ADVERTISEMENT

Should people on welfare receive stimulus checks?

Crazyhole

Todd's Tiki Bar
Jun 4, 2004
23,824
9,586
113
Technically their income wasn't affected due to covid, so why do they need relief funds?
 
All their under the table gigs were interrupted, so they need the extra flow.
 
If it’s stimulus, then yes. If it’s relief for government-caused losses, then no.
 
Technically their income wasn't affected due to covid, so why do they need relief funds?
Yeah, it's Welfare Moms who should be the targets of our righteous indignation, right?

FYI, cruise lines don't pay any US taxes because they're licensed to Caribbean countries. Is that a 'technicality' we should care about?

Do you want to bet me that once Trump leaves office, we'll learn that his Treasury's 500 billion in corporate robbery...er, I mean 'relief'...included bailouts to Trump's buddies who owned cruise lines?
 
Yeah, it's Welfare Moms who should be the targets of our righteous indignation, right?

FYI, cruise lines don't pay any US taxes because they're licensed to Caribbean countries. Is that a 'technicality' we should care about?

Do you want to bet me that once Trump leaves office, we'll learn that his Treasury's 500 billion in corporate robbery...er, I mean 'relief'...included bailouts to Trump's buddies who owned cruise lines?
No indignation at all. I'm simply asking the question: if your income wasn't affected by covid, should you receive a relief check? We are ok with having limit on the top end, why isn't there a limit on the bottom end as well?
 
No one should be getting stimulus money who's income was not damaged.. Other countries.. which are getting big checks from this bill should get $0. Borrowing $$ from china to give China a grant, and paying them interest on that $$ make no sense or cents.
 
No one should be getting stimulus money who's income was not damaged.
That makes sense, but how are you going to determine who was hurt and who wasn't?

The government either comes up with an arbitrary cutoff and acts quickly or it sets up a costly new bureaucracy to determine a "more accurate" cut-off that, quite frankly, isn't worth the added time and expense.
 
Well how bout they simply not hand the money out in the first place. Or better yet not fill the bill with goodies for other countries. Don't pass the stupid bill other than a partial cover for those on unemployment, and you don't need any costly new bureaucracy. Often the best action is less action.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT