Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Stimulus Delay, Fight to Pay Illegal Aliens

84 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword

Politico is a left leaning news source

Quote

 

 It took fewer than three weeks of Washington control for Democrats to confront the vexing politics of immigration.

An effort to restrict stimulus checks to undocumented immigrants is blowing a hole in Democrats’ unity in the Biden era, after a bloc of Democrats sided with Republicans over their more progressive colleagues last week. The immigration status of those seeking new stimulus payments is shaping up as a major point of contention among Democrats as the House and Senate write their coronavirus relief bills, presaging the tough fights ahead among the party’s tight majorities in Congress on a politically volatile issue.

Eight Senate Democrats supported an amendment to the Senate’s budget during last week’s marathon vote-a-rama that would prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving checks, a cast that includes the No. 4 Democratic leader Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the chair of the party’s campaign arm Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and senators up for reelection. Some Democrats and activists worry that amendment could block children and spouses of undocumented immigrants from receiving checks, leading 42 Democrats to oppose the effort.

 

Link

Personally I'm against gainfully employed people such as myself receiving any stimulus payment.  Should the illegal parents of legal citizens receive checks seems to be the question and concern here.  I'm going to say no, they probably shouldn't if they are working.  Should people without legal children receive stimulus checks?  Absolutely not, not even if they are not working.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

Lots of dumb democrats trying to pay illegals.  

Many think whether or not you get a check should be based on income.   There are some issues with that.  Cost of living varies across states and regions.  I think I am for everyone getting a check.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Politico is a left leaning news source

Link

Personally I'm against gainfully employed people such as myself receiving any stimulus payment.  Should the illegal parents of legal citizens receive checks seems to be the question and concern here.  I'm going to say no, they probably shouldn't if they are working.  Should people without legal children receive stimulus checks?  Absolutely not, not even if they are not working.  

I think if anyone has a job or lost a job because of Covid and is paying state and federal taxes their legal status should not be part of the parameters to determine if they get unemployment help or not.   The IRS does not care whether you are legally  in the country or not and state unemployment entities should have the same attitude.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 minute ago, Myles said:

Lots of dumb democrats trying to pay illegals.  

Many think whether or not you get a check should be based on income.   There are some issues with that.  Cost of living varies across states and regions.  I think I am for everyone getting a check.  

I think it's stupid to give checks to people who haven't missed a payday like myself. Where does this money come from?  It comes from the citizens.  It is debt.  I don't need the government to borrow money on my behalf to stick money in my bank account, and I certainly don't want them issuing stimulus payments to people that are not here legally.  The world has gone crazy.  Stupid and crazy.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think if anyone has a job or lost a job because of Covid and is paying state and federal taxes their legal status should not be part of the parameters to determine if they get unemployment help or not.   The IRS does not care whether you are legally  in the country or not and state unemployment entities should have the same attitude.

This is not unemployment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Just now, OverSword said:

I think it's stupid to give checks to people who haven't missed a payday like myself. Where does this money come from?  It comes from the citizens.  It is debt.  I don't need the government to borrow money on my behalf to stick money in my bank account, and I certainly don't want them issuing stimulus payments to people that are not here legally.  The world has gone crazy.  Stupid and crazy.

The only reason it makes sense is that it can cause those of us who are still working and did not miss a paycheck (like you and me) to spend more money, hopefully at local businesses that need it.  But I do agree with you, we don't need it like those that were laid off.    My daughter's landlord gave everyone a break in their rent and my daughter and one other person in the complex told her to give their discount to someone who lost their job.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

This is not unemployment.  

It was originally tied to unemployment and the other part where everyone got money was added on.   And now the unemployment is a part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Just now, Desertrat56 said:

The only reason it makes sense is that it can cause those of us who are still working and did not miss a paycheck (like you and me) to spend more money, hopefully at local businesses that need it.  But I do agree with you, we don't need it like those that were laid off.    My daughter's landlord gave everyone a break in their rent and my daughter and one other person in the complex told her to give their discount to someone who lost their job.   

Since I can't do any of the recreational things I would do at local businesses because they are not open, and because I can't really go on vacation anywhere because travel is not a good idea then stimulus is really stupid. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It was originally tied to unemployment and the other part where everyone got money was added on.   And now the unemployment is a part of that.

That's not accurate.  Me and you getting a check is not tied to unemployment.  Increased unemployment payments were part of the stimulus bill but is separate from checks/payments that everyone in the USA got. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's not accurate.  Me and you getting a check is not tied to unemployment.  Increased unemployment payments were part of the stimulus bill but is separate from checks/payments that everyone in the USA got. 

I understood that originally the stimulus was for unemployed and the checks to everyone was tacked on.  I may be mistaken.  I think the unemployment part was a good idea.  I think the stimulus helped a lot of people but many of us who did not loose our regular pay check could have done without it.   The problem I see is the overhead of determining who needs it and who doesn't.  I know two elderly people who only get 1100 a  month in social security and that stimulus helped them out, they needed it.   Even though they are retired they are living at a very low income level that one extra thing could put them on the street.   So 600.00 twice in the last year helped them and I don't begrudge it.   I suppose you and I and anyone else who feels like it could donate our stimulus to a food bank or something.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

If stimulus checks were a reward for morality or a judgment of worthiness, nobody should get them.  

God can judge them along with the rest of us.  Right now the idea is to get the economy moving forward.

Human judgement can be just as flawed withholding money from the deserving as giving money to the underserving.  Just give it out.

Of course some people think that is the wrong way to stimulate the economy.  Good, now we have something to discuss that might  be amenable to facts and evidence, and not moral judgements which are  not easy to debate.

Are we giving money to people who are too rich to use it properly?  Maybe. Is $150,000 per couple too high for the cutoff?  I  don't know, it could be debated but not for too long. 

Its funny to me that since Reagan I have been hearing from Republicans that "trickle down" is the way to stimulate the economy but now they are wondering if some people are too rich to use the money wisely.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

ts funny to me that since Reagan I have been hearing from Republicans that "trickle down" is the way to stimulate the economy but now they are wondering if some people are too rich to use the money wisely.

And trickle down didn't work for Reagan so maybe that is why people are wondering if some people are too rich to use money wisely.  But then we have to define what that actually means to use money "wisely"

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
30 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

If stimulus checks were a reward for morality or a judgment of worthiness, nobody should get them.  

God can judge them along with the rest of us.  Right now the idea is to get the economy moving forward.

Human judgement can be just as flawed withholding money from the deserving as giving money to the underserving.  Just give it out.

Of course some people think that is the wrong way to stimulate the economy.  Good, now we have something to discuss that might  be amenable to facts and evidence, and not moral judgements which are  not easy to debate.

Are we giving money to people who are too rich to use it properly?  Maybe. Is $150,000 per couple too high for the cutoff?  I  don't know, it could be debated but not for too long. 

Its funny to me that since Reagan I have been hearing from Republicans that "trickle down" is the way to stimulate the economy but now they are wondering if some people are too rich to use the money wisely.

I don't agree.  Individual savings are at a record high.  Open the economy up and you will see increased spending.  Borrowing money from me to give to myself to grow the economy is a boondoggle  You will never hear  a more perfect use of that word than in this instance.  And to give my money to people that aren't even citizens???  Maybe you don't get how illegals pay taxes.  You see, when they pay a cartel to smuggle them into the country that cartel gives them a social security number and usually has a short term job lined up for them, which the cartel gets half the money as additional payment.  You may think, gee, victimless crime.  Wrong.  A friend of mine lives in Texas.  A few years ago after paying taxes the IRS says to him "Hey what about the other jobs you have?"  Turns out that his SS number was stolen and several illegal aliens were using it to work.  He had to spend a ton of money on lawyers to prevent the IRS from taking his home and charging him with tax fraud.  No.  Illegals should not get money borrowed by the government that adds more to my personal portion of the national debt.  They should get zero benefits.  If you want to come here do it legally or suck it.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
razman

The problem i see with the unemployment thing is that they say people can refuse work and don't have to look , so all those people are just collecting(in many cases more than they would working), free money and sitting at home. Not taking or looking for any work. How does that help create jobs and the economy? I think with the Illegal thing they were saying that that anyone that pays taxes would be elligible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
razman

Lol , i just read the Dems are proposing cutting off stimulus checks to families making over 200,000 dollars. I mean do families making that much really need it?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
12 minutes ago, razman said:

The problem i see with the unemployment thing is that they say people can refuse work and don't have to look , so all those people are just collecting(in many cases more than they would working), free money and sitting at home. Not taking or looking for any work. How does that help create jobs and the economy? I think with the Illegal thing they were saying that that anyone that pays taxes would be elligible.

What state is that?   Regular unemployment is not like that and the stimulus unemployment was temporary.   So those who didn't look for work lost their unemployment (at least in NM) when the stimulus ended in June (or July?).  My brother was on furlough and found out he had cancer a week after everything shut down.   When his boss called him back to work he had 4 weeks of chemo left and could not go back to work.  He lived that month without unemployment because his boss had asked him back and he could not look for a job.   It is the way the system is set up and he was smart and knew he would not get unemployment past July and could not work in August so that extra money went into savings.  Luckily after he finished his chemo his boss still needed hiim and he is working again.   Another person I know, a teenager, took the extra money and partied for 3 months, now she can't find a job and gets no unemployment.    The way that played out, I think, was the best it could have.   Yes, some people took advantage but where are they now?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I got a stimulus check, and like the OP I’ve not missed a days work due to COVID (I’m a “front line, vital employee” in a “frontline, vital service”). I used it to pay for a weekend away. The stimulus to the economy was that I brought food from struggling businesses etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

I think the checks are dumb because I don't believe they achieve they allegedly intended purpose of "stimulating the economy". A study of the first check showed most people put the check into savings or paid debt off. Some people just used it for their normal bills or groceries.

However, if we are following the flawed logic that these checks are to stimulate the economy than it would make sense to give even to illegal immigrants as well.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Another person I know, a teenager, took the extra money and partied for 3 months, now she can't find a job and gets no unemployment.    The way that played out, I think, was the best it could have.   Yes, some people took advantage but where are they now?

It wasn't just teenagers. Construction and supply houses almost came to a complete stop even if they could get materials. My neighbor is in construction and his three college kids were home because the school closed. They had grown up working with their hands and he pulled them in because he didn't have anyone else. Jobs are back now and anyone that refused to come to work is on the bottom of the list to get signed back on, but it won't be long before they are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
35 minutes ago, razman said:

The problem i see with the unemployment thing is that they say people can refuse work and don't have to look , so all those people are just collecting(in many cases more than they would working), free money and sitting at home. Not taking or looking for any work. How does that help create jobs and the economy? I think with the Illegal thing they were saying that that anyone that pays taxes would be elligible.

That's not completely true. As pointed out if your employer offers you your job back and you refuse than you can lose unemployment (only if your employer reports that they offered you it back anyways)

Technically when on unemployment you are suppose to look for a job and show some proof you are looking.

But we know it reality that it is easy to not find a job if you do not want to. Alot of people did make more money off of unemployment than when they worked and the government keeps extending the length of the bonus benefit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
11 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

That's not completely true. As pointed out if your employer offers you your job back and you refuse than you can lose unemployment (only if your employer reports that they offered you it back anyways)

Technically when on unemployment you are suppose to look for a job and show some proof you are looking.

But we know it reality that it is easy to not find a job if you do not want to. Alot of people did make more money off of unemployment than when they worked and the government keeps extending the length of the bonus benefit.

When did the government extend the bonus benefit?   At least in NM it ended in the early summer.  Was it reinstated or was that something the state you are in did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
32 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

When did the government extend the bonus benefit?   At least in NM it ended in the early summer.  Was it reinstated or was that something the state you are in did?

 

Quote

To provide emergency financial assistance to the unemployed, federal unemployment insurance benefits that expire at the end of 2020 will be extended for 11 weeks through mid-March 2021, and unemployed individuals will receive a $300 weekly enhancement in unemployment benefits from the end of December 2020 through mid-March. The CARES Act measure that provided $600 in enhanced weekly unemployment benefits expired on July 31, 2020.

https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/federal-tax/new-stimulus-package-passed-december-21-2020

Edit: so from my understand the extra 600 a week ok top of regular unemployment expired end of July. The unemployment benefit though was extended to last to the end of 2020 (from the first Covid bill) and than was extended for another 11 weeks and also adding the extra 300. (From this last one)

So theoretically someone could of been on unemployment since March and still be on it right now. Got extra 600 a week until it expired in July and now get and extra 300 a week until March.

Based upon my understanding at least.

 

None of this counts whatever Biden might due. I predict he is going to extend it again.

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, President Wearer of Hats said:

 The stimulus to the economy was that I brought food from struggling businesses etc.

Which you would have bought regardless because we all need to eat.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
razman
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

What state is that?   Regular unemployment is not like that and the stimulus unemployment was temporary.   So those who didn't look for work lost their unemployment (at least in NM) when the stimulus ended in June (or July?).  My brother was on furlough and found out he had cancer a week after everything shut down.   When his boss called him back to work he had 4 weeks of chemo left and could not go back to work.  He lived that month without unemployment because his boss had asked him back and he could not look for a job.   It is the way the system is set up and he was smart and knew he would not get unemployment past July and could not work in August so that extra money went into savings.  Luckily after he finished his chemo his boss still needed hiim and he is working again.   Another person I know, a teenager, took the extra money and partied for 3 months, now she can't find a job and gets no unemployment.    The way that played out, I think, was the best it could have.   Yes, some people took advantage but where are they now?

Well it was part of the original covid bill, but i just saw the other day that Biden signed something saying they could refuse work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
razman
54 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

 

https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/federal-tax/new-stimulus-package-passed-december-21-2020

Edit: so from my understand the extra 600 a week ok top of regular unemployment expired end of July. The unemployment benefit though was extended to last to the end of 2020 (from the first Covid bill) and than was extended for another 11 weeks and also adding the extra 300. (From this last one)

So theoretically someone could of been on unemployment since March and still be on it right now. Got extra 600 a week until it expired in July and now get and extra 300 a week until March.

Based upon my understanding at least.

 

None of this counts whatever Biden might due. I predict he is going to extend it again.

yea a lady i saw while working at her office had said she just came back and was out for a few  month's , she said it took her a while to get the unemployment because they were backed up , but then she got like over 10,000 at once.

Edited by razman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.