[Snorlax94]

So now the talk is that the stimulus/bailout package could run over 2 Trillion Dollars.

While I can imagine this and more may be ultimately required, I would rather leave something in the tank for additional boosts as needed. I understand that there can be a lag, so it's better to pass a stimulus early, but this isn't a typical recession and there is still so much unknown.

While I have mixed feeling about just sending *everyone* a bunch of money,at least it would be somewhat fair.

What concerns me most are the bailouts. 

According to a CNBC Article:
"The hotel industry wants $150 billion. The restaurant industry wants $145 billion. The National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion. The International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion."

Even if the bailouts don't mushroom this large, the current bill includes $50B for airlines, $8B for air cargo carriers and the obscenely nebulous $150 Billion for "severely distressed business" to be determined by the Dept of the Treasury.

You thought being a senator was profitable for your stock portfolio -- now the Treasury could get a $150 Billion slush fund to hand out at its discretion. While there is an urgent need for some sort of relief package, I would rather there be NO bailout "lottery winners" at this time and definitely no Treasury political favor fund. They should pass the fairer measures (that go to everyone) first. This reminds me of the 2017 Tax Act where tons of things slipped in at night. Legislators didn't even get a chance to read it all. This may be a surprisingly good year for upscale hotel chains that don't disclose their financials, Goldman, and top political donors to the incumbent.

CNBC Article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/coronavi...esses.html

[Snorlax94]

So now the talk is that the stimulus/bailout package could run over 2 Trillion Dollars.

While I can imagine this and more may be ultimately required, I would rather leave something in the tank for additional boosts as needed. I understand that there can be a lag, so it's better to pass a stimulus early, but this isn't a typical recession and there is still so much unknown.

While I have mixed feeling about just sending *everyone* a bunch of money,at least it would be somewhat fair.

What concerns me most are the bailouts. 

According to a CNBC Article:
"The hotel industry wants $150 billion. The restaurant industry wants $145 billion. The National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion. The International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion."

Even if the bailouts don't mushroom this large, the current bill includes $50B for airlines, $8B for air cargo carriers and the obscenely nebulous $150 Billion for "severely distressed business" to be determined by the Dept of the Treasury.

You thought being a senator was profitable for your stock portfolio -- now the Treasury could get a $150 Billion slush fund to hand out at its discretion. While there is an urgent need for some sort of relief package, I would rather there be NO bailout "lottery winners" at this time and definitely no Treasury political favor fund. They should pass the fairer measures (that go to everyone) first. This reminds me of the 2017 Tax Act where tons of things slipped in at night. Legislators didn't even get a chance to read it all. This may be a surprisingly good year for upscale hotel chains that don't disclose their financials, Goldman, and top political donors to the incumbent.

CNBC Article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/coronavi...esses.html

[chrisk]

So now the talk is that the stimulus/bailout package could run over 2 Trillion Dollars.

While I can imagine this and more may be ultimately required, I would rather leave something in the tank for additional boosts as needed. I understand that there can be a lag, so it's better to pass a stimulus early, but this isn't a typical recession and there is still so much unknown.

While I have mixed feeling about just sending *everyone* a bunch of money,at least it would be somewhat fair.

What concerns me most are the bailouts. 

According to a CNBC Article:
"The hotel industry wants $150 billion. The restaurant industry wants $145 billion. The National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion. The International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion."

Even if the bailouts don't mushroom this large, the current bill includes $50B for airlines, $8B for air cargo carriers and the obscenely nebulous $150 Billion for "severely distressed business" to be determined by the Dept of the Treasury.

You thought being a senator was profitable for your stock portfolio -- now the Treasury could get a $150 Billion slush fund to hand out at its discretion. While there is an urgent need for some sort of relief package, I would rather there be NO bailout "lottery winners" at this time and definitely no Treasury political favor fund. They should pass the fairer measures (that go to everyone) first. This reminds me of the 2017 Tax Act where tons of things slipped in at night. Legislators didn't even get a chance to read it all. This may be a surprisingly good year for upscale hotel chains that don't disclose their financials, Goldman, and top political donors to the incumbent.

CNBC Article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/coronavi...esses.html

Why should money go to everyone (or cap it at $150K)? All of the money should go to the unemployed or in the case of airlines to pay the salaries of those who are unemployed. Even the unemployed don't need 100% of their income replaced.

This is going to be a massive redistribution of income and wealth even if the Republicans don't dare use the term.

---

If the differences on the CARES bill are too wide to be bridged today, the markets could be a blood bath Monday.

Mnuchin wants personal authority to dole out bailouts and allow stock buybacks and executive salaries.

---

[chrisk]

So now the talk is that the stimulus/bailout package could run over 2 Trillion Dollars.

While I can imagine this and more may be ultimately required, I would rather leave something in the tank for additional boosts as needed. I understand that there can be a lag, so it's better to pass a stimulus early, but this isn't a typical recession and there is still so much unknown.

While I have mixed feeling about just sending *everyone* a bunch of money,at least it would be somewhat fair.

What concerns me most are the bailouts. 

According to a CNBC Article:
"The hotel industry wants $150 billion. The restaurant industry wants $145 billion. The National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion. The International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion."

Even if the bailouts don't mushroom this large, the current bill includes $50B for airlines, $8B for air cargo carriers and the obscenely nebulous $150 Billion for "severely distressed business" to be determined by the Dept of the Treasury.

You thought being a senator was profitable for your stock portfolio -- now the Treasury could get a $150 Billion slush fund to hand out at its discretion. While there is an urgent need for some sort of relief package, I would rather there be NO bailout "lottery winners" at this time and definitely no Treasury political favor fund. They should pass the fairer measures (that go to everyone) first. This reminds me of the 2017 Tax Act where tons of things slipped in at night. Legislators didn't even get a chance to read it all. This may be a surprisingly good year for upscale hotel chains that don't disclose their financials, Goldman, and top political donors to the incumbent.

CNBC Article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/coronavi...esses.html

Why should money go to everyone (or cap it at $150K)? All of the money should go to the unemployed or in the case of airlines to pay the salaries of those who are unemployed. Even the unemployed don't need 100% of their income replaced.

This is going to be a massive redistribution of income and wealth even if the Republicans don't dare use the term.

---

If the differences on the CARES bill are too wide to be bridged today, the markets could be a blood bath Monday.

Mnuchin wants personal authority to dole out bailouts and allow stock buybacks and executive salaries.

---

[Mick]

What concerns me most are the bailouts. 

According to a CNBC Article:
"The hotel industry wants $150 billion. The restaurant industry wants $145 billion. The National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion. The International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion."

Of course the bailout is $2 trillion+, if not $4 trillion. All the employees have been sent home by discretionary decision.  No employee was asked if they wanted to go or stay.  They were told to go home.  Soon they'll be told they have a smaller paycheck.  Or they'll be told they're out of a job.

[Mick]

What concerns me most are the bailouts. 

According to a CNBC Article:
"The hotel industry wants $150 billion. The restaurant industry wants $145 billion. The National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion. The International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion."

Of course the bailout is $2 trillion+, if not $4 trillion. All the employees have been sent home by discretionary decision.  No employee was asked if they wanted to go or stay.  They were told to go home.  Soon they'll be told they have a smaller paycheck.  Or they'll be told they're out of a job.

[Snorlax94]

What concerns me most are the bailouts. 

According to a CNBC Article:
"The hotel industry wants $150 billion. The restaurant industry wants $145 billion. The National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion. The International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion."

Of course the bailout is $2 trillion+, if not $4 trillion. All the employees have been sent home by discretionary decision.  No employee was asked if they wanted to go or stay.  They were told to go home.  Soon they'll be told they have a smaller paycheck.  Or they'll be told they're out of a job.

