'$2,000 Means $2,000: Ocasio-Cortez Says $1,400 Payments in Biden Plan Fall Short of Promised Relief

[turbinetree]

Published on
Friday, January 15, 2021
by Common Dreams

"$2,000 does not mean $1,400."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

?itok=hzaxMDb9

While there is much for progressives to applaud in President-elect Joe Biden's newly released $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package—from a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage to billions in funding for vaccine distribution—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Thursday that the $1,400 direct payments included in the plan fall short of the promise that helped Democrats win control of the U.S. Senate.

"$2,000 means $2,000," the New York Democrat told the Washington Post. "$2,000 does not mean $1,400."

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) echoed Ocasio-Cortez's criticism in a tweet late Thursday:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/15/2000-means-2000-ocasio-cortez-says-1400-payments-biden-plan-fall-short-promised

[Pachamama]

1. I disagree with her argument

Sure it would be great to have $2000 go out on top of the $600....but I think that will be harder to get passed than keeping the promise that was made (and encouraged by Trump) for $2000 - as in a total of $2000.

I think that there will more packages in the future and she should also be focused on the whole package and its value that Biden's economic team has laid out.

[uponit7771]

5. Why would that be harder to pass? tia

[Pachamama]

7. Why would it be easy to pass? tia

[uponit7771]

12. We have the senate and zero interest rates, the error should be on the side of giving too much

.. like every other G8 country on earth

[DonViejo]

20. Manchin has promised to vote against it if it's $2K...

Manchin on proposed round of $2K checks: 'Absolutely not'

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/533355-manchin-on-proposed-round-of-2k-checks-absolutely-not

[uponit7771]

165. make him

[bigtree]

23. exactly

[Naio]

66. I disagree with congresswoman ocasio -Cortez in this one .

$1400 for me sound fair .Biden know what he is doing

[George II]

181. Even she disagrees with herself on this one, thusly:

Link to tweet

[Pachamama]

239. +100000

Yep

[Autumn]

2. Well how bout that. She's right, $2,000 does mean $2,000.

Gonna give you $600 now and $1400 later? Words have meanings.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/05/joe-biden-georgia-rally-senate-runoff-election-vpx.cnn

[Demsrule86]

16. The $600.00 is included so you are wrong, but I take notice of the attacks on Biden before he

is even inaugurated. The fact is with the dismal employment numbers , we might get extended unemployment increased, and another $1400...but given the fact we are 50/50l, it won't be easy. And we have conservadems and moderate Dems who may not vote for some of what we want. AOC and others needs to understand we have a bare majority and maybe two years to get what we can which IMHO...goes like this: Pandemic help-including financial and getting the vaccine out, Fix the ACA by adding a public option-that is one of the reasons we won Georgia/Medicare was not expanded there, Shore up Social Security and Medicare-now on the verge of bankruptcy, get a $15.00 minimum passed,Green new deal using jobs...make Green energy a job creator, a national registry for police and send police misconduct into federal court and take it away from states...add a Senate trial and we have our hands full...let's get policy instead of fighting.

This sort of thing is why I would never vote for AOC in a Democratic presidential primary. Unity is essential if we are to beat the GOP. I value party loyalty more than ideology. In the end, it is what moves our party forward or in the absence stops us cold as happened in 10...we had six years of nothing after that...thanks to losing the House...and it was a self inflicted wound powered by those who demanded what could not be won through legislation. Let's learn from our recent history.

[Autumn]

22. Take all the notice you want.

On the eve of the Senate runoffs in Georgia, Biden told the state's voters that "$2,000 checks" would "go out the door" if they elected Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, who both embraced the push for $2,000 checks on the campaign trail and ultimately defeated their Republican opponents.

Edited to remove my confusion on the dates.

[Demsrule86]

44. We can only get what Congress will pass...and 600 of the 2000 went out around the same time.

I recognize the attacks on Biden as the same Obama faced culminating in the loss of the House and vicious personal attacks against Obama. And I would say this. The party will move to the middle and reach out to moderate voters as policy if this attempted again. There would be no choice. Our Republic is at stake. We must win elections and seek to increase and hold our slim majority at all costs. This would mean less influence in the party for some.

[Autumn]

49. That's not what is being discussed. And how is what Biden actually said an attack on him?

Video proof of his own words.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/05/joe-biden-georgia-rally-senate-runoff-election-vpx.cnn

[Demsrule86]

53. A legalistic argument which I already addressed so all the links in the world won't change the

facts. That $600.00 of the hoped for $2000 was sent out around this time. What a shame that some desire to attack Biden even before inauguration...I do not say you.

[Autumn]

69. Sorry I can't speak to what you addressed, I don't read your posts past the first glance or sentence

but all the posts in the world explaining that he meant something else or can't do it won't change Biden's actual words. He's a very smart man and he, unlike some politicians, is able to say what he means.

[Demsrule86]

89. Then I fail to see the reason to continue any conversation on this matter. Have a nice day.

[sheshe2]

227. Hmmm

Autumn (39,816 posts)

69. Sorry I can't speak to what you addressed,

You can't speak to what she addressed, yet here you are speaking to her.

I don't read your posts past the first glance or sentence

So you didn't read the post that she posted and yet respond to what you did not read?

but all the posts in the world explaining that he meant something else or can't do it won't change Biden's actual words. He's a very smart man and he, unlike some politicians, is able to say what he means.

Interesting post. You have a strong response to a post you did not read. Your words, not mine.

[beastie boy]

48. Biden said that on Dec. 28, only a few hours after the $600 stimulus was signed and before a single

$600 check was "out the door". The timing of these events is a matter of record, and you can easily verify it.

Thanks for the reference despite being wrong on the timing, and thanks for proving AOC is wrong and Biden delivered as promised. There was no $#600 checks going out the door when Biden promised the $2000 checks going out the door.

The math could not be clearer: $2000 is $2000, not $2600.

[Demsrule86]

55. +1000

[Autumn]

60. You are correct. But the discussion is what Biden had to say. I'll let Biden prove you wrong.

Unless you have a video of where he said "in addition to"? Biden is a very smart man. Joe knows what he is saying and he is able to articulate what he means. Unlike a lot of people.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/05/joe-biden-georgia-rally-senate-runoff-election-vpx.cnn

[beastie boy]

76. But... but... tBiden proves me right!

In the video you linked to, Biden clearly mentions the "debate" over the stimulus, not the outcome! In this context, the $2000 checks going out cannot possibly be construed as "additional" to the $600! He clearly refers to $2000 vs $600, not in addition to it!

Thanks for providing the evidence!

[Autumn]

85. You are wrong. He was slamming the Republican debate over the stimulus while people

in America are hurting are lining up at food banks for food through no fault of their own and "$2,000 checks" would "go out the door" if they elected Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff. You can put your spin on his words, take them out of context and try to convince people of what you have decided he really meant but you can't change what Biden actually said. It there in video.

[beastie boy]

96. so... what exactly makes me wrong?

And how am I taking Biden's words out of context? Is it by bringing attention to the context in which he spoke and made clear what he meant rather than deflecting from the context in which he spke?

If that is how you choose to define taking Biden's own words out of context, consider me guilty as charged! It is Biden who makes AOC wrong, not me. I am merely the messenger... Actully YOU are. You posted the link to Biden's speech. Credit where credit is due.

[George II]

209. Read the OP subject line, "....$1400 falls short", but apparently it didn't fall short....

....back on Dec 27 when it was proposed to increase the already passed and signed into law $600 up to $2000.

Link to tweet

[Autumn]

210. Read Biden's tweet from 5 days ago.

Link to tweet

[George II]

212. I did. And to get to $2000 after $600 has already gone out, send an additional $1400....

That's what Biden is proposing, and what was proposed less than three weeks ago by the same person who NOW says $1400 isn't enough.

Simple for me to understand. You?

[Autumn]

220. What I understand is obviously you don't take Biden's word for what is needed.

I guess some people are so used to some pundit telling them what a president says that it's hard to understand a presidents actual words without some pundit spinning it. Two sentences straight out, no bullshit. Easy peasy.

Link to tweet

[George II]

221. Yes, he's correct, $600 is not enough and we need $2000, which means we need an additional $1400....

....just as he said yesterday. No bullshit. Easy peasy.

When did $600 + $2000 = $2000, is that the new math?

[Autumn]

222. That's your math George. Joe didn't pass, Joe didn't sign a $600 stimulus. READ his tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

224. I've now read it (from you) three or four times, losing count. It's not my math, it's THE math!

But I've been out of school for about 50 years now, maybe addition and/or subtraction has changed over the years?

Biden was elected and will be President in five days. His original proposal was for $2000. People have already received $600, which is where his $1400 came from yesterday. He hasn't wavered an inch from what he campaigned upon, and I don't understand why people are now misrepresenting what he said for some unexplained reason.

I don't know what else I can say that can be clearer, so........



....for now!

[Autumn]

225. And you are going to get it again when you respond to me in this thread. Read. Joe. Biden's. Tweet.

Link to tweet

[George II]

213. I did. And to get to $2000 after $600 has already gone out, send an additional $1400....

That's what Biden is proposing, and what was proposed less than three weeks ago by the same person who NOW says $1400 isn't enough.

Simple for me to understand. You?

[George II]

187. That was before the $600 checks "went out the door". Yes, both Warnock and Ossoff AND AOC (!!!).....

....embraced the push for $2000 checks.

The first installment of the $2000 checks "went out the door" a week after Biden said that on December 28. The direct deposit payments went out on January 4, the day we received ours:

[Pachamama]

29. +1000

Agreed

Except for the party loyalty point over ideology - if a party is espousing something morally wrong, I will absolutely choose ideology over party.

And I will always choose the constitution over party.

But the attacking Biden like this after he introduced a great plan...

[Demsrule86]

47. Morality is a separate issue. But I must say this it is always immoral to allow Republicans to win

elections and particularly majorities in Congress.

[George II]

194. It's even worse when the elections are all but handed to them.

[PatSeg]

33. Very well said

We don't want a rerun of 2010, so many lost opportunities for the Obama administration after we lost the House.

[Demsrule86]

50. We had six years of nothing and then they did it again in 14. I well remember the attacks on Obama.

This cost us the Senate and a SCOTUS pick...had our side had Obama's back that wouldn't have happened. I sincerely hope the election of Trump has put an end to message voting.

[PatSeg]

87. I hope so as well

So many missed opportunities. Had our party been more unified and focused back then, Obama could have accomplished so much more. Once we let republicans take power, they will do everything they can to undo Democratic progress. Republicans don't govern, they obstruct and destroy, but their voters turn out for every election. Democrats have to be as enthusiastic about mid-terms and local elections as they are during a presidential election.

Meanwhile, republicans will come back and do the same things over and over again if we allow it. They never learn apparently, even after the violent mob is breaking down their doors crying for blood. It defies comprehension.

[Demsrule86]

91. We could have had a public option the last five or so years...it breaks my heart to think

of those in states that didn't enact Medicaid expansion...who died as a result. We get what we can but we don't let the enemy of the perfect be the enemy of the good...and for fucks sake, let's not do the Right's work by attacking Biden as happened to Obama which began in February of 09.

[PatSeg]

105. Oh yes

This is not about some obscure policy or preferences. Real lives were affected by the political games that republicans played, as well as a small handful of Blue Dog Dems who opposed a public option. I get so frustrated with people who blame Obama for no public option in the ACA, but people like Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln killed it. Funny that years later Baucus had second thoughts about his decision and end up supporting the idea of single payer.

Then the states that would not expand Medicaid purely for political reasons. How many people suffered or died because of their political games?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

42. That's not what he said, though.

He said $2000 checks would go in the mail if Georgia senate went blue. He didn't say $1400.

And, hey, I'm not in some cult. If Biden does something that I don't necessarily like, I'm free to say so. I was extremely happy to hear an actual adult that is going to be president speak last night. I didn't like his pivot on the amount of money that would go out. That's and OK position to have and still, overall, support Biden.

[Demsrule86]

56. This was sent before the $600.00 dollar checks were sent...clearly $2000. was the figure.

And you know what...doesn't matter. Biden can only get what our Congress votes for period. I saw the same sort of BS attacking Obama...he was blamed because for example a public option was blocked by Congress...and the result was the loss of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. This lead to six years of no policy for us and the loss of a SCOTUS pick. One would hope that the people who engineered this travesty would have learned something during the Trump years.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

59. He said that on Jan 6th.

The first checks went out at the end of December.

So, in case you are having trouble falling along, Biden said that $2000 checks out go out the door AFTER the $600 checks already went out the door.

[wellst0nev0ter]

173. Someone should have told Warnock it was $1400

There was no room for interpretation in his campaign ads

[George II]

180. They did understand the $600 vs. $2000, and she stated so less than three weeks ago....

Looks like back then she wrote an amendment to the bill containing the $600 payment to raised it to $2000. But now that Biden is on record advocating that the payment be increased TO $2000 by adding $1400 (identical to her late December proposal) it's not good enough.

Link to tweet

[George II]

177. Yes indeedy, but she also said this less than 3 weeks ago:

Link to tweet

When did that change, and why?

[Autumn]

208. And Joe Biden said this 5 days ago.

Link to tweet

So what's your point George?

[George II]

211. Yes indeedy. That's where the $1400 comes from...

The math that I learned (in the NYC school system) is:

$2000 - $600 = $1400.

Biden AGREED with the already proposed $2000, which is why he wants an additional $1400 to go out, just as she said.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some to understand this.

[Autumn]

218. Nope Biden said $600 is simply not enough.We need $2,000 stimulus checks. Read his tweet

Nowhere does Biden say add $1400 to the $600 Trump sent out for a total of $2000. It's there on Twitter in all it's glory George. Two, count em, two sentences. No ambiguity, no bullshit.

Link to tweet

I don't know why some seem to think Biden doesn't mean what he says, it's almost like some think he's playing a game. Got news for you Biden don't play that shit. Biden shoots straight.

[andym]

202. This is partially due to the treasury dept so quickly delivering the $600

If it took the usual months of time, and everyone was still waiting for their money, it's unlikely we would be hearing this so strongly.

[JDC]

3. I think we need more stimulus, but $600 just passed. $1400 + $600

This proposal is in addition to the 600, right?

[sweetloukillbot]

14. Yeah - the goalposts moved in two weeks nt

[Butterflylady]

4. When the second stimulus was talked about

Democrats wanted 2,000 checks. They eventually agreed on 600.00. So to get to the 2,000 level would be 1,400. I believe that is why Biden put that amount out there.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Well, I haven't got the $600 yet...

so I don't want them to argue that one too long.

The website keeps kicking me out and denying me for various reasons. I saw an article last month in my local paper saying that maybe I need to file taxes first. I don't make enough to owe taxes, I'm on Social Security. The first time around, my payment was delayed and I finally got a paper check. I guess I'm waiting for that now.



At least with the new administration, I can count on the administration of the departments to eventually improve.

[PatSeg]

34. You shouldn't have to file taxes

if you are on Social Security. All your information is already in the system and releasing the money should have been automatic. How frustrating that must be for you. Hopefully, things will be more efficient in the Biden administration.

[Karma13612]

232. You would think but,

Even us on SS, married, filed jointly went into one account. So they went by our filing bank info, not based on our SS monthly deposit info.

[PatSeg]

233. I didn't realize that

I just assumed they would use the Social Security information. Seems that would be easier.

[Karma13612]

235. True, but I've decided I can't follow the logic of most of

The Government.

Stopped trying years ago!!

Your results may vary!

But, on second thought, maybe they figured they would save a ‘processing step” by only having to process one deposit instead of two if they used Tax filing info on Married filing jointly. ??
So maybe they are kinda efficient.

Or it was a fluke?

My brain hurts, I need to finish my tea.

Have an egret day!! (I’m spending the winter on the NC coast, couldn’t help myself!!)

[PatSeg]

238. My brain hurts a lot these days

Have an 'egret day' as well, which is probably more likely if you are on the NC coast!

[Johonny]

8. Given I've yet to see any of these payments

All this noise about nothing isn't interesting to me.

[NurseJackie]

9. Lord.

[mcar]

10. Can this be more ridiculous?

PE Biden has just proposed the most liberal, progressive package I think we've ever seen. Yet some just have to complain and run it down. Now the media has their "dems in disarray" evidence.

[bigtree]

15. if you don't need the money, it's easier to call this ridiculous

...people have been waiting for relief for months.

It's not as ridiculous for some to have hoped for an additional $2000. as some here have scolded. Especially since that rug has been laid down and pulled out several times since the summer.

We deserve repeating payments. We've needed this all along. The time without aid has devastated many families and this amount, no matter how generous you might think, is a paltry sum for people trying to survive with nothing.

This is a compromise with a miserly pack of wealthy pols. It stinks, and pretending it's something sustaining, or the best they can do is an insult to the people who voted them in, not withstanding the efforts of some Democrats to provide more.

[mcar]

26. We do deserve repeating payments

But to slam an excellent proposed package by parsing words - who said what, how - rather than looking at the overall proposal and how many people it will help, is short sighted and, quite frankly, hurts its chances of passing ("see, Democrats are against it&quot .

This is a compromise with a miserly pack of wealthy pols. It stinks, and pretending it's something sustaining, or the best they can do is an insult to the people who voted them in, not withstanding the efforts of some Democrats to provide more.

What are you talking about? This is the most progressive relief bill ever proposed. It would cut child poverty in half and make the increase to unemployment benefits ongoing well into 2021. There's more to it than these payments.

[bigtree]

31. it's not an 'excellent' proposal

...it's a compromise, because we have heartless republicans standing in the way of real relief.

I'm surprised people are so willing to make like this legislation - while more generous than we've had so far - is the ultimate in relief. It isn't.

We've been beaten down by a republican cabal into believing we can't provide real support for struggling Americans. This is a paltry sum compared to what several other countries are providing their citizens. Americans have been beaten down to expect less out of our contributions to government. It's a travesty which must be reversed if we're to rescue our poor and working poor.

It's not about Biden or any other pol. It's about people's needs out here.

[George II]

176. How about this back on December 27. Even SHE was in favor of adding to $600 to make it $2000 total.

When did that change?

Link to tweet

[Cha]

182. Crickets.

[George II]

183. So when it was Tlaib and her idea it was fine. Now that it's Biden's it's not good enough. SMDH!

[Cha]

184. Yeah.. Not Cool.

[ahoysrcsm]

230. Ding! You got it.

[mcar]

193. Oopsie

[Cha]

178. I DO Need the Money & I think it's

Ridiculous, Too.

ETA~

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

61. It will never be enough for some.

[bigtree]

93. it's clearly enough for people who don't need it

...and wholly insufficient for those negatively affected by this months-long crisis.

They've provided one $1200. check since April. Do the math. It's a disgrace.

[mcar]

106. Biden is not responsible for that

The disgrace is the Republicans, but sure, let's continue slamming Biden for a proposal that would actually help people.

[bigtree]

114. no one is 'slamming' Biden

...just nonsense.

He's made his proposal, and it will be debated in Congress. People advocating for more money in that bill are no more 'slamming' Biden than the people here arguing that we don't actually need the money. They just disagree.

[AmyStrange]

189. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

[mcar]

99. That's right

[jcgoldie]

11. I'm sure AOC will get excoriated here for not towing the party line verbatim but...

I actually think its pragmatically more effective to have strong voices pushing the conversation left. Then $1400 can be sold as a compromise. Lord knows McConnell and GOP has been using this tactic to drag the conversation further to the right for 10 years with the Tea Party pukes.

[Demsrule86]

64. You are not going to push a 50 50 congress with at least six moderate to conservative Democrats

left. We had substantial majorities in 08 and couldn't do it. What will happen is we will lose the House and the Senate in 22 if we don't get what policy we can. We need to work toward policy that is achievable and save dessert for when we achieve larger majorities. I would much rather see employment compensation increase for a substantial amount of time than an additional $600 above what planned. 2000 was always the figure...not 2600.

[jcgoldie]

73. Everyone doesnt have to agree 100% of the time with the party line

There is room for differences of opinion. Noone is losing the senate or the house in ‘22 because AOC fought for more for her constituents which is her job. Criticize her if she doesn’t vote for the bill not because she is lobbying to make it better.

[Demsrule86]

92. Really, where have I heard this argument before...oh when we lost the House in 10 and the

Senate in 14...we need to stick together or the GOP will gain power.

[mcar]

107. Some seem to want to slam Democrats more than Repubs

even after these last 4 years and a domestic terrorist attack on our Capitol just one fcking week ago.

[Demsrule86]

168. Yes they do...there is no such thing as constructive criticism at this time. We have a razor thin

majority and won't be able to get everything we want...but lets get what we can in the next two years because we don't know if the house survives in 12. One would think after what happened in Obama's term where he was attacked constantly and we had not chance of policy for six years, and then the Hillary debacle where some refused to vote for the Democratic nominee...some would have considered that criticism always leads to the political destruction of our people...a Democrat attacked by the right and the left is usually destroyed. We need to take a different path this time.

[mcar]

171. Some seem to think that bc we have the majority

the sky is the limit.

[Sympthsical]

148. Unity does not entail all muffling of criticism or suggestion

This never questioning is what pulled the party to the Right over the years. Our betters know better and all that rot.

It's time we start pulling Left a bit. People need help. We need people to push for that.

If Biden's bill ends at $1400, awesome. But someone in our party should always be pushing for more for the people. This, "Welp, that's what we get! Don't ask for more!" attitude is counterproductive hogwash. If we can't push for more now, in a historic state of difficulty among Americans, when can we?

Lord. As a gay man participant in the LGBT movement my entire adult life, I have heard this attitude so many times. Don't push! Don't criticize! Now's not the time! There are elections!

It was said every year, every fucking minute of every fucking day. Keep quiet. Mind your betters. Don't rock the boat. Don't ask for more. Always by straight people.

Bull to the shit. That attitude is the losing one. How can people want to vote for you if you are forever tell them to keep quiet and don't ask for better?

And all this gnashing about criticism is over the mildest of things. No one's really even attacking Biden. Just putting a little pressure on, making a suggestion. If this is enough to generate all this hand-wringing, I suggest it is going to be a very, very long four years for people who rankle at the slightest slanted word.

[Demsrule86]

167. Well I have a Gay daughter and my fear is the GOP gets back in because Democrats end up

fighting each other...this is not a protest. We need to legislate. And we won't get everything we want count on it so if we attack Biden over this as was done to Obama...another wasted presidential term and and the GOP back in power..that is what happens when we don't walk together.

[Hortensis]

94. I don't think she's lobbying to make it better. I think she's using it

to feed those of her followers who are addicted to victimhood and dissidence. For self aggrandizement.

She knows perfectly well that $600 + $1400 equals the $2000 she (and the Democratic Party) wanted. $2000 + $600 = $2600, but go find where she ever asked for that.

Until the Democratic Party came through with $2000. Now she portrays that, as usual, as a Democratic failure to serve the people.

This is why she's criticized, for cynical and divisive politicking against what Democrats do. Even when it's what she called for.

[R B Garr]

113. Exactly. It's all about the "branding" and we know

what that’s all about at this point.

[Hortensis]

124. I should have said especially BECAUSE the $2000 is what she called for.

Dissident leaders get in trouble with their followers when they seem to be in line with the mainstream.

They must be seen as an alternative, their "brand." Thus, her contemptible pivot to claiming $2000 is a broken promise.

Contemptible. But lucrative.

[NurseJackie]

139. Yes... contemptible. That's the perfect word.

Contemptible. But lucrative.

Yes... contemptible. That's the perfect word.

They must be seen as an alternative, their "brand." Thus, her contemptible pivot to claiming $2000 is a broken promise.

It's selfish, and in the process it risks kneecapping Biden. It's divisive and it creates resentment and distrust. All of these things only serve to make the Democratic party weaker. And as a result, it benefits the GOP and our nation's enemies.

[R B Garr]

169. Exactly right again. Which is why the BS sticks out

like a sore thumb and is so easy to detect.

[treestar]

215. no it's for complaining already

and going against Democrats rather than Republicans

[bigtree]

13. progressives are making noise now to ensure another round of payments

I've actually seen folks here accusing posters of trying to hurt Biden for wanting an additional 2k. That's ridiculous and cold.

In my view, that's cold-blooded indifference to the obvious plight of the unemployed and underemployed among us. So many responders at DU to this say $1400. additional is enough for them, that I'm thinking hurting folks aren't posting as much here.

At any rate, bashing people for needing more is a curious tack for a progressive board.

[NurseJackie]

17. Lulz!

[bigtree]

21. what is this?

...castigating poor people for wanting, expecting more?

Laugh it up.

[NurseJackie]

24. Ridiculous. Nobody is doing that.

[bigtree]

28. your mocking post is in response to my pointing out the poverty in America

...and expectations of more of our tax dollars returned to folks out here who are hurting.

But you chose to ridicule me for that. What a joke.

[NurseJackie]

32. Nope. Nobody is doing that.

But you chose to ridicule me for that. What a joke.

Nope. Nobody is doing that.

[BannonsLiver]

126. +1

LULZ indeed.

[NurseJackie]

128. It serves no good purpose for ANYONE to try an kneecap Biden...

It serves no good purpose for ANYONE to try an kneecap Biden... even before he's been sworn in. That's not "advocacy" ... it's sabotage. It's just not realistic for anyone to believe otherwise. Biden isn't a king, and the Democrats don't have a supermajority. There will always be concessions and deals and compromises to be made as we seek common ground and ways to move forward. "Incremental" is not a dirty word.

[AmyStrange]

25. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

[Demsrule86]

67. First of all this 'push' is likely to achieve nothing for the unemployed and our economy...we

get the best deal we can...$1400 would be a miracle considering Congress.

[bigtree]

98. that's not the way political advocacy works

...you push beyond what the opposition says they'll accept.

And you make a public beef about it to press the opposition to bend to your position.

What we have now is a proposal from the Pres.-elect which has yet to be debated in the actual place where the money will be voted out.

President Biden will sign any relief bill the next Congress produces. In the interim, as they're setting up to debate, we should be pushing to make our interests and objections clear.

[RobinA]

162. Yes, But Advocacy

also has to think about what will serve its constituency best in the long run, and the timing on this piece of advocacy is awful and counterproductive. AOC seems to have trouble knowing when to hold'em and when to fold'em.

[bigtree]

164. why is it counterproductive? The politics fits the republicans' objections to even this amount

...you should realize they are going to demand we compromise down from this figure of $1400.. They usually demand it be halved, like the last proposal of $1200. that turned into $600.

We'd do better, politically, asking for more upfront. This thing is just a proposal from a president not yet sworn in. Watch what happens to it. We'll absolutely need the folks complaining that it isn't enough when the objections start.

[beastie boy]

18. Can you, or AOC, cite Biden proposing a $2000 stimulus IN ADDITION to $600 already passed?

I couldn't find any references to that.

