Joe Biden Wants His Stimulus To Help 'People Who are Hurting,' Like Families Making $120,000 a Year

Biden's recovery plan is a poorly targeted effort that would make the economy worse off in the long run.


In pressing his case for a deficit-funded $1.9 trillion legislative response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the economy, President Joe Biden has consistently argued for bigness as a virtue. After a meeting with a group of Senate Democrats yesterday he tweeted: "One thing is clear: we all agree that now is the time for big, bold action to change the course of the pandemic and begin economic recovery." The real risk, he said, "isn't that we do too much—it's that we don't do enough."

Biden all but dismissed a counterproposal by a group of Senate Republicans, who presented him with a plan to scale back the package to a little more than $600 billion—still fairly large by any historical comparison, especially following the roughly $4 trillion worth of COVID relief passed last year. It was simply "not in the cards." 

Biden isn't totally averse to compromise, he told House Democrats on a call. But, he said, "We have to take care of the people who are hurting."

Whatever it is you think of when you hear the words "people who are hurting," I suspect it does not include two-earner families with stable jobs making $120,000 a year. Yet that's who Biden's plan would help. 

That is not just speculation or extrapolation based on an outline of his plan. That is the explicit position staked out for Biden by his press secretary, Jen Psaki, who said the following at a press briefing this week. 

There are some, you know, bottom lines I think the President has—which he has conveyed in the meeting last night and reiterated to us this morning—which is, you know, to put it simply or accessibly for people: You know, he believes a married couple—let's say they're in Scranton, just for the sake of argument; one is working as a nurse, the other as a teacher—making $120,000 a year should get a check. That's in his plan.  In the plan presented by Republicans, they would not get a check. 

And his view is that at this point in our country, when one in seven American families don't have enough food to eat, we need to make sure people get the relief they need and are not left behind. 

The juxtaposition between families who do not have enough food as a category of people that Biden wants his stimulus to help and a two-earner family with a solid six-figure income is more than a little jarring. It is certainly possible to be in a precarious financial position, to feel financially strapped and stretched, with six figures in earnings, and COVID-19 has exacerbated some challenges for families, particularly where schooling is concerned. But Psaki's hypothetical $120,000 family is not struggling to afford enough food. 

Indeed, families with incomes like Psaki describes have, by some measures, done relatively well during the pandemic. Personal savings rates have hit record highs, and job losses have largely been concentrated in a few industries, and a few categories of workers, most of whom ordinarily make quite a bit less than Psaki's imaginary stimulus beneficiaries. 

As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently pointed out in a letter to Biden, Census Bureau data show that "a majority of households with less than $50,000 in income have experienced a loss of employment income, a majority of household with more than $50,000 in income–including those between $50,000 and $150,000–have not experienced any loss in earned income." 

The COVID-19 recession, in other words, has not hit everyone equally. As an analysis of Biden's relief package by the University of Pennsylvania team behind the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) notes, "Unemployment has been disproportionately concentrated among lower wage and young workers in specific sectors, e.g., retail and leisure and hospitality."

Much of this is a result of public reticence in the face of a deadly novel virus. But it's not surprising to see that the industries facing the biggest challenges are also those that have been most affected by mandatory closures and other state restrictions on commerce. Meanwhile, the report notes, most other sectors of the economy "now appear to be operating at near pre-recession levels." 

This is a hospitality recession that has had devastating effects on a class of relatively young, relatively low-income service workers—but not on two-income families currently earning $120,000 a year.

Even some of Biden's own economic advisers are reportedly uncomfortable with the breadth and expansiveness of his plan, particularly when it comes to the distribution of checks. "At least two of the president's top economic advisers, Heather Boushey and David Kamin, have privately expressed reservations about the size of the checks and at what level they would begin to phase out for higher-income people," Bloomberg News reported earlier this week. 

Meanwhile, Biden's plan to go big would come with long-term macroeconomic costs. The Congressional Budget Office often notes that, all else being equal, larger debt burdens drag down economic growth. The PWBM analysis published this week attempted to put a price tag on the long-term cost of Biden's $1.9 trillion plan: While it would increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.6 percent in 2021, the model projects that "the additional public debt resulting from the Biden plan would decrease GDP by 0.2 percent in 2022 and 0.3 percent in 2040." 

Yes, these projections are based on economic models, and as with all models, there are limitations and caveats. But this sort of conclusion is broadly in line with what macroeconomists have long thought about the long-term effects of persistently high national debt levels. 

Biden has said he might be willing to negotiate the household income thresholds for the checks he plans to send out, though he is not willing to budge on the amount of those checks. But the fact that this is where he started shows the flaw in Democrats' insistence on going big for the sake of bigness.  

Biden is portraying his relief package as a necessary response to an extreme health and economic crisis. But his plan to go big is really a plan to fail to target the actual problem at hand. And in the years to come, it would probably make the nation's economy somewhat worse. 

NEXT: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Wants $100,000 Fines for Social Media Companies That Deplatform Politicians

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Libertarians for central economic planning is really a fucking thing now, isn't it?

      1. The new administration nixes a change that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine.The Trump Administration didn't attempt either approach to justify it's guidelines, but argued HHS has the authority to "eliminate the requirement that physicians with a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration number apply for a separate waiver to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment," which would effectively cover almost all practicing physicians in the U.S..……..MORE READ

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regulary MWER this job by just use the info
          on this page….....MORE READ

          1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck 16000 dollars Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open. Find out how HERE >>>>>>> USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

    1. Biden's recovery plan is a poorly targeted effort that would make the economy worse off in the long run. visiting following link..........MORE DETAIL.

      1. I think it's a pretty good argument that the platforms could be treated like the law treats shopping malls," Volokh says.This part of Section 230 is why it's absolutely inaccurate when politicians and critics insist that the provision's protections require a platform to have any sort of neutrality. They do not. They never did. And this is precisely QSdv why some people want to get rid of Section 230...........MORE READ

        1. The Democrats disqualification goes far beyond the psychiatric restrictions that federal law currently imposes on gun ownership, which are already overly broad but QEcz apply only to people who have undergone court-ordered treatment...READ MORE


    3. Well, Suderman has never been much of a libertarian. But I don't really see much support for central planning, but an analysis of the central planning being proposed.

      1. The plan is being criticized on the ground that it would put money in the hands of the wrong people:

        "But his plan to go big is really a plan to fail to target the actual problem at hand."

        What is the problem at hand?

        I think the principled libertarian response would have been that **all** of this bullshit needs to stop, now. In my view, there is an implicit acceptance in this article of the premise that government can and should solve these "problems" and that this plan, as bad as it is now, could actually work if it did what it was "supposed to do."

        1. I agree. But I don't think that means that libertarians can't look at which non-libertarian policies are worse than others.
          Maybe there is an implicit acceptance. Like I said, I don't think this particular author is particularly libertarian.

          1. "I agree. But I don’t think that means that libertarians can’t look at which non-libertarian policies are worse than others."

            They can and they should, but they should also make it a point to offer a competing libertarian perspective and explain why it would be a better option.

              1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible sjv economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE...... Visit Here

            1. Yeah, I won't argue with that.

              1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible ytr economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE...... Visit Here

        2. It's the same bullshit song and dance that Suderman played when talking about Obamacare.

          He's a progressive too scared to come out of the closet.

          1. Why would a progressive journalist be afraid to admit it in the current climate?

            1. Because he can't get another paying gig.

              And mama don't like freeloaders.

    4. This article, critical of a centrally planned hand out and published in a libertarian magazine, somehow convinced you that libertarians are for central planning?

      Or are you just looking for something to bitch about?

      1. See above, cum stain.

        1. Still failing, neckbeard. As always, you rely on your super secret mind reader techniques.

          1. No he explained it pretty well sociopath.

          2. It was clear. Seems like you are the only that had a hard time comprehending the point after I explained it, and it may have something to do with the fact that you're stupid, and a cum stain.

            1. Name calling won't get this one over the finish line. Show me, precisely, where in the article the author supports central planning.

              1. Show me, precisely, where in the article the author denounces central planning.

                Like I always say, I can't understand things for you, I can only point out that you're not the brightest bulb in the faggot's ass.

              2. The sentence GG quoted above -
                “But his plan to go big is really a plan to fail to target the actual problem at hand.”
                - supports the premise of central planning.
                If "his plan" fails to target the problem at hand, it means there should be a central plan that does target the problem at hand. The use of the word "target" here is a confession.

                Real stupid hill for you to die on, but that's apparently your thing.

                1. He can’t help himself.

      2. "... a poorly targeted effort..."

        He's being critical of the details of the handout. Not the existence of the handout.

        You and your serial dishonesty really should fuck off.

      3. "This article, critical of a centrally planned hand out..."

        For some it will most definitely be a "handout", but for others it will be getting some of their own money back.

        1. That, and helping to keep up with inflation.

          1. Impossible.

    5. Please quote the exact section of this article that supports central economic planning.

    6. We will ave to circle back around to that.

    7. well come to the online job my classmate friend makes at nine hours works and makes 5000$-7000$ for one month just hit working on the computer for a few hours.why not check here…......... USA TOP ONLINE JOB.

    8. [ USA PART TIME JOB] This is easy and simple USA part time job. Its amazing and earns many dollars are awesome.visit here for full detail.............USA TOP ONLINE JOB.

    9. Nobody worships "top men" like Mister Meghan MacAdoodle.

  2. The worst part of Biden's stimulus plan is the part that bails out state and local governments--mostly as a way to bail out the unfunded pension obligations of places like California, Illinois, and New York.

    There was a way to avoid this--and can you guess what it was? That's right, we could have reelected Trump and urged people to vote Republican in the senate. Trump refused to sign any stimulus package that included a bail out of state and local government, and if we'd reelected him, we wouldn't be talking about Biden's awful stimulus packages at all.

    This article on the heels of the one yesterday about how the Biden administration has no intention of leaving Afghanistan at the end of April--people who only thought these issues were important to talk about once Trump was gone are a big part of the problem. Trump was right about the media being the enemy of the American people.

    1. Amen.

    2. There was a way to avoid this–and can you guess what it was?

      Vote for the libertarian candidate?

      1. Lol. Voting for a third party is great when the other two options are a null choice... like B. Clinton vs any Bush. Or Romney vs Obama vs McCain.

        But for once, we actually had a president that was opposed to the uniparty. And “we” voted him out and gave the worst of the uniparty full reign. How stupid are Americans?

        Unless you believe it was stolen...

        Stolen or stupid? Which is it?

      2. When something has no practical or realistic chance of succeeding it can hardly be called a solution.

        1. Jeff doesn't want a solution but instead, absolution.

      3. Trump > blmantifa JoJo

      4. You were soooooo much closer with your 1% vote for the anti-racist promoting party. This is such a stupid talking point of yours. You weren't getting Jo to win no matter what happened, she wasn't even in the running. Sometimes you have to vote based on reality, not the fictitious fantasies in your mind.

        1. No, no, no.

          It was just as feasible to expect that several thousand people across several select states would have flipped to Trump as it was for 70 million people across the entire country to flip for Jorgensen.

          So, instead of blaming several thousand people, you should be blaming 70 million, because it is exactly, completely, and absolutely the same, mathematically, morally, and ontologically.

        2. It was not about winning the election or flipping states.

          It was about standing up for something you believe is right no matter the consequences. I may be the fool on the hill but getting knocked down and going back up there again is what I choose.

          And yes Jesse. I am anti racist, I am against bigotry of all kinds. I only see individuals. I don’t care about your sexual identity, how smart you are, how dumb you are, where you came from, how much money you have, what god you worship or don’t.

          Your reality is fiction. It is false belief manufactured by self serving politicians.

          1. You are a bigot.

            1. Moreover, you're a passive aggressive pussy who leeches off the goodwill of others. You bragged about your whole family voting for Biden, you stoke bullshit virus fear, and you don't care how many people's lives are ruined so long as you get to falsely boost your self esteem.
              I loathe you, and I hope you meet a just end within the next 90 days.

          2. "I am anti racist, I am against bigotry of all kinds. I only see individuals. I don’t care about your sexual identity, how smart you are, how dumb you are, where you came from, how much money you have, what god you worship or don’t."

            Such granular thinking is sometimes indicative of a neurological disease. I'm not kidding. There are people that are neurologically incapable of drawing broad conclusions about groups or phenomena in the aggregate. You can even find videos of them online getting the shit beat out of them by a mob of unique individuals because they decided to just walk through the middle of a riot. That or they get eaten alive by a colony of ants.

            1. He's lying anyway.
              The pretentious airs of a progressive, put on because he knows he's not inherently worthy of life.
              He belongs alongside Cassius in Hell's maw.

              1. No questions about it.

                Anybody that begins a regimen of self-preening by saying nonsensical shit like "I only see individuals" but then proceeds to explain that they don't actually care about any individual characteristics or preferences that a person possesses (i.e. sexuality, intelligence, wealth, religion, personality) is full of shit beyond measure.

                These types of people care about only one thing, and that one thing is their perception of themselves as a saint, which is another way of saying they are in love with a complete lie.

          3. If standing for what you believe in in such a strict manner as to allow the complete decimation of your liberty, it is a shitty conviction you hold.

            1. It is a false choice. Would you rather be eaten by a tiger or a bear?

              I have lived through many presidents and administrations. They have not made all that much difference in my experience. They all have basically done the same things. Therefore I choose to promote an alternative rather than accept the status quo .

              Hard to see how a libertarian could be critical of that.

          4. And by the say... anti racism isn't being against racism, it literally promotes it. It defines people on immutable characteristics. It divides people. Of youre fucking retarded enough to fall for their PR campaign that's on you.

            1. Makes no sense. Anti means opposed to or against.

              You can be anti racist, pro racist or neutral on the subject. Where are you in that spectrum?

              1. lol - just because anti means opposed and some idiots decided to name something using it by no means indicates whether those same idiots are actually opposed to that this. AntiFa would be the obvious example - they are not anti facists.

            2. Whose PR campaign are you referring to? I have no idea. I have always been anti racist.

    3. I think it's pretty clear at this point that it was genuinely impossible for Trump to be reelected no matter how many people voted for him.

    4. NYC hedge funds and government employee retirement funds top holdings:
      1. California state teachers retirement fund
      2. State of Michigan retirement systems
      3. Virginia Retirement Systems

      This information was published after the Reddit whipsaw. Online brokerages banned trades on over 50 stocks yesterday ( had nothing to do with clearinghouses).

      TARP the fucking sequel

    5. If every libertarian in my state, plus those who wrote in somebody, had voted for Trump, he would still have lost by almost 400,000 votes. I wonder how many Republicans stayed home instead of voting.

      And yeah, I know. Supposedly there are states where it could have put Trump over the top. That assumes the election was completely above board, which I doubt.

      1. It also assumes that the LP vote would have broken significantly for Trump over Biden, for which there is no evidence. In the Georgia runoffs, it seems the LP vote broke more for Biden once the Libertarian choice was removed. (Assuming that wasn't because of all the Democrats moving to Georgia for the runoff.)

        1. I do not understand libertarians voting for Biden over Trump. Not even a little bit.

          1. Mean tweets are terrible.

          2. Have you not noticed the trend of people describing themselves as "socialist libertarian" as if that isn't an inherent contradiction?
            That is the philosophy now.
            Progressive, but "edgy".

            1. They are progressives avoiding the outcome of their desired policies.

              1. They are socialists that want the government to control everything and everyone so long as they are permitted to take drugs .... because being drugged to the point of incoherence is really the only way anybody can tolerate living in the inevitable hellscape that socialist governments are so good at creating.

      2. He gained 10 million votes. It wasn't about people staying home.

      3. "If every libertarian in my state, plus those who wrote in somebody, had voted for Trump, he would still have lost by almost 400,000 votes. I wonder how many Republicans stayed home instead of voting.

        There seems to be some general confusion about who I was talking about when I wrote, "That’s right, we could have reelected Trump and urged people to vote Republican in the senate."

        That "we" was the American voters, especially libertarians, but Republicans and Democrats, too. We, the American people, could have voted against bailing out the states and for leaving Afghanistan, and we failed to do that.

        All of us.

        If the overwhelming majority of Americans--libertarian, Democrat, and Republican--haven't yet started regretting our failure to reelect Trump, they soon will. More than 400,000 voters in your state will come to regret that we failed to reelect President Trump.

    6. You use the word "we" a lot.

      1. Yeah, my comment was about Americans, American taxpayers, American voters, and what we could have done.

        Is the word "we" in that context confusing to you for some reason?

        1. "We" is not inclusive enough.

          1. Wee is a euphemism for small and therefore excludes gravitationally challenged Americans.

    7. Reason could have simply made a stand in the Georgia run-offs and short circuited all of this,

      But they didn't.

      They studiously ignored those election and the candidates involved. Lest they have to mention that the two Ds are Marxists.

    8. Nah, that's the good part. State and Local governments are in a mess and will need to start cutting those middle-class jobs next year if they are not helped. Either that or they will have to raise taxes to cover budget shortfalls. But hey, the stimulus check will tide over the job cuts and raised taxes no?

      1. The whole point of being a small government libertarian is to force the government to cut spending--and shrink itself.

        You understand that, right?

        Is this all new to you? Just in case you're serious . . .

        They'd have to make up for the shortfall by either raising taxes or (gulp) cutting spending, and when we put them in that situation and then refuse to raise taxes, that forces them to cut spending.

        There is no other way.

        People who believe that the government will ever become so flush with cash that they decide to cut spending are some of the dumbest people in America. They have no basis up on which to believe such a stupid and ridiculous thing. Even the smart people on the left understand the marginal propensity to save and that the government has none.

    9. But Orange Man Bad!

  3. Yeah this is the usual "send money to all sorts of people in the name of helping the needy".

    1. It's what you wanted. And before you complain, you have openly stated a preference for Dems over Reps so save the "I'm a libertatian!!!" bullshit.

      1. Jealously guarding our constitutional republic from would be dictators is no vice.

        Sorry your 'tard coup failed. Better luck next time.

        1. ‘tard coup

          Good band name.

          1. coup de tard?

            1. Even better

        2. Says the guy backing the president whose EO pace shames every prior president.

          I always forget, what dictator like powers did the last president utilize?

          BTW, did you figure out who develops the JSF yet?

          1. Link to a single comment of mine "backing" Biden.

            And no, I don't care who makes the JSF, I never claimed to know who makes the JSF, and no one else cares. But nice red herrring when you completely concede the main point of the argument, once again.

            1. So I’m guessing you acted like you did know, then got exposed for lying, and are now pretending it doesn’t matter? Just a guess though.

              1. R Mac, how is it that you are never able to point to a specific example of all this lying I supposedly do? Seems odd.

                Provide an example, or shut the fuck up.

                1. Okay, but if R Mac provides an example, will you admit to being a liar, or keep lying about it?

                  1. This already happened.

              2. It is more that it is more proof that his military service is fake. The JSF is one of the most publicized programs of the last 10 years. Every military person understands what contractor is responsible for which major programs. He said it was Raytheon, who anyone in the military would know doesn't make manned military aircraft. He lies about his service, which is why it matters.

                1. Ouch. That’s worse than I thought.

            2. LOL. Every military person I know knows who makes the JSF from the army to the navy to the airforce. Stolen Valor it is.


            And there you go, Raytheon components on the JSF.

            Now this is where you disappear because your dumb as shit red herring turned out be false, and you already gave up on the main point several days ago. You will learn nothing.

            1. They make a part, not the aircraft you retarded shit. You claimed they made the JSF and A10.

              God damn youre dumb. Would you have posted the JSF carries a Raytheon missile of you found that first?

        3. Why are YOU defending Jeff from his previously stated preference for Progressives over Conservatives?

          Do you absolutely HAVE to play heckler's veto in every thread where the consequences of your choices are laid plain?

          1. Progressives travel in packs.

            1. He's not just a progressive, he's also an X-man super ninja day trader.

              1. You guys must have the most incredibly dull lives. Any little thing from my own life I share is far fetched and impossible according to you guys.

                I'm not a daytrader, I just manage my own accounts.

                1. We don’t think you’re lying because what you say is extraordinary, we think you’re lying because you lie all the time.

                2. "Any little thing from my own life I share ...."

                  That's your problem right there.

                3. LOL. You thought a short position wasn't a thing... Even though short and short position are the same thing. You called me wrong for using the word position.


                  If you manage your own stocks, god help you. LOL.

          2. Because he’s Jeff. Notice how they both lie all the time?

        4. None of it would have happened if he'd been elected!

          lol but true.

          Reminds me of the argument that the EU wouldn't be such dicks to Britain if they hadn't left the EU.

          So, what is the acceptable price to pay for getting rid of the Orange Man? Is it $500B? $1T? I assume there is a price worth paying. I just don't know how to calculate it.

          What if we just call it a universal basic income?

        5. "Jealously guarding our constitutional republic from would be dictators is no vice."


          At least Tony is man enough to own his position, and it's why he's more respectable than you/echospinner/chemjeff/white knight tools.

        6. How many EOs is the current dictator up to again?

    2. The article seems to gloss over Biden's definition of "the needy" here. It also includes small businesses. As in, getting money in the hands of consumers to spend locally. So limiting the scope of what is, essentially, a tax rebate, reduces the financial stimulus available to small businesses.

      Disclaimer: I'm not a libertarian any longer. I don't pretend to be. I don't play one on TV.

  4. Working in fields dominated by democrats, double the average income, hell yes they should get paid for voting for Joe.

    1. “One is working as a nurse, the other as a teacher...”

      Haha. Jesus fucking Christ. Does it matter? How did that bit of virtue signaling help to sell this rotten plan?

      “One is working as a truck driver, the other in a gun store ...” I guess that doesn’t sell as well.

      And fuck the teachers.

      1. Wear a condom. You might catch something.

      2. Simple economics. Teachers and nurses don't make that much on their local economies. $120K household sounds impressive. And, if you lived in Kentucky, it would be. But in the Western and Northeastern coastal cities, $60K income for being a teacher likely means you cannot even rent a one-bedroom apartment without a roommate. Same with nursing.

        Pretending that all states have the same cost of living is just economic ignorance--something I don't expect from libertarians.

        1. "Pretending that all states have the same cost of living is just economic ignorance–something I don’t expect from libertarians."

          So, what is your position on a federal $15 minimum wage?

          Linking stimulus checks to income, which has varying purchasing power, is a bad idea. Setting a federal minimum wage based on some laughable idea of "living wages" based on living in NYC, is a bad idea.

          1. Same with stimulus checks. But thats what top down does.
            It doesn't matter if you make 1% of the local median income, or %200. Everybody's going to get $1200.

            Once you start a gravy train, it's very difficult to stop.
            Who predicts these checks will become a regular bi-annual occurrence? I'm sure they'll always find a crisis that would justify it.

  5. For fuck's sake, we don't need stimulus, we need to boot off of our necks.

    1. But they already bought the boots ....

      1. And ordered next season's new look boots as well.

      2. "bought"

        You misspelled "looted".

        1. Ever notice that no one ever loots work boots?

          1. Cite?

            'Cause there's no way this can be true. I did a stint in a shoe store between the military and college. Work boots are worth way more than any other kinds of shoes because you use them to make even more cash. They're a necessity. Why on earth would you assume people wouldn't steal the things needed to make a living?

            1. Just like pickups are still the best selling vehicle in America. People require them for their work, both paid and unpaid.

              But on the same note, I used to work at a landscaping company in a mid sized city. We had a barb wired fence all the way around the compound, but we still needed to lock all the tools in sheds because locals would scale the fence at night and steal a leaf blower or weed whacker. It's a quick $50-100 bucks for not much work.

  6. Wall Street has been pretty upset over the Gamestop Rebellion. Won't someone think of the hedge funds?

  7. Koch / Reason libertarianism isn't concerned with people making $120,000 / year. It's concerned with people like Charles Koch, who makes hundreds of millions in a typical day.


    1. How you doin' OBL?

  8. Soon we will all be out of job because the minimum wage will be a million dollars an hour, but Uncle Sam will have us covered sending you a check for a billion a day. A real shame a loaf of bread will cost a trillion.

    1. This.
      I'm no longer worried about the massive debt that Western governments are currently incurring. I'm more frightened by the massive inflation being planned, that will bring those debts back to manageable amounts.

      Kiss your savings goodbye.

      1. Note: This is why we've been telling you to buy bitcoin for 8 years.

      2. This is why I buy stocks in companies with pricing power. Screw cash.

        1. This is why stocks are in the biggest bubble in history.

  9. "Democrats' insistence on going big for the sake of bigness. "
    Not for the sake of bigness: it's for VOTES. Massa done gwine curry favor from the working folks.

  10. If it's really stimulus as recommended by the Federal Reserve for "science-based" economic reasons then why shouldn't they just divided it equally between every live SSN# residing in the US?
    That pretty much eliminates waste, fraud, corruption and malinvestment and "the truly needy", whoever the fuck they are, get a much bigger check than they would under reason's beloved expert central planning. Everybody spends, saves, invests, gambles, squanders as they see fit and the Invisible Hand picks the winners and losers.

    1. The tax bill for the federal budget should also be divided equally among all adult Americans. Want to spend 5 trillion a year? Everyone gets a bill for 20K (assuming 250 million adults). Want to add a 2.5 trillion dollar stimulus package? Congrats, you owe an additional 10K. Enjoy your 1400 dollar checks.

      1. When I brought exactly this up as an argument against Trump's tax cuts and simultaneous spending increases, I got called a socialist.

        Balanced budgets outside of times of crisis seems like an obvious policy goal for fiscal conservatives, but by the howling you would hear around here, you wouldn't know it.

        1. De Oppresso Liber
          January.19.2021 at 8:07 pm

          R Mac, are you stupid? Or just disingenuous? Mother is on my do not reply list since she went full anti-Semite.

          I have never said anything remotely antisemitic or racist, you lying fuck. I want an apology.

          1. I still want to know how I was supposed to know you were on his “do not reply list”. I didn’t even know such a list existed!

            1. In the end, the broken leftertarians all turn into Hihn, holed up in a basement with their list of enemies. Sometimes their moms bring them cookies.

            2. It is more exclusive than Hihn's old list.

              1. Damnit, I couldn’t get on that list either!

        2. "When I brought exactly this up "

          You never did this.

          1. It was snuck in between his screams of CULT! and calling everyone a dick sucker.

          2. I did. I pointed out that cutting taxes and increasing spending means debt servitude for our children. Got called a commie and all the other typical childish nouns for suggesting that the government should cut spending rather than take on debt.

            1. “Got called a commie and all the other typical childish nouns”

              Was that before or after you called everyone a cultist?

        3. against Trump’s tax cuts

          Because you were for the government taking more money.

          1. Again, proving my point. I did not argue for more taxes in general, but against tax cuts if it means that spending is funded through debt instead. The government should collect taxes sufficient enough to cover spending without putting my kids into debt. If you want taxes to go down, cut spending.

            1. "I did not argue for more taxes in general, but against tax cuts if it means that spending is funded through debt instead."

              This is convoluted fucking way of saying you support increased taxes, to fund more spending.

            2. Actually you did. You said taxes should match spending. In the thread you didn't argue spending should come down. you said taxes should always go up to match spending. You're a socialist.

        4. How in the world does the idea of spreading the burden equally amongst all adults (the very definition of “fair”) make it into one of your retarded arguments against tax cuts?

          Are you really trying to say that you have argued in the past that the government should send an equal bill to each adult to pay for their bloat and waste? I doubt it.

          That would sure put an end to it if we all had an equal stake in paying for it. It would instantly shrink government to what we could afford. Just can’t see you supporting that, what with your genuine concern for the oppressed.

        5. Tax cuts do not cause spending.

          Fuck off slaver.

          1. Algebra, can you do it?

            1. I can do actual calculus.

              Unlike you or Obama.

      2. And if you want to deny the relationship between tax receipts, spending, and the deficit/debt, then may I recommend trying a little Algebra?

        1. De Oppresso Liber
          January.19.2021 at 8:07 pm

          R Mac, are you stupid? Or just disingenuous? Mother is on my do not reply list since she went full anti-Semite.

          I have never said anything remotely antisemitic or racist, you lying fuck. I want an apology.

        2. I remember that, you excused taxation, which is theft.

          You came off looking incredibly stupid. So please double down.

          1. Why do you guys always rush in to prove me right?

            1. Sometimes it seems like you and chemjeff are stuck in the same Chinese finger trap.

              1. And oddly no fingers involved. Which is especially hard to do with how fat Jeff is.

  11. "And his view is that at this point in our country, when one in seven American families don't have enough food to eat"

    I'd really like to see a citation for this from the Biden campaign. I live in a relatively poor area of the country, and stay somewhat involved with some charities and food banks, but "one in seven" seems wildly unrealistic.

    1. This is a tough one. In a previous life, I lived and worked in one of the poorest parts of the US and visited a lot of homes that would have been condemned outright in almost any other part of the country. Despite the obvious poverty among what were fundamentally good, law abiding people, there were still a lot of questionable choices being made on how the little cash that did exist in a household was being spent (more oft than not, it was clear that it was not being spent on healthy, nutritious basic food staples).

      1. Meth... lotta money being spent on meth around here. But that's a topic for another conversation.

        Thing is, the majority of emaciated folks you see in these parts are emaciated because of the drug abuse, not for lack of food. And another check isn't going to solve that problem.

