Democrats lied about the $2,000 stimulus checks

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863

TL;DW

First they said it would be $2,000 (even after the $600 already passed)

Then they said it would be within the first week of Biden's administration (that time has passed)

Then they said it would only be $1,400.

Then they made it part of $1T+ package they are going to try to pass through Congress.

I don't think this was mentioned. It was said Biden doesn't want Trump to consume his term, but other than some executive orders that doesn't even involve Congress and some covid reorg Trump's impeachment trial has been the big focus of Congress over the stimulus checks or what is now part of a massive package.

Just like Republicans are trying to pass the insurrection off as "That's old shit, yo." I predict Congress is going to do the same with the stimulus promise and at a minimum go "We just passed a new stimulus package a month or so ago. Why rush another one so soon?"
 
U

User.45

Guest

TL;DW

First they said it would be $2,000 (even after the $600 already passed)

Then they said it would be within the first week of Biden's administration (that time has passed)

Then they said it would only be $1,400.

Then they made it part of $1T+ package they are going to try to pass through Congress.

I don't think this was mentioned. It was said Biden doesn't want Trump to consume his term, but other than some executive orders that doesn't even involve Congress and some covid reorg Trump's impeachment trial has been the big focus of Congress over the stimulus checks or what is now part of a massive package.

Just like Republicans are trying to pass the insurrection off as "That's old shit, yo." I predict Congress is going to do the same with the stimulus promise and at a minimum go "We just passed a new stimulus package a month or so ago. Why rush another one so soon?"
We'll see, but I suspect you're right...
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
This reminds me of a podcast I listened to a few months back on government studies and commissions. It’s something they use to give the appearance they give a shit, but ultimately do nothing. The biggest example of this is marijuana legalization. They’re still blowing “We need to do more studies and look at the science” up our asses. The studies and science have already been done a thousand times over at least the last 2 decades. So this is “We’re going to slip the stimulus checks into a bulk bill with several voting poison pills. We tried.”.
 
U

User.45

Guest
This reminds me of a podcast I listened to a few months back on government studies and commissions. It’s something they use to give the appearance they give a shit, but ultimately do nothing. The biggest example of this is marijuana legalization. They’re still blowing “We need to do more studies and look at the science” up our asses. The studies and science have already been done a thousand times over at least the last 2 decades. So this is “We’re going to slip the stimulus checks into a bulk bill with several voting poison pills. We tried.”.
I'd say the science is not entirely there on a large scale...I'm OK with being mindful and set the regulations on recreational marijuana right in the first round. What needs to be done immediately is change the LE practices that punish people for minor drug possession charges. Enforcing DUIs is important, fucking people over for possession of a gram generates more grief than benefit on a societal level.

On the other hand, a nation with the opioid epidemic desperately needs a safer alternative to opiates and my impression is that cannabinoids are just that. So for example, end-of-life pain management? I have yet to see a valid contraindication. I never recommend cannabis to my patients because I personally lack the knowledge and training (I could always pretend to be an expert on it, like some do, but it would be a lie). But I do see a lot of patients using CBD and they are doing just fine. Yet, nothing's black and white. For example, there's some prelim data from Israel showing decreased response to immunotherapy with concurrent cannabinoid use, purportedly due to its antiinflammatory effect.

So again, we need to decriminalize but also sensibly regulate to ensure public safety, ensure availability for high-quality research, curtail lobby from Big Ganja and do what's best for society on the largest scale.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
I'd say the science is not entirely there on a large scale...I'm OK with being mindful and set the regulations on recreational marijuana right in the first round. What needs to be done immediately is change the LE practices that punish people for minor drug possession charges. Enforcing DUIs is important, fucking people over for possession of a gram generates more grief than benefit on a societal level.

On the other hand, a nation with the opioid epidemic desperately needs a safer alternative to opiates and my impression is that cannabinoids are just that. So for example, end-of-life pain management? I have yet to see a valid contraindication. I never recommend cannabis to my patients because I personally lack the knowledge and training (I could always pretend to be an expert on it, like some do, but it would be a lie). But I do see a lot of patients using CBD and they are doing just fine. Yet, nothing's black and white. For example, there's some prelim data from Israel showing decreased response to immunotherapy with concurrent cannabinoid use, purportedly due to its antiinflammatory effect.

So again, we need to decriminalize but also sensibly regulate to ensure public safety, ensure availability for high-quality research, curtail lobby from Big Ganja and do what's best for society on the largest scale.

If nothing else legalization or decriminalization will help further studies including different morphs.

And not meant as a deflection but we know a lot of the science on alcohol, most of it not a positive endorsement, and yet perfectly legal, aside from DUIs of course.

You also have to ask if living in the US is so great then why do so many people need to have chemical escapes that are in no way medical needs?
 

lizkat

Deep deep blue
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
5,983
Reaction score
12,660
Location
Catskill Mountains
We'll see, but I suspect you're right..

They can try to do it by way of a budget reconciliation process, which needs only 51 votes to close debate or to pass the thing, and limits amendments to "budget-neutral" items (which does not exclude poison-pill efforts to tank it).

But there are other hurdles there too, not least that they have to adopt a budget in the House to begin with. There can only be one budget reconciliation per year. Trump was having his agencies step through budget prep in the last months of his term in office, although some agencies balked and now the power shift will result in reworking priorities in most of the agency budgets.

Either way it could take some time if the add-on to the individual stimulus isn't presented either separately or as part of Biden's overall stimulus package. It's possible the Dems figure on public pressure to make a single item bill feasible.

