Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
JohnnyU

Democrats block Senate CV Stimulus Package

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

Is the bold true?

How did a bill get this far that gives massive raises out for not working?

Can you imagine being the guy that still has to work for 12 bucks an hour and the schmuck that was always on his phone that got laid off is now getting paid more than you to look at his phone? 

I am shocked the democrats would even want this. As soon as the people that get stuck working realize this, they will be furious and I imagine they are pretty close to 50/50 democrat vs GOP. 

Why would they do this instead of guaranteeing current pay for x number of weeks and extending the UI window???

 

It's true.  If it passes I will demand a layoff.  Now Bernie is saying if any changes are made he will hold up the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oh no, laid off people will get paid 31,200 a year for 4 months? Really living in the lap of luxury here, lobster and caviar as far as the eye can see. The anger should be at the ridiculously low minimum wage that puts individuals significantly below that amount, because 31,200 is as close to the floor of a workable universal basic income as you can get. 

Edited by huthut
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, NJ already gives out a generous 713 per week max.  Throw in another 600 and suspend my mortgage payments.  And its spring time.   Tempting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of Sasse, Scott, Scot and Grahams complaints……. shouldn't the title of this thread be changed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thunderlips said:

In light of Sasse, Scott, Scot and Grahams complaints……. shouldn't the title of this thread be changed?

Nope, still Obama's fault.

  • Like 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, beef said:

Nope, still Obama's fault.

I briefly heard about that and since it was coming from Trump's mouth, I knew it was probably a lie so I didn't bother to look into it.    What was he blaming Obama for now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, The General said:

No clue on this one.

I could see arguments for this both ways. I'd think if you are over 100K you are hosed. But no clue.

I am seeing you need to be under $75,000 for individuals and under $150,000 for couples. 

Edited by lazyike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

It's surprising to see conservatives arguing that a $2T spending bill being fast tracked and passed in 3-4 day is somehow irresponsibly slow.  

When they want their socialism, they want it big, hard, and fast.  

They see getting that money out there as a means to get there emperor re-elected so the amount is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thunderlips said:

In light of Sasse, Scott, Scot and Grahams complaints……. shouldn't the title of this thread be changed?

well yeah, but it won't be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Blutarsky said:

It’s what he does.

DO you have your own opinion on a point, or do you just talk about others?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this real, May?  Because the process is actually difficult or they don’t think a deal will be passed until mid-late April?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1242894044184883201

Objecting to a provision in the Senate coronavirus bill providing unemployment benefits for people in financial trouble, Sen. Lindsey Graham says nurses are "going to make $24 an hour on unemployment" which he claims would incentivize "taking people out of the workforce."

 

So all of a sudden the same people who have been risking their lives are just going to stop working?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1242894044184883201

Objecting to a provision in the Senate coronavirus bill providing unemployment benefits for people in financial trouble, Sen. Lindsey Graham says nurses are "going to make $24 an hour on unemployment" which he claims would incentivize "taking people out of the workforce."

 

So all of a sudden the same people who have been risking their lives are just going to stop working?

Who the hell is laying off a nurse right now?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1242894044184883201

Objecting to a provision in the Senate coronavirus bill providing unemployment benefits for people in financial trouble, Sen. Lindsey Graham says nurses are "going to make $24 an hour on unemployment" which he claims would incentivize "taking people out of the workforce."

 

So all of a sudden the same people who have been risking their lives are just going to stop working?

Things like this always remind me of Arrested Development "I mean, it is one banana Michael, how much could it cost? $10?" Like Republicans think that $24/hour (less than 50k a year) is some amount of money that tons of trained professionals would be quitting their jobs in droves to take, and then need to find another job in a few months. Just a complete disconnect from people that work for their wages.

Edited by huthut
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

This bill is trash. Hope it fails. If the money isnt coming til may anyway who cares? Get it right. 

Mnuchin said 3 weeks in the presser today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lazyike said:

I am seeing you need to be under $75,000 for individuals and under $150,000 for couples. 

This was for the payment per child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1242894044184883201

Objecting to a provision in the Senate coronavirus bill providing unemployment benefits for people in financial trouble, Sen. Lindsey Graham says nurses are "going to make $24 an hour on unemployment" which he claims would incentivize "taking people out of the workforce."

 

So all of a sudden the same people who have been risking their lives are just going to stop working?

$24 an hour is quite a bit less than a nurse's wage

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, The General said:

This was for the payment per child?

My bad , I wasn't following all the posts close enough.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, beef said:

That's what I'm seeing for caps.  Middle class non-business owners get a "thanks but no thanks".

Nothing more than a guaranteed loan...only possible gain is if the interest rates are really low the way I see it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lazyike said:

Nothing more than a guaranteed loan...only possible gain is if the interest rates are really low the way I see it. 

