• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McConnell Opposes $1,400 Stimulus Checks Because He Thinks People Could Stop Working

Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
13,406
Reaction score
8,258
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
McConnell Opposes $1,400 Stimulus Checks Because He Thinks People Could Stop Working


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday explained that he's opposing the $1,400 stimulus checks in President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion economic relief bill due to concerns that the payments could stop Americans from working.

In an interview with Fox News, McConnell predicted that Democrats will unite and soon push the American Rescue Plan through Congress.

"At the end of the day, my guess is they all fall in line and it'll pass, with every single Democrat for it and every single Republican against," he said.

Asked by host Martha MacCallum whether he thinks the $1,400 would prevent "some people from wanting to work," McConnell said that was a concern that informed his position to oppose the direct payments.


"There is a concern about making it more advantageous to stay home rather than going back to work," the Republican leader said. "If we could do it all over again, we—meaning Republicans—may offer an alternative that we think fits the situation. And it's considerably less than $1.9 trillion. Five, maybe $600 billion, which is still an enormous amount of money."

Source


++++++++++++++++++++

Yes I'm sure having one month of rent or less paid out in a check will make everyone stop working. What a clown.
 
l0fxcqnls7l61.jpg
 
Thinking about McConnell letting Trump slide while Trump declined to pursue charges against his wife.

The corrupt really is breathtaking.
 
Heavens forbid people in his poor state had a few hundred extra dollars in their pockets. They might buy their kids some toys or have a fully stocked fridge, maybe pay off some bills. Money which might go to pay other people, with main street jobs, stimulating the economy.

**** that noise. Let em eat cake. The debt matters again.

Woooooooo.
 
Mitch is just playing that side of the coin.
 
Ha. Democrats think $1400 is enough. Eff them. It wasn't enough in January when they swore they had the votes, now two months later it's even more pitiful.
 
Ha. Democrats think $1400 is enough. Eff them. It wasn't enough in January when they swore they had the votes, now two months later it's even more pitiful.

What would you like and can you link a similar position from another congressional politician?
 
What would you like and can you link a similar position from another congressional politician?
Overall I'd be fine without stimulus checks for everyone if they raised the unemployment checks (Even Trump got everyone $600 a week, and food and rent are not now 1/2 the price they were a year ago), and gave essential workers who showed up everyday during the pandemic, risking their lives (and the lives of their families) to keep the lights on and food on the shelves for the entire country a nice big stimulus check and 4 weeks mandatory vacation to enjoy it. Maybe 3 or 4 grand per worker, with survivorship benefits for any essential worker who died over the last year. The unemployed and essential workers are the ones who really need the stimulus, not people making $100k working from home who haven't had a paycut.

Otherwise if we're just paying everyone, $1,400 was January's number, and we're two months past that, so $2,500 is getting closer. Maybe $2,500 per adult and keep the $1,400 per dependent as a compromise.
 
McConnell Opposes $1,400 Stimulus Checks Because He Thinks People Could Stop Working


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday explained that he's opposing the $1,400 stimulus checks in President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion economic relief bill due to concerns that the payments could stop Americans from working.

In an interview with Fox News, McConnell predicted that Democrats will unite and soon push the American Rescue Plan through Congress.

"At the end of the day, my guess is they all fall in line and it'll pass, with every single Democrat for it and every single Republican against," he said.

Asked by host Martha MacCallum whether he thinks the $1,400 would prevent "some people from wanting to work," McConnell said that was a concern that informed his position to oppose the direct payments.


"There is a concern about making it more advantageous to stay home rather than going back to work," the Republican leader said. "If we could do it all over again, we—meaning Republicans—may offer an alternative that we think fits the situation. And it's considerably less than $1.9 trillion. Five, maybe $600 billion, which is still an enormous amount of money."

Source


++++++++++++++++++++

Yes I'm sure having one month of rent or less paid out in a check will make everyone stop working. What a clown.

Without refusing the handout from the Feds, Lord knows I want my as-yet-unissued-new-Trump-Check, the NEED for these checks was in the fall of 2020. Antsy Nancy withheld the help when the help was needed.

