Agreement on another relief bill?

[grip]

How long do you think 30+ million unemployed will last without extended benefits? I'd say only a couple of months before they start to miss bills and become evicted. The GOP says 'get a job' but there aren't many, especially that suit the currently unemployed. I think by January we'll start to see the beginning of the full financial impact from the economic downturn.

Pelosi reportedly told House Democrats that Congress likely won't come to an agreement on another pandemic relief bill until next week

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told House Democrats that Congress will likely not come to an agreement on another pandemic relief package until next week or mid-August.

House Democrats, Senate Republicans, and the White House have been at a standstill in ongoing negotiations over another stimulus package, particularly over the issue of the now-expired federal unemployment insurance.

 

[Chomsky]

As usual, the Repubs screw everything up, then leave the incoming Dem to spend his administration cleaning-up after them. We Just saw this with G.W. / Obama. But I must admit, with Trump they found a superlative screwer-upper. It's going to take several terms to recover from him.

 

[Drawdown]

How long do you think 30+ million unemployed will last without extended benefits? I'd say only a couple of months before they start to miss bills and become evicted. The GOP says 'get a job' but there aren't many, especially that suit the currently unemployed. I think by January we'll start to see the beginning of the full financial impact from the economic downturn.

Normal beneft for most people is 50% wages. The GOP wants 75% wages. The democrats want $600/a week plus 50% wages which for most people would be a pay raise. Where it ends up, don't know. I think the GOP is being more reasonable than the DNC though. As for the financial impacts, they are fine with me. We need to constrain our standard of living for the good of the planet.

 

[Exquisitor]

As usual, the Repubs screw everything up, then leave the incoming Dem to spend his administration cleaning-up after them. We Just saw this with G.W. / Obama. But I must admit, with Trump they found a superlative screwer-upper. It's going to take several terms to recover from him.

No, as soon as Biden, he has two weeks to straighten it up or we're all going to go Reprobate in the midterms.

 

[Exquisitor]

Normal beneft for most people is 50% wages. The GOP wants 75% wages. The democrats want $600/a week plus 50% wages which for most people would be a pay raise. Where it ends up, don't know. I think the GOP is being more reasonable than the DNC though. As for the financial impacts, they are fine with me. We need to constrain our standard of living for the good of the planet.

Time for sackcloth and ashes.

 

[grip]

Normal beneft for most people is 50% wages. The GOP wants 75% wages. The democrats want $600/a week plus 50% wages which for most people would be a pay raise. Where it ends up, don't know. I think the GOP is being more reasonable than the DNC though. As for the financial impacts, they are fine with me. We need to constrain our standard of living for the good of the planet.

The way our economy is fashioned is that we either grow or recede. And if go back too far, we get caught in financial quicksand. It's very to get back up monetarily once you lose too much. The DNC is asking too much but the GOP are not too eager to compromise either.

 

[Drawdown]

The way our economy is fashioned is that we either grow or recede. And if go back too far, we get caught in financial quicksand. It's very to get back up monetarily once you lose too much. The DNC is asking too much but the GOP are not too eager to compromise either.

The GOP is divided between those who will do 75% and those who want zero so sometimes taking what you can get or getting even less or nothing is all you are choosing between.

 

[grip]

The GOP is divided between those who will do 75% and those who want zero so sometimes taking what you can get or getting even less or nothing is all you are choosing between.

Trust me, they'll come to an agreement on this. If they don't, it's political suicide for them both and who knows what it'll do to social stability.

 

[Drawdown]

Trust me, they'll come to an agreement on this. If they don't, it's political suicide for them both and who knows what it'll do to social stability.

They will eventually but since both sides have their cult, they really can blame the other and get a free pass if push comes to shove

 

[Napoleon]

How long do you think 30+ million unemployed will last without extended benefits? I'd say only a couple of months before they start to miss bills and become evicted. The GOP says 'get a job' but there aren't many, especially that suit the currently unemployed. I think by January we'll start to see the beginning of the full financial impact from the economic downturn.

For the first time, the number receiving benefits is not equal to the number of unemployed because of the expanded criteria in the CARES Act. Some of the people receiving benefits are still employed and still working. It’s always nigh impossible to eliminate an entitlement once the gravy train starts rolling. I don’t think we should be creating an entitlement to workers’ labor as a source of expendable income for the unemployed. It’s not like no one ever survived on State benefits alone.

 

[Kushinator]

Trust me, they'll come to an agreement on this. If they don't, it's political suicide for them both and who knows what it'll do to social stability.

Absolutely!!! Who will 30 million unemployed people want to view for... The guy offering $100 per week or the guy offering $600?

It's just political posturing at the expense of the economy, which is counter intuitive given the motivation behind acting in the first place.

