Update - 3/11/21 - America Rescue Plan Bill is signed!

[just654]

Is there a Phase out like the first? Or is it straight 75k and 150k?

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Seems like a reasonable deal to me. I don’t know why Virginians would want to bail out California. I think instead of a blanket 600 they could have been a little more selective... but that gets messy.

so, the main things the democrats didn’t get was a full 1200 per person and a slush fund for states who have a history of being poorly managed. They do get extended unemployment benefits, additional small business support, selective support for states in terms of schools and vaccine distribution, as well as a smaller direct payment to people.

 

this seems like a fair compromise. 

 

You are incorrect. 

 

As of 2019 - 

CA Net Payments (Federal Funds Receives - Taxes Paid = -$13.7B or -$348 per capita. This means CA pays $348 per person more than it receives in federal funding. 

VA Net Payments =$65B 0r + $7,563 per capita - This means VA residents receive on average $7,563 per person than they pay in taxes. 

 

In fairness the CARES Act probably changed it a little - but not $8000/per person. So who is supporting who? VA benefits from a great deal of federal contracts that are paid for by - wait for it - CA. 

 

And the whole "slush fund for cities being mismanaged" it a crock, well except the red states like KY who already received about $6000 per person more than they pay. But cities need support, period. 

 

This was a horrible deal and one that honestly the Dems should not have agreed to. It hurts when one side gives a **** about people and the other doesn't though. My guess is they are also hoping for 2 wins in GA or if not then Biden to provide relief with EOs. Trump set the example of governing by EO since he could not get most meaningful legislation passed even though he had both houses for 24 months. 

 

As for it being means tested - not sure why you say they should be more selective, more people need the assistance not less. If anything, remove any means testing and give it to everyone - period. Many of the people being left out are the ones who can afford to spend the "stimulus" check. When you means test it, a much higher % of the people receiving the money will pay rent, bills, other items that do not stimulate the economy, which is fine and helps some. But you need more people spending the money in services and goods to increase demand. 

 

 

31 minutes ago, just654 said:

Is there a Phase out like the first? Or is it straight 75k and 150k?

 

 

Those details not available yet, at least not that I have seen. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by goskins10

[Larry]

Admiring the beauty.  

 

1)  Federal money should not go to California because of it's history of being poorly managed.  

 

2)  California is poorly managed because it isn't as good at sucking federal dollars as rural red states are.  

 

The BS is completely circular.  

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Only poorly managed corporations get bailouts!

[CousinsCowgirl84]

42 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

You are incorrect. 

 

As of 2019 - 

CA Net Payments (Federal Funds Receives - Taxes Paid = -$13.7B or -$348 per capita. This means CA pays $348 per person more than it receives in federal funding. 

VA Net Payments =$65B 0r + $7,563 per capita - This means VA residents receive on average $7,563 per person than they pay in taxes. 

 

 

.

 

California has more rich people. Taxes are based on income. What is your point? As I’ve already pointed out, paying more taxes doesn’t make you better run. Receiving less taxes doesn’t make you better run. 
 

And even if you are correct, that means the democratic senators and representatives who are arguing for the slush fund are arguing for things that hurt the people they represent. Senators and representatives serve the people in their state. If you are suggesting California Democrats want to increase aid to states to give more of their electorates money to republicans controlled states like Mississippi I’d argue that they are doing a disservice to their own electorate. But let’s not be silly.

 

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

Admiring the beauty.  

 

1)  Federal money should not go to California because of it's history of being poorly managed.  

 

2)  California is poorly managed because it isn't as good at sucking federal dollars as rural red states are.  

 

The BS is completely circular.  

 

there is no circular reasoning or exclusivity between the two statements. Both can be (and are) true.

Edited December 21, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Elessar78]

The only true thing is that Republicans don't want to govern. They don't want to help their constituents. They'll hide behind some "fancy" maneuvering, because their base is too stupid to do anything other than parrot back the talking points they are fed. Thoroughly brainwashed by a shallow, un-Christian approach to Christianity.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Elessar78

[goskins10]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

California has more rich people. Taxes are based on income. What is your point? As I’ve already pointed out, paying more taxes doesn’t make you better run. Receiving less taxes doesn’t make you better run. 
 

And even if you are correct, that means the democratic senators and representatives who are arguing for the slush fund are arguing for things that hurt the people they represent. 

there is no circular reasonsing. Both can be true.

 

 

Even if you are correct??   I have data, something you did not have. You made a statement based on what you heard from right wing propaganda and did not check it. It is in fact truth, period. So you can stick that "even IF you are correct"  ****.  Typical comment and response by you - provide no data yourself then question the validity of someone who does. Must be nice to just make random statement then cast aspersions to those that actually provide data. 

 

And as is also typical you are the making no sense. If it's not about money, then how is keeping money from them not bailing them out? What else besides money management are you keeping from them by keeping money from them?

 

Just admit you were wrong. You said why should VA bail out CA because they are poorly run with no data or basis fact. Just a random statement that is BTW a right wing talking point. It's one their go to lies. And you regurgitated it without looking it up to see if it were true. 

 

Your characterization of it as a slush fund is also wrong. It is money vitally needed by some states - and you do not know CA is even getting any of it!  And if they do, its because they have way more people than VA that are affected by Covid shut downs. 

 

 

 

[Elessar78]

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

Even if you are correct??   I have data, something you did not have . . .

 

 

 

Cue both sides are corrupt/just as bad argument.

[The Evil Genius]

Something tells me that the 5th largest economy in the world isn't that poorly run. 😉

[CousinsCowgirl84]

 

 

39 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

Even if you are correct??
 

 

Sorry, let’s just say that Virginia gets more money that California....  the “numbers” show that a few Californians make a lot of money and therefore pay a lot of taxes and that skews the payout ratios. I agree with you.

 

but, given that fact, doesn’t that mean that the people representing Californians are doing a bad job?

 
Why are democratic representatives championing policies that would hurt their state and help the states controlled by republicans? 
 

 

Quote

 

Your characterization of it as a slush fund is also wrong. It is money vitally needed by some states - and you do not know CA is even getting any of it!  And if they do, its because they have way more people than VA that are affected by Covid shut downs. 

 

 

 

 

Well, no one is getting it because the democrats couldn’t get it done. The same ones leading states like California.  I find it ironic you balk at the idea that California is poorly run and then say at the same time the same people

 can’t get the job done in Congress. Which is it?

Edited December 21, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe because one criminal Senator from bum**** Kentucky wields all the power? 

[bearrock]

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

 

Sorry, let’s just say that Virginia gets more money that California....  the “numbers” show that a few Californians make a lot of money and therefore pay a lot of taxes and that skews the payout ratios. I agree with you.

 

but, given that fact, doesn’t that mean that the people representing Californians are doing a bad job?

 
Why are democratic representatives championing policies that would hurt their state and help the states controlled by republicans? 
 

 

 

Well, no one is getting it because the democrats couldn’t get it done. The same ones leading states like California.  I find it ironic you balk at the idea that California is poorly run and then say at the same time the same people

 can’t get the job done in Congress. Which is it?

 

So because CA representatives view the United States of America as a whole country instead of a lord of the flies free for all between the states, it's California that is poorly run?  Really?

 

You can take and defend the position that CA is poorly run (reasonable people may disagree), just not for the reason that they are net payers rather than net takers from the federal budget.  Putting state interest above and at the expense of the country's is not running a state well in my opinion.  

[Elessar78]

12 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Something tells me that the 5th largest economy in the world isn't that poorly run. 😉

But the high taxation should've killed any initiative to do any kind of business. Just like it has in all the other largest economies China 45% top rate, Japan 56%, Germany 45%, UK 45%, France 60%.

 

Apart from China all other countries have liberal (Lowercase L) democracies, rule of law, constitutionally protected freedoms, and higher standard of living by almost any other standard. 

 

[goskins10]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

 

Sorry, let’s just say that Virginia gets more money that California....  the “numbers” show that a few Californians make a lot of money and therefore pay a lot of taxes and that skews the payout ratios. I agree with you.

 

but, given that fact, doesn’t that mean that the people representing Californians are doing a bad job?

 

No. Not sure how you do the mental gymnastics to get there. So because they are not trying to get as much money as possible is going a bad job? In fact they are better run than the US as a whole. 

 

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 
Why are democratic representatives championing policies that would hurt there state and help the states controlled by republicans? 

 

Because they are not looking at blue and red. They are looking at Americans in all states needing help. It's only the ignorant republicans (not all of them, just the ignorant ones like mitch) look at red vs. blue states. We are supposed to help each other - not just those who agree with us. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Well, no one is getting it because the democrats couldn’t get it done. The same ones leading states like California.  I find it ironic you balk at the idea that California is poorly run and then say at the same time the same people

 can’t get the job done in Congress. Which is it?

