|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious.
I don't think this math was known to the public, the number floated has been 2,000 dollars, so thats what people were expecting. This was definitely not something that was commonly understood by the public, the only way I think youd know is if you checked the irs.gov website, because I dont think Biden's full plan was unveiled before today, and hes on record before for 2,000 dollar checks.
|
United States24698 Posts
On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious.
How many of these people do you think there are (regarding the $2,000, not the zip ties)? Even if you are technically right, if there are a lot of them, the event will hurt politically. Messaging is as much about preventing unreasonable criticism as it is being technically correct.
As I explained before I haven't been following the issue closely from the beginning so I don't know how clear/obvious it was that the discussions about 2k checks were less the already-approved 600.
|
On January 15 2021 10:45 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious. How many of these people do you think there are (regarding the $2,000, not the zip ties)? Even if you are technically right, if there are a lot of them, the event will hurt politically. Messaging is as much about preventing unreasonable criticism as it is being technically correct. As I explained before I haven't been following the issue closely from the beginning so I don't know how clear/obvious it was that the discussions about 2k checks were less the already-approved 600.
Maybe we are all more tuned in than most because we post on this blog, but I thought it was pretty fucking obvious the 2k was the 600 + 1400 more. That is why dems pushed a clean bill to just add 1400 to the 600 already passed
|
On January 15 2021 10:47 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:45 micronesia wrote:On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious. How many of these people do you think there are (regarding the $2,000, not the zip ties)? Even if you are technically right, if there are a lot of them, the event will hurt politically. Messaging is as much about preventing unreasonable criticism as it is being technically correct. As I explained before I haven't been following the issue closely from the beginning so I don't know how clear/obvious it was that the discussions about 2k checks were less the already-approved 600. Maybe we are all more tuned in than most because we post on this blog, but I thought it was pretty fucking obvious the 2k was the 600 + 1400 more. That is why dems pushed a clean bill to just add 1400 to the 600 already passed
I have to ask, why was this obvious? I hadnt heard anything about this til I saw the irs website, and lots of people hadnt heard anything about this til Biden's plan was revealed today
|
On January 15 2021 10:48 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:47 IyMoon wrote:On January 15 2021 10:45 micronesia wrote:On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious. How many of these people do you think there are (regarding the $2,000, not the zip ties)? Even if you are technically right, if there are a lot of them, the event will hurt politically. Messaging is as much about preventing unreasonable criticism as it is being technically correct. As I explained before I haven't been following the issue closely from the beginning so I don't know how clear/obvious it was that the discussions about 2k checks were less the already-approved 600. Maybe we are all more tuned in than most because we post on this blog, but I thought it was pretty fucking obvious the 2k was the 600 + 1400 more. That is why dems pushed a clean bill to just add 1400 to the 600 already passed I have to ask, why was this obvious? I hadnt heard anything about this til I saw the irs website, and lots of people hadnt heard anything about this til Biden's plan was revealed today
Because the dems talked about it all the time during the push for 2k? It was to raise the 600 dollars to 2k. Not give 2k on top of the 600.
|
United States24698 Posts
On January 15 2021 10:47 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:45 micronesia wrote:On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious. How many of these people do you think there are (regarding the $2,000, not the zip ties)? Even if you are technically right, if there are a lot of them, the event will hurt politically. Messaging is as much about preventing unreasonable criticism as it is being technically correct. As I explained before I haven't been following the issue closely from the beginning so I don't know how clear/obvious it was that the discussions about 2k checks were less the already-approved 600. Maybe we are all more tuned in than most because we post on this blog, but I thought it was pretty fucking obvious the 2k was the 600 + 1400 more. That is why dems pushed a clean bill to just add 1400 to the 600 already passed
Yes I think what is obvious to you with your above-average level of engagement is not obvious to the average voter.
In particular, people who are in a desperate situation might hear "I'll get to work on 2k checks" the day after they receive their $600 and not stop to think about it critically, like "hm, I wonder if that's 2k more, or 2k in total."
On January 15 2021 10:49 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:48 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:47 IyMoon wrote:On January 15 2021 10:45 micronesia wrote:On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious. How many of these people do you think there are (regarding the $2,000, not the zip ties)? Even if you are technically right, if there are a lot of them, the event will hurt politically. Messaging is as much about preventing unreasonable criticism as it is being technically correct. As I explained before I haven't been following the issue closely from the beginning so I don't know how clear/obvious it was that the discussions about 2k checks were less the already-approved 600. Maybe we are all more tuned in than most because we post on this blog, but I thought it was pretty fucking obvious the 2k was the 600 + 1400 more. That is why dems pushed a clean bill to just add 1400 to the 600 already passed I have to ask, why was this obvious? I hadnt heard anything about this til I saw the irs website, and lots of people hadnt heard anything about this til Biden's plan was revealed today Because the dems talked about it all the time during the push for 2k? It was to raise the 600 dollars to 2k. Not give 2k on top of the 600.
"Oh I wasn't paying attention then" -lots of people, or
"I thought that was a separate conversation that is now passed" or
"But that's not what I heard on social media" etc
|
On January 15 2021 10:43 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious. I don't think this math was known to the public, the number floated has been 2,000 dollars, so thats what people were expecting. This was definitely not something that was commonly understood by the public, the only way I think youd know is if you checked the irs.gov website, because I dont think Biden's full plan was unveiled before today, and hes on record before for 2,000 dollar checks.
The number floated was $2000 was before the $600 checks were passed. It seemed pretty obvious to me that afterwards, if there was to be a "correction", it would be in the form of $1400 and not $2000.
|
On January 15 2021 10:49 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:48 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:47 IyMoon wrote:On January 15 2021 10:45 micronesia wrote:On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious. How many of these people do you think there are (regarding the $2,000, not the zip ties)? Even if you are technically right, if there are a lot of them, the event will hurt politically. Messaging is as much about preventing unreasonable criticism as it is being technically correct. As I explained before I haven't been following the issue closely from the beginning so I don't know how clear/obvious it was that the discussions about 2k checks were less the already-approved 600. Maybe we are all more tuned in than most because we post on this blog, but I thought it was pretty fucking obvious the 2k was the 600 + 1400 more. That is why dems pushed a clean bill to just add 1400 to the 600 already passed I have to ask, why was this obvious? I hadnt heard anything about this til I saw the irs website, and lots of people hadnt heard anything about this til Biden's plan was revealed today Because the dems talked about it all the time during the push for 2k? It was to raise the 600 dollars to 2k. Not give 2k on top of the 600.
When did they talk about this? I legitimately havent heard anything about this from any Democrat til today.
On January 15 2021 10:50 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:43 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:34 Gahlo wrote:On January 15 2021 10:09 Sadist wrote:
From the beginning its been known that the $600 counted towards the $2000 so this should be known. Also Im not sure if everyone got their checks yet so if they havent they actually would get the $2000 at once.
I dont think this will hurt politically at all.
Yup. I think this is like people going after reactions to the Capitol Hill attack nitpicking about the difference between zip ties and zip cuffs. Yes, they're technically right, but they're being a dickwad and it's obvious. I don't think this math was known to the public, the number floated has been 2,000 dollars, so thats what people were expecting. This was definitely not something that was commonly understood by the public, the only way I think youd know is if you checked the irs.gov website, because I dont think Biden's full plan was unveiled before today, and hes on record before for 2,000 dollar checks. The number floated was $2000 was before the $600 checks were passed. It seemed pretty obvious to me that afterwards, if there was to be a "correction", it would be in the form of $1400 and not $2000.
But why is that obvious, when you have a bunch of Democrats talking about 2,000 dollar checks why is it obvious to anyone that what they actually mean is the culmination of two checks from two bills will equal 2,000 dollars?
Democrats are repeating calls for 2,000 dollar checks in the face of this reveal too,
https://twitter.com/PramilaJayapal/status/1349845246029537282?s=20
https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1349864653380268032?s=20
https://twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/1349893645009362947?s=20
This doesnt even seem to have been something Democrats as a whole were even necessarily in on?
|
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once.
|
On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once.
