Bernie: Mitch McConnell is "worried" about giving a $2,000 check to someone who "doesn't need it."

[melman]

Last edited Thu Dec 31, 2020, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Blue Owl]

1. It's not working, Mitch

We see through your fake bullshit hypocrisy...

[bdamomma]

25. Hopefully

Georgians will continue to vote in record numbers we need a win win here

In for Ossof and Warnock, and out of Majority Speaker role for Mitch.

Wouldn't that be so fitting.

[mucifer]

2. Bernie gave a great speech. I doubt it will convince the press who will say "Congress can't agree on

how to increase the stimulus so you are all screwed".

[rickyhall]

3. Turtle doesn't get the point of the stimulus. I guess senators don't need brains after all.

[Irish_Dem]

4. He gets it. Helping Americans and the economy doesn't harm Biden which is McConnell's goal. nt

[samsingh]

5. maybe we should all remember that repugs are the enemy of the people and not

difference shades of blue

[RANDYWILDMAN]

6. How do we tell the 50 million out of 70 million who voted against their own interests???

This continues to be a huge problem, Thanks America, Thanks Trump, Thanks Mitch

[Moostache]

13. I view this problem the same way I handle employee performance reviews...

At the beginning of EVERY year, I have a sit-down with my employees 1-on-1. We cover the goals and objectives that came down from corporate, the projects that came down from site management and the "expectations" from the HR model for reviews...for anyone who has been through these, yes, it IS as tedious as it sounds...

BUT...the money shot I share with them every year is this - "If you allow ME to care MORE about YOUR money and future, then YOU are the one to blame when things do not go the way you want." In short, people have got to be personally responsible for the consequences of their decisions, especially their voting decisions, and now we have some 70-75 MILLION who probably include 50-60 MILLION economically challenged or downright struggling against the poverty line that have given over their lives to the whims of a party that DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THEM AT ALL.

For my employees, I swear to them every single year to fight for them as hard as they fight for themselves and to put myself on the line to get them recognition and promotions for their efforts. I take that responsibility very seriously as it is my number one reason to exist - to facilitate their generating positive results. No matter how unhappy someone may be with their salary or wages, you can only help them to the degree that they reach out for an extended hand...the same applies to these economically impoverished GOP "base voters"...

IF they decide that food, health care and access to clean air and water is more important than having representatives and leaders who encourage them to use the "n-word" or scream about guns and god and gays...well, then there is a plan to help them and to change the direction of this country...if they choose to NOT reach out, let them drown.

[Tommymac]

48. My manager just tells us to write down words. Any words.

This is the problem with our System and Society. You are the exception.

We elect people who are unqualified to do their jobs then on top of it we don't follow through and make sure they are doing their jobs.

So those elected get all the perks and power they want regardless. A few get caught, but most are shoulder deep in the pig trough.

[apnu]

7. Teddy Cruz got millions of COVID $ for billionaire frackers in Texas, why is Mitch so concerned now?

[Marthe48]

8. trickle down, dick

I know trickle down doesn't work because mcconnels's buddies keep the money they suck off the gov.

But as a human being, I had planned if I got the stimulus to pass it along to people and org. in my community who could use the money in a positive way.

[diva77]

9. K&R

[wiggs]

10. They don't care about hypocrisy, cruelty. After Trump, lying and hypocrisy and cruelty and

cheating and abuse and inequality is WINNING in their minds.

Think he and the gop are worried about unfairness and hypocrisy? not in the least. no consequences. I bet complaints from Bernie and the rest of us about their immoral actions is just music to their ears...more evidence of getting over on everyone else.

[frazzled]

11. Well, he's halfway right

These individual checks apparently aren’t the best form of stimulus, and it is the most economically affected among us who need the most help. While we’re so focused on these checks, we’ve failed to realize it would be much more effective to raise those unemployment add-ons to $600 a week ($2400 a month for the duration of the pandemic) rather than a one-time check.

I was surprised to see Paul Krugman say the checks weren’t a very good form of stimulus in his column the other day, and now an article in the Times explains it:

Whatever the amount, the reality is that most Americans right now are much more likely to save the money they receive.