 

This makes no sense at all. They two do not have anything to do with each other. In fact you do not know that CA needed the money. I will agree that over all democrats are **** at negotiations. That is mostly because they actually give a **** so they are getting what thy can. Also, they know Biden will be in office soon and they may also have the Senate. This is not over. Its just the next round. 

 

Last but not least - this was not about if on their own CA was poorly run or not. You made the comment that VA would be bailing CA out. That was a false statement which I proved with hard data. It is a right wing talking point. So you have tried to change the conversation. 

 

In no way would having State support money in the Stimulus be VA bailing CA out. If anything it would be the opposite - which CA may be Ok with since they are clearly run well enough to not need more funds from the federal government than they give them. They are in fact self sufficient unlike VA who relies on federal finding to stay solvent. 

[The Evil Genius]

The fact remains that a one time $600 check is a ****ing joke and tells you how out of touch Congress as a whole is with us. I am lucky enough to be in a position where I dont need it. I won't likely see it (or less than half of it if its adjusted as the previous check was). But many many many people do need this and they need more than $34.61 a week ($1800/52). Granted Mitch and the GOP wanted to give everyone $0.00, so there is that..but still. This entire thing is a ****ing joke.

Edited December 21, 2020 by The Evil Genius

[Elessar78]

12 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

The fact remains that a one time $600 check is a ****ing joke and tells you how out of touch Congress as a whole is with us. I am lucky enough to be in a position where I dont need it. I won't likely see it (or less than half of it if its adjusted as the previous check was). But many many many people do need this and they need more than $34.61 a week ($1800/52). Granted Mitch and the GOP wanted to give everyone $0.00, so there is that..but still. This entire thing is a ****ing joke.

They wanted to give zero, because they want people back at work. They don't care about deficits and a million deaths is acceptable.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fergasun]

Meh... good thing I delayed doing my taxes as long as possible last March because my 2019 AGI takes me into the "phase out zone".   I hadn't done them last March, they used 2018 AGI.  I believe it is the same phase out, but I read somewhere there is no phase out for dependents.  

 

Similar to Evil Genius, I am fortunate not to "need" a stimulus payment.  Not that we won't take the direct payments... 

[LD0506]

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 hours ago, bearrock said:

.  Putting state interest above and at the expense of the country's is not running a state well in my opinion.  

Senators and Representatives are elected to represent their state.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

No. Not sure how you do the mental gymnastics to get there. So because they are not trying to get as much money as possible is going a bad job? In fact they are better run than the US as a whole. 
 

 

Where is the evidence that they are better run? I’m looking at above normal unemployment, massive amounts of homelessness, high cost of living, higher income inequality.... what criteria are you using to consider them well ran. 
 

7 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

Because they are not looking at blue and red. They are looking at Americans in all states needing help. It's only the ignorant republicans (not all of them, just the ignorant ones like mitch) look at red vs. blue states. We are supposed to help each other - not just those who agree with us. 
 

 

My statement had nothing to do with blue state red state, you twisted into that to fit your narrative about what I was actually saying.  It’s state vs state and a states representatives are elected to represent that states interests.

 

7 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

You made the comment that VA would be bailing CA out.

 

Not exactly. I asked why would they want to. And the point was more broad than two specific states, but you decided to take that and run with it.

 

7 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

[bearrock]

39 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Senators and Representatives are elected to represent their state.

 

They are also members of the United States Congress.  The entire country is founded on the notion that the balance afforded between the autonomy of the states and common good of the country pursued by the federal government strengthens the country as a whole and benefits everyone in America.  Representatives and senators have to balance those interests.

 

If you view their job as engaging in a zero sum game where their primary objective is to pork more money for their districts and states, it is a race to the bottom for the entire country.

[goskins10]

53 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Where is the evidence that they are better run? I’m looking at above normal unemployment, massive amounts of homelessness, high cost of living, higher income inequality.... what criteria are you using to consider them well ran.

 

Where is the evidence they are not run better? In relation to who? You made a lot of claims but you have no data - which was my point from the beginning. You are making the claim they are worse run - that was your position from the beginning. I produced data to suggest that is not true. Until you provide hard numbers - you know real data - then you have no point and are just regurgitating right wing talking points and rhetoric. 

 

Quote

 

My statement had nothing to do with blue state red state, you twisted into that to fit your narrative about what I was actually saying.  It’s state vs state and a states representatives are elected to represent that states interests.

 

Your original comment? No. So I responded about VA and CA only. Then you asked me directly why democrat states would help republican states. So yes you brought red and blue into our conversation. 

 

And here is the real problem with your entire approach and what I was getting at to begin with. You do not really understand how our government is supposed to work (and in fairness most of todays republicans and some of today's democrats don't get it either). US Representatives (and Senators) are sent to Wash to represent the state but not state vs state. This is not a dual, It's not a us vs them. They are there to represent the state in matters of national interest. Yes, they should consider the states needs but in the end they have a responsibility to set direction and laws that govern and support the entire country. There are individual state legislatures that focus strictly on that state. 

 

Quote

 

Not exactly. I asked why would they want to. And the point was more broad than two specific states, but you decided to take that and run with it.

 

 

And now we come to word games portion of our conversation. When you ask why they would want to, you imply they would be supporting them. I simply showed that was a false statement. You have now come full circle to now trying to get out from under that statement. What's awesome is in this very comment you are still trying to defend it with the CA is poorly run rhetoric - it is just rhetoric until you provide data to defend it. So you just proved this statement to be false. Or is it the one above? Try to pick one and stick with it. 

 

Just admit you made a poor statement or provide data to defend it. Until either one happens I am done. Glad to discuss data. I am more than willing to be shown I am wrong and admit it - but not with open statements without data. Show me the data, then we can discuss. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by goskins10

[CousinsCowgirl84]

12 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Where is the evidence they are not run better? In relation to who? You made a lot of claims but you have no data - which was my point from the beginning. You are making the claim they are worse run - that was your position from the beginning. I produced data to suggest that is not true. Until you provide hard numbers -

 

California’s homeless problem is well documented, and all the other numbers (unemployment, income inequality, cost of living) are easily googled. I don’t find utility in reposting them. What data did you produce to show that they are better ran. I don't think getting less money shows they are better ran.  You certainly havnt provided the connection.
 

Quote

 

 

Your original comment? No.
 

 

ok. 
 

Quote

 

So I responded about VA and CA only. Then you asked me directly why democrat states would help republican states. So yes you brought red and blue into our conversation.

 

I was responding to you at that point 👍 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

And here is the real problem with your entire approach and what I was getting at to begin with. You do not really understand how our government is supposed to work (and in fairness most of todays republicans and some of today's democrats don't get it either). US Representatives (and Senators) are sent to Wash to represent the state but not state vs state. This is not a dual, It's not a us vs them. They are there to represent the state in matters of national interest. Yes, they should consider the states needs but in the end they have a responsibility to set direction and laws that govern and support the entire country. There are individual state legislatures that focus strictly on that state. 
 

 

that is an opinion. It’s not a fact. I want my state representatives to fight for my states interests. The purpose of the representative depends on who elects them and what they want them to do when they are elected. 

 

Quote

 

[goskins10]

 

 

OK, last response here. This is a waste of time. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

California’s homeless problem is well documented, and all the other numbers (unemployment, income inequality, cost of living) are easily googled. I don’t find utility in reposting them. What data did you produce to show that they are better ran. I don't think getting less money shows they are better ran.  You certainly havnt provided the connection.
 

 

Not responding to "google it" bull****. Either produce numbers or you have no point. Here is a hint though - right wing talking points always want to discuss raw numbers not % of population. They tell different stories.    And I disagree - not needing more money to help run your state is a sign of your state being run better. Is it the only sign? No. There are others but until you provide actual numbers mine are good enough. 

 

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

ok. 
 

 

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I was responding to you at that point 👍 

 

 

Nice bull**** trick there. You brought it up so I was responding to to you - but nice try at deflection. It's a lie but I guess it's all you have. Again, it's clear that YOU brought up red vs blue first. I simply responded. I know you like to revise history as you often try in here but that does not change the facts. 

 

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

that is an opinion. It’s not a fact. I want my state representatives to fight for my states interests. The purpose of the representative depends on who elects them and what they want them to do when they are elected. 

 

 

It's not an opinion. It is a fact. Just because there are some that approach it that way does not make it right. Our founding fathers see it much differently than you. Please take a civics lesson. You clearly missed that in HS.

 

Done here. Go ahead and get your last little word in. But know that anyone who can read can follow the bouncing ball. You made a poor statement - got caught and are flailing around trying to deflect and get out of it instead of just being an adult and owning it.