The term bailout should not be used interchangeably with stimulus, spending and help for workers. Bailout is a type of spending (or loan guarantee), and a type of stimulus, but it is a form that is less likely to actually go to unemployed workers or sick Americans.

Bailouts go to industries and business owners. If hotels get the $150 billion bailout they request, there is no guarantee a penny of that will go to hotel employees. They could pocket the money, then lay off employees anyway  because there will be no travel. The best way to help the hospitality industry workers is to send the money directly to the workers. That is not an industry bailout. That is unemployment insurance.

Expanding and extending unemployment, expanding the Affordable Care Act, giving loans or tax credits to small businesses (or even straight payments to all small closed businesses, like neighborhood restaurants and shops), shoring up the finances for state governments, providing funding for tests, expanding spending for hospitals and medical supplies, helping cover the ballooning health expenses for Americans, even sending checks to everyone -- these are examples of actions that help people and employees. 

There should be a massive fund to compensate any retail presence that is closed in a lockdown. It's easy to do -- all businesses report rent payments in a 1099, so the federal government could easily see what rents businesses reported on their taxes and send checks based on that. These are examples of normal Stimulus spending. These are NOT examples of industry bailouts, and it is inaccurate to conflate industry bailouts with sending money to laid off employees.

And then $150 billion to be handed out as business bailouts at the Treasury's discretion??? We are in a crisis and the Senate takes this as an opportunity to become even more  blatantly corrupt.  Any bailout needs to be decided by the Congress (as it is their Constitutional power), it should be done in the open, and, except in true emergencies, it should be done after the bill is made public for at least a week so people can see what their Congress is up to. They can pass the other stimulus spending quickly, but whenever they pick industries to get bailouts using public funds, that should be done in the open, and by Congress.

[Snorlax94]

What concerns me most are the bailouts. 

According to a CNBC Article:
"The hotel industry wants $150 billion. The restaurant industry wants $145 billion. The National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion. The International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion."

Of course the bailout is $2 trillion+, if not $4 trillion. All the employees have been sent home by discretionary decision.  No employee was asked if they wanted to go or stay.  They were told to go home.  Soon they'll be told they have a smaller paycheck.  Or they'll be told they're out of a job.

The term bailout should not be used interchangeably with stimulus, spending and help for workers. Bailout is a type of spending (or loan guarantee), and a type of stimulus, but it is a form that is less likely to actually go to unemployed workers or sick Americans.

Bailouts go to industries and business owners. If hotels get the $150 billion bailout they request, there is no guarantee a penny of that will go to hotel employees. They could pocket the money, then lay off employees anyway  because there will be no travel. The best way to help the hospitality industry workers is to send the money directly to the workers. That is not an industry bailout. That is unemployment insurance.

Expanding and extending unemployment, expanding the Affordable Care Act, giving loans or tax credits to small businesses (or even straight payments to all small closed businesses, like neighborhood restaurants and shops), shoring up the finances for state governments, providing funding for tests, expanding spending for hospitals and medical supplies, helping cover the ballooning health expenses for Americans, even sending checks to everyone -- these are examples of actions that help people and employees. 

There should be a massive fund to compensate any retail presence that is closed in a lockdown. It's easy to do -- all businesses report rent payments in a 1099, so the federal government could easily see what rents businesses reported on their taxes and send checks based on that. These are examples of normal Stimulus spending. These are NOT examples of industry bailouts, and it is inaccurate to conflate industry bailouts with sending money to laid off employees.

And then $150 billion to be handed out as business bailouts at the Treasury's discretion??? We are in a crisis and the Senate takes this as an opportunity to become even more  blatantly corrupt.  Any bailout needs to be decided by the Congress (as it is their Constitutional power), it should be done in the open, and, except in true emergencies, it should be done after the bill is made public for at least a week so people can see what their Congress is up to. They can pass the other stimulus spending quickly, but whenever they pick industries to get bailouts using public funds, that should be done in the open, and by Congress.

[stupac2]

I've said this before, sending money out widely has a number of advantages:

1) Means-testing takes time, time we don't have.

2) Means-testing relies on outdated data. If my family made $160k last year but one of both of us are furloughed we're SOL? How is that reasonable?

3) A rationale for sending checks is stimulus, making it so people spend more. Sure someone with millions in the tank probably won't change their spending if they get $1000, but my wife and I sure would and we've been below a lot of thresholds I've seen.

4) If the checks come from the Fed, who cares? It's all magic money. If they come from the treasury then wealthier individuals are going to pay more to pay down the debt whenever it happens. It might not be literally the same people but it'll be close enough.



I just don't see the rationale for means testing right now

[stupac2]

I've said this before, sending money out widely has a number of advantages:

1) Means-testing takes time, time we don't have.

2) Means-testing relies on outdated data. If my family made $160k last year but one of both of us are furloughed we're SOL? How is that reasonable?

3) A rationale for sending checks is stimulus, making it so people spend more. Sure someone with millions in the tank probably won't change their spending if they get $1000, but my wife and I sure would and we've been below a lot of thresholds I've seen.

4) If the checks come from the Fed, who cares? It's all magic money. If they come from the treasury then wealthier individuals are going to pay more to pay down the debt whenever it happens. It might not be literally the same people but it'll be close enough.



I just don't see the rationale for means testing right now

[BostonCard]

There are two conflicting imperatives here.  The first is to get money out the door quickly, because you want to keep the effects from being irreversible, and from there being knock-on effects to suppliers, etc.  however, that has to be ballanced against the fact that the faster you disburse the money, the less well-targeted you can make it and the more waste and abuse will be distributed inefficiently (or even fraudulently).

But based on what I’ve seen so far, “fast” is more important than “efficient”.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are two conflicting imperatives here.  The first is to get money out the door quickly, because you want to keep the effects from being irreversible, and from there being knock-on effects to suppliers, etc.  however, that has to be ballanced against the fact that the faster you disburse the money, the less well-targeted you can make it and the more waste and abuse will be distributed inefficiently (or even fraudulently).

But based on what I’ve seen so far, “fast” is more important than “efficient”.

BC

[DenverCard]

Here's an interview I heard on this topic yesterday supporting BC's last post.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818583204...conomy-now

[DenverCard]

Here's an interview I heard on this topic yesterday supporting BC's last post.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818583204...conomy-now

[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.

[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.

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[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.

[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.

[BostonCard]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

[BostonCard]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

[cardcrimson]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

[cardcrimson]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

[BostonCard]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

Don’t think this will make a difference in response; it will make a difference on the economic aftermath and the death of the downturn.

Something will pass in the next couple days.  Remember, TARP initially failed in the House and then passed a few days later.

BC

[BostonCard]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

Don’t think this will make a difference in response; it will make a difference on the economic aftermath and the death of the downturn.

Something will pass in the next couple days.  Remember, TARP initially failed in the House and then passed a few days later.

BC

[chrisk]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

Don’t think this will make a difference in response; it will make a difference on the economic aftermath and the death of the downturn.

Something will pass in the next couple days.  Remember, TARP initially failed in the House and then passed a few days later.

BC

Mitch has a weaker hand than he is used to. He may have to adjust to a new reality. It is ironic that he is the one standing in the way of offsite voting, although in this case he has not been able to sway any of the 7-15 Democrats he needs.

[chrisk]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

Don’t think this will make a difference in response; it will make a difference on the economic aftermath and the death of the downturn.

Something will pass in the next couple days.  Remember, TARP initially failed in the House and then passed a few days later.

BC

Mitch has a weaker hand than he is used to. He may have to adjust to a new reality. It is ironic that he is the one standing in the way of offsite voting, although in this case he has not been able to sway any of the 7-15 Democrats he needs.

[cardcrimson]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

Don’t think this will make a difference in response; it will make a difference on the economic aftermath and the death of the downturn.

Something will pass in the next couple days.  Remember, TARP initially failed in the House and then passed a few days later.

BC

Then again, there was the "pass the bill so we can find out what's in it" mentality. 

