[82 Card]

Regardless of which plan they choose, I hope they have the good sense to not use physical checks this time. We don't need a lot of people lining up at ATMs to deposit the checks touching the same buttons.

[82 Card]

Regardless of which plan they choose, I hope they have the good sense to not use physical checks this time. We don't need a lot of people lining up at ATMs to deposit the checks touching the same buttons.

[chrisk]

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

Money should be sent to everyone. 

First, the people who are going to get lost by having arbitrary cutoffs (even unemployment as a cutoff) are the people already on the edges of society. Means testing is a great way to keep people who need it the most out of reach.

Second, when the money is sent to everyone it takes the wind out of the sails of the people who would likely complain about spending tax money on the poor. Read less class conflict. Read less objection from either side of the aisle.

Third, agree with above, it would be much faster. The poor in this country vastly outnumber the rich, so it isn't like giving the top 10% the money is going to break the bank (when the bank is already broken).

The pie is smaller. Sending checks to everybody sends a false message that nobody has to sacrifice. The better message is that everybody has to sacrifice. The society has underfunded its safety net for years and this further exposes the shortfall.

---

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

From the Tax Foundation website:

Economists and policymakers are considering direct cash payments to individuals to support vulnerable populations and ensure economic stability for Americans. An alternative option that may be better targeted at individuals most affected by the economic downturn is enhanced unemployment insurance (UI).

Enhancements to unemployment insurance may include increasing the benefit replacement rate, reducing or eliminating work history or work search requirements, increasing work-sharing provisions that lowers the chance that workers are laid off, and increasing federal support of state UI programs.

[chrisk]

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

Money should be sent to everyone. 

First, the people who are going to get lost by having arbitrary cutoffs (even unemployment as a cutoff) are the people already on the edges of society. Means testing is a great way to keep people who need it the most out of reach.

Second, when the money is sent to everyone it takes the wind out of the sails of the people who would likely complain about spending tax money on the poor. Read less class conflict. Read less objection from either side of the aisle.

Third, agree with above, it would be much faster. The poor in this country vastly outnumber the rich, so it isn't like giving the top 10% the money is going to break the bank (when the bank is already broken).

The pie is smaller. Sending checks to everybody sends a false message that nobody has to sacrifice. The better message is that everybody has to sacrifice. The society has underfunded its safety net for years and this further exposes the shortfall.

---

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

From the Tax Foundation website:

Economists and policymakers are considering direct cash payments to individuals to support vulnerable populations and ensure economic stability for Americans. An alternative option that may be better targeted at individuals most affected by the economic downturn is enhanced unemployment insurance (UI).

Enhancements to unemployment insurance may include increasing the benefit replacement rate, reducing or eliminating work history or work search requirements, increasing work-sharing provisions that lowers the chance that workers are laid off, and increasing federal support of state UI programs.

[JustAnotherFan]

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

Money should be sent to everyone. 

First, the people who are going to get lost by having arbitrary cutoffs (even unemployment as a cutoff) are the people already on the edges of society. Means testing is a great way to keep people who need it the most out of reach.

Second, when the money is sent to everyone it takes the wind out of the sails of the people who would likely complain about spending tax money on the poor. Read less class conflict. Read less objection from either side of the aisle.

Third, agree with above, it would be much faster. The poor in this country vastly outnumber the rich, so it isn't like giving the top 10% the money is going to break the bank (when the bank is already broken).

The pie is smaller.  Sending checks to everybody sends a false message that nobody has to sacrifice.  The better message is that everybody has to sacrifice.  The society has underfunded its safety net for years and this further exposes the shortfall.

---

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

From the Tax Foundation website:

Economists and policymakers are considering direct cash payments to individuals to support vulnerable populations and ensure economic stability for Americans. An alternative option that may be better targeted at individuals most affected by the economic downturn is enhanced unemployment insurance (UI).

Enhancements to unemployment insurance may include increasing the benefit replacement rate, reducing or eliminating work history or work search requirements, increasing work-sharing provisions that lowers the chance that workers are laid off, and increasing federal support of state UI programs.

If they can get the money out quickly, and if it goes to everyone who doesn't make [whatever the cutoff is] then I'm fine with it. I just don't know that you can do both at the same time.

