What, exactly, is a $2000 check?


Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

38 Responses

  1. Kazzy says:

    I was surprised to see $1200 hit my account on January 1. I didn’t think I met the criteria for a second check but I guess my adjusted income puts me below the line? I assume I got $1200 because I claim one of my sons as a dependent (the other fucker can remain outside… he knows what he did).

    I don’t really need the stimulus. I’ll likely have an eventual loss of income due to time off I’m taking to support the boys’ schooling, but I have sufficient savings to more than make up for it. My plan is to spend the money locally as much/best I can and/or donate to charity.Report

  2. Doctor Jay says:

    I can see this be a misunderstanding, and yet, it was a completely predictable one.

    I think Biden and Dems should go for a full $2000. If they have to dial it down some to get some Republican support, so be it. If not, we can afford it. Or we will once we roll back the idiot tax breaks.

    Interest rates are really, really low. That makes it a great time to borrow money.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Doctor Jay says:

      Heck, there’s a K-shaped recovery going on right now and the people at the top of the K can/should be asked to help out those at the bottom of the K. We’re all in this together, we all have a responsibility to each other, and so on.

      If we want to hammer out particulars of the whole issue of where we need to draw the line for people sending 100% of this stimulus back to the government and where people get to keep 100% of the stimulus and where the taxes ought to be for “okay, you can keep 50% of the stimulus, free and clear”, that’d be fine with me. Those are fun arguments to have. (Personally, I think we need to draw the line at around $2000/year more than my household income. It’s only fair.)

      That’s not the thing I find interesting, though.

      What I find interesting is the pathologizing of the people who disagree between the $1400 and the $2000.

      You’re complaining about getting another $1400? HOW DARE YOU.
      You’re complaining about me noticing that you’re literally gaslighting me? HOW DARE YOU.Report

  3. Philip H says:

    First, you need to sort the particulars.

    There’s a $300 weekly federally funded bump up in Unemployment Insurance, to be administered by the states.

    There’s a $600 one time stimulus check.

    And Biden has proposed adding $1400 to this to get to $2000.

    While the debates you outline might serve certain pedantic interests, there’s no lack of clarity here on what is under discussion.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

      “there’s no lack of clarity here”

      Au contraire, there certainly seems to be ambiguity. The official payment date, if Google is to be trusted, was Jan. 4.

      Ossoff and Warnock can probably get by on saying “hey, we just need to get you guys an additional $1400 now!” but saying that there’s no lack of clarity when it comes to what Biden and Harris said does not seem to take into account the potential for ambiguity, given Biden talking about getting to Washington and $2000 checks going out the door… after the $600 checks went out the door.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

        …there certainly seems to be ambiguity.

        No, there’s not. There’s Tlaib and AOC with an internet megaphone, but zero evidence that they have 218 votes in the House for $2600 rather than $2000. Zero evidence that they have 60 votes in the Senate for $2600. Zero evidence that they have 50 votes in the Senate to kill the filibuster for $2600 rather than $2000.

        For the next two years, the only place there’s ambiguity is whether McConnell and the Senate Republicans will draw a line that the Senate Democrats will kill the filibuster to cross. That every Senate Democrat, including Manchin and nine Mountain West Senators, will kill the filibuster to cross.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

          Oh, if we’re talking about whether there is a snowball’s chance in hell of the $2000 checks going out, I agree that there is not.

          Those checks-totaling-$2000 will be going out the door, most probably. (And, honestly, making the debate be between $2600-total and $2000-total is superb framing. It’s a hell of a more helpful-for-the-bottom-part-of-the-K than a $1400 vs. $Diddly would be.)

          The ambiguity, what of it there is, was when the time was assumed to have started when the promises about $2000 checks were made and by whom… and the degree to which the people who reach this conclusion instead of that one ought to be punished and socially sanctioned.Report

  4. CJColucci says:

    There is currently a debate on the twitters over the whole $2000 check thing.

    Never a good start. Badly begun, poorly done.Report

  5. North says:

    It’s twitter. Who the fish cares what the twitts gibber? The specifics of 1400+600 vs 2000 won’t even make the needle quiver in terms of the actual electorate in a month, let alone two years when the actual elections are held.

    Now that will be interesting is how this whole thing goes in the Senate. This isn’t being proposed via reconciliation so this is a big whopping test balloon to see how Mitch is going to play this cycle. If a popular bill like further Covid relief goes down in filibuster flames with Mitch whipping up lockstep GOP opposition the way he did during Obama’s terms then we will know Mitch is still sticking to his old playbook and Biden will be stuck with reconciliation and executive actions only. Can the Dems make the GOP pay for it if that’s the play they go with? Will they try? Be interesting to see.

    And if Mitch doesn’t repeat history and there’s arguments, posturing, horse trading, negotiating and the end result is the bill eventually passes with a handful of moderate GOP votes? That’s earthshaking news all by itself; a return to more normal Senate behavior.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to North says:

      Who the fish cares what the twitts gibber?

      I remember when we said this about tumblr.

      This sort of thing is what defines the various sides of the overton window. As someone who thinks that the country is in a case of epistemic divorce, seeing further splinterings strikes me as an indicator for the future.Report

      • North in reply to Jaybird says:

        If you were talking about anywhere but twitter I’d at least consider it but the reality is that twitter is where the politically engaged, the journalists and assorted other engaged people go to scream at each other. They’re not just demonstrably disconnected from the actual electorate at large but also are ludicrously distant from the actual moods and sentiments of the masses. I’m not sure if you can even see the mood of the vox populi with a radio telescope from inside twitter. If someone asked me “What is the opinion of most of the people in the country” I couldn’t tell you specifically but if I said “Whatever it is, whatever twitter says it is is wrong.” I’m deeply confident I’d be correct.

        Not only will the vox populi not care in two years whether Biden got them $1400 checks or 2000 checks this year but Twitter itself will not care about that question in 2 months after the deed is done; and frankly I think I’m being insanely generous to the Twitterati by allowing that they might hold onto the subject for 2 months.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to North says:

          Not only will the vox populi not care in two years whether Biden got them $1400 checks or 2000 checks this year but Twitter itself will not care about that question in 2 months after the deed is done; and frankly I think I’m being insanely generous to the Twitterati by allowing that they might hold onto the subject for 2 months.

          What I find interesting is not the $1400/$2000 debate.

          Should it be $1400? Well, yeah, I can see how the promise was for $2000.
          Should it be $2000? Well, yeah, I can see how the promise for $2000 was made after the $600 went out.

          My dog is not in that particular fight.

          What I find interesting is the pathologizing of the people who disagree between the $1400 and the $2000 by the different sides. This isn’t a fight between the Gravel boys and Team MAGA.

          But you wouldn’t know it.Report

          • North in reply to Jaybird says:

            Yes, pathologizing of the people who disagree -on twitter- between the $1400 and the $2000 camps. I’ve heard of people who are ready to gouge each others eyes out -on twitter- over various shipping combinations of characters in semi-popular anime series. I’ve heard of people -on twitter- who pathologize each other into camps between if a cute youtube cat video constitutes animal cruelty or not.

            I’m probably sounding more scathing than I should. Is it an interesting debate? I’d say marginally yes. Do I think it’s a substantive debate? So far I’d say no.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to North says:

              The 17 year olds who were threatening violence over Steven Universe are now 25 year olds who are out of college.

              And now they’re having discussions over financial stimulus policy with the exact same patterns as discussions over Rose Quartz being depicted as skinnier in fan art than on the show.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yup, and defenestrating their journalistic principles while their industry dissolves around them like a skeleton in acid; frantically signaling about invented social nonsense to try and one up each other for increasingly scarce professorial slots in universities as their institutions are slowly sinking into the sea and on and on, on twitter. Bless their hearts.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to North says:

      To be fair, some of those twits are members of Congress.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        On a related note, I just came across this this howler from one of the usual suspects:


        I wonder if she’s actually as dumb as she acts, or if it’s just pandering to her fans, who are definitely as dumb as she acts.Report

        • North in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          It could be either; she gets rewarded handsomely by the lefty fringe and every right wing person and media institution in the country for her schtick. That being said I honestly do suspect AoC has aspirations of seriousness. She could have gone deeper into her schtick, a la Cruz or Hawley for instance, and have been rewarded even more by the lefty fringe and every right wing person and media institution in the country but she didn’t and it appears to me that it’s because she has designs on the party.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to North says:

      “Who the fish cares what the twitts gibber?”

      ok boomerReport

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    Congress can always increase to more money and I do not think Biden will say no. That being said, Biden’s great political insight was Twitter is not real life. Rose twitter is even less real life than that.

    Biden might end up being one of the most progressive Presidents in American history. He has already denounced defecit thinking. Schumer has called for marijuana legalization and an FDR style 100 days. I do not give a damn fuck what Walker Bragman and the trustfund cosplay socialists say on twitter.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    Comment in modReport

  8. Stillwater says:

    Both Tlaib and AOC are *on board* with the $600 +$1400 doesn’t = $2000 argument. They’ve twitterized as much. Seems like a bizarre hill to stake a flag on when the math is clearly against them and Biden has *quite clearly* advocated exactly what they wanted prior to changing their minds.

    My own recollection of things is that neither of those CCers had publicly argued prior to Biden’s move (ie., to include an additional $1400 in direct payments) that $2000 isn’t enough. It’s bizarre, distracting, and makes the left look as ridiculous as their worst detractors say they are.Report

    • CJColucci in reply to Stillwater says:

      There were two, and only two, proposals on the table when it counted: $2,000 and $600. The Senate insisted on $600 and the House swallowed it. Various people, including the Democratic candidates in Georgia, campaigned on getting the full $2,000. Nobody was proposing $2,600. Maybe somebody will, and that will be fine. Particularly with the people who were advocating $2,000. This is a fake controversy, like so much on Twitter.Report

  9. CJColucci says:

    Past tense something you have trouble with?Report

  10. DensityDuck says:

    It’ll be an interesting contrast to the first year or so of Trump’s administration, where we heard that he promised X, but we only got half-X, and therefore he lied, he lied, he’s a lying liar who can’t and won’t deliver on his promises! And when someone said “you know, the alternative here was nothing,” it was confidently explained that he had said X and that it was important to hold politicians accountable for their public statements.

    (The next couple years, yeah, we ended up getting nothing after all.)Report

  11. Jaybird says:

    Well, looks like this particular debate could well be moot.


  12. Jaybird says:


  13. Jaybird says: