Stimulus Check

[LumRaiderFan]

13 minutes ago, baddog said:

I hate to have to agree with your statement. You are probably right, but I needed tires. I had to pay in $1300 for income tax and got $1200 back. I’m still $100 the hole. lol

Oh, trust me, I am in no way complaining about the recipients of the checks.  My complaint is the money for all method and where this leaves us (our kids, grandkids) down the road.

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Oh, trust me, I am in no way complaining about the recipients of the checks.  My complaint is the money for all method and where this leaves us (our kids, grandkids) down the road.

1. But... Is it fair that ALL taxpayers didn’t get one? 

2. Did you keep yours or refuse it?

Im not being a smartass. Both are real questions. 

[LumRaiderFan]

14 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

1. But... Is it fair that ALL taxpayers didn’t get one? 

2. Did you keep yours or refuse it?

Im not being a smartass. Both are real questions. 

I think it should have been handled with unemployment...if still working then no money.

Didn’t get one but if I did no way I would refuse it.  Like I said, my problem is the billions sent to folks that are still working and not struggling.

[baddog]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Oh, trust me, I am in no way complaining about the recipients of the checks.  My complaint is the money for all method and where this leaves us (our kids, grandkids) down the road.

Honestly, if I thought my check was keeping someone more needy from getting help, it would be different. I am working and could have done without it. My thing is, the poor are still getting their checks, the unemployed will be getting their checks plus a huge raise. I think this may have contributed to the unemployment surge. Minimum wage workers could lose their jobs and get a heckuva raise. So who else is there? Like you, I don’t understand the payment to working people. I look at it as being my money. Also, better to give it to me and let me spend it, which I certainly did, than to let the government keep it and squander it on the undeserving or some stupid projects.

I took no offense to your post. Heck, I can’t believe this happened either. I believe in Trump and the economy will get going again. If I get another check, I will spend it too. That’s the whole idea behind all of this, so I will oblige them.

The big brother part is a little scary, but I think most Americans know when to tell the government to take a hike. Look at Michigan. Lmao.

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I think it should have been handled with unemployment...if still working then no money.

Didn’t get one but if I did no way I would refuse it.  Like I said, my problem is the billions sent to folks that are still working and not struggling.

But it wasn’t handled with unemployment. Because it’s not an unemployment issue. My question was “Is it fair that all taxpayers did not get one?...”

[WOSdrummer99]

I've been working this whole time and didn't really need a stimulus check. @baddog is right that this is our money. So I'm not going to refuse it. Imo, not all taxpayers need govt help. If you make around $2000 a week, how much help do you need? Is $1200 enough? Probably not, even though every dollar helps. There are also people who make millions each year, like the guy who owns the company I work for. I know he definitely does not need a stimulus check.

I have noticed the used cars parked in the usual places are a lot nicer than normal now. Mercedes, BMW, Audi, king ranch ford. Just need couple more free Gov't money checks and I'll see what I can do. My credit score must look great right about now.

[LumRaiderFan]

35 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

But it wasn’t handled with unemployment. Because it’s not an unemployment issue. My question was “Is it fair that all taxpayers did not get one?...”

That's my point...it was handled horribly and should have been dealt with through unemployment.

If you did not lose you job or have your hours cut, you should not have received a check.

I certainly don't feel entitled to one just because I am a taxpayer...yes, it is fair that not all got a check.

Checks should go to those that were negatively affected by the economy.

 

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

That's my point...it was handled horribly and should have been dealt with through unemployment.

If you did not lose you job or have your hours cut, you should not have received a check.

I certainly don't feel entitled to one just because I am a taxpayer...yes, it is fair that not all got a check.

Checks should go to those that were negatively affected by the economy.

 

Again, is it fair that all taxpayers don’t get one? Consider someone that has 2 kids in college he/she pays for, pays a mortgage, has a car note, pays into a retirement account so as not to depend on anyone when that day finally arrives. This individual has some credit card debt - nothing crazy - but another monthly payment all the same. Probably a lot less to go around at the end of the month than you might expect. Should that person get one?

[LumRaiderFan]

10 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Again, is it fair that all taxpayers don’t get one? Consider someone that has 2 kids in college he/she pays for, pays a mortgage, has a car note, pays into a retirement account so as not to depend on anyone when that day finally arrives. This individual has some credit card debt - nothing crazy - but another monthly payment all the same. Probably a lot less to go around at the end of the month than you might expect. Should that person get one?

Yep, it’s fair.

Fair would have been giving only those in need a check.

 

[stevenash]

When I listened to Mnuchin, I got the impression that they knew there would be some funds get into hands that didnt need them, but, for the sake of expeditious handling, the fewer the restrictions, the quicker the funds could reach their ultimate destination.    I am assuming his theory was that funds going to some who didnt need it was less harmful than a bureaucratic procedure that would delay distribution by 4 to 6 weeks.  The need for relief was/is immediate.  Regardless of who has them, the insertion of these funds into the economy will be helpful

[NetCat]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

When I listened to Mnuchin, I got the impression that they knew there would be some funds get into hands that didnt need them, but, for the sake of expeditious handling, the fewer the restrictions, the quicker the funds could reach their ultimate destination.    I am assuming his theory was that funds going to some who didnt need it was less harmful than a bureaucratic procedure that would delay distribution by 4 to 6 weeks.  The need for relief was/is immediate.  Regardless of who has them, the insertion of these funds into the economy will be helpful

+100

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

When I listened to Mnuchin, I got the impression that they knew there would be some funds get into hands that didnt need them, but, for the sake of expeditious handling, the fewer the restrictions, the quicker the funds could reach their ultimate destination.    I am assuming his theory was that funds going to some who didnt need it was less harmful than a bureaucratic procedure that would delay distribution by 4 to 6 weeks.  The need for relief was/is immediate.  Regardless of who has them, the insertion of these funds into the economy will be helpful

I have no doubt that pumping funds into the economy will be helpful but to what cost?  Nash, I understand this is your expertise, but should we expect the fed gov to step in and spend trillions everytime we have a correction.  

[stevenash]

If you are referring to stock market correction, absolutely not.    This is a case where the entire economy was forced to shut down.   Never happened before.  This was done to try and stave off thousands of bankruptcies and 25% unemployment.  The  combination of those two could do considerably more harm than the debt that will be incurred trying to avoid a depression (JMO)

[SmashMouth]

45 minutes ago, stevenash said:

If you are referring to stock market correction, absolutely not.    This is a case where the entire economy was forced to shut down.   Never happened before.  This was done to try and stave off thousands of bankruptcies and 25% unemployment.  The  combination of those two could do considerably more harm than the debt that will be incurred trying to avoid a depression (JMO)

Exactly the point I was making. It’s not a welfare check, it’s a bunch of money to stimulate the economy (hence “stimulus check”).  It’s an advance tax credit on your 2020 taxes. It’s also a way to appease the masses to take their collective minds off the bs at hand. If someone gets more than their 2020 tax return allows, it will not have to be paid back (unless they made too much). I guess if you make too much, you’re not deserving of a new pistol or the chance to help out your kids (that’s where mine e we oils have gone).

[LumRaiderFan]

57 minutes ago, stevenash said:

If you are referring to stock market correction, absolutely not.    This is a case where the entire economy was forced to shut down.   Never happened before.  This was done to try and stave off thousands of bankruptcies and 25% unemployment.  The  combination of those two could do considerably more harm than the debt that will be incurred trying to avoid a depression (JMO)

Seems to be once again, a problem not necessarily created but accelerated by the fed gov and they are somehow our only savior.  I look for this to happen more and more often.  We are becoming conditioned to having a federal safety net for all ills.

[SmashMouth]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Seems to be once again, a problem not necessarily created but accelerated by the fed gov and they are somehow our only savior.  I look for this to happen more and more often.  We are becoming conditioned to having a federal safety net for all ills.

Not saying I don’t agree with some of what you’re saying. But what would you suggest to do differently to try and stop the almost certain depression which may even still be around the corner?

[LumRaiderFan]

8 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Not saying I don’t agree with some of what you’re saying. But what would you suggest to do differently to try and stop the almost certain depression which may even still be around the corner?

First, not shut the entire country down to begin with...not everywhere is as close quartered as NYC.

I realize that ship has sailed, so hurry up and allow businesses to open.  I also trust that the folks running those business can open up with caution and common sense without having to be handheld by the gov.

I still think we could have better targeted who actually needed the money rather than pass it out to folks that are still working...again, I realize that ship has sailed.

I hope I am 100% wrong on the stimulus money and the economy comes back quickly in part because of it, but to your point about tough times possibly still around the corner, I am worried about that as well, especially with the latest events tied to crude oil.

I will add that I know it's easy to second guess actions after the fact...I can't imagine the pressure and scrutiny that our leadership is under right now.