[JustAnotherFan]

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

Money should be sent to everyone. 

First, the people who are going to get lost by having arbitrary cutoffs (even unemployment as a cutoff) are the people already on the edges of society. Means testing is a great way to keep people who need it the most out of reach.

Second, when the money is sent to everyone it takes the wind out of the sails of the people who would likely complain about spending tax money on the poor. Read less class conflict. Read less objection from either side of the aisle.

Third, agree with above, it would be much faster. The poor in this country vastly outnumber the rich, so it isn't like giving the top 10% the money is going to break the bank (when the bank is already broken).

The pie is smaller.  Sending checks to everybody sends a false message that nobody has to sacrifice.  The better message is that everybody has to sacrifice.  The society has underfunded its safety net for years and this further exposes the shortfall.

---

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

From the Tax Foundation website:

Economists and policymakers are considering direct cash payments to individuals to support vulnerable populations and ensure economic stability for Americans. An alternative option that may be better targeted at individuals most affected by the economic downturn is enhanced unemployment insurance (UI).

Enhancements to unemployment insurance may include increasing the benefit replacement rate, reducing or eliminating work history or work search requirements, increasing work-sharing provisions that lowers the chance that workers are laid off, and increasing federal support of state UI programs.

If they can get the money out quickly, and if it goes to everyone who doesn't make [whatever the cutoff is] then I'm fine with it. I just don't know that you can do both at the same time.

[stupac2]

If they can get the money out quickly, and if it goes to everyone who doesn't make [whatever the cutoff is] then I'm fine with it. I just don't know that you can do both at the same time.

Hint: they can't.

I also still haven't seen any mention of the downside of universal checks. You can enhance unemployment too, but with millions of people getting laid off all at once that's not good enough. There are already pictures of giant lines for unemployment, good idea during a pandemic, right? Does anyone think the websites/phone lines can handle 2M calls when they usually max out at 200k?

Do everything. Do all the things you can think of. UI benefits. Bailouts. Giant infrastructure projects (once it's safe). Fed sending checks to everyone. Canceling payments for debts. Just do all the things! This has the potential to be the biggest economic emergency we've seen in American history, we need to just do everything all at once. The downsides to doing too much pale in comparison to the downsides to doing too little.

[stupac2]

If they can get the money out quickly, and if it goes to everyone who doesn't make [whatever the cutoff is] then I'm fine with it. I just don't know that you can do both at the same time.

Hint: they can't.

I also still haven't seen any mention of the downside of universal checks. You can enhance unemployment too, but with millions of people getting laid off all at once that's not good enough. There are already pictures of giant lines for unemployment, good idea during a pandemic, right? Does anyone think the websites/phone lines can handle 2M calls when they usually max out at 200k?

Do everything. Do all the things you can think of. UI benefits. Bailouts. Giant infrastructure projects (once it's safe). Fed sending checks to everyone. Canceling payments for debts. Just do all the things! This has the potential to be the biggest economic emergency we've seen in American history, we need to just do everything all at once. The downsides to doing too much pale in comparison to the downsides to doing too little.

[BostonCard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/us/po...-bill.html

Looks like the final tally will be close to $2 trillion.  Republicans still get their bailout fund, but Democrats won some oversight over it (good idea; when Trump responded that he would be the one to provide oversight over it, I was wondering if he was just trolling).

$130 billion to hospitals
$150 billion to state and local governments

Expansion of unemployment insurance.
$1200 direct payments to taxpayers

The measure would also provide $1,200 direct payments to taxpayers, substantially increase jobless benefits and send money to states struggling to weather a brobdingnagian public health and economic disaster. Mr. Schumer said Republicans had agreed to extend unemployment insurance for an additional month at Democrats’ insistence, for a total of four months. The two sides had previously agreed to expand the program considerably, to include self-employed and part-time workers who traditionally have not been eligible, and to cover 100 percent of wages to the average worker.

Under the newly negotiated terms, those already on unemployment before the crisis would also see their benefits extended 13 weeks beyond when they are currently set to run out, according to a Democratic aide familiar with the talks.

It's quite a tab, but as Stupac points out, the risk of undershooting is greater than the risk of overshooting.  That being said, we were headed to a $1+ trillion deficit this year; add the coronavirus bill and an anticipated decline in revenue and we could be looking at a $4 trillion deficit when all is said and done.  That's 20% of GDP.  We'll be paying this one back for a while.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/us/po...-bill.html

Looks like the final tally will be close to $2 trillion.  Republicans still get their bailout fund, but Democrats won some oversight over it (good idea; when Trump responded that he would be the one to provide oversight over it, I was wondering if he was just trolling).

$130 billion to hospitals
$150 billion to state and local governments

Expansion of unemployment insurance.
$1200 direct payments to taxpayers

The measure would also provide $1,200 direct payments to taxpayers, substantially increase jobless benefits and send money to states struggling to weather a brobdingnagian public health and economic disaster. Mr. Schumer said Republicans had agreed to extend unemployment insurance for an additional month at Democrats’ insistence, for a total of four months. The two sides had previously agreed to expand the program considerably, to include self-employed and part-time workers who traditionally have not been eligible, and to cover 100 percent of wages to the average worker.

Under the newly negotiated terms, those already on unemployment before the crisis would also see their benefits extended 13 weeks beyond when they are currently set to run out, according to a Democratic aide familiar with the talks.

It's quite a tab, but as Stupac points out, the risk of undershooting is greater than the risk of overshooting.  That being said, we were headed to a $1+ trillion deficit this year; add the coronavirus bill and an anticipated decline in revenue and we could be looking at a $4 trillion deficit when all is said and done.  That's 20% of GDP.  We'll be paying this one back for a while.

BC

[Goose]

We'll be paying this one back for a while.


BC

One way or the other, yes. It probably will be in a devalued currency and inflation, as opposed to actual payback. The only mitigating factor will be that other nations will be in the same situation. As the world proved in the 1930s, that can keep inflation down by depressing economic activity. It can even lead to deflation in the USA. Hard to get out of that cycle. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

[Goose]

We'll be paying this one back for a while.


BC

One way or the other, yes. It probably will be in a devalued currency and inflation, as opposed to actual payback. The only mitigating factor will be that other nations will be in the same situation. As the world proved in the 1930s, that can keep inflation down by depressing economic activity. It can even lead to deflation in the USA. Hard to get out of that cycle. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

[chrisk]

The US has rarely reduced its debt and it’s even more unlikely in the current anti-tax environment. At some point in the recovery, there will have to be some combination of higher interest rates and private savings incentives/mandates to allow room for the explosion in future entitlements.

[chrisk]

The US has rarely reduced its debt and it’s even more unlikely in the current anti-tax environment. At some point in the recovery, there will have to be some combination of higher interest rates and private savings incentives/mandates to allow room for the explosion in future entitlements.

[2006alum]

Looks like they've reached an agreement, and there's some good news in the negotiated results:

The bill will give a one-time check of $1,200 to Americans who make up to $75,000. Individuals with no or little tax liability would receive the same amount, unlike the initial GOP proposal that would have given them a minimum of $600.

It's a drop in the bucket, but it's good to see that those most in need will get the full amount as well. And the spinning never ends with the politicos:

Senate Republicans on Tuesday were characterizing the direct assistance as “snap loans” instead of grants, to avoid the stigma of the proposal being called a bailout, but it has yet to be determined how the government would be compensated.

[2006alum]

Looks like they've reached an agreement, and there's some good news in the negotiated results:

The bill will give a one-time check of $1,200 to Americans who make up to $75,000. Individuals with no or little tax liability would receive the same amount, unlike the initial GOP proposal that would have given them a minimum of $600.

It's a drop in the bucket, but it's good to see that those most in need will get the full amount as well. And the spinning never ends with the politicos:

Senate Republicans on Tuesday were characterizing the direct assistance as “snap loans” instead of grants, to avoid the stigma of the proposal being called a bailout, but it has yet to be determined how the government would be compensated.

[chrisk]

Snap loan sounds sleazier than bailout.

---

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

Money should be sent to everyone. 

First, the people who are going to get lost by having arbitrary cutoffs (even unemployment as a cutoff) are the people already on the edges of society. Means testing is a great way to keep people who need it the most out of reach.

Second, when the money is sent to everyone it takes the wind out of the sails of the people who would likely complain about spending tax money on the poor. Read less class conflict. Read less objection from either side of the aisle.

Third, agree with above, it would be much faster. The poor in this country vastly outnumber the rich, so it isn't like giving the top 10% the money is going to break the bank (when the bank is already broken).

Are they going to send checks to everybody and claw back from the "undeserving" based on 2020 income on the 2020 tax return. As pointed out earlier, there can be a significant difference between 2018 and 2020 income.

[chrisk]

Snap loan sounds sleazier than bailout.

---

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

Money should be sent to everyone. 

First, the people who are going to get lost by having arbitrary cutoffs (even unemployment as a cutoff) are the people already on the edges of society. Means testing is a great way to keep people who need it the most out of reach.

Second, when the money is sent to everyone it takes the wind out of the sails of the people who would likely complain about spending tax money on the poor. Read less class conflict. Read less objection from either side of the aisle.

Third, agree with above, it would be much faster. The poor in this country vastly outnumber the rich, so it isn't like giving the top 10% the money is going to break the bank (when the bank is already broken).

Are they going to send checks to everybody and claw back from the "undeserving" based on 2020 income on the 2020 tax return. As pointed out earlier, there can be a significant difference between 2018 and 2020 income.

[2006alum]

Are they going to send checks to everybody and claw back from the "undeserving" based on 2020 income on the 2020 tax return.  As pointed out earlier, there can be a significant difference between 2018 and 2020 income.

I wasn't able to discern that from the limited info that's been released so far. The House Dems' proposed bill did not means test it up front but instead allowed taxpayers to pay it back over any of their next three tax years, which would defer a potential liability to tax year 2022 and recognize that folks' 2020 income picture may be very different, and so their rosier 2018 taxable income shouldn't be counted against them. I don't know whether that's in the Senate bill.

As a matter of parliamentary procedure, I'm also uncertain about how the House will be passing it. I think they can do it by voice vote without a single objection and thus bypass calling all representatives back to the chamber, but if even one member objects, I think a live vote would need to be taken, which would slow things down substantially. And in the latter case, that would also require reconciliation if the House and Senate bills conflict.

[2006alum]

Are they going to send checks to everybody and claw back from the "undeserving" based on 2020 income on the 2020 tax return.  As pointed out earlier, there can be a significant difference between 2018 and 2020 income.

I wasn't able to discern that from the limited info that's been released so far. The House Dems' proposed bill did not means test it up front but instead allowed taxpayers to pay it back over any of their next three tax years, which would defer a potential liability to tax year 2022 and recognize that folks' 2020 income picture may be very different, and so their rosier 2018 taxable income shouldn't be counted against them. I don't know whether that's in the Senate bill.

As a matter of parliamentary procedure, I'm also uncertain about how the House will be passing it. I think they can do it by voice vote without a single objection and thus bypass calling all representatives back to the chamber, but if even one member objects, I think a live vote would need to be taken, which would slow things down substantially. And in the latter case, that would also require reconciliation if the House and Senate bills conflict.

[stupac2]

This is from a couple days ago:



(Taken from here: https://taxfoundation.org/cares-act-sena...lief-plan/)

No idea how close that is to the final bill, though.

[stupac2]

This is from a couple days ago:



(Taken from here: https://taxfoundation.org/cares-act-sena...lief-plan/)

No idea how close that is to the final bill, though.

[2006alum]

As soon as the agreed upon bill is released, I'll check and let y'all know. 

In the mean time, I thought this was pretty interesting (and gratifying): 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JeffreyGuterman/status/1242775137231024129?s=20[/tweet]

That prohibition will apply to all federal elected representatives - the President, Vice President, and all members of Congress.

[2006alum]

As soon as the agreed upon bill is released, I'll check and let y'all know. 

In the mean time, I thought this was pretty interesting (and gratifying): 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JeffreyGuterman/status/1242775137231024129?s=20[/tweet]

That prohibition will apply to all federal elected representatives - the President, Vice President, and all members of Congress.

