Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
The $1200 dollars per person with an additional $500 per child was estimated to last the average family about 2 weeks. The lines for free food in San Antonio were incredible. The one thing we can all agree on -- let's get back to the new "normal" as soon as possible.
|
And what needs to be remembered here is that the $1200 plus the $500 per child were there to try and largely immediately help people.
Do not forget about the fast tracking in most places of unemployment benefits for those out of work and the added $600 per week to those benefits which is huge to many in the lower income ranges.
I know people will toss out a million different anectdotal exceptions and other statistics, but I look at it this way.
If you were not employed when this started and struggling, you are possibly better off with the $1200 plus $500/child. Or at least at ground zero.
If you were low income and employed before and remain employed you also are possibly better off with the $1200 plus $500/child.
If you were low income and employed but now are unemployed, you should have received the $1200 plus $500/child. And should be having your unemployment fast tracked with the added $600/wk.
If you were middle income ranges(up to stimulus cut offs) and are still employed. Again stimulus money as a bonus and you are better off.
If you were middle income ranges(up to stimulus cut offs) and are now unemployed, you should get the stimulus plus the fast track unemployment and could now be getting less that your employed dollars.
And you see the pattern on and on.
However, in the end, on average low to low middle income workers should be in a better position than they were before.
EDIT: this probably should have been in another thread, but I got caught up in the discussion of the focus on the $1200 / $500 discussion.
As for the OP, well CNN opinion. That doesn't exactly inspire or even merit reading.