So why didn't they say, "well you got 1200 in April last year, we just gave you 600 dollars, so to make sure we hit that 2000 dollar mark, heres 200 more."
Theres no actual clear line here that should leave any person who wasn't intently following this 2,000 dollar check situation on very particular sources (ones that Im not aware of/dont follow, so probably cable news?) with the inclination that they were actually getting 2,000 dollars split into two payments of 600 dollars and 1400 dollars split across two bills.
|
On January 15 2021 10:58 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. So why didn't they say, "well you got 1200 in April last year, we just gave you 600 dollars, so to make sure we hit that 2000 dollar mark, heres 200 more." Theres no actual clear line here that should leave any person who wasn't intently following this 2,000 dollar check situation on very particular sources (ones that Im not aware of/dont follow, so probably cable news?) with the inclination that they were actually getting 2,000 dollars split into two payments of 600 dollars and 1400 dollars split across two bills.
Because the check in April and the check in December are two completely different stimulus packages. I can't tell if you're serious about this or just enjoy inventing reasons to hate democrats.
|
On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once.
Holy shit do you need to be so condescending? Democrats' messaging definitely leaves room for misinterpretation. They could have said something like, "People need $2,000, so once we take the Senate, we will be sending out an additional $1,400" and their message would have been crystal clear and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
|
On January 15 2021 11:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:58 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. So why didn't they say, "well you got 1200 in April last year, we just gave you 600 dollars, so to make sure we hit that 2000 dollar mark, heres 200 more." Theres no actual clear line here that should leave any person who wasn't intently following this 2,000 dollar check situation on very particular sources (ones that Im not aware of/dont follow, so probably cable news?) with the inclination that they were actually getting 2,000 dollars split into two payments of 600 dollars and 1400 dollars split across two bills. Because the check in April and the check in December are two completely different stimulus packages. I can't tell if you're serious about this or just enjoy inventing reasons to hate democrats.
This stimulus package is also a different stimulus package. This is a new bill. This is two separate different stimulus packages.
|
Northern Ireland25534 Posts
I don’t feel I’m a total moron, you folks may disagree with my perception.
Not a topic I’ve read a huge amount about in depth, mostly encounter it via shared posts on social media that I don’t read.
I’d seen the 2000 number bandied about so much I’d assumed it was a separate cheque for 2000, and not a top up of the previous 600 by 1400 to a cumulative total of 2000.
I mean I’ll take my share of the blame, It does strike me as kind of bad messaging. With the caveat of course I’m not American nor particularly impacted beyond personal interests and morals so the specifics weren’t something I delved in to.
Apart from anything else there’s been quite a sizeable gap between stimulus cheques, and the longer that gap is the more separate the two stimulus feel as entities. You get that 1400 a month or two after the 600 and yeah, you make a more natural link to ‘oh the 2000 is the stuff I just got plus the stuff coming in shortly’.
|
|
|
On January 15 2021 11:05 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 11:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 15 2021 10:58 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. So why didn't they say, "well you got 1200 in April last year, we just gave you 600 dollars, so to make sure we hit that 2000 dollar mark, heres 200 more." Theres no actual clear line here that should leave any person who wasn't intently following this 2,000 dollar check situation on very particular sources (ones that Im not aware of/dont follow, so probably cable news?) with the inclination that they were actually getting 2,000 dollars split into two payments of 600 dollars and 1400 dollars split across two bills. Because the check in April and the check in December are two completely different stimulus packages. I can't tell if you're serious about this or just enjoy inventing reasons to hate democrats. This stimulus package is also a different stimulus package. This is a new bill. This is two separate different stimulus packages.
This is a new bill is meaningless. 2000 was promised. 600 was delivered by the last congress in the omnibus spending package. Democrats tried to amend that 600 to 2000 in a new bill called the CASH act, but McConnell never brought it to a vote in the senate. Bills disappear when the new congress is seated. Now there is another new bill.