Yes, AOC is right. $2000 is $2000. Not $2600. And yes, she is wrong: Biden is delivering as promised.

[NurseJackie]

27. Thank you. All of this amounts to an underhanded smear of Biden...

... essentially accusing him of duplicity. Of course it's not true, and it's not helpful.

In fact it causes great harm. It's divisive and it promotes distrust. Things like this only serve to weaken the Democratic party and to peel-away support for Biden at this very critical time. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment... it's not time for anyone to be tossing banana peels in our path.

[PatSeg]

37. Exactly

Anyone who thinks Biden won't do everything within his power to help suffering Americans, is not really paying attention. If he thought he could do more, I'm quite sure he would. He has nothing to prove. He came out of political retirement to run for president and has no further political ambitions. At this point in his life, it about public service.

Meanwhile, he is facing a huge mess from day one, much like FDR in 1933. I don't think he pulled $1400 out of a hat. He needed to put together a plan to get the coronavirus under control and repair a failing economy all in one package. THEN he has to get it through congress. We don't need to agree 100% with everything he does, but he should be getting our support. Our democracy is in great jeopardy right now.

[Demsrule86]

68. That is correct...and I am so angry that our side would attack Biden this way...we may very

well have to begin a serious effort to go after moderate voters to hold our majorities.

[bigtree]

35. my family had already gotten our $600. when the '$2000. check' was announced

...everyone in my house thought the 2k was to be additional. Other folks I've talked to, as well.

Why is it so hard to understand this?

Yes, it was mistaken, but the misunderstanding isn't some sort of attack on Biden or Democrats. It's part and parcel of politics, where all sorts of things are said, and all sorts of things are heard by the public.

This piling on of folks who thought it was additional money, expects additional money, is wrong.

[NurseJackie]

36. They thought wrong.

everyone in my house thought the 2k was to be additional.

They thought wrong. It's nobody's responsibility to fulfill their incorrect expectations.

Yes, it was mistaken, but the misunderstanding isn't some sort of attack on Biden or Democrats.

I can certainly understand low-information citizens being "confused"... but I have much higher expectations from our elected representatives. Unless they're trying to score-points or make Biden (or Democrats in general) look bad, or look weak, or look duplicitous.

All I'm saying is that it serves no good purpose when anyone has that as their goal or intent. Such underhanded smears of Biden and indeed our entire Democratic party, only creates distrust and division. It weakens up. Anything that undercuts support or enthusiasm for Biden/Harris and their policies and agenda only serves to benefit the GOP.

I think it's fair to ask why anyone would want to do (or say) things that have the ultimate effect of helping the GOP. This is an all hands on deck moment. Now is not the time to be tossing banana peels in the path of Biden or the Democratic party.

[bigtree]

39. I'm a citizen, not a politician

...and expressing my beliefs shouldn't be regarded as an attack on anyone.

It's advocacy for the policies and initiatives I support here.

Trying to twist those into 'tossing banana peels in the path of Biden or the Democratic part is pure sophistry.

Do better.

[NurseJackie]

41. Lulz! Nobody is twisting your words.

I'm a citizen, not a politician

Okay. So? Who has claimed otherwise?

Trying to twist those into 'tossing banana peels in the path of Biden or the Democratic part is pure sophistry.

Lulz! Nobody is twisting your words. But at the same time, I think it's entirely fair to criticize anyone who may try to defend politicians who do such things. There's simply no justification for anyone on "our side" to do or say things that are clearly construed incorrectly... or to do or say things that harm Biden, or that are an underhanded way of accusing him of being dishonest or deceitful; or not having pure intents; or not living up to his promises. Why would anyone want to do that? What good purpose does it serve? Why would anyone want to defend that? What good purpose does THAT serve?

Do better.

Good grief. Irony.

[bigtree]

51. claiming posters on a message board are trying to upset Biden for expecting more $ is ludicrous

..what purpose does that serve?

[NurseJackie]

57. Nobody claimed that about posters.

claiming posters on a message board are trying to upset Biden for expecting more $ is ludicrous

Nobody claimed that about posters. My issue is with politicians who should know better. I also take issue with those who defend those politicians. I just happen to have higher expectations from our elected representatives and I think it serves nobody's interests to do or say things which infer or imply that Biden is being duplicitous, or that the Democratic party is weak or dishonest. None of those things are true. People who do and say such things (and those who make excuses for them) are creating division and distrust. That only serves to weaken the Democratic party and weaken the support for Biden. Why? What good comes of that? In doing such things, the only ones who benefit are the GOP and Russia. Why would anyone do or say things that benefit the GOP and Russia?

That's all I'm saying. Please stop twisting my words. My criticism is valid and my questions are fair. I deserve an honest answer.

[bigtree]

58. they're advocating for me

..I support AOC's effort to pressure her fellow legislators to provide more.

That's what's happening here, not the nonsense you describe.

[NurseJackie]

62. Lulz!

That's what's happening here, not the nonsense you describe.

Lulz!

[bigtree]

70. conversely, the effect of your 'advocacy' would/will be the paltry $1400. additional

...a compromise because we have miserly republicans in the way, more concerned with giving our money to their rich friends.

I'm with those in our party who say we can do better than this devil's bargain with wealthy senators.

[NurseJackie]

77. Oh, please! Spare me!

I'm with those in our party who say we can do better than this devil's bargain with wealthy senators.

Oh, please! Spare me!

I'm opposed to anyone who (for whatever misguided reason they have) thinks it serves a greater good to undercut Biden by portraying him as being deceptive or duplicitous... or insinuating that he can't be trusted.

I'm with those in our party who say we can do better than this devil's bargain with wealthy senators.

You are? Why? It's more than naive for anyone to argue that we can just steamroll our will in congress. That's just not the case. Deals and bargains and compromise will always be a part of the process. ALWAYS. As soon as people accept reality, then we'll be in a better position to move forward and make progress.

There are no two ways about it. People (including our own elected officials) will need to come to terms with that reality. That's just the way it is. This type of showboating helps nobody. Trying to bully Biden (or undercut him) will only make things worse. Why do it?

[bigtree]

83. one person's 'showboating' is another's advocacy

...one proposes to get what we need, others proposes compromising on those needs, touting 'progress'.

I'm with the one who doesn't propose compromising our needs, ultimately, though (as she is, as well) stuck with the ones compromising.

[NurseJackie]

95. I live in the real world.. not a binary, or black-and-white world.

I'm with the one who doesn't propose compromising our needs, ultimately, though (as she is, as well) stuck with the ones compromising.

That's how it works in the real world. There will always be compromises. There will always be negotiations. There will always be give and take. There will always be trading. There will always be a search for common ground.

To expect otherwise is incredibly naive of any elected official, no matter which party they have an allegiance to. And for any elected official to make their supporters believe otherwise, well, that's just incredibly cruel and irresponsible. We don't make progress by shouting and bullying. We don't make progress with an "all or nothing" negotiating stance.

All I'm trying to say is that we do NOT make progress and we do NOT help people by doing and saying things that undercut Biden, or that falsely portray him as deceitful, or duplicitous, or weak, etc etc. Wouldn't you agree that nothing good comes from doing and saying things that harm Biden or that attempt to make him look stupid?

one person's 'showboating' is another's advocacy

No good can come of that type of showboating, no matter who's doing it. I'm not seeing "advocacy". Advocacy does not mean dragging down Biden and creating division and distrust within the party. It's time for all of our elected representatives to accept reality. Everyone needs to do the math and quit trying to harm Biden.

[bigtree]

104. If you think republicans can't be pushed further, there's no real point in your advocacy

...other than maintaining the status quo.

That's not progressivism, btw. It's not progress.

Two parties agreeing on a wholly insufficient amount of relief isn't really something we should aspire to, more than it's just a sad reality.

[NurseJackie]

111. Ridiculous. Nobody said that.

That's not progressivism, btw. It's not progress.

Wrong. Finding common ground IS progress. But the "take it or leave it" and "all or nothing" strategy is maintaining the status quo.

If you think republicans can't be pushed further

Ridiculous. Nobody said that. What I'm saying is that undercutting Biden is not the way to go about it. Falsely portraying Biden as being incompetent; or weak; or duplicitous; or deceptive... well... it's just wrong for anyone to do it, and it's wrong for anyone to defend it.

It's also wrong for anyone to characterize it as "advocacy". I live in the real world. We do not have a super-majority and deals will always have to be made. There will always be compromise. The progress will be slow and incremental.

It serves no good purpose for anyone to "blame-Biden" (even before he's taken the oath of office). This is how things work. People will be a lot happier if they give up this notion that Biden can just snap his fingers and change everything as if he were some magical king. It's just not going to happen.

[mcar]

110. It's like people have learned nothing

This is the same type of rhetoric we heard from the "left" for the 8 years of the Obama administration. Nothing was ever good enough, or at least a step forward. It was trash, trash, trash anything he did while completely ignoring the Republicans and the reality of governing.

[bigtree]

115. that's called progressive politics

...anyone claiming that we don't need more than Congress provides isn't advocating for our Democratic voters - they're politicking.