And frankly, people WILL die from the economic fallout.

[cardcrimson]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

Don’t think this will make a difference in response; it will make a difference on the economic aftermath and the death of the downturn.

Something will pass in the next couple days.  Remember, TARP initially failed in the House and then passed a few days later.

BC

Then again, there was the "pass the bill so we can find out what's in it" mentality. 

And frankly, people WILL die from the economic fallout.

[Snorlax94]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

Don’t think this will make a difference in response; it will make a difference on the economic aftermath and the death of the downturn.

Something will pass in the next couple days.  Remember, TARP initially failed in the House and then passed a few days later.

BC

Mitch has a weaker hand than he is used to.  He may have to adjust to a new reality.  It is ironic that he is the one standing in the way of offsite voting, although in this case he has not been able to sway any of the 7-15 Democrats he needs.

Maybe Mitch knows something others don’t. Maybe Paul coughed on all the Democrats’ doorknobs. 

Partisanship should be set aside during a crisis like this. Let every senator vote, keep every senator healthy.

Whether or not I agree with any particular senator, their state elected them.

There is a possibility of the breakdown of social order in all of this and it is very important to maintain confidence in the integrity of the democratic system. It would be irresponsible and very dangerous to try to gain partisan advantage from a sickness, death or quarantine.

[Snorlax94]

Senate negotiations failed for now.  I expect the market to have a hissy fit tomorrow morning, and for that to focus our legislators minds.  It doesn’t help that senators are testing positive and/or self quarantining.  And many of the senators there are of course in the high risk group.

BC

Just great. How many will die because of their lack of action? Even a day makes a different at this point, right? It's no wonder congress's approval rating hovers in the teens.

Don’t think this will make a difference in response; it will make a difference on the economic aftermath and the death of the downturn.

Something will pass in the next couple days.  Remember, TARP initially failed in the House and then passed a few days later.

BC

Mitch has a weaker hand than he is used to.  He may have to adjust to a new reality.  It is ironic that he is the one standing in the way of offsite voting, although in this case he has not been able to sway any of the 7-15 Democrats he needs.

Maybe Mitch knows something others don’t. Maybe Paul coughed on all the Democrats’ doorknobs. 

Partisanship should be set aside during a crisis like this. Let every senator vote, keep every senator healthy.

Whether or not I agree with any particular senator, their state elected them.

There is a possibility of the breakdown of social order in all of this and it is very important to maintain confidence in the integrity of the democratic system. It would be irresponsible and very dangerous to try to gain partisan advantage from a sickness, death or quarantine.

[BostonCard]

Wait cardcrimson... I’m confused.  Should the senate pass this bill quickly because lives will be lost from the economic fallout, even if senators have to pass it without knowing everything that’s in it, or should they take time to read it closely and debate, even though delay may lead to lives lost?

I wouldn’t worry too much.  The bill will almost certainly pass with a few modifications, and it will pass relatively soon.  There is always a tail risk of a complete breakdown, so I wouldn’t take anything for granted, but Congress passes the “must pass” bills when it has to.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wait cardcrimson... I’m confused.  Should the senate pass this bill quickly because lives will be lost from the economic fallout, even if senators have to pass it without knowing everything that’s in it, or should they take time to read it closely and debate, even though delay may lead to lives lost?

I wouldn’t worry too much.  The bill will almost certainly pass with a few modifications, and it will pass relatively soon.  There is always a tail risk of a complete breakdown, so I wouldn’t take anything for granted, but Congress passes the “must pass” bills when it has to.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

The politics of this are really simple. Americans want stuff given to them and whoever offers more is going to be on the winning side. Right now, more includes money and more opportunity to vote by mail.

[OutsiderFan]

The politics of this are really simple. Americans want stuff given to them and whoever offers more is going to be on the winning side. Right now, more includes money and more opportunity to vote by mail.

[stupac2]

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?

[stupac2]

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?

[JustAnotherFan]

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).

[JustAnotherFan]

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).