February 2, 20214 yr 5 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I think that was individuals/300k for families. I'd have to check, but I saw 300k somewhere. I can see how my post would be confusing. Bah, it's early here. Need coffee. Started phasing out at $150k for married couples, went to zero at $199k.
February 3, 20214 yr On 2/2/2021 at 8:34 AM, Boogyman said: I had an idea that everyone should get a small stipend to cover any miscellaneous covid costs. And the rest should go by how much money a person may have lost due to missing work or lack of business. Someone like me who didn't lose any money due to covid shouldn't get anything IMO I'm in the same boat and agree with this completely. Our income hasn't been impacted other than my company delaying raises when the pandemic initially hit. And since our kids are longer going to after school care and I'm no longer commuting to work our expenses have actually decreased so we're effectively making more than we were pre-covid. I don't need the stimulus checks. The first one we used to buy some stuff for the house from small businesses that we otherwise wouldn't have bought at that time. The second one we mostly gave to a family member who has been impacted (she got Covid and her husband had to miss more than 2 weeks of work without income to quarantine since he's self employed) to help with their rent and bills. The rest we are basically saving for the next person in need of for another purchase from a local business.
February 3, 20214 yr 18 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Meh I think they're just voting no to "own the libs". It's the usual cast of clowns still throwing a hissy fit over election fraud. Probably a mix of both. There are bigoted people everywhere. Most are just not open about it.
February 3, 20214 yr Biden reopening kids in cages facility. Changing the name to migrant overflow facility. Smart brand move:
February 3, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: Biden reopening kids in cages facility. Changing the name to migrant overflow facility. Smart brand move: You don't seem to understand that the problem was Trump family separation policy. Not that unaccompanied children were apprehended. Is Biden reinstituting Trump's family separation policy? Because that would be a big story.
February 3, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: You don't seem to understand that the problem was Trump family separation policy. Not that unaccompanied children were apprehended. Is Biden reinstituting Trump's family separation policy? Because that would be a big story. No, kids in cages were also a huge problem. No amount of liberal spin will change that, van. This is not who we are!
February 3, 20214 yr Just now, Kz! said: No, kids in cages were also a huge problem. No amount of liberal spin will change that, van. This is not who we are! No, the problem was the family separation policy. It was disgusting and only cheered on by loser Trump supporters. As for holding unaccompanied minors, what would you propose Biden do with them?
February 3, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: No, the problem was the family separation policy. It was disgusting and only cheered on by loser Trump supporters. As for holding unaccompanied minors, what would you propose Biden do with them? Incorrect no matter how many times you say it. This is not who we are, van. It can't be.
February 3, 20214 yr Just now, Kz! said: Incorrect no matter how many times you say it. This is not who we are, van. It can't be. Yes, taking children from their parents is not who we are. And by we of course I mean sane Americans, not terrorist Trump supporters. We know it's who you guys are.
February 3, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: Yes, taking children from their parents is not who we are. And by we of course I mean sane Americans, not terrorist Trump supporters. We know it's who you guys are. You are the party of kids in cages now, van. Embrace it.
February 3, 20214 yr Just now, Kz! said: You are the party of kids in cages now, van. Embrace it. Again, what would you propose Biden do with unaccompanied minors?
February 3, 20214 yr Author 25 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Again, what would you propose Biden do with unaccompanied minors? They obviously need to be detained with their parents for some time if they need to apply for asylum or otherwise cannot be swiftly sent back across the border, but they definitely should figure out a less draconian way of holding them. This is a huge thing that Biden has to tackle.
February 3, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: They obviously need to be detained with their parents for some time if need to apply for asylum or otherwise cannot be swiftly sent back across the border, but they definitely should figure out a less draconian way of holding them. This is definitely a huge thing that Biden has to tackle. But I'm talking about unaccompanied minors. They aren't with their parents.
February 3, 20214 yr Author 5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: But I'm talking about unaccompanied minors. They aren't with their parents. Ok, but maybe make the conditions less prison-like? I feel like there should be some kind of middle ground.
February 3, 20214 yr 22 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Again, what would you propose Biden do with unaccompanied minors? I suppose you think locking them in cages is appropriate? I'm sorry, but that's not who I am. Until recently it wasn't who we were.
February 3, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: I suppose you think locking them in cages is appropriate? I'm sorry, but that's not who I am. Until recently it wasn't who we were. One more time, what would you propose we do with unaccompanied minors?
February 3, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: One more time, what would you propose we do with unaccompanied minors? I'm not a policymaker, van. It's not my job to come up with a more humane way of treating these poor, sweet children. I know that I don't agree with putting children in crowded cells for the crime of attempting to make a better life for themselves. That used to be something that you agreed with, but apparently you've changed.
February 3, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: I'm not a policymaker, van. It's not my job to come up with a more humane way of treating these poor, sweet children. I know that I don't agree with putting children in crowded cells for the crime of attempting to make a better life for themselves. That used to be something that you agreed with, but apparently you've changed. Sounds like you're for open borders.
February 3, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, Kz! said: No, kids in cages were also a huge problem. No amount of liberal spin will change that, van. This is not who we are! Kids in cages along with their parents! That's what it's all about.
February 4, 20214 yr Author Time for a little unity. I know @vikas83 will feel me on this. How about I get some money for not having kids and taxing the system less? I'll even settle for $500 and put it right back into the economy. I mean, hell, I even paid off my gov't student loans early. If they cancel student debt, I'm gonna feel like an idiot for doing the smart thing. I'm a low-maintenance citizen. How about a little reward for my responsibility? Time's yours. *clears throat* Quote Democrats unveil a plan to provide every American child with a $1,000 savings account that can be accessed at age 18 Congressional Democrats on Thursday reintroduced a plan to provide every child with a $1,000 savings account that they could access once they turn 18. Some are pushing to include the measure in President Joe Biden's rescue package. Spearheaded by Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, the legislation would each year put up to $2,000 more into an interest-accruing fund managed by the Treasury Department. Children from lower-income families would receive larger cash payments. At 18, the person could access their funds for specific purposes such as attending college, buying a home, or starting a business. The program would cost $60 billion a year and be offset by hiking estate taxes and closing tax breaks for wealthy Americans, Booker has said. "To truly 'build back better' our economy, we cannot ignore the extreme and persistent wealth inequality that deprives kids of economic opportunity right out of the gate," Booker said in a statement on Thursday. He added, "In a country as wealthy as ours, every person should have access to economic opportunity and the chance to build assets and create wealth." The plan was cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Dick Durbin of Illinois. Booker and Pressley are pushing to fold the proposal into Biden's $1.9 trillion emergency spending package making its way through Congress. Insider obtained a letter sent to Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris last month urging them to adopt the measure. "When it comes to racial justice, we cannot afford to wait," Booker and Pressley wrote in the letter. "As we emerge from this dark period of our nation's history, Baby Bonds is exactly the type of universal, race conscious program necessary to build our economy back better." The federal government has never attempted to set up this type of program, though there was bipartisan support for child retirement accounts three decades ago. Conservative experts have argued that such a measure may disincentivize people from saving their money, The Washington Post reported in 2019. J. P. Freire, a representative for the Republican side of the House Ways and Means Committee, criticized Booker and Pressley's plan. He tweeted on Thursday that "the best path out of poverty is a job" and described the measure as a "job killer." "Baby bonds" were a cornerstone of Booker's 2020 presidential run as Democratic candidates rolled out policies to combat systemic inequality. A 2018 study from researchers at Columbia University found that the measure would help to close the racial wealth gap. During the pandemic, support has grown among Democrats for plans providing relief through cash payments. Many Democrats favor a proposal to provide monthly checks to parents as part of a stimulus package to address the rising costs of childcare.https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-dems-unveil-plan-to-provide-kids-with-1000-savings-accounts-2021-2?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sf-bi-main&fbclid=IwAR1tZhsBKzgn5VLl8vML_v5XVIOzc5bc0DiqFnLA3EjKlJQMVcTZfOd1IUE
February 5, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'm a low-maintenance citizen. How about a little reward for my responsibility Spoiler alert: The government never rewards those who make financially sound and prudent decisions. In fact, we are punished for it and get stuck with the bill to pay for those who make imprudent and irresponsible decisions. The only recourse is to take matters into your own hands and try your best to reap your own rewards (albeit with some risk) by investing your money in the market in the hopes of benefiting from everyone else's consumerism. If I sound jaded and disillusioned over the fact that fiscally responsible government is a pipe dream, it's because I am. If you're just now joining us, welcome aboard, nice to have you.
February 5, 20214 yr Author 13 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: If you're just now joining us, welcome aboard, nice to have you. I've more or less always been this way. Caught somewhere between thinking we need to give people enough of a boost to increase economic mobility and make smart investments in jobs, education, and infrastructure without totally going off the deep end. I've said many times that I see intervention as not an exercise in generosity or a charitable venture but more along the lines of that it benefits the whole if the general population has the means to acquire skills and the purchasing power to drive the economy forward. I try to be pragmatic. I always go back to the aphorism of "a rising tide lifts all boats," but I'm still wary of extremism. I definitely lean left but see that things can get out of hand quickly. This definitely looks like a case of just throwing money at the situation.
February 5, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I've more or less always been this way. Caught somewhere between thinking we need to give people enough of a boost to increase economic mobility and make smart investments in jobs, education, and infrastructure without totally going off the deep end. I've said many times that I see intervention as not really just being generous or charitable but more along the lines of that it benefits the whole if the general population has the means to acquire skill and the purchasing power to drive the economy forward. I always go back to the aphorism of "a rising tide lifts all boats," but I'm wary of extremism in any form. I definitely lean left but things can get out of hand quickly. The issue is when those boosts incentivize irresponsible behavior and shield people from accountability. In times like these, it's far down on the list of concerns, but during times of prosperity, some belt tightening is in order to save for those rainy days we currently find ourselves in.
Create an account or sign in to comment