 

 

ON ABC news, loan funds spent on rent or hiring back laid-off workers are forgiven. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Small and medium businesses with fewer than 500 workers will be able to apply for government-backed, forgivable loans to cover the costs of their workers’ wages, as well as some other business expenses such as rent, up to a maximum of $10 million. If companies lay off workers, however, parts of the loan will not be forgiven."

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/489552-how-the-business-loan-program-would-work-in-the-2t-coronavirus-package

More details about loan forgiveness: https://dailyreporter.com/2020/03/25/stimulus-bill-proposes-299b-for-small-business-interruption-loans/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Whats the problem? Trump properties cant get the money. Matty probably didnt know that. 

Honestly asking...were they excluded (Trump, congress, and all top officials) from all in the stimulus or just the 500 billion portion to corps?  I ask because it seemed people had an issue with the 500 billion portion but not issue with small businesses.  If it didn't exclude them from all, is this a loophole to have people qualify as a small business? (And no, not just Trump)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Honestly asking...were they excluded (Trump, congress, and all top officials) from all in the stimulus or just the 500 billion portion to corps?  I ask because it seemed people had an issue with the 500 billion portion but not issue with small businesses.  If it didn't exclude them from all, is this a loophole to have people qualify as a small business? (And no, not just Trump)

It is a loophole, but trump hotels dont qualify for the loophole, which is probably why they didnt put the conflict of interest language in that section with the loophole.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

It is a loophole, but trump hotels dont qualify for the loophole, which is probably why they didnt put the conflict of interest language in that section with the loophole.

 

Hope this is the case (again not just Trump but loopholes to benefit all elected and top officials)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing doesn’t need to be 1400 pages. Just get money to everyone on an indefinite timeline so they can survive, no means-testing.  No multitrillion dollar economic coup for banks, no republican/democrat pet projects, no corporate bailouts.  

It should also be directed at the virus itself.  Masks, testing facilities, funds for treatment/vaccine, hazard pay for grocery workers / MDs, allow governors to repeal laws obstructing any of the above. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Congressman from Kentucky plans to vote "no" on the $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, which the Senate passed 96-0 Wednesday evening.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican who represents Kentucky's 4th District, also hinted that he might object to a voice vote in the House of Representatives, which would force all members to return to Washington, D.C. and slowdown movement on the bill.

Massie told 55 KRC radio Thursday morning he plans to reject the measure — which includes one-time $1,200 checks to certain individuals and $367 billion in loans and grants to small businesses — due to concerns over spiking the national debt.

***

"I'm having a really hard time with this. Because they're saying, well it's hard to travel, yadda yadda yadda," Massie said. "Well, last night, 96 out of 100 Senators voted. All we would need is 218 out of 435 to vote," he added, pointing to a section of Article I in the U.S. Constitution that states "a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business."

"I know there are people saying, 'Oh you gotta vote for it. You can't slow this down,'" he continued. "Meanwhile, they spent a week in the Senate arguing how much money should go to the Kennedy Center."

 

Hey @ren hoek is this your rep?

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican who represents Kentucky's 4th District, also hinted that he might object to a voice vote in the House of Representatives, which would force all members to return to Washington, D.C. and slowdown movement on the bill.

This is really sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a link to the bill?  We've been given the 10,000 level changes that are supposed to be in the bill as it pertains to retirement accounts and access to them.  If true, I fear a rather large impact to the markets.  Just one of the first things we were told were removal of 10% penalty AND deferred payback anywhere from 1-3 years (conflicting reports on timeline).  Anyone know when the gov't is supposed to start cutting checks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kennedy center line seems ti be the talking point...have seen it in multiple places before this representative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lazyike said:

$24 an hour is quite a bit less than a nurse's wage

Graham literally has no idea how much normal people make.  3x minimum wage?  Sounds outrageous -- we better put a stop to that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Does anyone have a link to the bill?  We've been given the 10,000 level changes that are supposed to be in the bill as it pertains to retirement accounts and access to them.  If true, I fear a rather large impact to the markets.  Just one of the first things we were told were removal of 10% penalty AND deferred payback anywhere from 1-3 years (conflicting reports on timeline).  Anyone know when the gov't is supposed to start cutting checks?

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/25/820759545/read-2-trillion-coronavirus-relief-bill

I skimmed most of the bill but you are correct about waiving the 10% early withdrawal penalty and spreading the taxes over 3 years for certain affected individuals

Edited by Tom Hagen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Graham literally has no idea how much normal people make.  3x minimum wage?  Sounds outrageous -- we better put a stop to that!

These guys are ####### monsters to respond with this type of thinking after the tax cut bill they put together which basically lined the pockets of corporations and the 1%.  He can go pound sand.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any clarification if this payment is just considered an advance on next years tax refund?

like if I’d be getting $3900 here (married, 3 kids, not rich) and usually get $4-$5K back do I just expect $1K next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:
40 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Does anyone have a link to the bill?  We've been given the 10,000 level changes that are supposed to be in the bill as it pertains to retirement accounts and access to them.  If true, I fear a rather large impact to the markets.  Just one of the first things we were told were removal of 10% penalty AND deferred payback anywhere from 1-3 years (conflicting reports on timeline).  Anyone know when the gov't is supposed to start cutting checks?

