Covid-19 Legislation

[JJ Husker]

Jeebus effin Krist...

Can nobody read anymore?

Ive said all I’m going to about it. I can’t help it if people are going to ignore most of it just so they can act like they’re the only ones that really get it. F me.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

I guess I don't have a problem with this. Banks (and others) are waiving payments, interest etc., so if some of this goes towards paying debt, that should have already been paid  People still need to pay their debts and bills or file for bankruptcy protection. Kind of sucks for those that may need the payments for other things but there is a lesson here.

Maybe it's the banks that need a lesson, so we should stop bailing them out. And make them take responsibility for all of the loans they have out. Lending and debt is a two way street.

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Maybe it's the banks that need a lesson, so we should stop bailing them out. And make them take responsibility for all of the loans they have out. Lending and debt is a two way street.

 

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Do you really not understand the difference between getting money to people and banks confiscating that money? Banks that are being bailed out already.

My confusion stems from this poor interpretation of anything I have said.

One question- what did I say at any point that makes you think I don’t understand the difference between getting money to people and banks confiscating that money? And yes, I know, banks are already being bailed out. The last thing this specific money should be used for is to help them collect even more of their bad debt.

 

And I agree, banks need to take it in the shorts when they make questionable loans. It’s like they learned nothing when the housing bubble burst.

 

My point was to acknowledge the reality of our corrupt and uncaring government. They don’t give a sh#t about the people who really need this money. That’s easy enough to figure out simply by noting how tough it was to even get the $1200 pittance for the common citizen and the multi billions of dollars that easily flows to their biggest contributors and large corporations. But yeah, shoot me, I also think people need to be a little smarter by not committing dollars they don’t have and by at least saving up enough to get them through a few weeks of hard times.

 

Now go ahead and pull that one sentence out and make a big show of how cruel and inhuman I must be.

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

...but you also said that "but there is a lesson here"

 

If you think NOW is the time for a lesson to be taught to people who aren't as fiscally responsible as some...just wow dude.  That's what really got me going...

You’re right about this. This is not the time to suggest that this is time for a lesson. My bad.

[RedDenver]

23 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

My confusion stems from this poor interpretation of anything I have said.

One question- what did I say at any point that makes you think I don’t understand the difference between getting money to people and banks confiscating that money? And yes, I know, banks are already being bailed out. The last thing this specific money should be used for is to help them collect even more of their bad debt.

 

And I agree, banks need to take it in the shorts when they make questionable loans. It’s like they learned nothing when the housing bubble burst.

 

My point was to acknowledge the reality of our corrupt and uncaring government. They don’t give a sh#t about the people who really need this money. That’s easy enough to figure out simply by noting how tough it was to even get the $1200 pittance for the common citizen and the multi billions of dollars that easily flows to their biggest contributors and large corporations. But yeah, shoot me, I also think people need to be a little smarter by not committing dollars they don’t have and by at least saving up enough to get them through a few weeks of hard times.

 

Now go ahead and pull that one sentence out and make a big show of how cruel and inhuman I must be.

Thanks for the explanation. That definitely wasn't what I thought you were saying the first time.

[RedDenver]

 

[teachercd]

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

Yes!

 

No baggage fees!

 

Free drinks!

 

I don't smoke, but how about a smoking section on planes again!

[Landlord]

42 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

You’re right about this. This is not the time to suggest that this is time for a lesson. My bad.

 

 

 

Pretty sure that one sentence was the only thing making people take it a way other than you intended. It came across as your only focus on wrongdoing was the people struggling who haven't been 100% responsible with their money while ignoring the bad behavior of the powerful entities at play.

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

Pretty sure that one sentence was the only thing making people take it a way other than you intended. It came across as your only focus on wrongdoing was the people struggling who haven't been 100% responsible with their money while ignoring the bad behavior of the powerful entities at play.

Well I sure didn't intend it that way and that's not the way I feel. It was probably just extremely poor timing on my part to wish out loud that more people wouldn't get into that type of predicament. There sure isn't anyone in Washington who is going to look out for them. I suppose that could be taken as me being okay with them getting screwed over but, like I've said, that wasn't the intent.