Indiana, where I live is currently enjoying a 4.3% unemployment rate. Indiana is STILL not fully opened up and STILL has a mask Mandate in place.

This government created crisis is over despite the ongoing efforts from the government to extend it.

 
Overall I'd be fine without stimulus checks for everyone if they raised the unemployment checks

They did.

Even Trump got everyone $600 a week

Trump didn't do anything. The unemployment supplement has been opposed by the GOP from the time it started. It was just a means of compromising to get funding for small business.

food and rent are not now 1/2 the price they were a year ago

This is not the case.

Rent and food CPI data are readily available for anyone who wishes to learn. The question i have for you is, why post stuff you were unaware of as if it was a matter of fact?

gave essential workers who showed up everyday during the pandemic, risking their lives (and the lives of their families) to keep the lights on and food on the shelves for the entire country a nice big stimulus check and 4 weeks mandatory vacation to enjoy it.

Who do you consider essential? Is the bouncer at the local South Florida strip club mandatory?

Maybe 3 or 4 grand per worker

Depending on how broad your definition of essential is, that amounts to around $430 billion (143 million total employment * $3000). Current stimulus checks will only cost around $230 billion.

Nevertheless, economic stimulus in this sense would be quite inefficient because the people working are the least needy on a relative basis. Who, besides the unemployed and struggling businesses has been harmed economically?

with survivorship benefits for any essential worker who died over the last year.

How much and for how long? Again... who is considered essential?

The unemployed and essential workers are the ones who really need the stimulus, not people making $100k working from home who haven't had a paycut.

People making $100k and up wont get much if any stimulus. Again... this should be common knowledge for anyone discussing the topic.

While we have some room for agreement, this just sounds like a wishlist and nothing for which considerable thought has been taken. However, it seems to me your proposal would cost way way more than what's currently making its way through Congress.
 
McConnell can't give the true answers in that there isn't enough pork going to the GOP pet projects. But this take about how $1400 will skyrocket American incomes to the point that people will stop working is probably the worst take imaginable.

You'd think he'd at least come up with a better excuse. I don't think he could have given a worse reason.
 
McConnell Opposes $1,400 Stimulus Checks Because He Thinks People Could Stop Working


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday explained that he's opposing the $1,400 stimulus checks in President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion economic relief bill due to concerns that the payments could stop Americans from working.

In an interview with Fox News, McConnell predicted that Democrats will unite and soon push the American Rescue Plan through Congress.

"At the end of the day, my guess is they all fall in line and it'll pass, with every single Democrat for it and every single Republican against," he said.

Asked by host Martha MacCallum whether he thinks the $1,400 would prevent "some people from wanting to work," McConnell said that was a concern that informed his position to oppose the direct payments.


"There is a concern about making it more advantageous to stay home rather than going back to work," the Republican leader said. "If we could do it all over again, we—meaning Republicans—may offer an alternative that we think fits the situation. And it's considerably less than $1.9 trillion. Five, maybe $600 billion, which is still an enormous amount of money."

Source


++++++++++++++++++++

Yes I'm sure having one month of rent or less paid out in a check will make everyone stop working. What a clown.
Send me a check. Hell send me a couple of checks. If we don't take it they will just crash the housing market or something and give it to the bankers. Oh and send the bill to my children and grandchildren. A legacy they will never forget. ;)
 
They did.



Trump didn't do anything. The unemployment supplement has been opposed by the GOP from the time it started. It was just a means of compromising to get funding for small business.



This is not the case.

Rent and food CPI data are readily available for anyone who wishes to learn. The question i have for you is, why post stuff you were unaware of as if it was a matter of fact?



Who do you consider essential? Is the bouncer at the local South Florida strip club mandatory?



Depending on how broad your definition of essential is, that amounts to around $430 billion (143 million total employment * $3000). Current stimulus checks will only cost around $230 billion.

Nevertheless, economic stimulus in this sense would be quite inefficient because the people working are the least needy on a relative basis. Who, besides the unemployed and struggling businesses has been harmed economically?



How much and for how long? Again... who is considered essential?