[NurseJackie]

127. No it's not. Absurd.

that's called progressive politics

No it's not. Absurd.

anyone claiming that we don't need more than Congress provides isn't advocating for our Democratic voters

Nobody is claiming that. Also an absurd accusation.

they're politicking.

No, sorry... that's wrong too. Blaming Biden for things that are beyond his control (and even before he's been sworn-in) is ridiculous. The insinuations that portray Biden as being dishonest or deceptive is NOT "progressive" and does not help to promote the all-hands-on-deck unity that we need at this critical moment.

Instead it's divisive and harmful. It creates distrust. It seeks to undermine Biden and his entire agenda.

I expect better from our elected officials. They should know and understand how the real world works. We're not in a position where we can just snap our fingers and dictate what the GOP will do. There will ALWAYS be deals to be made, negotiations to be had, and compromises and concessions to be given. That's just the way it is.

It's a mistake for anyone to think that they're helping things by trying to KNEECAP Biden even before he's been sworn in. That needs to stop.

[bigtree]

133. blah, blah blah, you're wrong

...nothing in these dissenting proposals 'kneecaps Biden.'

You couldn't sound any sillier.

President Biden will sign any increase Congress agrees to after debate. If the dissents fail, he'll still get his legislation.

Can you be any more hyperbolic?

[NurseJackie]

136. I can tell you what DOES kneecap Biden...

...nothing in these dissenting proposals 'kneecaps Biden.'

I can tell you what DOES kneecap Biden: the false insinuations that Biden has betrayed some greater good, or that he's incompetent, or that he's not doing enough, or that he's got the power of a king, or that he's been duplicitous and deceptive, or that he's not keeping his word, or that he's making promises he can't keep. ALL of these are just absurd notions for anyone to be pushing (and for anyone to defend).

Honestly, I'm just trying to say that this helps nobody. It serves no good purpose. It's divisive and it only creates resentment and distrust. That's the kind of thing that weakens our party. Anything that weakens Democrats only serves to benefit the GOP, and Russia.

You couldn't sound any sillier.

It's not about me. I haven't insulted you. I haven't called you names. For the record, it's not okay to insult me, thank you very much.

President Biden will sign any increase Congress agrees to after debate.

Nobody has claimed otherwise. That's not what this is about, is it?

Can you be any more hyperbolic?

Not while the goalposts are still in motion.

[bigtree]

142. 'insinuations' are your own invention

...if you actually accepted what's written and said in dissent, you couldn't find a speck of 'kneecapping' Biden or the party.

Did you know that Congress will debate these proposals? Is that necessarily 'divisive?' Of course not.

Do you realize that most people who want more money will support this proposal if it's all that's left standing in the end?

It's always funny to see people arguing for unity who don't give a damn about the interests of the people they're demanding unify.

[NurseJackie]

144. I'm smarter than many people believe.

if you actually accepted what's written and said in dissent, you couldn't find a speck of 'kneecapping' Biden or the party.

I'm smarter than many people believe. I know exactly what's going on. I wasn't born yesterday.

Did you know that Congress will debate these proposals? Is that necessarily 'divisive?' Of course not.

Then what good purpose does it serve for anyone to try an portray Biden as being incompetent or duplicitous or dishonest or weak?

Do you realize that most people who want more money will support this proposal if it's all that's left standing in the end?

I realize that I live in the real world... one where wishcraft doesn't exist.

It's always funny to see people arguing for unity who don't give a damn about the interests of the people they're demanding unify.

It's always tragic to see people kneecapping Biden in an effort to build their own brand and to convince others that somehow "Biden has let them down" or that "Biden didn't fight hard enough".

[bigtree]

147. you can't prove that by me

...what you're arguing for isn't advocacy or even political support, it's fealty.

You won't sell all of that by complaining that those dissenting from your genuflecting to politicians are attacking someone.

[NurseJackie]

152. Again with the insults. Why?

you can't prove that by me

I haven't personally insulted you. What purpose does it serve to insult me? Please stop. I don't deserve that.

[mcar]

192. Show me where I said that

...anyone claiming that we don't need more than Congress provides isn't advocating for our Democratic voters - they're politicking.

I don't know who you are responding to.

[Cha]

185. Absolutely.. nor do they want to.

[Demsrule86]

108. No one said that is yours or anyone else's motive but attacking Biden on the right and the left

will destroy his presidency and help elect Republicans as early as 22...Some on the left who desire stronger progressive policies must understand we have a 50-50 majority in Congress. In order to have a majority we have six moderate to conservative senators and a slim majority in the House. There is policy we agree on that can be enacted in the next two years with compromise.

Let's do this and not attack Biden or the Congress. It is what it is. As a progressive I have a long list of things I want to see happen but as a realist, I know some of it won't happen. I have outlined my priorities in an earlier post on this thread. The fact that we don't stick together has influenced what we have accomplished when we held majorities which amounts to very little.

We enacted marriage equality and the ACA during eight years of the Obama administration; it could have been way more with unity and holding the Senate and the House. Let's do better this time. We really need to. I would remind you that Social Security and Medicare are on the verge of bankruptcy. Also, Trump has made it so those over 65 will not be able to obtain new drugs such as those used in fighting cancer with his tampering with prescription drug policy. People on the ACA had $15,000 out of pocket since subsidies were lowered or even ended.We have so policy that is so important= that must get done...let's unify and do it.

[bigtree]

119. the debate is on the proposal in Congress, not on Biden who can't appropriate the money himself

...and it's not just the 'left' who can't keep their focus.

'Congress' isn't a progressive monolith, and it's my intention that it should be. That reality drives my advocacy. I refuse to 'unify' politically with those who don't believe in the need for progressive change, and I'm loath to settle for the misering of our needs by legislators.

Joe Biden will sign whatever relief bill the next Congress produces, including any increase decided by legislators, so I'm a bit confused why opposition to this proposal is supposed to be an attack on him.

[NurseJackie]

156. Ridiculous! Nobody here believes that...

I refuse to 'unify' politically with those who don't believe in the need for progressive change,

Nobody here believes that. We all support progressive change.

and I'm loath to settle for the misering of our needs by legislators.

Welcome to the real world. That's how it works. Change is always slow. It's never as fast as we want it to be and it's never as much as we need it to be. But no matter how small the progress... it's STILL progress.

Be thankful for what you get and what we're able to accomplish... especially considering that we do not have anything near to a filibuster-proof majority. And this "loath to settle" business? That's just another clever way to argue an "all or nothing" philosophy. If you're unwilling to settle, then no progress will ever be made. If you refuse to accept a slice of bread (even though you want the entire loaf) then you'll starve.

Mature politicians and experienced politicians and realistic politicians know how to find common ground and make deals. The "my way or the highway" politicians end up with empty hands, nothing to show for all the rabble rousing and the high-n-mighty talk, except for a pocketful of promises.

so I'm a bit confused why opposition to this proposal is supposed to be an attack on him.

Please. I don't buy that for a second. The implication is that "Biden's plan falls short" and therefore he's betrayed those in need. It's being insinuated that he "broke his promise" or that he's incompetent. This is a divisive tactic that can kneecap Biden even before he's taken the oath of office. It needs to stop.

[bigtree]

157. that's so weak

...be thankful for those pushing for more.

They're the ONLY reason you get ANYTHING.

It doesn't take a political scientist to tell you that.

[NurseJackie]

158. Fortunately, I live in the real world.... And so do most of our elected representatives...

...be thankful for those pushing for more.

Kneecapping Biden is not the same thing as "pushing for more".

They're the ONLY reason you get ANYTHING.

That's also incorrect and a myopic viewpoint. Fortunately, I live in the real world (and I have a more rational and clear way of looking at these things.) And so do most of our elected representatives. They understand that real progress is made by give-and-take, negotiating, compromise, finding common ground. Progress isn't achieved by making "all or nothing" demands. It's also not made by making veiled threats, engaging in twitter feuds, or by being a spoiler.

When it comes right down to it, we would all be served very well if every elected representative asked themselves: WWND? What would Nancy do? --- And then do that.

[bigtree]

160. If you think McConnell doesn't need to be pushed, you aren't paying attention

...and Biden will get a bill, no matter what we're advocating for.

More importantly, the vast majority of those advocating for more money will support whatever Democrats can manage to get out of the Congress in the end. They'll vote for a bill for him to sign. Where's the 'kneecapping' in that? He gets a bill, no matter to the legislation's passage that some Dems pushed for more money.

What happens if republicans insist he compromise down from that $1400. figure. Where do you go from there? Pushing for more actually butresses Biden's proposal, not weakens it. That's standard political pressuring. Advocacy 101.

Your ridiculous claim that dissenting on this amount of money is 'kneecapping Biden' fails to explain just how he's actually hurt. Not your feelings, but some actual harm to him or his agenda.

Saying 'kneecapping over and over' doesn't make it so.

[NurseJackie]

163. Nobody said that. Nobody.

If you think McConnell doesn't need to be pushed, you aren't paying attention

Nobody said that. Nobody. Where will the goalposts be moved to next?

Your ridiculous claim that dissenting on this amount of money is 'kneecapping Biden' fails to explain just how he's actually hurt.

No, I've been very clear about that. I don't know why I bother to type replies to you if you're not going to read them. But here it is again (along with links) repeating the points I've been making throughout this ridiculous thread.

https://tinyurl.com/y4t34ofl
The implication is that "Biden's plan falls short" and therefore he's betrayed those in need. It's being insinuated that he "broke his promise" or that he's incompetent. This is a divisive tactic that can kneecap Biden even before he's taken the oath of office. It needs to stop.

https://tinyurl.com/yylda8fw
I can tell you what DOES kneecap Biden: the false insinuations that Biden has betrayed some greater good, or that he's incompetent, or that he's not doing enough, or that he's got the power of a king, or that he's been duplicitous and deceptive, or that he's not keeping his word, or that he's making promises he can't keep.

Saying 'kneecapping over and over' doesn't make it so.

Denying that it is so, doesn't make it not-so. What I can also tell you is that what's making it worse is the unnecessary denial that it's happening, and the defending of those who continue to do it. It's divisive and it creates distrust and resentment.

[mcar]

195. Some serious strawmen on this thread

[NurseJackie]

197. How about a little fire, Scarecrow?

Last edited Sat Jan 16, 2021, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

[mcar]

199. ...

[NurseJackie]

134. A voice of reason. Thank you!

[Demsrule86]

140. Thank you Jackie...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

141. So Biden said this AFTER the $600 dollar checks went out:

“Their election will put an end to the block in Washington — that $2,000 stimulus check — that money would go out the door immediately, to help people who are in real trouble,”

How exactly is it just a low-information voter that would assume he meant a $1400 check?

And it's not a smear to say that he moved the goalposts. I don't feel like I need to be a member of a cult that never says anything bad about the leader. Sorry.

[NurseJackie]

145. Oh, charming! So now loyal Democrats are "members of a cult". Nice.

I don't feel like I need to be a member of a cult that never says anything bad about the leader.

Oh, charming! So now loyal Democrats are "members of a cult". Nice.

How exactly is it just a low-information voter that would assume he meant a $1400 check?

By using a calculator?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

146. I'm saying we shouldn't be.

Sorry if I went beyond emoticons to express myself and that that was a little too nuanced for you.

He said the words "$2000 check." No calculator needed. What did he mean would go out the door? *checks his exact quotation* "$2000 checks."

[NurseJackie]

150. No, your meaning was clear...

Sorry if I went beyond emoticons to express myself and that that was a little too nuanced for you.

No, your meaning was clear the first time. I know exactly what you meant. There was nothing "nuanced" about it.

I'm saying we shouldn't be.

You're saying that those who defend Biden ARE members of a cult. That much is clear. Again: so charming.

What did he mean would go out the door?

The complete $2000 assistance that the Democrats had been fighting for. This is not that hard to understand. And pretending to misunderstand or any attempts to create an alternate reality won't make it so.

The total benefit this time will be $2000 no matter how much or how loud the complaints are. Suck it up and move one. Be thankful that this much is coming. Don't try to kneecap Biden and weaken our party with divisions and distrust... such a thing could make the next stimulus check even MORE difficult to achieve.

This is reality. Deal with it. $2000. That's all for now.

[beastie boy]

40. Announced by whom? Can you cite a source? That's all I am asking for.

Until you do, I stand by my post: AOC is wrong to blame Biden, an Biden has delivered as promised.

[bigtree]

46. payments started in December

...look at the statements promising $2k, after that date. They sounded like separate proposals, at least to me.

Instead of me posting every utterance made, tell me who made clear it was 'additional' until this week? The language just wasn't clear, not until there was a hint of it in Joe's proposal announcement. Every statement said $2000., not 'additional' or 'total.' That's a recent explanation which I suppose could have been gleaned from the proposals, but with $600. already in hand, it sounded exactly like the $600. was McConnell's compromise, and Biden's $2k (and others) was an addition to that.

It just wasn't made clear, and I pay a lot of attention.

[beastie boy]

65. The bill was signed into law December 27, late at night. Biden's spoke on December 28, early

afternoon. Don't tell me the Department of Treasury was able to handle the logistics of ordering, issuing and mailing the stimulus checks in a matter of hours, and don't tell me Mnuchin would inform Biden of the timing to distribute the checks.

You don't need to post every utterance on the subject: a single utterance that is accurate will suffice. To answer your question, it was not Biden who made it clear it was "additional" $2000. This is pure speculation on AOC's part, unsupported by fact. Each time Biden spoke of $2000, not once did he mention it was additional to the $600. AOC is wrong, and Biden delivered as promised.

[bigtree]

74. don't tell me that it was made clear it was additional money

...it was not made clear in anyone's statements until this week.

No one said anything about an additional $1400. No one said anything about a total amount. It is a understandable mistake to have thought the $2k proposed was in addition to the 600., especially as the debate wore on and weeks passed thinking the $600 was McConnell, and the 2k was Biden's.

[NurseJackie]

79. Well now we know. Now we all know. Time to people get back to work and stop trying...

...it was not made clear in anyone's statements until this week.

Well now we know. Now we all know. Time to people get back to work and stop trying to undercut Biden by portraying him as being deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous. That's simply not the case. The whining and wailing and other assorted temper tantrums that I'm witnessing on the Internets and Twitter really serve no good purpose. It's divisive and it only creates distrust. Things like that weaken our party and weaken support for Biden's agenda.

It's time for our elected officials to let go of previous misconceptions and accept reality. It is what it is. No amount of shouting or undermining of Biden will change it.

[beastie boy]

82. Ok, I will not tell you. Biden will.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/05/joe-biden-georgia-rally-senate-runoff-election-vpx.cnn

Just before he mentions $2000 going out the doors, he talks about "the debate" over the amount, not the outcome of the debate, which, as I showed earlier, was not known to him at the time. He is clearly referring to the debate between $600 vs $2000. Not adding $2000 to the $600.

AOC is wrong. It may or may not be interpreted as an understandable mistake, but she is wrong and Biden delivered as promised.

[bigtree]

90. there's clearly loose language here

...that's why some folks are complaining.

I'd guess you see what you want in that, but it's just not clear to me. I'm not alone in that, and it's not just AOC or the ficticious group of people trying to hurt Biden, or make him slip on a banana or something, who had this view of the statements made.

[NurseJackie]

102. But now everyone knows and understands. --- It's time to let it go.

But now everyone knows and understands. The "confusion" has been cleared up. We should all be on the same page now. There's no good to be served in continually trying to portray Biden as having been deceptive. There's nothing to be gained in trying to divide and weaken the party. It's a grave mistake to foment distrust and resentment. --- It's time to let it go. (Here's an animated gif to help illustrate what I'm trying to say.)

[beastie boy]

103. The language can only be called "loose" if you ignore the context and the timing of the speech.

And AOC is not just "some folks", yet she is complaining. She is the House representative. She ought to know better than misrepresent what Bidden said. Even if you accept the "loose language" premise, which I don't, you can't accuse someone based on "loose" language. She didn't complain about Biden use loose language. She accused him of going back on his promise. That's irresponsible at best and malicious at worst.

[NurseJackie]

97. And now she knows. Now EVERYONE knows. Whatever the (ahem) "misunderstanding" was...

And now she knows. Now EVERYONE knows. Whatever the (ahem) "misunderstanding" was, everyone should NOW be clear that there's not going to be an ADDITIONAL $2000. That's how it is. That's how it will be. It's a mistake for anyone to believe that they can bully Biden into snapping his fingers and making something different happen.

[whopis01]

154. Actually it was made clear and people were saying an additional $1,400.

Here is one example:

This is from December 30, just over two weeks ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/30/stimulus-checks-2000-dollars/

"But runoff races for Georgia’s two Senate seats — one has been clinched by Democrat Raphael Warnock and Democrat Jon Ossoff holds a lead over Republican David Perdue for the other — are once again rallying congressional Democrats and President-elect Joe Biden around the idea of an additional $1,400 in direct relief, on top of the $600 checks that were included in last month’s stimulus package."

The House bill that had been voted on was to increase the amount to $2,000.
McConnell wouldn't let the Senate vote on that bill.
Biden made the argument that if Warnock and Ossof were elected, then the Senate would vote on that bill and pass it.

[NurseJackie]

161. ⭐⭐⭐ Thank you! ⭐⭐⭐

Actually it was made clear and people were saying an additional $1,400.

Here is one example:

This is from December 30, just over two weeks ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/30/stimulus-checks-2000-dollars/

"But runoff races for Georgia’s two Senate seats — one has been clinched by Democrat Raphael Warnock and Democrat Jon Ossoff holds a lead over Republican David Perdue for the other — are once again rallying congressional Democrats and President-elect Joe Biden around the idea of an additional $1,400 in direct relief, on top of the $600 checks that were included in last month’s stimulus package."

The House bill that had been voted on was to increase the amount to $2,000.
McConnell wouldn't let the Senate vote on that bill.

Biden made the argument that if Warnock and Ossof were elected, then the Senate would vote on that bill and pass it.

⭐⭐⭐ Thank you! ⭐⭐⭐

[Takket]

38. Exactly. $2600 has never been on the table in any discussion.

If AOC wants $2000, that is exactly what $600 + $1400 is. I understand what she’s doing. Trying to get everyone $2600 which is fine, but she is being disingenuous to pretend anyone ever talked about the $2000 being on top of the $600

Ask for $2000 more. Ask for $2000000 more. Whatever you want. But don’t be disingenuous about how you ask for it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

45. He didn't parse words

"Georgia, there's no one in America with more power to make that happen than you, the citizens of Atlanta, the citizens of Georgia and that's not an exaggeration. That's literally true," he said. "If you send Jon and the reverend to Washington, those $2,000 checks will go out the door, restoring hope and decency and honor for so many people who are struggling right now."

source

If he meant a $1400 check was going to go out the door, he could have said so.

[leftstreet]

52. +1

[dustyscamp]

101. AOC was wrong here, but I think Biden should have made it clearer, his checks would be an addition

Maybe something like this
"In addition to the $600 direct payments already being sent out we will be adding an additional $1400 on top of it."

Congress passed a $900 billion relief bill on December 22 containing $600 direct payments for most Americans based on income. In a speech that day, Biden called the legislation "a down payment," and Democrats have said they will push for more federal aid when Biden takes office January 20.

Trump signed the relief package on December 28 but is urging lawmakers to reach a deal on $2,000 checks.

The $600 payments have already started being distributed, so it's unclear whether Biden would seek additional $1,400 payments or an additional $2,000.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-georgia-senate-runoff-2000-stimulus-checks-immediately-2021-1

[fescuerescue]

19. 1400 + 600 equal 2000

I think it's fine to argue that $2600 is better, but saying otherwise this is a curious argument.

(It's also curious that you can't put the equal sign in the subject line)

[NurseJackie]

30. I can ... =

(It's also curious that you can't put the equal sign in the subject line)

I can ... = (but there's a trick to doing it).

[Thrill]

43. I don't get it? The House Bill doesn't even say that?

[splunge63]

54. Ooof!

[Peacetrain]

63. Bull sh*t.. 600 plus 1400 .. just stop it

For the love of God, if we can move this bill, it is going to cover the things we need to get people back up.. business (small) back up.. and the 2000.. this is what drives me nuts..

[Cuthbert Allgood]

72. So when Biden said before the Georgia special election

that if they went blue, that $2000 checks would go in the mail (he did NOT say that $1400 checks would go in the mail or that it would be a total of $2000 with the $600--he said $2000 checks), that it is somehow wrong for AOC to say that $1400 isn't $2000 as he said in his speech? Shouldn't we be holding him to a higher standard than that?

[Celerity]

138. You are correct, the cheques were said to be for 2000 usd over and over well AFTER

Trump signed the first bill into law and even after many had gotten the 600 usd deposited.

It was not until yesterday that it was announced officially that the NEW bill would be for 1400 usd and that those cheques may not go out until the end of February or so.

Even Lawrence O'Donnell, a whip smart human, asked a Biden spox to clear up this, as he (O'Donnell) thought it quite possibly would be 2000 usd cheques based off what even Biden himself had been saying (examples is his GA Senate runoff speech). But hey, it is AOC, so the usual ones here will get in a lather.

Full disclosure, I have no skin in the game, as my income is too high to qualify for any aid payment.

[George II]

205. Sorry, that's not correct. Here is what was said after the bill was signed by trump....

....by the very person who is now saying "$2000 is $2000". She is correct that $2000 is $2000, as she said less than three weeks ago (December 27). Nowhere in the math that I was taught was $2000 is really $2600, and I was educated in the NYC school system.

Note that she says she and Tlaib already had an amendment that would "bring the $600 checks to $2k".

Link to tweet

I wonder what changed between December 27 and yesterday now that Biden has AGREED with her that Congress should "bring the $600 checks to $2k"? Did she amend her own amendment?

Seems rather strange.

[Celerity]

217. you are once again wrong, as I definitely showed in a series of posts to you in another thread

now you come back and repeat the same faulty logic and mis-representations

you are just bouncing from thread to thread and playing 'let's see if it sticks this time' games

you are yet again playing bait and switch with two different bills (that you falsely claimed were the same bill)

here is the old thread where I showed you to be factually wrong then, and you are now wrong as well

on this old thread below you actually tried to use AOC, a person who had JUST SAID that 2000 usd means 2000 usd, not 1400 usd to somehow say that she (AOC) was saying it meant 1400 usd, lol

you (at that time) were not even aware of that AOC had said she definitely meant 2000 usd on top

you were too busy trying to play conflation games and making false claims (again, you falsely said, as shown below, that there was no new bill)

you also, by the end of the colloquy, not only used a non sequitur/subject slide (started talking about 'bashing' Biden when NOTHING in my responses bashed anyone and was focused solely on the errors you made), but you also pivoted and started to turn on AOC, literally just a couple replies after you incorrectly tried to use her (incorrectly) to buttress your own opinion, lol


the colloquy
















done with this



btw

it is easy to see why people were confused (Lawrence O'Donnell as of last night was (until the Biden spox told him it was not 2000, but 1400) and if he, a sussed-in political insider is, the average person easily could be as well)

Biden said (10 days or so after the first bill was already law and cheques were starting to go to bank accounts) 2000 usd cheques would be sent, not 1400 usd cheques, and not 600 plus 1400 to get to 2000


https://www.complex.com/life/2021/01/joe-biden-promises-2-thousand-dollar-stimulus-checks-if-democrats-win-georgia-runoff

[OnDoutside]

71. So the attacks on Biden have restarted.

[jcgoldie]

75. "Attacks on Biden"

What a fucking ridiculous statement. Trying to get more for her constituents is an “attack on Biden?” Come on the pressure to conformity around here just goes over the top sometimes.

[OnDoutside]

78. "Ocasio-Cortez Says $1,400 Payments in BIDEN Plan Fall Short of Promised Relief"

"Ocasio-Cortez Says $1,400 Payments in BIDEN Plan Fall Short of Promised Relief"

You're welcome.

[jcgoldie]

80. Yes his name is on the plan

So your premise is that arguing to increase the payment she is launching an “attack on Biden.”

[OnDoutside]

84. Pelosi just called it the Covid Relief Package, it's not that hard if you want to not kick your

leader. AOC is a very smart person, and knows exactly what she's saying and who she is speaking to.

[jcgoldie]

88. Right

She doesnt care about the money she just wanted to take some cheap shots at the newly elected president FFS.

Is there even a quote from her in the article referring to Biden or Biden plan? I do not see it.

[OnDoutside]

112. Looks like it. This is from the WaPo article that Commondreams took it from

With those margins, even holding enough Democrats together to pass legislation along party lines could prove a challenge. The most conservative Senate Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), has already expressed skepticism about the need for a new round of stimulus checks, while Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that Biden isn’t going far enough by proposing $1,400 checks, even though Biden’s approach means most people will end up with $2,000 given the earlier batch of $600 checks. “$2,000 means $2,000. $2,000 does not mean $1,400,″ Ocasio-Cortez said.

Foreshadowing the legislative fight to come, Biden’s plan quickly attracted criticism from advocates on the right and the left. Stephen Moore, an outside economic adviser to Trump, slammed it as “fiscally irresponsible.” Mark Wolfe, head of the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, said he was disappointed the proposal didn’t include more money for rental assistance or low-income energy assistance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/01/14/biden-stimulus-covid-relief/

Ironically, Bernie Sanders was far more supportive in that CD article

Sanders, the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, vowed earlier this week to use the reconciliation process to "boldly address the needs of working families."

In a statement late Thursday, the Vermont senator said Biden "has put forth a very strong first installment of an emergency relief plan that will begin to provide desperately needed assistance to tens of millions of working families facing economic hardship during the pandemic." On top of $1,400 direct payments to many Americans—including adult dependents—the president-elect also proposed increasing the current $300-per-week federal unemployment supplement to $400 and extending emergency jobless programs through September.

"The president-elect's Covid relief plan includes many initiatives that the American people want and need, including increasing the $600 direct payments to $2,000, and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour," Sanders continued. "As the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I look forward to working with the president-elect and my colleagues in Congress to provide bold emergency relief to the American people as soon as possible."

[Mariana]

118. That's what the headline writer said, not AOC.

Is there any quote from AOC in this story, in which she criticizes Biden?

[OnDoutside]

159. CD got that from a WaPo article

See here this post higher up. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14932179

[marie999]

81. If she is really upset about this, she should take it up with Biden.

It doesn't do the Democrats any good to be washing our laundry in public.

[OnDoutside]

86. Well said.

[liskddksil]

100. That's not how politics works nt

[Demsrule86]

109. Well lets consider doing politics in a new way. I can't call our politics of the last 20 years

particularly successful.

[liskddksil]

153. Me neither, but that doesn't mean representatives shouldn't use their pulpit to call

on their constituents to peacefully lobby for policy actions.

[Demsrule86]

166. If we divide...over things Biden can't pass which is what happened with Obama...we will

have another wasted opportunity to get our legislation passed. Let Biden govern without constant criticism.

[Tink41]

116. Agreed

Part of the original pandemic plan which other countries had intended also was a fixed amount of income so they would be able to shut things down, to stop the virus spread. We DIDN'T do that. Not even close. In fact WE did the opposite. Forced lower paid workers out into the danger zone. Sure things have opened back up and many still have jobs, but most likely making less in the case of restaurant/bar employees, possibly cut hours in shifts for factory workers, the supply chain has been disrupted, there was a lumber shortage this summer.
In my opinion this is no knock against Biden, it's a call to do more. Worst that can happen is they say no.

[Hobo]

117. For some people

Math is hard.

Hobo

[BannonsLiver]

120. Yep. As is paying attention, apparently.

Was never going to be 2600.

[Blasphemer]

121. That's absurd. The entire point of the last debate was to increase the $600 to $2000

$1400 is the difference. Things like this is why AOC lacks the ability to gain wide support in the Democratic Party (much less the country as a whole). This is not helpful for the progressive cause.

[panader0]

122. Biden had nothing to do with the $600. That was the repubs that gave us that instead of the $1200.

Biden said $2000. So will he use the repub approved money and add to it or go for $2000?
Personally, I'd be thrilled with either sum. Joe's my man and I'm with him whatever.
But words have meanings. That's why there is this issue about the stimulus.

[Polybius]

123. Basic math means basic math

A $2,000 was promised. We then got $600. $1,400 is left.

[apnu]

125. You got $600? I got nothing so far.

But yes. This $2000 number has always included the $600. Trump was clear on that, so was Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi.

It seems to me some people are being selective in their hearing.

I think $2000, as a one-time payment is cheap. There should be a monthly stipend for Americans idled by COVID, so we can really lockdown and mitigate this thing. I'm happy to have that discussed, I'm happy for the Progressive Left to lead that discussion.

But that is a different conversation we should be having. Selective hearing like what's being reported has a net-negative affect overall.

I'd rather people say "$2000 is a start, we need more" then go on to hold Congress and the Executive in that heat to get it done.

[LizBeth]

129. We all knew was going to be 1400. She knew, because when she wrote something up it included the 600

[Tarc]

130. She ain't wrong. Don't stiff us $600, pls.

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2021, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

[LizBeth]

131. Yes she is and she knows she is wrong.

[Tarc]

137. 'fraid not

Warnock and Ossoff campaigned almost exclusively on a "we're gonna get you $2000 checks, they won't".

Not "we're gonna get you $2000, minus whatever Trump gave you."

[LizBeth]

143. So. Just for the sake of arguing if you did not get what they are saying.

[JI7]

170. Yup, it's like me saying they lied to me since I didn't get an actual check

even I got direct deposit instead.

[mvd]

132. Love AOC but not sure it is time for this talking point

I already talked in Wawa with a clerk who wrongly thinks Pelosi is delaying the checks. Impeachment must have given her the wrong impression. There’s already misinformation out there.

[mac56]

135. Or we could get zero dollars.

[LiberalFighter]

149. She doesn't have very good people skills.

If I am going to get it changed. I would not be antagonizing the people that are putting it together in public. You organize by getting other people on board and make the case for it directly in private.

[Jose Garcia]

151. $1400 + $600 $2000

[Captain Stern]

172. I see we've wasted no time rounding up the circular firing squad.

Let no man or woman say we don't act quickly.

We wanted 2000...got 600. Now, we're going to get the additional 1400 that we wanted to begin with. By most rational folks, that's considered a 'win'.

[wellst0nev0ter]

174. Nobody likes people who rule lawyer

By that standard, Trump can claim he was the one who sent out checks totaling $1,800, while his opponent only handed out $1400.

Democrats won by keeping the message simple: $2,000 checks. I'd rather NOT risk pissing people off by explaining the fine print.

[Captain Stern]

188. trump can, and has, claimed many things.

I don't think we should be basing policy on the fear of what trump may, or may not, claim.

We advocated for 2000. We got 600. Now, we are advocating for 1400.

600 + 1400 = 2000. That's a 'win'.

[wellst0nev0ter]

191. You can't campaign on one thing, then pull a switcheroo to another

[mcar]

198. Oh, is Rafael Warnock being inaugurated President on Wednesday?

[wellst0nev0ter]

200. We wanted him to win the Senate seat, right?

What is the point of this snark?

[mcar]

204. Of course we did

But you posted his ad, not Biden's, in an OP that is criticizing Biden for...something or other. Disregarding the fact that his plan would cut child poverty in half.

[Captain Stern]

214. It's been clear to me that the push was for a total of 2000.

I was never led to believe it was to be 2600.

[wellst0nev0ter]

234. I'm hearing more hamhanded explaining for this issue

Than for "defund the police"

[George II]

175. She also said this the day trump signed the bill containing the $600 payment less than 3 wks ago:

Link to tweet

Clearly she 100% on board for the $2000 payment on December 27. Did she forget about that, and when did $2000 become $2600?

[Cha]

186. TY for that AOC tweet that says she's

on Board with what PE Biden is Doing!

[BannonsLiver]

203. This is the end of the discussion, IMO

[George II]

207. I think you're correct, and it looks like it has come to an end. Facts rule!

[Captain Stern]

219. Doesn't really get much clearer than that. n/t

[NurseJackie]

223. 💥 BOOM 🤯

Well well well.

[MrsMatt]

179. Math n/t

[BainsBane]

190. I agree. nt

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

196. I WOULD RATHER the $600 she & others are dithering about go to unemployed and underployed, people

who really need it. The rest of us are OK with $1400.

[Music Man]

206. I've had some of my more whacky friends on social media bitch about this too.

Claiming Biden is already going back on what he promised he Georgia.

No, you just weren't fucking paying attention.

[treestar]

216. Whine whine whine

If it were 2000, she'd be saying it should be 3000.

[PA_jen]

226. Okay, I'm going to get hate here but my thought was Biden meant a full $2000.00. This $600 was 1

agreement. He is a new President with a new agreement. I was disappointed his stimulus is just an add on the existing slap in the face.

Remember half of this money that the $600.00 came from was that 900 million that was earmarked for other use that Muchin then pulled back.

[Autumn]

228. That $600 was on Republicans, and Trump, they were getting a lot of flack, people hurting

employment checks ending they had to do something Pukes and a few Dems, Manchin for one got the $600. Biden was not in on the negotiations or the agreement, Trump signed it. This is what Biden said about the $600.

Link to tweet

[George II]

229. You're correct. That's what he meant. And even AOC and Tlaib meant $2000, too.....

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

231. OMG! It appears that you and I's previous observations were correct...

... weren't they. Everyone knew all along that it wasn't going to be $2600. What good purpose does it serve to try and make Biden look incompetent, or duplicitous, or to make insinuations that he went back on a promise?

All I'm saying is that this type of tempest in a teapot does not serve the greater good when it PREDICTABLY foments distrust, division and resentment. All of those things divide and weaken the Democratic party. A weakened Democratic party ONLY BENEFITS THE GOP (and Russia).

Why would anyone want to do or say anything that benefits the GOP (and Russia)?? This is an all-hands-on-deck moment. We've got TWO years to accomplish as much as we possibly can. It doesn't matter how small the progress is... people need to stop fighting progress and accept small slices of the loaf. Eventually, with enough slices, we'll get the ENTIRE LOAF. But by creating division, and with an "all or nothing" philosophy... we'll end up with nothing.

Why would anyone prefer NOTHING over getting something?

[George II]

241. Guess what, Bernie Sanders agrees with Biden and the additional $1400....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214943377

Mr. Sanders said in the interview that he wanted an initial, emergency stimulus package to be “big.” He thinks it must include an additional $1,400 in direct payments for adults and children, on top of the $600 that Congress just passed, along with money for states and cities to fund coronavirus vaccine distribution, testing and contact tracing. He also wants to create an emergency universal health care program, so that anyone can get medical treatment during the pandemic, whether they currently have insurance or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/politics/bernie-sanders-budget-committee.html

[PA_jen]

242. Okay Bernie agrees. When I saw Biden's tweet I took it as a full $2,000 beside the $600.

[George II]

237. Someone put it all together in one tweet. This should clear up the discussion:

Their amendment clearly reads "strike $600 and insert $2000, strike $1200 and insert with $4000". Why on God's earth that was good three weeks ago and not now is beyond me.

[NurseJackie]

240. So she understood ALL ALONG that the total benefit would be $2000 ($600 + $1400)...

So she understood ALL ALONG that the total benefit would be $2000 ($600 + $1400)... That's what it looks like to me! Now I'm wondering, what in the hell was all that other noise about? What purpose does it serve to make it look like Biden had lied, or "changed his mind" or that he was being duplicitous and short-changing everyone?!!

$2,000 Means $2,000: Ocasio-Cortez Says $1,400 Payments in Biden Plan Fall Short of Promised Relief

No it doesn't. That's wrong! It fulfills and completes the promised relief. It doesn't "fall short". Why say that?