keep one of the promise.
But, even if you think that $1400 is $2000, there are people that had received previous checks that won't get this one. And they opted not to provide for essential workers now that they have control of everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @01:37AM
Voodoo Economics and the 2 Santa Claus theory started us down the path to ruin.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @03:48AM (1 child)
I vote 3rd party because they're the only ones who can make a dent in this mess. The Ds are bringing back earmarks (both parties stopped doing it around 2011), meaning attaching personal pork projects to important bills so that the pork is forced to be passed. This is basically bribery which congress critters like to call negotiating: "If you support us on X we'll send $$ to your favorite company by adding it to that bill." Remember that Alaskan multi-million dollar bridge to nowhere (an island of 50 people who didn't want the bridge)? That was an earmark.
They're bringing earmarks back because they have a majority, so if they're able to bribe all the Ds to vote to toe the line then whatever they say goes. Expect a lot of bad laws this term. Congress is incredibly corrupt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12 2021, @05:25PM
The only way that I'll be voting for either Democrats or Republicans again is if there's no 3rd party candidate and I can vote against the incumbent. It's beyond fucked up that they could find trillions for the rich and powerful and give so much money to the unemployed, but no hazard pay to the essential workers. I got to work for minimum wage around the public, getting my hours cut at various points, and they didn't do a damned thing to help me out. Eventually, the city council decided to do something, but seriously, the only reason I wound up making more money than those on unemployment was that they failed spectacularly to handle unemployment benefits after they delayed making plans.