The start of BiG: Biden admin consider regular stimulus checks to Americans

[JustinCharge 2,397]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/b037ac37-87dc-3c2a-8483-fefee4d0de3a/your-next-stimulus-check-from.html

Your next stimulus check from the Biden administration may be the first of several

Wed, January 27, 2021, 12:46 PM

As the Biden administration looks to pass a third major economic stimulus program quickly, some of its allies on Capitol Hill and elsewhere are mulling mixing up the formula for payments to households, looking to make them recurring instead of the lump sums seen in the past.

Recurring payments, in theory, might ease that concern somewhat, by allowing families to plan for better months ahead, advocates say.

“They need to plan their budgets. They do better, and they spend more, when they know what’s coming. That’s why recurring installments of direct payments are so important, whatever the scale and scope.”

[JustinCharge 2,397]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-could-300-monthly-direct-204426891.html

Democrats are setting the stage to propose $300 monthly direct payments for families with children under 17

Joseph Zeballos-Roig

Wed, January 27, 2021, 12:44 PM

Democrats in Congress are drafting legislation to provide millions of American families with up to $300 in monthly cash payments, two Democratic sources familiar with the matter told Insider. The proposal could form part of Biden's federal rescue package, and Democrats are expected to lobby heavily for its inclusion.

A preliminary version of the plan would put the IRS in charge of distributing $300 monthly payments for each child younger than 6 and $250 each month for kids ages 6 to 17. It would amount to $3,600 yearly for younger kids and $3,000 for the older ones.

The plan would make the child tax credit "fully refundable," Nick Martin, a spokesperson for Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, who is involved in the negotiations, told Insider.

That means people could receive the complete payment regardless of what they owe in taxes - which is comparable to the administration of a child allowance that many Western nations already have in place.

[Kopy 491]

I'm a 43 year old white guy who work's 5-6 days, 50 hours a week.

What do I get?

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

5 minutes ago, Kopy said:

I'm a 43 year old white guy who work's 5-6 days, 50 hours a week.

What do I get?

 

Privilege. Stop complaining. 

[DonS 3,067]

35 minutes ago, Kopy said:

I'm a 43 year old white guy who work's 5-6 days, 50 hours a week.

What do I get?

 

You'll get nothing and like it!!!!!

#metoo

[Fireballer 2,382]

35 minutes ago, Kopy said:

I'm a 43 year old white guy who work's 5-6 days, 50 hours a week.

What do I get?

 

Peace and quiet at home.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

1 hour ago, Kopy said:

I'm a 43 year old white guy who work's 5-6 days, 50 hours a week.

What do I get?

 

The shaft.

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

All the breeders get rewarded

[BeenHereBefore 1,332]

11 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

All the breeders get rewarded

Been that way for years.

[Old School 360]

8 hours ago, Kopy said:

I'm a 43 year old white guy who work's 5-6 days, 50 hours a week.

What do I get?

 

Higher taxes to fund this mess.

[DonS 3,067]

3 hours ago, Cloaca du jour said:

All the out of control welfare breeders get rewarded

Fixed for accuracy.  Baby mommas hit the jackpot!!! 

[Cdub100 3,380]

11 hours ago, Kopy said:

I'm a 43 year old white guy who work's 5-6 days, 50 hours a week.

What do I get?

 

You get to pay for all this and it's still not enough. Can you bump those hours up to 80 or 90?

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

Typical Democrat maneuver.  Pretend you're helping out the little guy, but in the end, this helps out the middle class and upper class more than the lower class... and brag that you're helping out the poor.

Here's a plan that would actually work.  Instead of giving $300 to EVERY FAMILY, only give it to those who NEED it.  In fact, you can actually increase the payout and STILL spend less money doing it.  On top of that... it would WORK!  

Any family with a household income under $150k will get $400 per month per child under the age of 5, $300 for any child under 12, and $200 up to age 16.  The numbers cut in half, if you make up to, but not exceeding $250k.  Anyone over $250k, you get nothing.  Here's the kicker, you don't get cash.  You get an account.  That account comes with a debit card which can ONLY be used on groceries, clothes, and school supplies.  That's it.  Nothing else.  It guarantees that the child is the direct beneficiary of the money.  Mom and/or dad can't use the cash to go buy cigarettes, booze, or pay their local drug dealer or bookie.

The parent gets separate cards for each child, with their own account.  Any money left on that card once the child hits 17, goes back to the government.

This would also go along with a reduction in welfare assistance.

[Kopy 491]

I'm sad 

 

[The Elevator Killer 497]

1 hour ago, Kopy said:

I'm sad 

 

Do that on your own time. Get back to work. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Romney wants to give $250-$350 per month to families with kids.  Romney has an approval rating of around 30% among republicans and around 60% among democrats.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/mitt-romney-child-allowance-150107102.html

Mitt Romney Proposes $350 Monthly Child Allowance

Arthur Delaney
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
Thu, February 4, 2021, 7:01 AM

The federal government would pay most parents of young children $350 per child every month under a groundbreaking new proposal from Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) that would put a serious dent in child poverty.

Parents would get $350 for each child younger than 6 and $250 for kids between 6 and 17 under Romney’s Family Security Act, which he unveiled Thursday as Democrats prepare to pass a big pandemic relief bill in the coming weeks.

Romney’s Family Security Act is bolder. It would pay benefits through the Social Security Administration instead of the Internal Revenue Service, which has less experience with monthly payments. The new payments would replace several tax benefits, including the child tax credit and the deduction for state and local taxes, as well as the entire Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program ― all likely nonstarters for Democrats.

Monthly payments would be available to expecting parents four months before their kids are born. Benefits would be capped at $1,250 per month and couples with combined incomes above $400,000 would get less. Something like 90% of households with children would qualify.

The Family Security Act represents a huge change for Romney himself. In the 2012 presidential election, he bogusly criticized President Barack Obama for supposedly “gutting” the work requirements of the TANF program, which is the federal government’s main source of cash assistance for parents who aren’t disabled.

“Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job,” Romney’s 2012 campaign ads said. “They just send you your welfare check.”

Now Romney is proposing replacing TANF altogether with no-strings-attached benefits. He’ll just send you your check.

[Cdub100 3,380]

Move your money into bitcoin. 

[tubby_mcgee 686]

Notice the libs all sitting back on this one.

They are loving the idea of kicking back, being lazier than ever and making money by taking (taxes) from the rest of us. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

It’s ridiculous. It’s going to be funny watching some people who though they were getting paid, and voted because of it, not get paid. I’m one of them who will be squeezed out under the new threshold. And I’m gonna laugh if I hear anyone in my spot complaining. Elections have consequences. 

[Fireballer 2,382]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s ridiculous. It’s going to be funny watching some people who though they were getting paid, and voted because of it, not get paid. I’m one of them who will be squeezed out under the new threshold. And I’m gonna laugh if I hear anyone in my spot complaining. Elections have consequences. 

At least Orange Man can hurt them anymore.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

26 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

At least Orange Man can hurt them anymore.  

You wouldn’t know it. He did some number on them. 

[Mike Honcho 4,034]

On 1/27/2021 at 10:31 PM, Kopy said:

I'm a 43 year old white guy who work's 5-6 days, 50 hours a week.

What do I get?

 

An ulcer.

[5-Points 2,729]

54 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

Romney wants to give $250-$350 per month to families with kids.  Romney has an approval rating of around 30% among republicans and around 60% among democrats.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/mitt-romney-child-allowance-150107102.html

Mitt Romney Proposes $350 Monthly Child Allowance

Arthur Delaney
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
Thu, February 4, 2021, 7:01 AM

The federal government would pay most parents of young children $350 per child every month under a groundbreaking new proposal from Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) that would put a serious dent in child poverty.

Parents would get $350 for each child younger than 6 and $250 for kids between 6 and 17 under Romney’s Family Security Act, which he unveiled Thursday as Democrats prepare to pass a big pandemic relief bill in the coming weeks.

Here's an idea. Don't have kids you can't afford. 

It's going to be funny as hell when they have to claim that as income at tax time.

 

[Mookz 1,287]

On 1/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Cloaca du jour said:

All the breeders get rewarded

Bout time they won a Grammy or something.  

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

34 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Here's an idea. Don't have kids you can't afford. 

It's going to be funny as hell when they have to claim that as income at tax time.

 

Don't worry, after minorities complain about that, in 4 years one of the Democrat platforms will be to make that money tax free.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

On 1/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Cloaca du jour said:

All the breeders get rewarded

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

1 hour ago, JustinCharge said:

Romney wants to give $250-$350 per month to families with kids.  Romney has an approval rating of around 30% among republicans and around 60% among democrats.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/mitt-romney-child-allowance-150107102.html

Mitt Romney Proposes $350 Monthly Child Allowance

Arthur Delaney
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
Thu, February 4, 2021, 7:01 AM

The federal government would pay most parents of young children $350 per child every month under a groundbreaking new proposal from Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) that would put a serious dent in child poverty.

Parents would get $350 for each child younger than 6 and $250 for kids between 6 and 17 under Romney’s Family Security Act, which he unveiled Thursday as Democrats prepare to pass a big pandemic relief bill in the coming weeks.

Romney’s Family Security Act is bolder. It would pay benefits through the Social Security Administration instead of the Internal Revenue Service, which has less experience with monthly payments. The new payments would replace several tax benefits, including the child tax credit and the deduction for state and local taxes, as well as the entire Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program ― all likely nonstarters for Democrats.