People making $100k and up wont get much if any stimulus. Again... this should be common knowledge for anyone discussing the topic.

While we have some room for agreement, this just sounds like a wishlist and nothing for which considerable thought has been taken. However, it seems to me your proposal would cost way way more than what's currently making its way through Congress.
Wait... does your chart show that food and rent has dropped 50% in the last year? I think you are misreading your chart, because the one you linked does not show a 50% decline in prices...
 
"There is a concern about making it more advantageous to stay home rather than going back to work," the Republican leader said. "If we could do it all over again, we—meaning Republicans—may offer an alternative that we think fits the situation. And it's considerably less than $1.9 trillion. Five, maybe $600 billion, which is still an enormous amount of money."
Yes those lazy poor people are going to quit working and live high on the hog on a one-time payment of $1400. Sheesh. Why does anyone vote for these clowns?
 
Maybe McConnell would appreciate their work ethic more if they ignored their jobs while day trading off inside information all week long.
 
McConnell's argument is an old Republican dying argument.

(But I still contend that $15 is a politically determined amount devoid of any economic reasoning. No one can tell me why that is the number we should be going with and that is rather disappointing. By most economic math, application against the common basket of goods and services, and accounting for averages across the nation we end up somewhere in the $21 to $24 range.)
 
Last edited:
They did.



Trump didn't do anything. The unemployment supplement has been opposed by the GOP from the time it started. It was just a means of compromising to get funding for small business.



This is not the case.

Rent and food CPI data are readily available for anyone who wishes to learn. The question i have for you is, why post stuff you were unaware of as if it was a matter of fact?



Who do you consider essential? Is the bouncer at the local South Florida strip club mandatory?



Depending on how broad your definition of essential is, that amounts to around $430 billion (143 million total employment * $3000). Current stimulus checks will only cost around $230 billion.

Nevertheless, economic stimulus in this sense would be quite inefficient because the people working are the least needy on a relative basis. Who, besides the unemployed and struggling businesses has been harmed economically?



How much and for how long? Again... who is considered essential?



People making $100k and up wont get much if any stimulus. Again... this should be common knowledge for anyone discussing the topic.

While we have some room for agreement, this just sounds like a wishlist and nothing for which considerable thought has been taken. However, it seems to me your proposal would cost way way more than what's currently making its way through Congress.
A: No, unemployment checks were slashed. Last year there was $600/week benefit, the original bill this year had $400 and they decided to lower that to $300 a week. Crumbs, for the most desperate people who are unemployed and need the most assistance. Awful.

B: Already addressed this, but your source does not show a 50% decline in rent and food prices over the past year. I'm not sure why you are arguing that prices have dropped so much when there is clear evidence to the contrary, but if you post a source I'd love to see it.

C: Essential workers under his plan would encompass those that :
1: can't work from home/remotely,
2: worked at businesses that did not close at all during any lock down. Firefighters, Emts, Doctors, Police officers, hospital workers, grocery store workers, truck drivers, power plant employees, air traffic controllers, food processing plant employees, garbage collectors, toilet paper manufacturers etc etc. If the bouncer in question was required to show up to every shift because his place of employment was deemed essential and did not have reduced capacity or temporary closures, then sure, cut her a check.

D: What's wrong with stimulus checks to the people who literally risked their lives, and the lives of their families, to keep this country running while others sat at home in their sweat pants logging into their work server from their laptop? Does everyone really need the exact same amount of support, no matter their risk or effort or financial situation?

E: If broad stimulus is so ineffective, why has each relief bill contained broad stimulus to working people? This current bill cuts $1,400 checks to everybody, working or not. It'd be better and cheaper to focus on giving more money to the unemployed and small businesses, reward and stimulate essential workers who worked outside the home during the pandemic and let employed persons enjoy their paychecks and vacation time. Focus the money on where it would do good rather than splash it around at couples making 6 figures with no loss of income.

F: Survivorship benefits: Let's say any deaths from March 1, 2020 to September 1, 2021. That's when UE benefits run out from this bill, so that seems fair.