        1. Another check would probably make it worse.

          1. Yet none of the authors here will give an honest accounting of the $1.3 trillion the Dems want to spend.

      2. My observation is that Mom's Boyfriend is often the primary beneficiary of aid to poor households.

      3. And why would it be if they know they can go to a good bank for that but not for cigarettes or cable TV, etc etc.
        I support food banks but I see that many people use them as a supplement to their income so they can get the extras not because they can't get the basics.

    2. "I’d really like to see a citation for this from the Biden campaign."

      I can't speak to what Biden is referencing exactly, but I will note that around a decade ago, the USDA created a bullshit stat called "Food Insecurity". Instead of a quantitative metric of households with enough income to pay for basic staples, they created a qualitative metric, that called you "Food Insecure" based on a whole host of possible reasons- including "insufficient availability of diet" or "being unsure of where one will get food over coming days."

      These numbers were roundly criticized at the time, but have become common usage because they allow the most prosperous country in the world to be criticized for not handing out caviar to every household.

    3. That's a bullshit statistic that has been around for a long time. I believe it is a misleading interpretation of a survey conducted by some government agency.

  12. Merits of the plan aside, if you think a family is living comfortably in any major city in this country on $120k I've got news for you...

    1. OK so let's here your points, because most people in this country get by on a lot less. Clearly there are a few cities where $120K is not enough but most of the country can get with less than this amount. And that includes a lost of urban areas.

      1. Thanks to covid and taxes urban real estate values are in freefall.

        1. Really, try buying a house in Madison, WI.

          1. He said urban not suburban.

      2. ching! $.50

    2. How bout Scranton, PA (I checked, relatively low cost of living)... because:

      "You know, he believes a married couple—let's say they're in Scranton, just for the sake of argument; one is working as a nurse, the other as a teacher—making $120,000 a year should get a check."

      And yes, I do believe a family can live comfortably in a major city on 120k. It all comes down to what one considers "comfortable".

    3. I'd say they're pretty comfortable outside of NYC and West Coast major cities. But even then they'd be fine if they moved to a suburb.

      1. ching! $.50

        1. ^ This is your brain on conspiracies.

          1. If you you are not getting paid to spout the obvious nonsense you write, you are even more pathetic than if you do. You should own it.

    4. Here in Fort Lauderdale $120,000 is a good income.
      Let’s do some math.
      Pretend they are in a 30% tax bracket, that leaves $84,000.
      They rent, don’t own, so no mortgage deduction.
      Rent of a nice 2,000 square foot townhouse is $2,000 a month.
      Two nice new cars at $300 month each is $600 month.
      They get health insurance from their employers, but the healthy kids cost $6,000 a year.
      Food is $1,600 per month, includes eating out twice a week. That’s another $19,200 a year.
      Utilities are $300 a month, so $3,600 a year.
      They save $1,000 a month or $12,000 a year
      Let’s do the math
      $84,000-24,000-7,200-6,000-19,200-3,600 -12,000 = $12,000 for spending money.
      That’s a solid middle class lifestyle and they can take a vacation every year and buy a ski boat and trailer.

      1. You didn’t account costs for alcohol. It takes a lot of money to get shitfaced every day.

  13. While I personally believe that the stimulus checks should be limited to the most needy. And I find myself in sympathy with Senator Cassidy (LA) who pointed out recently that most high earners will use the checks to pay of debt, not spend for stimulus.

    However, whenever I criticize the government's wealth-center capitalism and tax cuts for the richest, I am reminded that rich people buy things too. Which should be true here also.

    Well I am going out on a limb here with my first instincts and say any direct payments should directed to the most effected and that tax cuts for rich are wrong.

    1. Or how about no new stimulus checks at all?

      There are already lot's of transer payments available for the most needy: Unemployment Insurance, TANF, Social Security, WIC...

    2. Or a pony. Doesn’t really matter what they do with it. Hookers and cocaine works. Girls gotta make a living.

      You know that old story about a businessman who pulls up to a Texas town on hard times. Walks up to the hotel and says he would like to check out a room and see if he wants to stay.

      Innkeeper says OK but I need $100 to give you a key. He puts down the money.

      Innkeeper owes the caterer that much for meals delivered so he rushes over to pay him.

      Caterer owes the butcher so he runs over to pay him off.

      Butcher owes the rancher so he pays his bill.

      Rancher owes the feed store guy and he pays off his debt.

      Feed store guy has been seeing the town hooker on credit so he gives her the money.

      Hooker owes the innkeeper for room rentals and puts the money on the hotel counter.

      The businessman comes down picks up the hundred and says he decided not to take the room and leaves.

      Everyone is happy.

      1. Ha, that's pretty good.

        But the moral I take away from that is 'Don't borrow money'.

        1. They had a barter system going. The money was irrelevant. That’s the way I see it.

          Think of a prototypical primitive village where some people are hunters, farmers, cooks, builders, clothes makers, fishermen, even the shaman or elders who watch over and teach the children. They don’t need any money or trading seashells.

          1. Great little fable that lays out how monetary stimulus is supposed to work. It doesn't make everyone richer, it just frees up exchange units (money) so that everyone can settle up without crashing the whole house of cards.

            Of course, stimulus "addiction" and inflation are real problems too. What's missing from the governments actions, but is accounted for in your fable is the business man taking back his deposit. The government needs to retire some of the circulating money once the crisis has passed to avoid inducing additional inflation. This is where they raise interest rates, crash the whole thing, and let the rich/banks scoop up the real assets.

            1. LOL! Look at the 'economist' here that doesn't get the joke. The innkeeper was enticed to make a trade-off he might not otherwise have made if he had complete information. A very real, very predicable, and consistently ignored consequence of government intervention.

              Keep on fooling yourself. It's amusing.

              1. Interesting take, but I don't think that's the point, since incomplete information is not the topic of the article or this comment thread. The topic at hand is how monetary stimulus and already rich people interact.

                1. Did I interrupt a private conversation in the middle of this public forum, you disingenuous twat? You failed to note the real-life consequence to the innkeeper, dumbass. It's relevant.

          2. Money is simply a medium of exchange. So whether you're trading currency, goods, or services, the problems of indebtedness will still present themselves if you defer payment.

            To me, the tale evokes a sense of desperation and stress in each one of the players as they scramble to fulfill the delayed promises of earlier transactions. Life has enough unforeseen complications and worries. Avoid, as much as possible, becoming beholden to others. That also happens to be sound advice for maintaining individual autonomy and freedom.

            1. Except our entire economy is based on debt.

              1. Yeah, largely. I'm speaking of my own personal finances though, not the overall economy.

        2. The moral I take away is I want a pony.

      2. What a perfect example of an idiot that doesn't understand how money works.

        The innkeeper is not happy. All he did was barter the hooker's tab to pay the caterer. If he was counting on her money to pay the power bill when it comes due he is SOL.

        This is the kind of joke told by people who think the government can just print more money.

        1. Also leaves out the businessman borrowed the money and has to either pay it back or accumulate interest on it if he keeps the money after not taking the room.

          1. The people who tell this joke assume the businessman looted the bill from the shoe of an immigrant he shot out in the desert over the weekend while serving in his white supremacist militia border guard.

          2. Also leaves put the government taking a significant cut of every transfer.

        2. I think of it as more of a brain teaser. What's wrong with this picture?

      3. Hey, another moron who thinks the multiplier is greater than one.

    3. You can always tell who is unsuccessful. They always want the “rich” to pay more taxes.

      1. oh, they can be successful. they just define the "rich" as people making 50% more than they do.

