• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Talk to me about this stimulus bill

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 8, 2012
14,681
2,232
126
Been reported that the President doesn’t like this bill.
I suspect he will have more limits as to what the money can be spend upon & accounting as to where it goes.
I haven't seen that - and if anything the opposite?

He said he had “spoken to the president many times today; he’s very pleased with this legislation and the impact that this is going to have.”
 
Nov 8, 2012
14,681
2,232
126
People earning a paycheck don't need a tax cut. They don't have anywhere to spend it, anyway. It was a head fake from the GOP.
And you think $1,200 is going to do jack shit for a pandemic that will last months minimum - and potentially for a year+?
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,168
23
81

Looks like the Politicians are excluded, as they should be. Too bad Trump didn't follow precedent and put his business dealing in a blind trust.

"Will prohibit loans or investments from Treasury programs to be used to benefit businesses controlled by the President, the vice president, the heads of executive departments and members of Congress, according to a draft of the legislation. The prohibition extends to the children, spouses and in-laws of any of these government officials."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
66,627
14,102
136
And you think $1,200 is going to do jack shit for a pandemic that will last months minimum - and potentially for a year+?
That’s what the extended unemployment is for. I agree they should have put in something to direct larger payments to people who didn’t just lose their jobs too.
 

Mai72

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
9,395
616
126
Man. We are going to get MILLIONS!

Trump will never let us down! Will he? :(
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,593
307
126

Anyone know the degree of truth to this? My understanding was the +$600 increases the *cap* on UI benefits, not that it would pay an additional flat $600 in UI benefits. So aside from the fact that you can't exactly game this and quit to get UI, I fail to see how anyone should come out ahead under this provision over working. And it primarily protects the middle class.
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
14,681
2,232
126

Anyone know the degree of truth to this? My understanding was the +$600 increases the *cap* on UI benefits, not that it would pay an additional flat $600 in UI benefits. So aside from the fact that you can't exactly game this and quit to get UI, I fail to see how anyone should come out ahead under this provision over working. And it primarily protects the middle class.
I've honestly never filed for unemployment in my life to even know the process... but on the face of it - I PRESUMED that the "added $600" was in regards to the cap of what they are willing to match based on what you were previously making with the employer?
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
60,240
3,148
126
And it's such a petty argument. Trump has probably spent more in golf cart rentals than that would be abused for. But hey, go ahead and keep on class war-faring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54
Nov 8, 2012
14,681
2,232
126
And it's such a petty argument. Trump has probably spent more in golf cart rentals than that would be abused for. But hey, go ahead and keep on class war-faring.
Is it really that weak though?

Poor americans in general move based on "path of least resistance". If you can increase your income (by hundreds) by simply getting unemployed, it does sound tempting no?

Obviously not if you have a decent job or whatnot, but if you work retail or fast food and can easily get another job, why would you not?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,142
4,647
126
I've honestly never filed for unemployment in my life to even know the process... but on the face of it - I PRESUMED that the "added $600" was in regards to the cap of what they are willing to match based on what you were previously making with the employer?
I'm quite certain you cannot get more than you were making.
 

zzyzxroad

Golden Member
Jan 29, 2017
1,231
568
106

Anyone know the degree of truth to this? My understanding was the +$600 increases the *cap* on UI benefits, not that it would pay an additional flat $600 in UI benefits. So aside from the fact that you can't exactly game this and quit to get UI, I fail to see how anyone should come out ahead under this provision over working. And it primarily protects the middle class.
Can't have any low income workers gaming the system.

Leave that to the investor class.

I have had the unfortunate task of laying people off and none of them had any say in the decision making processe.
 
Last edited:

zzyzxroad

Golden Member
Jan 29, 2017
1,231
568
106
Is it really that weak though?

Poor americans in general move based on "path of least resistance". If you can increase your income (by hundreds) by simply getting unemployed, it does sound tempting no?

Obviously not if you have a decent job or whatnot, but if you work retail or fast food and can easily get another job, why would you not?
Fast food and retailers are primarily large corporations and the low level employees dont decide who is laid off.


This is Graham and company doing what they do best.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,630
213
116
So give corporations bailouts because they spent all their money on stock buybacks. But make furloughed people whole?!?! Fuck that! That's craziness!

If that doesn't show the goals of the GOP, nothing can.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
66,627
14,102
136
It's a strawman argument and total bullshit. Employers can fight unemployment.

Right. If you quit you don't get UI. If you get yourself fired, you don't get UI.

The way you get UI is by involuntarily losing your job and so I'm kind of baffled as to how people are saying people will involuntarily lose their jobs on purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,593
307
126
Guys, gaming the UI is moot anyway since you can't lay yourself off. At question is this $600 an increase to the maximum benefit or a fixed increase? I can't comprehend how it would be the latter, it makes no sense. Which means Graham and co are really getting worked up over nonexistent bullshit.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
99,572
2,422
126

Anyone know the degree of truth to this? My understanding was the +$600 increases the *cap* on UI benefits, not that it would pay an additional flat $600 in UI benefits. So aside from the fact that you can't exactly game this and quit to get UI, I fail to see how anyone should come out ahead under this provision over working. And it primarily protects the middle class.
the main worry of many on the right is that people who don't have anything have too much.
 
Nov 8, 2012
14,681
2,232
126
You equate poor with lazy which is a false equivalence.
No, I'm really not. You're the one making the equivalence. It's not a rich, poor, OR lazy thing. It's a HUMAN thing. The majority of humans choose the path of least resistance in life.

They don't say "I have $200, let's try to build our own company!"
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
17,061
6,893
136
Guys, gaming the UI is moot anyway since you can't lay yourself off. At question is this $600 an increase to the maximum benefit or a fixed increase? I can't comprehend how it would be the latter, it makes no sense. Which means Graham and co are really getting worked up over nonexistent bullshit.
It plays to their base and hearkens back to Reagan's welfare queens.
 
Nov 8, 2012
14,681
2,232
126
Right. If you quit you don't get UI. If you get yourself fired, you don't get UI.

The way you get UI is by involuntarily losing your job and so I'm kind of baffled as to how people are saying people will involuntarily lose their jobs on purpose.
UI is not based on "involuntarily" losing your job necessarily. Majority that are fired get unemployment. For something like retail, that's as simple as not showing up for a shift or 2.

Yes, I understand that if you openly quit a job then you wouldn't receive it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY