He’s running for 2024.
Too bad his audience has a two-week attention span at best.
I’m shocked. No appeal for money? Someone will get fired.
Just one little addition would solve Trump’s problem: how about “die,” “be terminally ill,” or “be mentally ill”? (my bolding)
\
Well, once he’s no longer President: yes, of course. But I bet they wouldn’t do it before January 20, even if Donald did get his way and 230 were to be repealed.
They should, but they wouldn’t. They’d want to stay on the good side of His High and Mightiness, despite liability risks.
I get $2000 and Facebook is killed and I’m cured of my Twitter addiction? Where do I sign up?!?
> Senator Toomey will block the $2000 stimulus bill
“We’re talking about sending checks, the vast majority of which will be going to people who’ve had no loss of income whatsoever,” he said. “How and why does that make any sense at all?”
The man has a point. One of the unspoken points is that Trump is a dick.
Someone should ask him about tax breaks for the rich and corporate welfare.
Pretty sure it’s 13 days.
As much as I hate to say it, Senator Toomey does have a point.
In Canada, they are not sending cheques willy-nilly to everyone with an income of less than $75K. There is broad based help, to individuals and businesses who need it. Sure, some folks may be taking advantage and bullshitting about their need, but most are not.
I am going to be receiving a grand total of $0. My son, recently moved out and working a retail job will be receiving a grand total of $0.
I have suffered no loss of income, because I am luck enough to work from home and have more work than I know what to do with.
My son has suffered no loss of income, because he is being asked to work more hours than normal (he’s not, thankfully, employed by a restaurant or other hard-hit area)
Why the hell should either of us receive one nickel of government support? Answer; we should not.
I have friends who have lost their jobs, or had hours cut back significantly. They are receiving support. It’s not rocket science. It’s working. And I predict our economy is going to bounce back faster than that of the USA because of it.
Then the solution is to issue these cheques on a qualified needs-based assessment, in which case the amounts could be significantly higher.
I’m not sure why they’re not doing that, but I bet it’s some combination of the following:
-
The time and effort required to do the needs-based filtering.
-
The expectation that there would be massive cheating anyway.
-
The fact that a large percentage of the recipients would have very dark complexions (thus reinforcing point #2), whereas many fine deserving white folks, of the kind that voted for Trump and go around with confederate flags and Nazi memorabilia, would be left out.
You’re on target.
Also, there is a completely different social harmony structure in Canada. We do have a few folks who think like our cousins down south, but they are in a small minority, and generally know enough to shut the hell up.
There is more of a culture here of helping those who need it… more understanding of “there but for the Grace of God go I”. Less butthurt feelings about someone "underserving (read “of colour”) getting something that I’m not getting. More acceptance of multiculturalism. A better understanding that “the government” is just an extension of “Us, the society”.
I’m also in Canada and have gotten zippy in support because I don’t need it.
But I’m also a US citizen and got a check for $1200 and even better, a separate letter informing me that it was something something President whatis. I’m not sure what it said because I immediately burned it.
Then I thought about how amazingly stupid it is to send “stimulus” money to ex-pats. And how even more amazingly stupid and wasteful it is to send separate letters.
I think that’s part of it. Administratively, it’s way easier to do this in Canada than in the US.
One major difference between Canada and the US in this area is that unemployment insurance is a state responsibility in the US, but employment insurance is a federal responsibility in Canada.
That means that in Canada, it’s easy to implement a nation-wide, needs-based income supplement, focussed on those who have lost their jobs. Just plug it into the existing federal EI system and you’ve got a uniform needs-based system across the country.
But in the US, the federal government doesn’t have that existing infrastructure to deliver a needs-based nationally uniform supplement for those who have lost their jobs. The feds have to work through the 50 state unemployment systems (plus DC), which have 51 different eligibility standards already, and 51 different benefit schedules. If the feds work through those systems, it will be difficult to get a uniform federal benefit in place.
So the way to do it is the brute strength way: federal payments to everyone, without nuance or eligibility requirements, because the feds don’t have a pre-existing sophisticated employment benefits system.
That said, this postal worker appreciates the extent to which it contributes to his job security…
Good explanation, thanks. @Euphonious_Polemic also raised a good point about important cultural differences between the US and Canada.
Incidentally, there was one small COVID-related federal government handout not subject to a needs test, but it was tied to Old Age Security. If you were receiving OAS payments (i.e.- were over 65) you got a small one-time bonus of $300 to compensate all those on fixed incomes for the extra expenses of COVID. This was reasonable but more was not really justifiable because those receiving OAS, CPP, and possibly a private pension as well did not have their normal sources of income affected. So, like most other Canadians here I received basically nothing from the government for COVID, but there was that small amount that I think was $300. Plus of course all related medical treatment would be covered as usual.
And the federal jurisdiction over EI is an example of that socio-cultural difference. Prior to the Great Depression, unemployment relief was purely a provincial matter. The federal government had no role to play, even though the federal government has much larger taxation authority.
Then the Depression hit, and local “relief” efforts at the provincial and municipal levels were overwhelmed. They didn’t have the money to provide relief, and the federal government lacked authority to do so. At most, the feds could provide money to the provinces for relief, but that got tied up in partisan politics. An attempt to implement a federal unemployment insurance scheme got struck down by the courts as beyond federal authority.
Mackenzie King learned the lesson of the Depression, that only the federal government had the resources to deal with unemployment on a major scale. He worked to get a constitutional amendment enacted to remove “unemployment insurance” from provincial jurisdiction and assign it to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Parliament. It took him five years to get the amendment approved, but it was finally enacted by the Constitution Act, 1940, adding head 2A to s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
I would say that the passage of the unemployment insurance amendment, with the consent of the federal Parliament and all nine (at that time) provinces, is an example of that socio-cultural difference that @Euphonious_Polemic is referring to. It was a recognition that we’re all in it together, coast to coast, and need to ensure our federal government can meet our needs, even if that means taking that authority away from the provinces.
Thanks for the context! As usual, I learn a lot by hanging around here…
Indeed, one of the more warmly satisfying derails. 
I didn’t get the last one, and won’t get this one. But administratively, I don’t know why they don’t send the check to everyone, and add a line to Form 1040 that says “if your AGI>$X, add $2,000 to your tax” (and sure, it would need to be a little more complicated then that).
That must be why “2 weeks” was his go-to for any empty promise he made-- as in “we have a new health care plan coming in 2 weeks”.