ADVERTISEMENT

Stimulus Checks

other1

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2004
14,180
13,107
113
My wife and I got our "checks" today.. That was fast.
 
What is the first letter of your last name ?
 
When was the Stimulus package approved? Thought the Senate rejected it yesterday.

Last week and got signed by Trump this past weekend. They rejected a resolution that would raise it to $2000 that the house passed Monday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vatiger1
Last week and got signed by Trump this past weekend. They rejected a resolution that would raise it to $2000 that the house passed Monday.
Love it or hate it, McConnell’s dumbass just gave the two senate seats to the dems in Georgia.

We piss away too much money to give a fvck about $2000 going to Americans. All of a sudden he cares about the deficit. Guess he forgot what the spending bill included last week. So stupid.
 
Love it or hate it, McConnell’s dumbass just gave the two senate seats to the dems in Georgia.

We piss away too much money to give a fvck about $2000 going to Americans. All of a sudden he cares about the deficit. Guess he forgot what the spending bill included last week. So stupid.
He introduced a bill for the $2K but tied it to repeal of 230 and election fraud investigation. Strange move that I do not see going anywhere.
 
I don't support another "free" payment under the guise of stimulus because it is way past time for our "leaders" to be more fiscally responsible.

That said, why not just pass a single-item bill that pays the $2k without anything else tied to it? I guess that's too simple.
 
Love it or hate it, McConnell’s dumbass just gave the two senate seats to the dems in Georgia.

We piss away too much money to give a fvck about $2000 going to Americans. All of a sudden he cares about the deficit. Guess he forgot what the spending bill included last week. So stupid.

No, he didn’t give the seats to the dems. That is so overblown, like everything these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goodthinkful
He introduced a bill for the $2K but tied it to repeal of 230 and election fraud investigation. Strange move that I do not see going anywhere.
That’s exactly what he wanted and was the whole point of including them in the bill. He knows by tying it in with those it goes nowhere. It’s all games.
 
No, he didn’t give the seats to the dems. That is so overblown, like everything these days.
What’s so overblown about it? All he had to do was hold a vote and let it pass. Give no fuel to the fire. Instead he did the opposite, and will get absolutely hammered for it over the next week. The woke crowd didn’t need to be fired up. Less people and R’s win the seats. More people and it gets dicey.
 
Love it or hate it, McConnell’s dumbass just gave the two senate seats to the dems in Georgia.

We piss away too much money to give a fvck about $2000 going to Americans. All of a sudden he cares about the deficit. Guess he forgot what the spending bill included last week. So stupid.

What a strange time for republicans to finally say no to Trump. If it costs them the Senate I'll happily forego the 2 large.
 
Getting lobbyists out of Washington will do a hell of a lot more than term limits.
Speak for yourself.

Signed,

A Washington lobbyist!

More seriously, I think it is a mistake to give every American earning > $75k a stimulus check of $2,000. If you have been employed since the start of the pandemic (and even with high unemployment rates, most people have been steadily employed), I don’t see the logic of giving a couple $4,000 or a family with kids much more.

However, if one is un- or underemployed due to COVID, I fully support aiding them financially. We could provide $2k to these people if the funds were limited to those hardest hit by the virus. (Same feeling about the $600 provided in the bill that was signed. Restrict it to the people in greatest need.)
 
Speak for yourself.

Signed,

A Washington lobbyist!

More seriously, I think it is a mistake to give every American earning > $75k a stimulus check of $2,000. If you have been employed since the start of the pandemic (and even with high unemployment rates, most people have been steadily employed), I don’t see the logic of giving a couple $4,000 or a family with kids much more.

However, if one is un- or underemployed due to COVID, I fully support aiding them financially. We could provide $2k to these people if the funds were limited to those hardest hit by the virus. (Same feeling about the $600 provided in the bill that was signed. Restrict it to the people in greatest need.)
No personal shot at you lol. But what do people do with money? Spend it. Give them $2000 and they’re gonna go pour it back into the economy, hopefully in businesses who need it. I think it’s the best strategy for stimulus. This isn’t relief imo, it’s stimulating the economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghood
I'm really boosted about that $10.70. They sure changed the payout structure from the first round of checks. I was planning on donating this one but oh well.
 
Impeached One Term President Trump that is okay with Russia putting bounties on US troops
 
No personal shot at you lol. But what do people do with money? Spend it. Give them $2000 and they’re gonna go pour it back into the economy, hopefully in businesses who need it. I think it’s the best strategy for stimulus. This isn’t relief imo, it’s stimulating the economy.
If it was just about stimulating the economy, why not give $2000 to everyone then. Let’s be honest. Who is more likely to SPEND $2,000 ... a person who is living paycheck to paycheck and probably will use it to pay off a credit card balance or someone who has plenty of savings already? In think it is the latter - but they won’t get any money.
 
If it was just about stimulating the economy, why not give $2000 to everyone then. Let’s be honest. Who is more likely to SPEND $2,000 ... a person who is living paycheck to paycheck and probably will use it to pay off a credit card balance or someone who has plenty of savings already? In think it is the latter - but they won’t get any money.
If they have that much credit card debt, probably a good chance they’re not very fiscally responsible. Better chance for them to spend it. Those who would save it most likely are the ones >$75000
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT