Quote:
Originally Posted by bcredliner
The house passed the Care act in March I believe it was. The Senate refused to take it to the floor or negotiate with the House.
|
True. But they knew it would never pass the Senate. That was after the Republicans were trying to negotiate with the Dems on a bill. The Dems wanted 3+ trillion (if memory serves) and the Republicans wanted 800 billion (again if memory serves). The republicans came up to 1.1 trillion? Neither side wanted to budge after that and the House passed the
HEROES act.
Edit: I confused the CARES act with the HEROES act so I edited the above. The CARES act was bipartisan and passed by both the House and Senate on March 6, 2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVB-AMG
I have to disagree with you. I believe that the ideal approach would to extend the financial benefits to those people who are still unemployed and not just hand out $600 to everyone under a certain income level, regardless of whether or not they are employed. Most folks who are employed do not truly need the financial assistance at taxpayers expense, whereas those who are unemployed and will have their benefits cut off towards the end of this year, really do need the extension of the funds.
|
And I'd have to disagree with you. But that's the beauty of America. As a family who did not
NEED the first stimulus check, I can tell you it helped greatly. We were able to purchase a curriculum for homeschooling our daughter, do a small remodel do provide a school station for her, and a playground set that my wife and I built for the kids since they obviously could not go to public parks anymore. So, as with most in our tax bracket who qualified for checks, all of that money went back into the economy to support businesses and a school system. Without the stimulus we still would have bought a curriculum obviously, but would not have built a desk/study center for her, and certainly not bought the play set as it didn't fit into the budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
Can someone please explain why Joel Osteen’s Houston megachurch received $4.4 million in PPP funds??? I don't get it.
|
PPP being used as cheap/free loans. This has been reported on over and over again. Some companies who make the press are guilted into the returning the money, but most fly under the radar.
Edit: BTW, those PPP loans are perfectly legitimate/legal. They did not do anything unlawful accepting those loans. From Osteen to Tom Brady they were qualified to take those loans under the letter of the law. I just think it's a stupid law designed to aid large businesses get cheap cash under the guise of helping employees. 500 employees is a lot of people and hardly what I would call a small business. Besides that, small businesses in the form we think of traditionally, mom and pop shops/strip mall businesses, and restaurants aren't helped by the loans as much. Their employees were typically making lower wages and would make more money on unemployment so chose not to stay with the business. I have family who did exactly this.
Again, ^ all of that stupidity could be avoided by giving the money directly to tax-payers. Some napkin math: 180 million tax payers * 2000/month for 6 months = $2.16 trillion. That's quite a bit less than the ~$3.5 trillion that the 4 coronavirus related bills have cost tax payers so far. And I just looked it up, there are only ~145 million tax payers so the savings would be even greater.