        1. I think it’s pretty clear to all of us M4E is not successful by any measure.

  14. If they want to do something for working families, it would be FAR more efficient to give working families a tax credit rather than running those tax dollars through the Federal Grift Machine and dispensing what poops out the other end.

    1. The problem with the tax credit is that it wouldn't come until next year.
      The current tax return had the recovery rebate credit for anyone that didn't get the first 2 stimulus checks.
      It also leaves out a lot of people that don't file taxes. We've had lots of people that haven't filed in several years because they know they don't need to do so come in and file just to get the stimulus. The IRS also royally messed up the payments this time.
      A tax credit is not the way to go.

  15. Jen Psaki is a creepy kind of ugly.

    She is no Kayleigh McEnany.

    1. She looks like someone who made As in school instead of someone who blew her way to a C- marketing major, but conservatards see educated people and have an immediate urge to shriek and hit things with sticks.

      1. Tony can tell everything about you by your looks. I wonder what skin color tells him.

        1. He’ll have to circle back to you with that.

          1. Yes educated. She can't think on her feet as opposed to not thinking on her knees.

        2. Women can speak too you know.

      2. How can you tell that by looking at her?

        Besides that was exactly the kind you went after if you wanted some action after the party.

        I've been singing with my band
        Across the water, across the land
        I've seen every blue eyed floozy on the way
        But their beauty and their style
        Went kind of smooth after a while
        Take me to them naughty ladies every time
        Oh, won't you take me home tonight
        Oh, down beside your red fire light
        Oh, and you give it all you got
        Fat-bottomed girls you make the rocking world go round

        1. She reminds me of all my friends from high school. And she’s a Democrat working in the White House. They were all valedictorians.

          It’s one way of doing things among alternatives.

          1. Read the italicized excerpt.

            Better yet, listen to her. She has trouble completing a sentence without contaminating the environment with her verbigerative annoyances. How many you knows and ums did you count?

            1. Yeah, this. If you've ever listened to Psaki spout off on pretty much anything and walked away convinced of her competence or intelligence then there's something wrong with you.

              And this is hardly new: many of us noticed how much of a dunce she is when she worked at State, too.

            2. I'm sorry, weren't you sucking Trump cock for four years?

              Pick any transcript of a Trump speech at random and you see if you can even figure out the primary subject.

              1. Poor Tony - same ole song & dance. Start to lose an argument, it must be Trump's fault.

          2. Not cool.

          3. all my friends
            Lie #1 - Tony obviously never had friends. Spending eight minutes with a strange man in the gas station bathroom doesn't make them your friend.

            she’s working in the White House
            Lie #2 - Lol, sure thing Tony. You're so well connected despite being an uninformed idiot.

            They were all valedictorians
            Lie #3 - Judging by your comments here, I'm pretty sure everyone you hung around with were junkies.

          4. "She reminds me of all my friends from high school. And she’s a Democrat working in the White House. They were all valedictorians."

            Somehow, all of Tony's friends in high-school were valedictiorians. All of them. Which means he had one friend or he doesn't know what valedictorian means.

            Please, let us all laugh at him now.

          5. How many valedictorians did you have in your school liar?

            1. I had seven. 3 out of my 4 years there was a tie at the top.

              The overachieving G&T kids were strangely anticompetitive.

            2. I mean all the people who work in Democratic administrations. We just had the one, and it would have been me except for a technicality. A true unfairness. A mathematical sideways-fucking. But it's not like I staked my whole future on that or anything.

              1. You're semi-illiterate and utterly ignorant of history and science. What sort of school could you ever possibly hope to be valedictorian in? Was it special education? Did you ride the short bus?

          6. Lol. High school.

      3. She looks like someone who made As in school

        Well I’m aroused.

      4. By "educated" you mean "credentialed".

      5. Kayleigh McEnany: Georgetown for int'l relations, spent a semester at Oxford, top of her class at Miami (FL) before moving to Harvard Law.

        Jen Psaki: English & Sociology at William & Mary, no graduate school.

        But hey, the latter looks like a theater geek so obviously she's more educated.

        1. Damn, really walked right into that one Tony. Now what?

        2. "English & Sociology at William & Mary"

          This used to be called an Mrs degree.

      6. She looks like someone who made As in school

        Of course she seems smart to you, pinhead.


      7. Degree in circling back?

  16. You either get poorly targeted and simple or well targeted and so complex nobody gives them credit for anything. They learned some stuff from the Obama years.

    Of course you could shovel money into the streets and watch the people fight over it, and it would still be better policy than anything Republicans have proposed in 40 years.

    What’s their idea now? Ignore the pandemic and protect the dollar? Ask Biden to appoint Rudy to
    The Supreme Court out of unity?

    1. How many innocent people will die from the Bidenvirus?

      1. Half a million to go before you get to speak.

        1. So you are saying SleepyJoe is killing people in a wholesale fashion?

          1. He’s currently cleaning up the damage.

            Good luck ratfucking this one. He is a white guy. He has a bar set by Trump. Unless we’re truly fucked, he’ll get credit for ending the pandemic Trump started.

            You could just choose to see the handwriting on the wall and take appropriate action.

            1. "You could just choose to see the handwriting on the wall and take appropriate action."


              1. Were you what you claim to be you'd be happily slagging Biden for failing to have a plan on election when he claimed he did, and for shirking responsibility.

                And yet, you aren't.

                1. No no, DOL is a libertarian and as soon as a Democrat is in office he’ll criticize them too..oh wait. Actually, he’s a totally dishonest piece of shit leftist.

                  We’ve also just learned in the last few days that he’s also a war monger.

                2. What are you talking about? I have made no expectation for Biden other than that we can rely that he will give up power willingly when the time comes, unlike his predecessor.

                  1. ching! $.50

                  2. "...I have made no expectation for Biden other than that we can rely that he will give up power willingly when the time comes, unlike his predecessor."

                    So other than a lie from a TDS-addled lefty shit, your sort of honest, have I got that right?
                    Tell us how Trump did not "give up power willingly", slimy pile of lefty shit.

            2. Tell us again why Trump is responsible for public health which falls directly under the states jurisdiction?

              "Good luck ratfucking"
              Speaking of that, how is your mom doing?

              1. Tell me why people who do nothing but whine and make excuses deserve power over my life.

                1. Well that's a weird non sequitur.
                  I think Tony-bot auto reply was just activated.

            3. Trump started the pandemic? And what does Biden being “a white guy” have to do with anything?

              What is wrong with you?

              1. He’s a leftist.

                1. Yeah, but he’s even more bitter and deranged than the others. It’s hard to believe that people really think like that.

                  Parody? He seems sincere. Yikes.

              2. Such an innocent babe I'm sure.

                President Elizabeth Warren. President Hillary Clinton. President Pete Buttigieg. President President Kamala Harris.

                What do these people have in common? If you guessed "they don't exist," that would be correct. Now why would people choose a decrepit old white guy with few policy convictions when there was a veritable rainbow of better choices?

                I imagine it's not very difficult for black people to think like white supremacists, or even more so, the latent white supremacist in all of us.

                Trump achieved something. He made Democrats too afraid to try something new with respect to sex and skin color. Boy, did his voting base make that loud and clear when they backlashed against the one time we did try something new with Obama.

                I'm just saying, nobody's going to buy the story that Joe Biden was secretly born in Ireland, and it's not because of his accent.

                1. “We call ourselves the Good Guys and call everyone who disagrees "Nazis" and "Racists".
                  How can people not understand this? We can never do anything wrong because we’re opposing Nazis and Racists.
                  It’s so simple to understand.
                  Everything we do is justified because we’re the Good Guys and they’re Nazis and Racists.”

