Democrats balk at $1,200 rebate checks in stimulus plan

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Senate Republican and Democratic negotiators are battling over a central component of President Trump's stimulus plan: sending out hundreds of billions of dollars in rebate checks to middle-income Americans.

Senate GOP negotiators argue that $1,200 direct payments to individuals are the best way to get money flowing through the economy quickly, while Democrats say disbursing cash benefits so broadly doesn't do enough for low-income Americans and people who lose their jobs.

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Friday said Congress should pass a massive expansion of unemployment benefits instead of simply doling out checks to individuals and families, regardless of whether they miss work because of health quarantines.

"There are many, many who have lost their jobs and one check when they may be out of their jobs for three, four, five months isn't going to be enough. Unemployment insurance gives money the whole period of time the crisis exists at your present salary level and covers just about everyone," Schumer said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-balk-at-dollar1200-rebate-checks-in-stimulus-plan/ar-BB11tNFI?li=BBnb7Kz

I'm getting visions of Jack Nicholson as "The Joker" giving away free money in my mind's eye.

[BigmanPigman]

1. Schumer has the right approach and Mitch, well...

he is Mitch. That says it all.

[WhiteTara]

2. what about the seniors who

lost everything in their 401Ks? They need nothing?

[Demonaut]

3. that's a lot of money!

in the Sudan!

[Jamastiene]

4. The Republicans are using reverse psychology on Democrats

and it is working. Normally, it would be the other way around.

I will believe those checks are happening when I see it. It won't happen.

[getagrip_already]

5. beware - thats not free money - it's a loan against your tax return.....

You will have to pay it back out of your returns next year, even if that means you write the irs a check.

Corporations get grants, you get to borrow your own money.

[Aquaria]

11. This is why Schumer's approach is the better one

Beefing up unemployment insurance will shore up workers, and doesn't wallop them with a nasty tax bill next year, when so many people are already getting hammered from the Tax Cuts for the Undeserving of 2017.

It's not the final action here. This will be an ongoing thing, which will get done a little at a time. Get the unemployed or soon to be shored up.

Then we can work on those who fall under the Social Security umbrella, and getting some money to welfare recipients, too.

Schumer is playing a smarter long game here of boxing in the Repukes/forcing their hand, each step of the way. I would have preferred starting with helping out the elderly and disabled, who need very real help now, but for whatever reason, he's starting with the newly unemployed. Maybe because he's cynical enough to realize that the conservafilth hate "slackers" who can't keep their jobs in even the direst economies, but they hate "moochers" like the disabled and elderly even more. He may suspect that they'll be more willing to help those who were most productive until recently.

And it's sad that repukes are indeed sick enough to prioritize citizens that way.

[Buns_of_Fire]

6. I'm starting to lose track at this point. Is this intended

to be an economic stimulus or an unemployment benefit supplement? It sounds like they're approaching this from different angles.

[jcgoldie]

14. How can it possibly be an economic stimulus when there is almost nowhere to spend it?

You can't go out to eat, you can't spend it on entertainment, you can't shop... even Amazon is shut down. How does giving people money stimulate the economy when there is nowhere for them to spend it?

[4887123]

7. ?

I'm still wondering about folks who didn't earn enough to even file taxes. What happens to them? What about the self employed who are not eligible for unemployment? I'm sure there are other scenarios as well. I am currently not working because of this and cannot get any sort of benefit. And I am not the only one in my line of business.

[Demsrule86]

8. Unemployment isn't close to what most people make...

[maveric]

13. And it's taxable.

[Demsrule86]

9. I don't agree...use the Yang approach...too many folks don't qualify for unemployment which

is capped at like $300 per week...in righty states anyway.

[Blue_true]

10. On your last sentence, Heath Ledger's Joker collecting money for the

crime boss, then burning the crime boss and the money. Republicans will give people one check that may pay one month's rent, but after that, those people get burned. Expanding unemployment benefits to 100% of salary allows people that have been laid off to keep paying all bills, people that still have jobs have no dire need for the money, and if they do, that need is better addressed by making immediate changes to the tax code so those people get more money back in each paycheck.

[mvd]

12. There's no reason to not go big in a big crisis

Lots of people are on Social Security or don’t/can’t work, and they badly could use the checks. Of course, it needs to be set up differently than the Repukes want. $600? Unemployment insurance and other things can be part of the bill, too. Frankly, I am disappointed in both sides here. Let’s attack the problem on many fronts.

We need a groundbreaking plan. Have never seen anything like what is going on now.

[Grown2Hate]

15. Reminds me of Lucille Bluthe in Arrested Development.

"I mean, it's ONE pandemic, Michael. What could it cost... a thousand dollars?"

Have to laugh to keep from crying.

[NewsCenter28]

16. We hold all the cards here

Speaker Pelosi needs to tell Toad "This bill will entirely be written by me. Take it or shove it up your ass, and see you in November, where you will get blamed for not passing any economic rescue measures whereas we tried our best."