Monthly payments would be available to expecting parents four months before their kids are born. Benefits would be capped at $1,250 per month and couples with combined incomes above $400,000 would get less. Something like 90% of households with children would qualify.

The Family Security Act represents a huge change for Romney himself. In the 2012 presidential election, he bogusly criticized President Barack Obama for supposedly “gutting” the work requirements of the TANF program, which is the federal government’s main source of cash assistance for parents who aren’t disabled.

“Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job,” Romney’s 2012 campaign ads said. “They just send you your welfare check.”

Now Romney is proposing replacing TANF altogether with no-strings-attached benefits. He’ll just send you your check.

Romney's plan isn't terrible.  It's giving money in one way at the reduction of money another way... and it's not a 100% wash.  You're still benefitting from Romney's plan, you're just not going to see the return you were thinking.  I don't have a problem with this, though, I'd rather see the threshold drop from $400k to $250k.  If you did that, you could give more money per child, but still spend less money.

@5-Points is right though... you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them.  Sure, there are circumstances where you were able to afford them and something happened where that wasn't the case anymore.  There's also the unplanned pregnancies from married couples.  But in general, I agree with him.  There are way too many people having kids knowing they can't afford them.

[nobody 2,039]

1 hour ago, Cdub100 said:

Move your money into bitcoin. 

Or Yuan

[5-Points 2,729]

14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Don't worry, after minorities complain about that, in 4 years one of the Democrat platforms will be to make that money tax free.

Uncle Sam always gets his cut. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

4 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Uncle Sam always gets his cut. 

Of course, but when was the last time a politician didn't pander to their base?

[5-Points 2,729]

21 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

 

@5-Points is right though... you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them.  Sure, there are circumstances where you were able to afford them and something happened where that wasn't the case anymore.  There's also the unplanned pregnancies from married couples.  But in general, I agree with him.  There are way too many people having kids knowing they can't afford them.

Typically, if you could afford kids at some point it's because you are at least somewhat educated and are capable of holding down a decent job. Sure, people fall on hard times through no fault of their own. But if you did it once, you can do it again. 

I'm talking about society's leeches. Can't afford kids? Don't have them.  I don't want my tax dollars paying for your kids or your abortions. However, if you want to spend my tax dollars on tubal ligation, I might be persuaded. 

[5-Points 2,729]

26 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Of course, but when was the last time a politician didn't pander to their base?

Good point. I can see them campaigning on that issue but I don't see them actually following through with it. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

Did you know that because if chain migration, 80k Somalis live in Minneapolis? They getting paid , no doubt. And they love having kids. 

[KayJay1971 238]

I have not gotten a dime in any stimulus package. TNG you ready to have some kids for me? I need some of this free money!!

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

2 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Typically, if you could afford kids at some point it's because you are at least somewhat educated and are capable of holding down a decent job. Sure, people fall on hard times through no fault of their own. But if you did it once, you can do it again. 

I'm talking about society's leeches. Can't afford kids? Don't have them.  I don't want my tax dollars paying for your kids or your abortions. However, if you want to spend my tax dollars on tubal ligation, I might be persuaded. 

Yup, I'm right there with you.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

2 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Good point. I can see them campaigning on that issue but I don't see them actually following through with it. 

Exactly.  It's just to win votes.  Obama pulled that crap with the Dreamers Act.  He made it so that they couldn't be legal citizens, but made it so they could work legally.  They did that to keep them hooked to the Democrat party.  By doing that, any Republican can nix that act and make it illegal for them to be here at all.  Had Obama and the Democrats just made them legal and be done with it, then the dreamers can switch sides.  Keeping their future in limbo to the Democrats is how they keep them voting blue.  This would be similar.  They won't give them the full scope... just enough to keep them tied to the Democrats.  Hell, they've been doing that to black people for 60 years and it's still working.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,584]

who are the focktards that are good with the govt raising taxes just to give us something back 

heres a thought

let us keep the money we work for.  I dont need to pay you 1k a month in taxes if you can give me back 350 for my kid, I will just pay you 500 instead, cause I know you are skimming anyways

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

People should stop looking to the government for money. Fock them. Stop voting for high taxes and big government. They will just give the money to other countries like they have been doing for years during the liberal reign.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

5 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

who are the focktards that are good with the govt raising taxes just to give us something back 

heres a thought

let us keep the money we work for.  I dont need to pay you 1k a month in taxes if you can give me back 350 for my kid, I will just pay you 500 instead, cause I know you are skimming anyways

 

I know right?  Why tax me... then give it back?  Wait, I know why... it's so that they can pretend that top 1% are the ones footing the bill.

[TheNewGirl 1,030]

2 hours ago, KayJay1971 said:

I have not gotten a dime in any stimulus package. TNG you ready to have some kids for me? I need some of this free money!!

Sadly, I haven’t gotten a dime either...so not sure pumping out kids is the answer.