Of course, the money will be a lifesaver for the roughly 20 million people collecting unemployment benefits and others who are working reduced hours or earning less than they used to. Yet, for the majority of the estimated 160 million individuals and families who will receive it, spending the money is expected not to be a high priority.

After an earlier round of $1,200 stimulus checks went out in the spring, the saving rate skyrocketed and remains at a nearly 40-year high. That largely reflects the lopsided nature of the pandemic recession that has put some Americans in dire straits while leaving many others untouched.

Economists on the right and left of the political spectrum said that when otherwise financially secure people receive an unexpected windfall, they almost invariably save it. ... Many experts said a truly stimulative package would have earmarked the payments for those who need it most — the unemployed. ... And because the money will immediately be put to work — the jobless don’t have the luxury of saving it — it would also have a much bigger impact on the overall economy, through what experts refer to as the multiplier effect. In essence, each dollar given to a person in need is likely to benefit the economy more because it would be used to pay for, say, groceries or rent.

More at link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/business/economy/600-dollar-stimulus-check.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[melman]

12. Not the first time the NY Times is out of touch with the reality of what's going on in this country

[frazzled]

14. It's the economists, including Krugman

who are pointing this out. The NYT is simply reporting.

Maybe it’s you who don’t fully realize what’s going on out there: some Americans are having a really really hard time, while most people are receiving the same salaries and incomes they did before the pandemic. And even saving more, because they’re not spending on entertainment and dining out and travel. The hardest hit could be getting much more help if we focused the billions of dollars on them, instead of those of us who don’t really need it.

Of course Mitch is not advocating further help for the economically distressed, which is why I said he’s only half right.

My situation is this: my spouse has been getting his full salary working from home all year, and I am getting about the same amount of freelance work I always do. We’re not rich, but able to afford the monthly mortgage, food, taxes, etc. I felt kind of guilty getting that first stimulus check, and will feel the same again. Giving it to charity, which we plan to do, won’t really help that much ... not as much as, say, extending and expanding unemployment benefits would. Or rent assistance and extended moratorium on evictions.

Try reading up on this issue. There are better ways to be helping most effectively. But of course, everyone likes ‘em some free money, which is why checks are so politically popular.

[melman]

16. Food lines all over the country, millions facing eviction...

and a Boston lawyer with 'more clients than he can handle' is who they find to quote?


Okay.

[frazzled]

20. Sure ...

But again, most people aren’t in one. If we targeted more of the total money being spent on COVID relief to those who do need food (and therefore less to those who are not in need), the hungry people would get way more. Which would help them, and also help the overall economy.

If you don’t understand this, I can’t help.

[melman]

18. "everyone likes 'em some free money"

what in the hell?

[Matthew28]

31. Unless

You're rich then you'll be flooded with money until you can swim in. Literally swim in it like fill a pool with it.

It is only "free money" if you're poor and are to suffer like a slave.

[MerryBlooms]

38. Here's a pretty good break down of those aligning with Krugman:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=paul+krugman+2000+stimulus&docid=14057094460882&mid=49BA63C88780B71F0F8349BA63C88780B71F0F83&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

[KayF]

19. they tried to get that and they couldn't

the negotiations are over, all they could get is $300 extra added to unemployment.

This $2,000 isn't on the table because it's the absolute best economically, it's because Trump gave it to us as a gift and we're taking it.

[frazzled]

23. Agreed

But it kind of means we’re falling for Trump rather than fighting for what is most needed and most effective.

I’m just waiting for Biden.

[orangecrush]

24. But massive tax cuts to billionaires

Is A-O.K .

Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.

[frazzled]

28. Two wrongs don't make a right

No one is saying that the Covid bill is adequate as is. It should be much larger. All that is being said is that mass individual checks should not be the biggest priority, because they are neither the best way of helping the most economically affected, and not the best way of helping the overall economy.

We should be spending way more than is in this bill, but spending it more helpfully and effectively. That is all.

[orangecrush]

46. I agree

Leave the virus out of it.

Just take back all the money from all the tax cuts given to concentrated wealth, in the form of an actually fair tax code, make it retroactive to Ronald Reagan, and distribute the money to all Americans making under $75,000 a year..