 

Edit- Okay, I reread my post. I sure didn't say it very well. My bad. There are some people who I expect a bad reaction from. Let's just say I got overly defensive, quickly, based on who the complaint was coming from.

[Moiraine]

The only way any bank is actually going to do this is if things get seriously desperate and banks start going under.

[BigRedBuster]

Nice ego a$$h@!e. 
 

 

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Nice ego a$$h@!e. 
 

 

This is an all time low. There just aren't words left to describe what an incredibly bad person he is. His ego is off the charts high, his respect for others off the chart low.  For his ego, there will be a delay in sending out checks.  And to think the dufus wanted to formerly sign the checks himself.  Amendment 25 begs to be called out here.  

Here is more on the story from this article:

https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Coming-to-your-1-200-relief-check-Donald-J-15201100.php

Quote

It will be the first time a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one.

 

Quote

 

tRump had privately suggested to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who oversees the IRS, to allow the president to formally sign the checks, according to three administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

But the president is not an authorized signer for legal disbursements by the U.S. Treasury. It is standard practice for a civil servant to sign checks issued by the Treasury Department to ensure that government payments are nonpartisan.

 

 

 

Quote

Computer code must be changed to include the president's name, and the system must be tested, these officials said. "Any last-minute request like this will create a downstream snarl that will result in a delay," said Chad Hooper, a quality-control manager who serves as national president of the IRS's Professional Managers Association.

Quote

 

Trump has repeatedly called the legislation "a Trump administration initiative" and placed himself singularly at the center of what the government is doing to help Americans during the coronavirus response - taking full credit.

About six months before he faces reelection, with his campaign on pause because the virus has prevented him from holding the rallies that are popular with his base, the checks provide Trump with a new form of retail politics. A check provides a touchable, bread-and-butter symbol to taxpayers right in their mailboxes.

But to critics and some IRS employees, many of whom started to learn of the decision on Tuesday, the presence of Trump's name on the checks reeks of partisanship in a corner of the government that touches all Americans and has, since the Nixon era, steadfastly steered clear of politics. After President Richard Nixon targeted a wide range of "enemy" groups for tax audits, including civil rights groups, reporters and prominent Democrats, Congress enacted laws to ensure that the agency conducts itself apolitically.

"Taxes are supposed to be nonpolitical, and it's that simple," said Nina Olson, who stepped down last fall after an 18-year tenure as the National Taxpayer Advocate, leading an arm of the IRS that helps individual taxpayers resolve tax problems, manages clinics for low-income taxpayers and advises the agency on service issues.

"It's absolutely unprecedented," Olson said.

She recalled that when the Bush administration delivered economic rebate checks of $300 to $600 to taxpayers in 2001 to share the benefits of a strong economy, the White House asked the IRS to include in a letter to taxpayers a sentence that took credit for "giving you your money back."

The IRS commissioner at the time refused, Olson recalled, because the move was perceived as too political.

When the Bush administration launched its $168 billion economic stimulus package in 2008, the checks were signed by a treasury official.

Only the IRS commissioner and general counsel are politically appointed. The current, Trump-appointed commissioner, Charles Rettig, a tax attorney confirmed by the Senate in 2018, was appointed to a five-year term designed to carry over into a possible new administration.

Hooper, of the Professional Managers Association, said he was appalled by what he called "an abuse of government resources."

"In this time of need for additional resources," Hooper said, "anything that takes our focus from getting those checks out the door and hampers the equitable, fair administration of the tax code is not something we can support."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has dismissed suggestions about Trump signing checks or having his name attached. Last week she said the payments should go out as quickly as possible without "waiting for a fancy-Dan letter from the president."

 

 

[commando]

will we have to sign an NDA to cash these checks?

[commando]

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

The only way any bank is actually going to do this is if things get seriously desperate and banks start going under.

the checks are designed to give aid to people  in need.....not to be another bank bailout.  but....the question must have been asked so i bet some banks will exploit this.

[Moiraine]

45 minutes ago, commando said:

the checks are designed to give aid to people  in need.....not to be another bank bailout.  but....the question must have been asked so i bet some banks will exploit this.

 

 

I don't think the banks should have ever been bailed out, and I don't think they should be able to do this, but to call this a bailout is incorrect. This is money people owe them and wouldn't be paid by taxes.