                2. You are the one obsessed with race. Most of us actually get along pretty well. Far better than you would ever admit.

                  And that’s why you suck.

                  1. It's hard to ignore when one major political party is racially homogenous. Think it's an accident?

                    You can deny you heard "build a wall" all you want, but you can't deny that there's a whole other, bigger border he never even talked about.

                    1. You're an idiot.

            4. Trumps Vaccine Cures Chinas Virus - Facts Tony, Facts.

    2. "Ignore the pandemic and protect the dollar?"

      That would be far less harmful than what we're doing now, but there are better options.

  17. It’s funny to read the comments on Wapo, where Liberals are upset because this limit keeps them from getting another stimulus check.

  18. People who were put out of work by the state government imposed shutdowns are hurting. Extend the regular unemployment benefits for them. (Don't pile more taxpayer debt on top of them.)

    Everyone else who is still working and healthy is probably in better shape financially than a year ago -- less money and stress spent commuting and buying work clothes and getting haircuts, and less money spent on vacations.

    28 trillion is way too much debt already. Don't add more.

  19. I'm one of the elites who has internationally transferrable, high tech skills, therefore not engaging in any dirty working-class activities requiring me to actually be on a job or on location for economic production.

    When I get my stimulus check, I'm buying something cool, like a PS5.

    1. Oh, and open the borders, already, I need a cheap nanny.

    2. I think I'm gonna get an AR kit with an 80% lower, jig, and necessary tools; and make a ghost gun. Can't turn down an excuse to buy more tools, right?

      1. I'm buying large pistol primers, large rifle primers, and dry boxes to hold them.

        1. I never got into reloading. Seems really boring.

          1. Kinda relaxing, actually.
            And you can plink with a .44 magnum at the same cost as a .22 cal.

            1. Really.

              How much is a realistic initial investment?

              I can google this shit, but if you do it how much you put into it.

              1. Time was reloading was only worthwhile if you were shooting hundreds of rounds a week, or demanded extreme precision.

                Now primers are an issue because they are the one thing you cannot make yourself or reuse.

    3. I got my interior doors replaced last time. The wife wants a new fence this go round.

    4. You should buy ammo.
      And non Perishable food.

      1. What movie was that from? Was it the one making fun of preppers?

    5. Last time I built a new patio. Being at home for work actually made it a bit easier, especially since the hardware stores all went full-retard and started closing at 6pm for 'sanitizing'.

      I don't know what I'll do this time around.

    6. Maybe it would help if elites like you just thought of the $1400 as a one time tax cut. There are never all these cries of dis proportionally helping the already well-off during tax cut time.

      Assuming that libertarians and/or republicans always want more upper-bracket tax cuts, and would support such a bill even today. Just think of the $1400 as a down payment on your next tax cut.

      Rename this bill the Covid Relief and Tax Cut Act, and it should have wide support from all parties. The poor can use the money for ramen noodles and rent, while the rich can use it for a new PS5, or to cover the cost of a plane ticket to fly into a poor community to get a vaccine sooner. Everybody wins!

      1. You're on to something. It's recompense for having to deal with four years of Orange Hitler.

  20. Have you no compassion? How do you expect a family of 4 to get by on $120K/year in midtown Manhattan?

    1. I don't. First there are no families of four in Manhattan, Second I expect them to pack up and move to Tennessee.

      1. Whoosh.

  21. This is a hospitality recession that has had devastating effects on a class of relatively young, relatively low-income service workers—but not on two-income families currently earning $120,000 a year.

    What the fuck do you know? Are you helping support 2 additional families made up of relatively young, relatively low-income service workers? Those of us who won't leave our children and grandchildren to the wolves are struggling, even at $120k.

    I don't expect the government to take care of my family, but when they are doling out the taxes that I paid into the system and they exclude me and mine, they put me at a serious competitive disadvantage.

  22. Just as urban people don't seem to understand rural, it's like you don't understand high COL areas. Or the fact someone might still have lost their job though their returns from what, 2019? show different amounts of earnings (considering no one *has* to have had their 2020 returns in yet.)

    And it's laughable- the Republicans didn't seem to give a flying fuck when they added 10% to the debt and DOUBLED the deficit in 2017 all for tax cuts to the 1% but now when the money might actually go to the commoners, now we have to be fiscally prudent.

    Fuck them and fuck this.

    1. Stop this lie. The tax cut was not for the 1%. The GOP already badly misplayed the politics surrounding the cut (including by shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating SALT deductions) so you don't need to keep up with the spin all these years later.

      1. "...shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating SALT deductions..."

        By alienating all those urban/suburban people in high tax states who never voted for them to begin with???

        1. I mean, the suburban portion was their very base up until 2018. While the urban portion largely doesn't care, being mostly AMT liberals or poseurs with rentals, there's marginal votes there that could flip a statewide race or keep a DeBlasio out of power.

          Republicans really have no business getting curbstomped in NJ-3, 5, 7, and 11 the way they have the past two cycles (If I had a dollar for every ad with Mikie Sherrill flying in a helicopter yelling "SALT SALT SALT!" I could put my kids through college). Flip those plus a couple from PA/NY/IL and say hello to Speaker McCarthy.

          And this out of some misbegotten notion that this would somehow incentivize the states to correct their fiscal mismanagement rather than simply accelerate the process of their bailouts.

      2. He won’t stop the lie no matter how many times it’s pointed out. He’s a liar, that’s what liars do.

    2. ching! $.50

    3. "...Fuck them and fuck this."

      Fuck you, slaver, with a running rusty chain saw.
      Stuff it up your ass so your head has some company.

  23. If all we're doing is haggling on price - aren't we still whores?

    1. Feel free to be the one left holding the bag.

  24. If Joe was serious about stimulating the economy, he'd propose a five-year moratorium on payroll taxes.


  25. Suderman - those people making $120,000/yr are paying the taxes. Taxes which pay for an ever-increasing state. Do you not think that maybe, in a time of crisis, they too might need a little surcease? To have the yoke lightened just a touch?

  26. If this money should only go to those who have a need (I have no problem with that) then it shouldn't be called "stimulus" money. Call it what it is "Assistance money". The idea behind the "stimulus" was partly to help those affected finacially by this. The other part was to put money into the economy. For people to buy things that they ordinarily wouldn't have bought. If it is truly "stimulus money" then everybody should get it. Personally I spent mine at the few restraunts and clubs that were open and I tipped generously.

    Suderman is doing a great injustice by using the increased savings figures. Employment uncertainity leads to increased saving since people want to have a reserve in case they lose their job. Another reason for the savings is the lockdowns in certain areas. Some people have disposable income that they spend on nights out, vacations and other things. With the lockdowns, there is no place to spend that income.

  27. We can all agree (I hope) that at some amount, out of control spending will destroy the country. At what point have will we have reached that limit with these “Covid relief” bills? 100 trillion? 10 trillion? Have we reached it already and are just on borrowed time?

  28. You can't means test buying votes, otherwise the Democrats might not have gotten those two Georgia Senate seats.

  29. As much as I dislike these income limits, I’m more appalled that they’re using adjusted gross income as the metric. I know a couple - good friends - with an eight-figure net worth who qualify for stimulus checks. They don’t tend to sell stocks and a good deal of their wealth is in tax-exempt bonds. What’s really grating is that tax-exempt interest has to be reported to the IRS. So this could be easily added to the criteria, but it isn’t.