 

[jaeger19]

Absolutely!!! Who will 30 million unemployed people want to view for... The guy offering $100 per week or the guy offering $600?

It's just political posturing at the expense of the economy, which is counter intuitive given the motivation behind acting in the first place.

And its stupid.

For 1. Any employer out there that claims.. "my workers won;t come back because they make more on unemployment"..is full of crap.. because if the employer offers an employee work..and they REFUSE.. in most states thats an end to ALL unemployment benefits.

For 2. IF there are a tremendous number of jobs out there for people to go get... but people are refusing to take them..then wages should be going up.. as employers compete for a smaller pool of workers willing to work...but wages aren't going up.. and thats because there aren;t the jobs.

The 600 dollars a week is what is doing the most good for the economy by keeping demand for goods and services up. All the other benefits to companies pretty much pales in comparison to that benefit

 

[Mycroft]

This is why we won't get an agreement.

Pelosi names her price on the coronavirus relief bill and it HUUUUGGGGEEEE…. – The Right Scoop

 

[Mycroft]

And its stupid.

For 1. Any employer out there that claims.. "my workers won;t come back because they make more on unemployment"..is full of crap.. because if the employer offers an employee work..and they REFUSE.. in most states thats an end to ALL unemployment benefits.

For 2. IF there are a tremendous number of jobs out there for people to go get... but people are refusing to take them..then wages should be going up.. as employers compete for a smaller pool of workers willing to work...but wages aren't going up.. and thats because there aren;t the jobs.

The 600 dollars a week is what is doing the most good for the economy by keeping demand for goods and services up. All the other benefits to companies pretty much pales in comparison to that benefit

1. In many cases, the state doesn't find out that workers have refused to go back to their old jobs. In Colorado, at least, there is no requirement for those employers to report the refusal to the state. And even if the employer reports the worker's refusal, it's a long process to terminate benefits.

2. The jobs are there, but the employers can't just raise wages to match that $600/wk from the feds...especially with their business stifled by their governors.

 

[jaeger19]

1. In many cases, the state doesn't find out that workers have refused to go back to their old jobs. In Colorado, at least, there is no requirement for those employers to report the refusal to the state. And even if the employer reports the worker's refusal, it's a long process to terminate benefits.

2. The jobs are there, but the employers can't just raise wages to match that $600/wk from the feds...especially with their business stifled by their governors.

Please define "long". Because I have had employees who were terminated from benefits within two weeks of a refusal. Colorado actual has a website where you can report a refusal to work. And I believe the state could ask for restitution.

2. IF the jobs were there.. then you would still see employers raise wages. They would have to to try and get workers back. THE REASON they can;t raise wages.. is because their business is stifled.. and thats why they are laying off workers. You can;t have it both ways.. you can;t claim that businesses are booming and need workers.. and on the other hand.. businesses are being "Stifled"..

Sorry but its simply a disconnect to believe that the economy is doing so well. there there are tons of jobs out there and its the 600 dollars thats causing people to not go back to work.

 

[jaeger19]

This is why we won't get an agreement.

Pelosi names her price on the coronavirus relief bill and it HUUUUGGGGEEEE…. – The Right Scoop

Whats the terms of the two bills? Did you think about that?

 

[Mycroft]

Please define "long". Because I have had employees who were terminated from benefits within two weeks of a refusal. Colorado actual has a website where you can report a refusal to work. And I believe the state could ask for restitution.

2. IF the jobs were there.. then you would still see employers raise wages. They would have to to try and get workers back. THE REASON they can;t raise wages.. is because their business is stifled.. and thats why they are laying off workers. You can;t have it both ways.. you can;t claim that businesses are booming and need workers.. and on the other hand.. businesses are being "Stifled"..

Sorry but its simply a disconnect to believe that the economy is doing so well. there there are tons of jobs out there and its the 600 dollars thats causing people to not go back to work.

"long" means it doesn't happen immediately after the state receives a report and there is no guarantee there will be a report even if there is a website. It's hard to get restitution from a turnip.

I didn't say that business is "booming", but we DO know that business is being stifled.

 

[Mycroft]

Whats the terms of the two bills? Did you think about that?

Doesn't matter.

For sure, Nancy has loaded the House bill with something for everyone and their uncle. That's why it costs so much.

Of course, she won't let anyone cut the money to the uncle and that's why there won't be an agreement.

Tell me...do YOU think spending $3.4 Trillion...that we don't have...is a good thing? I don't. I think Congress should dial back the spending. Heck, I think the Republican Senate's $1 Trillion is too much on top of the Trillions Congress has already spent.

 

[jaeger19]

"long" means it doesn't happen immediately after the state receives a report and there is no guarantee there will be a report even if there is a website. It's hard to get restitution from a turnip.