F: None of this would replace any other small business programs, health insurance changes, tax law changes etc etc. that are in the current bill. Simply redirect stimulus funds to those that need it most and increase unemployment benefits to the most desperate and most effected people.

Edit: Sorry for the formatting, I'm on mobile, I apologize if my reply is confusing due to the style I posted it in.
 
Last edited:
Yes those lazy poor people are going to quit working and live high on the hog on a one-time payment of $1400. Sheesh. Why does anyone vote for these clowns?

McConnell can't give the true answers in that there isn't enough pork going to the GOP pet projects. But this take about how $1400 will skyrocket American incomes to the point that people will stop working is probably the worst take imaginable.



You'd think he'd at least come up with a better excuse. I don't think he could have given a worse reason.



To be fair, there's a reason the Democrats slashed the unemployment benefits in this bill compared to last year...
 
A: No, unemployment checks were slashed. Last year there was $600/week benefit, the original bill this year had $400 and they decided to lower that to $300 a week. Crumbs, for the most desperate people who are unemployed and need the most assistance. Awful.

B: Already addressed this, but your source does not show a 50% decline in rent and food prices over the past year. I'm not sure why you are arguing that prices have dropped so much when there is clear evidence to the contrary, but if you post a source I'd love to see it.

C: Essential workers under his plan would encompass those that :
1: can't work from home/remotely,
2: worked at businesses that did not close at all during any lock down. Firefighters, Emts, Doctors, Police officers, hospital workers, grocery store workers, truck drivers, power plant employees, air traffic controllers, food processing plant employees, garbage collectors, toilet paper manufacturers etc etc. If the bouncer in question was required to show up to every shift because his place of employment was deemed essential and did not have reduced capacity or temporary closures, then sure, cut her a check.

D: What's wrong with stimulus checks to the people who literally risked their lives, and the lives of their families, to keep this country running while others sat at home in their sweat pants logging into their work server from their laptop? Does everyone really need the exact same amount of support, no matter their risk or effort or financial situation?

E: If broad stimulus is so ineffective, why has each relief bill contained broad stimulus to working people? This current bill cuts $1,400 checks to everybody, working or not. It'd be better and cheaper to focus on giving more money to the unemployed and small businesses, reward and stimulate essential workers who worked outside the home during the pandemic and let employed persons enjoy their paychecks and vacation time. Focus the money on where it would do good rather than splash it around at couples making 6 figures with no loss of income.

F: Survivorship benefits: Let's say any deaths from March 1, 2020 to September 1, 2021. That's when UE benefits run out from this bill, so that seems fair.

F: None of this would replace any other small business programs, health insurance changes, tax law changes etc etc. that are in the current bill. Simply redirect stimulus funds to those that need it most and increase unemployment benefits to the most desperate and most effected people.

The plan was as good as a 50/50 senate was going to allow. What can you do when at least 50 senators have no intention of voting through any covid relief.

Bill is actually pretty great, and helps so many.
 
The plan was as good as a 50/50 senate was going to allow. What can you do when at least 50 senators have no intention of voting through any covid relief.

Bill is actually pretty great, and helps so many.
It's pretty garbage, and is far too little too late, but it's certainly better than nothing. Democrats keep promising they'll do better when they control Congress and the Presidency, then biff hard when given the chance.

It's a good bill if one looks at what there was before; it is bad when one looks at what a great bill could have been with small changes and additions to this one.
 
It'pretty garbage, and is far too little too late, but it's certainly better than nothing. Democrats keep promising they'll do better when they control Congress and the Presidency, then biff hard when given the chance.

It's a good bill if one looks at what there was before; it is bad when one looks at what a great bill could have been with small changes and additions to this one.

...except for the massive 1.9T relief bill they just passed, I guess you have a point.
 
Capitalism requires a work force that will, as a maximum, work for wages that just meet the Iron Law. That, however, leaves no excess for the owners/stockholders and the executives in the upper echelons. So ... workers have to work for less than the Iron Law limit. How much less depends upon the moneys desired by the afore-mentioned groups. In today's modern capitalism, with its upward redistribution of wealth, it's a lot less. Additional inducements are needed, like, well, er, you know, a little starvation.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
Back
Top Bottom