Bet that stolen money comes out to a lot more than a measly $2000.

[KPN]

33. Gee, I saw something a few days ago from Krugman

that called for/supported the $2000 plus more unemployment. So that surprised me. Do you have a link?

[frazzled]

39. Yes, here

Aid to the unemployed and business loans that were forgiven if they were used to maintain payrolls limited the suffering. Direct checks sent to most adults weren’t the best targeted policy ever, but they boosted personal incomes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/28/opinion/reagan-economy-covid.html

It surprised me, but he didn’t explain why these weren’t best idea ever, except that they were not targeted. I remember back in the spring saying we wish the total amount of money could be targeted to those who needed it most. But back then, many of us didn’t know whether we’d keep our jobs or not, so it made more sense. Now we all know, and I think targeting is both feasible and desirable.

[homegirl]

35. I didn't need the $1200.

check I got. So, I used all of it to support Democratic candidates in the 2020 election. If I get another stimulus check I will donate it to the local food bank.

[Sogo]

15. I haven't been near any news for a couple of days.

Is Bernie still going to filibuster and keep them in session for the holiday?

[bdamomma]

22. they should stay

there and not leave the toddler alone in the WH. Who knows what tRump will do??

[Sogo]

26. I want him to force it.

I'm sure many would just hate it, especially the Rs.

[bdamomma]

27. Oh

can you imagine that conversation between Mitch and tRump???

[questionseverything]

40. Bernie and 5 other senators tried

But 41 democratic senators voted with mitch

Really disappointed with my senators from Illinois, I guess they have big plans for new year’s

[lapucelle]

41. What vote are you talking about?

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/floor

[questionseverything]

43. this explains it

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14784964

[lapucelle]

44. That doesn't explain anything. What vote are you talking about? N/T

[questionseverything]

45. bernie and 5 other senators tried to force a vote on the stand alone bill from the house raising the

survival amount to 2 grand

they tried to do it by blocking a vote to override trumps veto on the defense bill

as the link i shared with you said, 41 democratic senators voted with mitch for closure so the vote on the 2 grand could not be forced

[lapucelle]

47. Are you talking about yesterday's motion to proceed?

Six Republicans, five Democrats, and one independent voted "no" on the motion to proceed.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00290#position

https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/

[Faygo Kid]

17. All those billionaires who make less than $75,000 a year, Mitch?

Because those are the people this goes to. Gawd, I hate Mitch McConnell more than Dick Cheney or any politician I have ever despised in my lifetime (except one, of course).

[bdamomma]

21. rather hypocritical of

Turtle head when they gave out tax cuts to those corporations. They did not need it either.

[myohmy2]

29. that's my Bernie...

...he speaks the truth...

[Matthew28]

30. Honestly,

No one that is rich needs all the money that he has given out to them. The people that really need it are the very people he opposes giving it too. Pretty sick.

[Jay25]

32. I think it's more a case of

McConnell thinking, anyone needing two thousand dollars isn’t worth helping.
Those like him, feel powerful knowing they have the ability to destroy lives and hurt others.
I believe that he looks down on average people, deriving pleasure their suffering.

[KPN]

34. Bernie says it about as well as it can be stated

consistently.

[usaf-vet]

36. But no problem or no delays giving millions or billions to rich repugs WHO REALLY DON'T NEED IT!

Then whine DEFICITS from sunrise to sunset. Day after day! It's their standard playbook.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=628688

[bucolic_frolic]

37. They should have given everyone $300 every month to start

And then stopped payments to those still collecting a paycheck after a couple months. Can't they tell by SocSec#'s who is employed, and who isn't? For the most part, I mean, sure self-employed might be a bit different.

I still don't see why employed people making $90k need, which is to say haven't planned for a rainy day, stim money.

[Vinca]

42. The way Mitch talks you'd think this sum was a life changing amount of money. No one is talking

about making all the struggling people instant millionaires. It's crumbs. Even if you happen to be lucky enough to actually bring in a paycheck through this nightmare, the cost of everything has gone through the roof and the money will be out the door.

[mtnsnake]

49. I love how Bernie has no problem setting those GOP assholes straight. nt