On January 15 2021 11:05 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. Holy shit do you need to be so condescending?
I don't, but it was intentional. This is the person who a few weeks ago was telling people he would vote for Trump over Biden because Trump promised him $2000. Of course, he never delivered on that promise because he's Trump and the executive branch doesn't control the purse.
On January 15 2021 11:05 StasisField wrote:
Democrats' messaging definitely leaves room for misinterpretation. They could have said something like, "People need $2,000, so once we take the Senate, we will be sending out an additional $1,400" and their message would have been crystal clear and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
People can misinterpret whatever they want. Why would this not be the new congress passing the CASH Act now that McConnell can't block the vote in the senate?
|
On January 15 2021 11:42 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 11:05 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 11:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 15 2021 10:58 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. So why didn't they say, "well you got 1200 in April last year, we just gave you 600 dollars, so to make sure we hit that 2000 dollar mark, heres 200 more." Theres no actual clear line here that should leave any person who wasn't intently following this 2,000 dollar check situation on very particular sources (ones that Im not aware of/dont follow, so probably cable news?) with the inclination that they were actually getting 2,000 dollars split into two payments of 600 dollars and 1400 dollars split across two bills. Because the check in April and the check in December are two completely different stimulus packages. I can't tell if you're serious about this or just enjoy inventing reasons to hate democrats. This stimulus package is also a different stimulus package. This is a new bill. This is two separate different stimulus packages. This is a new bill is meaningless. 2000 was promised. 600 was delivered by the last congress in the omnibus spending package. Democrats tried to amend that 600 to 2000 in a new bill called the CASH act, but McConnell never brought it to a vote in the senate. Bills disappear when the new congress is seated. Now there is another new bill. Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 11:05 StasisField wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. Holy shit do you need to be so condescending? I don't, but it was intentional. This is the person who a few weeks ago was telling people he would vote for Trump over Biden because Trump promised him $2000. Of course, he never delivered on that promise because he's Trump and the executive branch doesn't control the purse.
Your words were its a new stimulus package thats why we obviously didnt count the initial 1200 dollar check.
This 1400 is a new bill from the 600 which is why your own logic would dictate that we obviously shouldnt count it.
The 600 dollars was passed by McConnell, that was its own bill. This new 1400 bill hasnt been passed yet, but it is its own separate bill. The 600 dollar bill that was passed won't disappear when the new Congress is seated because it was already passed. They tried to amend that bill to 2,000 dollars but it didn't go through, which is why we have two separate bills now.
So, what happens is, 1. pass 600 dollar checks, 2. lots of promises and talk of 2,000 dollar checks being sent out if Democrats win the Georgia runoffs, 3. 1,400 dollar checks are planned to be sent out
When people say, "we're going to send out 2,000 dollar checks if we win Georgia," and then say, "heres 1,400 dollars," theres going to be confusion because the words aren't matching up to whats happening.
Also I never said anything about voting for Trump, lol.
On January 15 2021 11:42 JimmiC wrote:
Yes their message could of been clearer, but it is not like they were trying to trick people. And if the reps won you get 600 the dems 2k, sure 2600 is more but 2k is still pretty awesome.
I dont think there is anything to be mad about, but disappointment is certainly understandable.
This mistake in messaging of it not being 100% clear is getting some major analysis here, when I saw the post count I was worried there was another coup attempt or something!
I agree they probably weren't trying to trick people, its a situation I mostly just find kind of dumb and foreboding. Its the kind of dumb messaging problem thats going to cause a ton of problems for Democrats going into the 2022 election season if it continues without some really meaningful changes to counterbalance. This is the exact kind of thing you don't want to see if you don't want McConnell to take back the Senate and McCarthy the House in two years.
|
On January 15 2021 11:58 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 11:42 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 15 2021 11:05 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 11:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 15 2021 10:58 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. So why didn't they say, "well you got 1200 in April last year, we just gave you 600 dollars, so to make sure we hit that 2000 dollar mark, heres 200 more." Theres no actual clear line here that should leave any person who wasn't intently following this 2,000 dollar check situation on very particular sources (ones that Im not aware of/dont follow, so probably cable news?) with the inclination that they were actually getting 2,000 dollars split into two payments of 600 dollars and 1400 dollars split across two bills. Because the check in April and the check in December are two completely different stimulus packages. I can't tell if you're serious about this or just enjoy inventing reasons to hate democrats. This stimulus package is also a different stimulus package. This is a new bill. This is two separate different stimulus packages. This is a new bill is meaningless. 2000 was promised. 600 was delivered by the last congress in the omnibus spending package. Democrats tried to amend that 600 to 2000 in a new bill called the CASH act, but McConnell never brought it to a vote in the senate. Bills disappear when the new congress is seated. Now there is another new bill. On January 15 2021 11:05 StasisField wrote:On January 15 2021 10:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Because we can do basic math. If I tell someone I need $100 from them. They pay me $50. I don't go on internet and whine about them not paying me $100 after they give me $50 more. I got $100 from them. It just wasn't all at once. Holy shit do you need to be so condescending? I don't, but it was intentional. This is the person who a few weeks ago was telling people he would vote for Trump over Biden because Trump promised him $2000. Of course, he never delivered on that promise because he's Trump and the executive branch doesn't control the purse. Your words were its a new stimulus package thats why we obviously didnt count the initial 1200 dollar check. This 1400 is a new bill from the 600 which is why your own logic would dictate that we obviously shouldnt count it. The 600 dollars was passed by McConnell, that was its own bill. This new 1400 bill hasnt been passed yet, but it is its own separate bill. The 600 dollar bill that was passed won't disappear when the new Congress is seated because it was already passed. They tried to amend that bill to 2,000 dollars but it didn't go through, which is why we have two separate bills now. So, what happens is, 1. pass 600 dollar checks, 2. lots of promises and talk of 2,000 dollar checks being sent out if Democrats win the Georgia runoffs, 3. 1,400 dollar checks are planned to be sent out When people say, "we're going to send out 2,000 dollar checks if we win Georgia," and then say, "heres 1,400 dollars," theres going to be confusion because the words aren't matching up to whats happening. Also I never said anything about voting for Trump, lol.
I said Stimulus Package in my post not bill.you fixed this while I was digging up the actual bill.
Here is the text from the CASH Act:
1 SEC. 2. RECOVERY REBATE AMOUNTS INCREASED.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6428A of the Internal
3 Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 272 of the
4 COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020, is amended by
5 striking ‘‘$600’’ each place it appears and inserting
6 ‘‘$2,000’’, and by striking ‘‘$1,200’’ each place it appears
7 and inserting ‘‘$4,000’’.
8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
9 this section are contingent upon the enactment of the
10 COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 and shall apply
11 (if at all) as if included in the enactment of section 272
12 of such Act.
Notice it is amending the previous bill as part of the same "stimulus package"
They tried to amend that bill to 2,000 dollars but it didn't go through, which is why we have two separate bills now.
The CASH Act is already a second bill. You can argue new congress, new stimulus package if you want and we can agree to disagree, but your current line is just poor understanding of government.
|
|
|
I will readily admit to not having read the text of the bill, and almost assuredly having a poor understanding of the nuances of this whole situation as it relates to the particulars of legislation, but that doesn't make this situation any less confusing to anyone who didn't read the bill but heard the multiple times Biden say he would send out 2,000 dollar checks.
This bill says its amending the previous instances of 600 to 2000 dollars but when people got 600 dollars and then were told they'd receive 2000 dollar checks they're not being told "we're going to amend the 600 dollars in the previous bill to 2,000 dollars" by anybody, they're just seeing and hearing that they're going to get 2,000 dollar checks.
The vast majority of people can't reasonably have been expecting that they wouldnt be getting new 2,000 dollar checks in this situation.
I can't fathom why someone would work for Trump under the assumption he would be paying them, his history is littered with him not paying people for work, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