[BobK]

Thanks for the update 2006
My congressman is McClinock who will vote against it

[BobK]

Thanks for the update 2006
My congressman is McClinock who will vote against it

[BostonCard]

Here's an article on some of the fine print.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/po...-bill.html

BC

---

Bill just passed the senate.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's an article on some of the fine print.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/po...-bill.html

BC

---

Bill just passed the senate.

BC

[cardcrimson]

Found it interesting that the lead story on Google News headlined that the bill bans Trump businesses from receiving a bailout. Odd that they forgot to mention businesses owned by any other elected federal officials won't receive a bailout, either.

As soon as the agreed upon bill is released, I'll check and let y'all know. 

In the mean time, I thought this was pretty interesting (and gratifying): 

That prohibition will apply to all federal elected representatives - the President, Vice President, and all members of Congress.

[cardcrimson]

Found it interesting that the lead story on Google News headlined that the bill bans Trump businesses from receiving a bailout. Odd that they forgot to mention businesses owned by any other elected federal officials won't receive a bailout, either.

As soon as the agreed upon bill is released, I'll check and let y'all know. 

In the mean time, I thought this was pretty interesting (and gratifying): 

That prohibition will apply to all federal elected representatives - the President, Vice President, and all members of Congress.

[chrisk]

Found it interesting that the lead story on Google News headlined that the bill bans Trump businesses from receiving a bailout. Odd that they forgot to mention businesses owned by any other elected federal officials won't receive a bailout, either.

As soon as the agreed upon bill is released, I'll check and let y'all know. 

In the mean time, I thought this was pretty interesting (and gratifying): 

That prohibition will apply to all federal elected representatives - the President, Vice President, and all members of Congress.

The NY Times articles points out that Trump and his family could benefit from other sections of the bill. The ban only relates to the bailout section.

[chrisk]

Found it interesting that the lead story on Google News headlined that the bill bans Trump businesses from receiving a bailout. Odd that they forgot to mention businesses owned by any other elected federal officials won't receive a bailout, either.

As soon as the agreed upon bill is released, I'll check and let y'all know. 

In the mean time, I thought this was pretty interesting (and gratifying): 

That prohibition will apply to all federal elected representatives - the President, Vice President, and all members of Congress.

The NY Times articles points out that Trump and his family could benefit from other sections of the bill. The ban only relates to the bailout section.

[BostonCard]

The House passed the bill by a voice vote, which means that despite all the drama, no congressional member in either the house or the senate voted against it.

https://apple.news/Apwjj29wiTgSud1cZVgZfuA

BC

[BostonCard]

The House passed the bill by a voice vote, which means that despite all the drama, no congressional member in either the house or the senate voted against it.

https://apple.news/Apwjj29wiTgSud1cZVgZfuA

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Amazing how people can come together and compromise in a crisis. Think how much better things would be if this was practiced as a matter of course. You hear me, I hear you. We work to find compromises, and we actually serve the American people.

[OutsiderFan]

Amazing how people can come together and compromise in a crisis. Think how much better things would be if this was practiced as a matter of course. You hear me, I hear you. We work to find compromises, and we actually serve the American people.

[2006alum]

In the spirit of bipartisan agreement, I have to admit this gave me more than a chuckle:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1243572588200280064?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

In the spirit of bipartisan agreement, I have to admit this gave me more than a chuckle:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1243572588200280064?s=20[/tweet]

[chrisk]

Amazing how people can come together and compromise in a crisis. Think how much better things would be if this was practiced as a matter of course. You hear me, I hear you. We work to find compromises, and we actually serve the American people.

No Democrats at the signing ceremony, almost all Trump toadies congratulating themselves on essentially becoming Democrats (spending historic levels of money). If Republicans are not the party of spending restraint, what is its justification of existence?

(Social Distancing not practiced at signing ceremony, such a large group squished into camera range).

[chrisk]

Amazing how people can come together and compromise in a crisis. Think how much better things would be if this was practiced as a matter of course. You hear me, I hear you. We work to find compromises, and we actually serve the American people.

No Democrats at the signing ceremony, almost all Trump toadies congratulating themselves on essentially becoming Democrats (spending historic levels of money). If Republicans are not the party of spending restraint, what is its justification of existence?

(Social Distancing not practiced at signing ceremony, such a large group squished into camera range).