    1. When it's fundamentally bad the specific metric doesn't really matter all that much, does it?

      Fuck sending out check, cut taxes.

      1. BTW, Trump proposed simply granting a tax holiday; letting people keep the money they earned.
        Congress shit their pants! D (and yes, some R) congress-shits adamantly opposed that; hoi poloi would discover how much money the fed gov was stealing from them each week, and would prevent the sort of vote-buying schemes such as this.
        Now tell us again, all you TDS-addled shits, why mean tweets got your pants in a twist.

    2. Screw you.
      Central planning never works, even when YOU set the criteria.

  30. If I have the same job and income as pre-Covid, why should I get a covid relief check?

  31. The real risk, he said, "isn't that we do too much—it's that we don't do enough."

    No the real risk is that they do anything at all. How about stepping back, getting the fuck out of the way, let people get back to work, buy the vaccine if they want it, and restore the economy. After all, it's the only thing that's ever worked.

  32. And the Roman Catholic Church gained billions from the stimulus. Travesty!

  33. Commie-Money ALWAYS hurts the poor and GROWS inequality and makes the rich EVEN RICHER.

    Its the governments way of forcing everyone to BUY a house far beyond their means resulting in a 'housing bubble' and overnight real-estate Billionaires (collectors of UN-backed dollars). The same dollars the poor works really hard to get.


    1. [Free Limited Offer] Earn up to $500+ Per Day Or More . Join Profit Formula Panel for free.. Read More.

    2. It is by every way shape and form 'fiat' communism without having to stamp the bill as The Communist Act. It spends by Gov-Guns other peoples labor to stuff Billionaires wallets.

  34. Aw the Biden group here doesn't like the policies. If there was only some warning the far left taking over the government would do this.

    Anyway, have fun.

  35. Litmus test:
    How did Suderman vote?

  36. BTW, Trump proposed simply granting a tax holiday; letting people keep the money they earned.
    Congress shit their pants! D (and yes, some R) congress-shits adamantly opposed that; hoi poloi would discover how much money the fed gov was stealing from them each week, and would prevent the sort of vote-buying schemes such as this.
    Now tell us again, all you TDS-addled shits, why mean tweets got your pants in a twist.

  37. Cui bono.

    Useless liberal arts parasites making $60-100K in do-nothing jobs (but hating the doctors, lawyers, and banksters who make more) are Team Blue's core demographic. Leaving them off the gravy train would be political madness.

  38. I have no idea what the cost of living is in Scranton. But if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area and you make 120K a year then one of you got laid off, that's a problem. A really big problem. I suppose you could have sold your home and moved to some other state where the cost of living is a lot less. That is if you had enough equity in your house to pay the moving cost, find a house, can find a new job or jobs, then you would be good to go. But if you are like many here just getting by on 120K, then you could be shit out of luck. So for them anything is a big help at this point. If they stayed employed during 2020, then they probably don't need any help. So the question is, does Bidens plan have stipulations for how much you made over 2020, or is it just what you made before Covid? It sounds easy to say that those who make more than average in states with lower housing costs and tax rates don't need it. To many people 120K a year sounds like a ton of money, but it's not all that much out here in Cali.

    Although I'm not in that situation, many are. If all the shutdowns continue, I could be in that position. What I need is for people to get back to work ASAP. The more people that are working, the more I'm working.

    Also, how is the 1.9 trillion dollars being spent? It's obviously not just for people who make 120K a year. I have not read the plan at all, but I'm sure it's probably another 5000 page document. A couple weeks ago I heard Tulsi Gabbard say that she did not vote for the December Covid bill because she had no idea what was in that 5000 plus page document and she had no time to read the whole damn thing in one afternoon. And she also stated that there is surely some hidden nonsense laws that nobody would want. And she was right. So rather than spending time writing articles about how the ultra rich who make 120K are getting. How about what's in the current bill. I'm sure there was plenty of money in the first and second bills that was totally wasted on other things as well. The money that was spent should be and should have been just for the needy to get by. I'm sure there were billions spent that never needed to be spent. Maybe even well over a trillion. I guess everyone here will be paying this money back for the rest of our lives. And probably our children as well.

    1. It's true that any plan will be a blunt tool with various inefficiencies and unfairnesses in it. Nitpicking it to death is itself a cost in time and efficiency, however, and it is an emergency measure.

      It's unfortunate that the only way our government is able to deal with big problems lately is by throwing money at the market to keep it afloat as it takes care of our basic needs. It goes withouts saying, that doesn't sound like the machinations of people who want to top-down control the means of production. If you want more sophisticated policies, elect sophisticated politicians.

      The legislative process itself has changed to adapt to certain realities like the filibuster and two completely separate political worldviews. Now policy is made by piling everything into giant budget reconciliation bills, which are increasingly loosely defined. You're probably safe blaming Mitch McConnell for pretty much all of this.

      The easiest answer, in a sense, is to the question of federal budget, because as an emergency measure the whole idea is that the downside of not spending is much more costly.

      We just need to properly align spending patterns to economic cycles and conditions. If you're into having a healthy budget, don't increase spending needlessly during booms (by cutting taxes). Do deficit spend during crises. It's the basis of modern macroeconomics, and it's also not bad advice for an individual.

      And we'll all be dead before any debt has to be paid off anyway. If anyone is in the position to come collecting, we'll have failed at America, and that's what we're trying to avoid.

      1. You are just nuts.

  39. On the bright side, #10%Joe's drug addicted, deadbeat son seems to be doing quite well! I hope our demented president gets his share.

  40. The Democrats' base consists of the following groups:

    Blacks who want welfare and racial preferences, Hispanics who want welfare, racial preferences, and amnesty for everyone with brown skin, limp wristed homosexuals who want their deviant lifestyle validated by society, single women who want society to pay for their birth control pills and abortions, union th*gs who want to legally extort as much as possible from the taxpayers, reform "Jews" whose "practice" of Judaism consists of bashing Christianity and whining about the Holocaust, unemployed people whose idea of a job search is sending their resumes written on a napkin to two random companies per week, jihadist Muslims who take advantage of the left's open borders policies (even for people who want to kill them), atheists who are offended by a God they say doesn't exist, people who think guns are evil and that murder is impossible without them, environmentalists who think that a winter storm is proof of global warming, pathetic lazy losers who get high all day, "students" who want the loans they took out to get a degree in gender studies forgiven, pathetic city dwellers who think that their running marathons and eating fair trade granola snacks contributes to society, and finally, disingenuous white liberals who use the others as pawns to gain power. In other words, parasites who make America worse.

  41. Just wait until president Harris unleashes her plan for $2,000/month living income and $10,000/month for a family of 5. That's $120K/year. Maybe these are the people Joey is targeting. Things get confused when you are trying to be a dictator. It's only free money at no cost to you. There is no interest charge and no payments. If the Commies have the last say, you will not be working, own nothing, have no debt and live like a happy king. Utopia at last.

  42. Ole White Joe is only interested in feeding the D pigs at the trough

  43. Democrats care...about everyone except the poor and underprivileged.
    And there is no good stimulus plan. More spending can't fix the economy. If anything, the more money the government throws out, the worse our economic problems will be. Biden will preside over an economic downturn worse than the Great Depression, if he has his way.

    1. There is no government money, this nation is deeply in debt and going deeper every year. More government spending will eventually hurt the poor, the underprivileged and those on fixed incomes like the elderly. Government creating money out of thin air is a hidden, regressive tax, stealing your paycheck, your savings and your retirement. It is called inflation, and that kind inflation is evil.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.