Funny that youth and inexperience are not seen as virtues in any other important part of life.
I’m not asking for fresh from law school Supreme Court justices. We already have age requirements for two of the branches. I think we just need to expand that a bit to have a top-end as well. And also have term limits for all three branches. If I had to choose one, I’d pick term limits over more age limits. But, how many 75 year old folks would attest that they are at the top of their game for the most difficult job of their life? Or, maybe it really is an easy job?
I hope you are pushing to have the full retirement age for SS moved to 75. No need to retire early when you are in the prime of you life. Only freeloaders retire before 75.
Not sure which job you’re talking about. Supreme Court justice requires some intellect, but is not really that difficult. Senator isn’t difficult at all (except the getting elected part).
Not so sure. When I read some statistics (right here in some SDMB thread) on how many calories the brain burns, I was surprised. I never knew how strenuous thinking could be. Apparently I never really did much of that myself.
Supreme Court justices get as clerks some of the best graduates of the best law schools in the country. If one were lazy or incompetent, one could just rely on the clerks for the legal analysis and writing.
Per NewsNation on WGN America: even though Trump has signed the relief bill for $600 checks, Pelosi still plans to introduce legislation for $2000 checks. Unclear whether this will be an amendment to the signed bill or a separate bill for a third round of checks.
Wouldn’t it have to be a new bill? Doesn’t a bill, once passed and signed, become etched in stone, cast in concrete. To be sure, an existing law can be amended, but that requires a new bill to do that.
ETA: I would expect it would have to be a new bill for a separate, third round of checks, rather than modifying the amount of the checks in the bill just signed – if for no other reason than everyone will be clamoring for their money faster than a new bill could get through the whole process.
Everything depends on how this bill is worded. It would most certainly be for a third round of checks but for what amout? $1400? $2000?
As I said in another thread, these one (or two)-time piddling checks aren’t “better than nothing” – they ARE nothing. If you or you and your partner have lost your jobs, health insurance, have a couple of kids, a mortgage/rent, car payment, how the hell is $2,000 or even $2,000 + $600 supposed to keep you afloat for more than a couple of months at best??
Without all the extraneous crap clogging up this piss-poor bill, people could be getting $2,000 every month until this shitstorm is over, FFS.
What the heck is the government for, if not to be a safety net for its citizens. OOPS! I said “safety net”!! 
Socialism Alarms just went off all over the country! Head for the shelters!
Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have more optimism in their collective pinkies than I have ever had in my whole body (and I’m about their age). Yeah, I know Nancy needs to get another bill together so Mitch can stomp on it, God bless her.
It’s not. These are specifically aimed at keeping people afloat each quarter, IOW three months at a time.
The trouble is that it’s been many months since the earlier $1200 was sent out. In the meantime, many people have gotten deeper into debt, so even $2600 isn’t going to be enough to make up for the shortfall.
And that wait was just for three months of relief. Can you imagine getting Moscow Mitch to support a bill which would keep people afloat for, say, a year?
That’s the thing. One time payments are popular but they’re not a patch on unemployment benefits. But those have been substantially reduced this time around.
For people who have their jobs, getting $600 (or $2000) check is still a great thing but it’s not as critical as continuing support for people who have lost jobs due to the pandemic and aren’t likely to get them back for several months (or however long it takes for mass vaccination to work its magic). But we’d rather have the one check sent to everybody than enhanced unemployment benefits and/or payroll assistance for those who need it most. Sad to say, that’s the American way. Other countries have managed those things. Though they will be paying for them for a while, they consider it worth the cost.
Due to all the delays, a lot of people are going to miss out on at least a week of those benefits and even when they come back, they’re at a substantially reduced rate. And while eviction protection and rental assistance are in the new bill, they cut out pretty quick, so we’re staring at a mass eviction of people with no effective way to keep a roof over their heads.
Telling people to “get a job” during a virus-induced economic disaster is not only heartless but stupid economics. They can’t get jobs because people are less willing to go to restaurants or theaters or whatever until things improve. And if those places do open, they’re simultaneously at reduced capacity and sources of further infection. If what it takes to kick-start our economy in a few months is to keep those workers afloat while they’re at home, the benefits are going to be worth the cost in the long run.
I realize that giving money each month or even just a one-time payment to people is massively expensive, but the alternative is massive damage to the economy, which will be more expensive.
My guess is that Pelosi wants to make the GA senate hopefuls come out for or against the extra money.
There’s a lot of other really expensive stuff in that bill that could go or be postponed.
Yeah. There’s so much theater involved. Necessary evil.
So, you want to discriminate based upon age, eh? Maybe also sex or race?
I’m not the one that wrote the US Constitution and started the age limits for politicians thing. Also, you hear that the different branches of the US militaries also have age limits for joining? Seems like discrimination based on age already exists.