I didn't say that business is "booming", but we DO know that business is being stifled.

So.. the reality is that reduced benefits could happen within two weeks of receiving it. And if an employer is upset that a person won;t come back to work.. and are complaining that the 600 needs to be taken away.. why wouldn;t they be reporting when a worker refuses work.

The reality is that the economy is down. Now.. if all these people were making more money than they would working..the economy should be booming.

 

[jaeger19]

Doesn't matter.

For sure, Nancy has loaded the House bill with something for everyone and their uncle. That's why it costs so much.

Of course, she won't let anyone cut the money to the uncle and that's why there won't be an agreement.

Tell me...do YOU think spending $3.4 Trillion...that we don't have...is a good thing? I don't. I think Congress should dial back the spending. Heck, I think the Republican Senate's $1 Trillion is too much on top of the Trillions Congress has already spent.

Sure the timing matters. 3.4 trillion spent over the next four years.. is different than 1 trillion spent in the next 6months. Thats a big difference and could make a lot more sense versus having a budget fight every 6 months.

Do I think spending 3.4 trillion that we don;t have is a good thing? Yes.. when we are looking down the barrel of a depression.. yes.. yes I do. Because spending money now appropriately.. would and could save us trillions down the road if the economy tanks and we get in a prolonged downturn.

Now.. when was spending NOT such a good idea? When the economy was running well..and we decided.. "gee we need a tax cut".. for no reason.. and ended up going into a deeper deficit. thats when it didn;t make sense to spend... and yet... not a peep for the so called conservatives.

there is a time when it makes sense to deficit spend. Anyone in business knows that... that time is now...

The time NOT to deficit spend.. is when its not needed.. when you decide to add debt.. for no good reason other than political points.

 

[Mycroft]

So.. the reality is that reduced benefits could happen within two weeks of receiving it. And if an employer is upset that a person won;t come back to work.. and are complaining that the 600 needs to be taken away.. why wouldn;t they be reporting when a worker refuses work.

The reality is that the economy is down. Now.. if all these people were making more money than they would working..the economy should be booming.

You appear to be making assumptions.

1. I really don't know what you are talking about here. "the reality is that reduced benefits could happen within two weeks of receiving it" Receiving what? What does that "it" refer to?

2. Who says that employers are complaining about the $600? In any case, I can think of a few reasons why they wouldn't report employees. Perhaps they just don't want to rat the employee out.

3. You seem to think that people having money equals a booming economy. Demand is only a part of the economy. Supply is the other part. The supply is getting hammered by various government actions...shutting down business, excessive fed unemployment, etc.

 

[Mycroft]

Sure the timing matters. 3.4 trillion spent over the next four years.. is different than 1 trillion spent in the next 6months. Thats a big difference and could make a lot more sense versus having a budget fight every 6 months.

Do I think spending 3.4 trillion that we don;t have is a good thing? Yes.. when we are looking down the barrel of a depression.. yes.. yes I do. Because spending money now appropriately.. would and could save us trillions down the road if the economy tanks and we get in a prolonged downturn.

Now.. when was spending NOT such a good idea? When the economy was running well..and we decided.. "gee we need a tax cut".. for no reason.. and ended up going into a deeper deficit. thats when it didn;t make sense to spend... and yet... not a peep for the so called conservatives.

there is a time when it makes sense to deficit spend. Anyone in business knows that... that time is now...

The time NOT to deficit spend.. is when its not needed.. when you decide to add debt.. for no good reason other than political points.

But we don't HAVE to spend all that money. The economy was doing great before the governors shut everything down. It was growing. Wages were growing. Manufacturing was growing. Hell, even the stock market was growing.

No...Trillions in government spending...Trillions we don't have...is not the solution. Letting people get on with their lives is the solution.

The government creating a depression and then saying that's why we need to spend Trillions we don't have is just about the most dumbass thing the government can ever do to their citizens. And that's exactly what our government is doing right now.

 

[PirateMk1]

How long do you think 30+ million unemployed will last without extended benefits? I'd say only a couple of months before they start to miss bills and become evicted. The GOP says 'get a job' but there aren't many, especially that suit the currently unemployed. I think by January we'll start to see the beginning of the full financial impact from the economic downturn.

The Republicans are playing the same game as the Democrats in reverse. They are not going to pass a bill for as long as they can to pressure the states into opening up. The previous bill gave the states cushion. Now they dont have cushion and are being harmed directly by their actions. Its now a game of chicken.

 

[grip]

They will eventually but since both sides have their cult, they really can blame the other and get a free pass if push comes to shove

I don't see the public or even corporations giving Congress a free pass for exploding the economy over partisan bickering.

 

[Peter]

You also didn't have a $1T to give to the ultra rich who don't need it but Trump did it anyway.