The message meantime from various sectors of the economy and so from the Fed is that this is not the time to take foot off gas pedal. The message to the Republicans is "now you worry about deficits???"

 
U

User.45

Guest
If nothing else legalization or decriminalization will help further studies including different morphs.
Not necessarily... I can only imagine how painful it may be to get approval for a clinical trial involving cannabinoids, unfortunately. There are extra layers of regulation you only face when designing trials.:/

And not meant as a deflection but we know a lot of the science on alcohol, most of it not a positive endorsement, and yet perfectly legal, aside from DUIs of course.
Valid point, but this is the exact reason I'd be very very careful with legalizing another substance to the extent of alcohol.


You also have to ask if living in the US is so great then why do so many people need to have chemical escapes that are in no way medical needs?
It's also a culmination of how Americans engage with technology. Think about cars or guns or even chemicals (like fabric softeners). The vast majority of the world can just do fine with lot lot less of all of these. Recreational drugs can be considered chemical technology.
 

Thomas Veil

Suspended
Posts
3,450
Reaction score
6,796
They can try to do it by way of a budget reconciliation process, which needs only 51 votes to close debate or to pass the thing, and limits amendments to "budget-neutral" items (which does not exclude poison-pill efforts to tank it).

But there are other hurdles there too, not least that they have to adopt a budget in the House to begin with. There can only be one budget reconciliation per year. Trump was having his agencies step through budget prep in the last months of his term in office, although some agencies balked and now the power shift will result in reworking priorities in most of the agency budgets.

Either way it could take some time if the add-on to the individual stimulus isn't presented either separately or as part of Biden's overall stimulus package. It's possible the Dems figure on public pressure to make a single item bill feasible.

The message meantime from various sectors of the economy and so from the Fed is that this is not the time to take foot off gas pedal. The message to the Republicans is "now you worry about deficits???"


It's an old story--you don't want to watch them making sausages or laws.

I'm inclined to think that what you said is indeed what is going on here. As for broken promises...well, I've learned to divorce what they say during the campaign from what they actually do. Campaigns, at least for Democrats, are a lot about wishful thinking that may or may not come to pass. (For Republicans, it's threats that they make good on.)
 

iMi

Site Champ
Site Donor
Posts
310
Reaction score
745
I don’t think they lied. It’s a timing issue. Biden is a decent guy trying to do the right thing. Weed is awesome, has demonstrably less damaging impact on health compared to alcohol, cannot be overdosed, does not leave you hungover, makes music and sex sound and feel amazing. Basic hod dogs become taste sensation. Pairs well with wine and scotch and above all, makes assholes seem less assholy. Making it illegal has disproportionately impacted black people and only contributed to their unjust imprisonment. All good reasons to legalize it nationwide.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
People seem to be responding "didn't lie" to just one point of the multi-point lie.

Now it's being estimated to get passed sometime in March, far from first week in office or anywhere near. Also Biden is open to raising the bar on who qualities for a check. Excuse me? How about being open to removing $15 per hour on the bill which has absolutely nothing to do with Covid relief. If you're going to force the package through don't compromise on the one, and only, specific thing you promised the American people.

As far as people getting the money who don't really need it, we're not talking about millionaires here. People who don't need it will probably spend part of it on the local economy. The more people go to a restaurant, the less that restaurant is depending on government subsidies and could mean the difference to not going completely out of business. And unlike some individuals, a business isn't open just to live off government checks. They want to do actual business.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
In (bill) related news, CA just raised the minimum wage to $14 - $15 per hour. The $1 difference depends on the company size. Some high cost of living cities have already made minimum wage $15 per hour. But ok, let's go ahead and make sure somebody working the counter at Dale's Donut Depot living in a city with a population of 1,500 in Nebraska is also making at least that.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
Well, now I'm going to need the stimulus check to help pay for the taxes I owe from last year.

To all the "I got more money in my paycheck!" Trump supporting mouth breathers. You did because Trump reduced the federal withholding. Now you're going to end up owing more or get less back when you file your taxes, dumbass.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
So CA is doing it’s own stimulus checks of $600. However, I don’t get this language

Californians eligible for the $600 state stimulus checks are taxpayers with individual tax identification numbers who did not receive federal stimulus payments and whose income is below $75,000, according to the Times.

Didn’t everybody who made less than $75,000 get federal stimulus checks?

It’s also being said that about 5 million people will qualify out of a state of almost 40 million. I can’t believe over 35 million Californians make over 75k a year. Who are these people?

Edit: clicked my own damn link and I guess it’s mostly recent college graduates. That’s a really odd demographic to laser focus on for this.
 

Alli

Perfection
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,970
Reaction score
10,038
Location
Alabackwards
Edit: clicked my own damn link and I guess it’s mostly recent college graduates. That’s a really odd demographic to laser focus on for this.
This is a demographic that can't catch a break. They owe thousands in student loans, and now that they have a degree they can't even find a job due to Covid.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
This is a demographic that can't catch a break. They owe thousands in student loans, and now that they have a degree they can't even find a job due to Covid.

But they are probably also living back home with their parents, just like they were just before college and possibly even during. I'm not mad about them getting the money, but it seems really odd to put them at the top and possibly only on the deserving and needing list. They most likely have the least immediate needs and $600 nearly a year after this began isn't exactly going to save them from some financial disaster. That loss, if they had one, is already well behind them.
 
Top Bottom