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/25/820759545/read-2-trillion-coronavirus-relief-bill

I skimmed most of the bill but you are correct about waiving the 10% early withdrawal penalty and spreading the taxes over 3 years for certain affected individuals

Thanks....I can see where this is heading politically :lmao:  

In the mean time, I'm not sure I understand the approach of allowing people to take money out of the market penalty free...seems like a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen a couple of people posting things on Facebook (must be true, right?), but does anyone know if someone actually included a raise for the Congress in the stimulus bill?
 

Please don’t be true! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have broken the server or something.  Tom's link isn't working for me....secure connection issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Graham literally has no idea how much normal people make.  3x minimum wage?  Sounds outrageous -- we better put a stop to that!

Yep, he probably thinks it is high because it is 2 digits? "Well, if minimum wage is $8, then $24 must be rich since it is way higher".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

Any clarification if this payment is just considered an advance on next years tax refund?

like if I’d be getting $3900 here (married, 3 kids, not rich) and usually get $4-$5K back do I just expect $1K next year?

I read through the provisions this morning and it looks like this won't affect your refund. They've created a one-time credit equal to the amount of the proposed payment amounts. The payment amounts to be sent out are called an advance tax refund, with the "credit" to be reduced by the amount you receive from the advance refund (with a provision that the reduction cannot result in a negative number). Thus, there should be new schedule showing line 1 as "Amount of credit calculated at 1200/adult and 500/child, Line 2 as "Amount of Advanced Refund Received" and Line 3 as "Line 1 - Line 2". That should result in 0 tax consequences (assuming I'm reading the Act correctly, which is always a challenge with bills).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Congressman from Kentucky plans to vote "no" on the $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, which the Senate passed 96-0 Wednesday evening.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican who represents Kentucky's 4th District, also hinted that he might object to a voice vote in the House of Representatives, which would force all members to return to Washington, D.C. and slowdown movement on the bill.

Massie told 55 KRC radio Thursday morning he plans to reject the measure — which includes one-time $1,200 checks to certain individuals and $367 billion in loans and grants to small businesses — due to concerns over spiking the national debt.

***

"I'm having a really hard time with this. Because they're saying, well it's hard to travel, yadda yadda yadda," Massie said. "Well, last night, 96 out of 100 Senators voted. All we would need is 218 out of 435 to vote," he added, pointing to a section of Article I in the U.S. Constitution that states "a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business."

"I know there are people saying, 'Oh you gotta vote for it. You can't slow this down,'" he continued. "Meanwhile, they spent a week in the Senate arguing how much money should go to the Kennedy Center."

 

Hey @ren hoek is this your rep?

Not according to democracy.io (Yarmuth).  But I oppose it too.  $250 billion in direct payments to citizens.  $250 billion expansion in unemployment benefits.  $4 trillion dollars to bail out corporations.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Thanks....I can see where this is heading politically :lmao:  

In the mean time, I'm not sure I understand the approach of allowing people to take money out of the market penalty free...seems like a bad idea.

My guess is that it's more of a hardship penalty waiver than anything else.   They also waived required minimum distributions for 2020 which would allow older people to leave more money in the market.

Here is a pretty good summary of the Act with a link to the text. https://taxfoundation.org/cares-act-senate-coronavirus-bill-economic-relief-plan/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Not according to democracy.io (Yarmuth).  But I oppose it too.  $250 billion in direct payments to citizens.  $250 billion expansion in unemployment benefits.  $4 trillion dollars to bail out corporations.  

While I don’t fundamentally disagree with your point, money for businesses/corporations isn’t always a bad thing.  For example the company I work for this money will be used 100% to avoid layoffs and keep us from possible drastic moves, and thus benefits over 1000 families.  I’d even argue benefit them far more then any realistically (be it 1k, 2k or 4K) sized check from the government would.  

Edited by dkp993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom Hagen said:

My guess is that it's more of a hardship penalty waiver than anything else.   They also waived required minimum distributions for 2020 which would allow older people to leave more money in the market.

Here is a pretty good summary of the Act with a link to the text. https://taxfoundation.org/cares-act-senate-coronavirus-bill-economic-relief-plan/

 

There are also rules around the loans portion if your plans have those features.  By all accounts, they are making it really easy to take your money out of your 401k and paying it back way in the future.  If we think about where the market is right now, where it was a few weeks ago, I just don't see this as a good idea.  IF a ton of people go there and act it's taking money out of the market at a low point and it's not going to be put back in for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read that it should be the 17th. Probably stalling as long as possible hoping for a miracle cure so they can stop payment on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dawgtrails said:

So when the #### are they actually going to process these checks for folks?

At minimum, 3 weeks.  You'll be lucky to have them by May and we should be deep in the middle of it by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.