So, ATOT, what are you planning on spending the 3rd round of Coronabucks on?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
6,569
1,962
146
same as the first 2 rounds

486mbgM.jpg
You saving it for a rainy day or something like that?
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,154
5,569
136
You saving it for a rainy day or something like that?

nah, just not eligible

if i was i'd probably save it for a house downpayment, in case the market ever stops being stupid expensive and houses actually go up for sale
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,135
2,445
126
They changed the upper income limit for the stimulus checks this round, so it looks like my family won't be getting any stimmies this time :(
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Captante
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,776
146
They changed the upper income limit for the stimulus checks this round, so it looks like my family won't be getting any stimmies this time :(

Same, if they keep it at that. I guess I can file my tax return now if thats what actually passes.

If only dems had the stones to push back against the one dipshit senator.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,884
3,206
126
Guess they didn't consider cutting from the 90% pork.
Pork is how you stimulate economies effectively. I don't like or support pork barrel spending. But, targeted spending does work to help those who desperately need it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,145
5,605
136
Pork is how you stimulate economies effectively. I don't like or support pork barrel spending. But, targeted spending does work to help those who desperately need it.
It is ~15% but 90% sounds more dramatic. ;) Hopefully, a lot of $$ goes to infrastructure. Our roads got a C- rating recently (which was an improvement) but there are a lot of people that could use the work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
20,581
19,110
136
It is ~15% but 90% sounds more dramatic. ;) Hopefully, a lot of $$ goes to infrastructure. Our roads got a C- rating recently (which was an improvement) but there are a lot of people that could use the work.
85% still sounds delusional. Got a breakdown?
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,409
5,117
136
85% still sounds delusional. Got a breakdown?

IIRC the actual stimulus is "only" like 400B or so. Theother trillion and a half is city/state bailouts (which may or may not be related to revenue loss from the virus) and well.. pork. The first one was extremely porky as well so it shouldn't be a surprise.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,332
7,789
136
IIRC the actual stimulus is "only" like 400B or so. Theother trillion and a half is city/state bailouts (which may or may not be related to revenue loss from the virus) and well.. pork. The first one was extremely porky as well so it shouldn't be a surprise.
Since states can't print money like the Federal government can, I'm not sure what the point of your statement is.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
20,581
19,110
136
IIRC the actual stimulus is "only" like 400B or so. Theother trillion and a half is city/state bailouts (which may or may not be related to revenue loss from the virus) and well.. pork. The first one was extremely porky as well so it shouldn't be a surprise.
I've read breakdowns of the bill, those numbers don't seem even close. Just because money isn't going straight into individual pockets, doesn't mean it's not stimulus. Also 350 billion is going to state and local, which is still Covid related stimulus, not 1.5 trillion. How do you get things so so wrong? Let me guess who your news sources are
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,409
5,117
136
Also 350 billion is going to state and local, which is still Covid related stimulus, not 1.5 trillion.

Didn't say that. I said the bailouts and the pork was 1.5 trillion. If the bailouts is 350B, then the pork is 1.2T.

I guess it's whether you really should be bailing out cities and states on stuff that has nothing to do with the virus and whether that really helps the recovery.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,920
27,741
136
Didn't say that. I said the bailouts and the pork was 1.5 trillion. If the bailouts is 350B, then the pork is 1.2T.

I guess it's whether you really should be bailing out cities and states on stuff that has nothing to do with the virus and whether that really helps the recovery.
Why would COVID not hurt the financial situation of states and cities?
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
20,581
19,110
136
Didn't say that. I said the bailouts and the pork was 1.5 trillion. If the bailouts is 350B, then the pork is 1.2T.

I guess it's whether you really should be bailing out cities and states on stuff that has nothing to do with the virus and whether that really helps the recovery.
You literally said above "the other trillion and a half is going to city state bailouts" and I quoted it.

Are you seriously saying you never said that? That is a problem.

Second, cities and states have been dramatically affected by Covid, so helping them to fill those Covid related gaps and hire back lots of workers, that's still Covid stimulus. I think over a million state and local workers have been laid off since Covid.

The state and local money is no strings attached, personally I think there should be strings, like it can't be used on tax cuts, because we know the GOP will just give more tax cuts to the rich.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,920
27,741
136
IIRC the actual stimulus is "only" like 400B or so. Theother trillion and a half is city/state bailouts (which may or may not be related to revenue loss from the virus) and well.. pork. The first one was extremely porky as well so it shouldn't be a surprise.
I've read breakdowns of the bill, those numbers don't seem even close. Just because money isn't going straight into individual pockets, doesn't mean it's not stimulus. Also 350 billion is going to state and local, which is still Covid related stimulus, not 1.5 trillion. How do you get things so so wrong? Let me guess who your news sources are
Didn't say that. I said the bailouts and the pork was 1.5 trillion. If the bailouts is 350B, then the pork is 1.2T.

I guess it's whether you really should be bailing out cities and states on stuff that has nothing to do with the virus and whether that really helps the recovery.
Two seconds on Google can tell us what is really in the bill:
And even that other 15% is stimulus, even if it isn't COVID-related.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,409
5,117
136
You literally said above "the other trillion and a half is going to city state bailouts" and I quoted it.

Read the whole sentence. I said the bailouts and pork. Two separate things. I'd have to actually read the bill to see how much of the bailout is actually virus related. And the Senate bill might end up being different anyway.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,776
146
IIRC the actual stimulus is "only" like 400B or so. Theother trillion and a half is city/state bailouts (which may or may not be related to revenue loss from the virus) and well.. pork. The first one was extremely porky as well so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Specifically it bases it on unemployment - which is fucking laughable.

So... lets see... which states, cities, and counties imposed the MOST totalitarian restrictions and demanded closure of the mosts businesses? Thats the one who gets the most money.
 

Roger Wilco

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2017
3,805
5,603
136
It's looking like I'll be able to buy the entire stock market quite soon. So I guess I'll buy a bunch of stock markets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,920
27,741
136
Specifically it bases it on unemployment - which is fucking laughable.

So... lets see... which states, cities, and counties imposed the MOST totalitarian restrictions and demanded closure of the mosts businesses? Thats the one who gets the most money.
Yes, the ones who proactively tried everything in their power to prioritize safety over economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous