Coronavirus (political)

[MTK]

Democratic senators propose $2,000 monthly payments to most Americans

[mooby]

Originally Posted by MTK

Democratic senators propose $2,000 monthly payments to most Americans

I would love it but I think McConnell and co. would rather shoot Kamala Harris in the face and go out on death row then even think about agreeing to that.

Giving money to idiot poor people? Vs. giving it to corporations who pour it back into the economy via stock buybacks and executive bonuses? Who came up with that dipshit idea?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

I would love it but I think McConnell and co. would rather shoot Kamala Harris in the face and go out on death row then even think about agreeing to that.

Giving money to idiot poor people? Vs. giving it to corporations who pour it back into the economy via stock buybacks and executive bonuses? Who came up with that dipshit idea?

If you keep making sense we're going to have to shut this thing down!

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

Democratic senators propose $2,000 monthly payments to most Americans

I would say yes but only to people or households where a job has been loss or furloughed. That money then would work to reduce/eliminate unemployment benefits paid by the state to ease those budgets. Essentially that is the bailout works twofold. It doesn’t make sense to hand out money to people who haven’t been financially impacted...I want my tax money to go to those in need, not just handed out to people who don’t. Also I don’t want my tax money to go to people who just to collect unemployment and not return to work as jobs return either.

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by MTK

Democratic senators propose $2,000 monthly payments to most Americans

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I would say yes but only to people or households where a job has been loss or furloughed. That money then would work to reduce/eliminate unemployment benefits paid by the state to ease those budgets. Essentially that is the bailout works twofold. It doesn’t make sense to hand out money to people who haven’t been financially impacted...I want my tax money to go to those in need, not just handed out to people who don’t. Also I don’t want my tax money to go to people who just to collect unemployment and not return to work as jobs return either.

Also no one should be paid more to stay home than to work. Plenty of stories where part timers and low hourly wage workers made more to stay home because of the added $600 fed money a week + state benefits. Business owners got loans to open back up and the employees were angered and did not want to go back to work.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Bob

Also no one should be paid more to stay home than to work. Plenty of stories where part timers and low hourly wage workers made more to stay home because of the added $600 fed money a week + state benefits. Business owners got loans to open back up and the employees were angered and did not want to go back to work.

My step-mother works/worked in medical billing for a local eye doctor & surgery center. When they closed down, she signed up for the special unemployment. Now, the surgery center is slated to open on May 18th. She was contacted last week and told them that she was not coming back, because she was making more on unemployment.

Is this a state by state thing? Because i would think as a layman, if your company opens back up, and you choose to not return to your job, is it right that you still get unemployment benefits even though you are now choosing to remain unemployed over going back to your job?

Her and I disagree on this. I think it should only be for the people who truly cannot work because their companies closed down.

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

My step-mother works/worked in medical billing for a local eye doctor & surgery center. When they closed down, she signed up for the special unemployment. Now, the surgery center is slated to open on May 18th. She was contacted last week and told them that she was not coming back, because she was making more on unemployment.

Is this a state by state thing? Because i would think as a layman, if your company opens back up, and you choose to not return to your job, is it right that you still get unemployment benefits even though you are now choosing to remain unemployed over going back to your job?

Her and I disagree on this. I think it should only be for the people who truly cannot work because their companies closed down.

I only know California unemployment rules from 10 years prior and before as that is where I worked for others and had my own employees. In Virginia I have no concern for them as I am not an employee in the official sense, nor do I have employees. Anyway in California not returning if called back from lay-off is considered a voluntary quit making you ineligible for unemployment. I believe most states are that way. I think the feds may continue to pay her until the end of June or whatever it was. She is going to regret her decision. When her unemployment runs out jobs are going to be hard to come by. The fallout from changes in people's spending habits are going to make things worse than they are now for a long, long time.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

My step-mother works/worked in medical billing for a local eye doctor & surgery center. When they closed down, she signed up for the special unemployment. Now, the surgery center is slated to open on May 18th. She was contacted last week and told them that she was not coming back, because she was making more on unemployment.

Is this a state by state thing? Because i would think as a layman, if your company opens back up, and you choose to not return to your job, is it right that you still get unemployment benefits even though you are now choosing to remain unemployed over going back to your job?

Her and I disagree on this. I think it should only be for the people who truly cannot work because their companies closed down.

This here is the moral hazard that comes with paying too high a rate for unemployment.

Of course, it simultaneously says that the minimum wage needs to be raised, because someone at some point determined that what she's getting from unemployment is their best guess at the minimum needed.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I would say yes but only to people or households where a job has been loss or furloughed. That money then would work to reduce/eliminate unemployment benefits paid by the state to ease those budgets. Essentially that is the bailout works twofold. It doesn’t make sense to hand out money to people who haven’t been financially impacted...I want my tax money to go to those in need, not just handed out to people who don’t. Also I don’t want my tax money to go to people who just to collect unemployment and not return to work as jobs return either.

Don’t know about you, but even though I don’t “need it” I’d sure as hell spend it. Isn’t that the idea of a stimulus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

Don’t know about you, but even though I don’t “need it” I’d sure as hell spend it. Isn’t that the idea of a stimulus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would definitely save it. Chico’s right, there would be serious diminishing returns by giving it to everyone. It should go to the unemployed.

[Giantone]

I find it odd people have a problem with individuals getting stimulus checks to "stimulate the economy" but there wasn't a big out cry when Boeing got 50 billion or the Kennedy Center got 30 million from the last stimulus bill . Like others have said if it is to the "people" fine . I'm retired and have a small pt job but this will cause my heath Insurance to go up(I'll spend it on that) ...I should be able to use this money as I see fit ,save it spend it , what ever.