I got my $600 stimulus check today and I'm mad as hell

[dales]

It wasn't a check but a debit card.

What a f*cked up mess.

I can't get the f*cking thing to work.

Even my bank couldn't get it to work.

Tell the g*dammed govt to keep their measly $600.

[BoSoxGal]

Which bank attempted and failed to help you?

This is the process, found online at Kiplinger.com:

Yes, you will have to activate your debit card by calling the toll-free activation line at 800-240-8100. You'll have to input your card number, last 6-digits of your Social Security number, and the 3-digit security code from the back of the card. You could also be asked to further validate your identity by providing, at minimum, your name and address or answer identity verification questions. If your card has more than one name on it, only the first person listed (i.e., the primary cardholder) can activate the card.

You'll also be asked to create a 4-digit PIN number.

Second Stimulus Check Payments by Debit Card Are Coming (It's Not Junk Mail!)

PS - It’s nice that $600 is measly to you, but it’s not to millions so even if you don’t need it, maybe you’ll endeavor to endure the annoyance of the card activation process and then donate the funds to someplace like this: nokidshungry.org

[liberty]

It wasn't a check but a debit card.

What a f*cked up mess.

I can't get the f*cking thing to work.

Even my bank couldn't get it to work.

Tell the g*dammed govt to keep their measly $600.

You only got six hundred dollars? I thought it was supposed to be around a thousand dollars.

[dales]

PS - It’s nice that $600 is measly to you, but it’s not to millions so even if you don’t need it, maybe you’ll endeavor to endure the annoyance of the card activation process and blah-blah-blah.

Save your sanctimonious bullspittle for someone else.

You silly twat.

And yes, 600 dollars won't help many Americans for a month, that is why I called it "measly".

[BoSoxGal]

I took you at your word and provided help. Your appreciation is duly noted.

[Econoline]

You only got six hundred dollars? I thought it was supposed to be around a thousand dollars.

You must not have been paying attention. In December, Pelosi, all the House Democrats, all the Senate Democrats, plus Trump and a handful of Republican Senators, wanted $2000 checks; Mitch McConnell wanted the checks to be no more than $600 per person. (Guess who won.) If Biden and the new Senate majority get their way, we may yet get the additional $1400.

The first "Economic Impact Payment" was $1200/ea. and my wife and I got ours deposited directly into a bank account, very quickly. This time, for no discernable reason, we instead got a paper check which (according to the online tracking tool) was mailed on January 6 and arrived here on January 20.

[dales]

I took you at your word and provided help. Your appreciation is duly noted.

Indeed, along with your cuntish post scriptum.

[TPFKA@W]

Keep trying. It is a measly payment but I believe more is coming, Hopefully you won't have as much trouble with the next one. My opinion is they should send monthly money until covid is no longer much of an issue, but more of an as needed thing. I know nurses who are making money hand over fist right now due to huge retention bonuses and overtime who still get this. Probably should not be at their income level.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What? Not direct deposit? Check? Debit card?

That's going to save the government a lot of money. I wonder who is going to steal mine when I don't show up to take the mail out of the box?

[ex-khobar Andy]

In a sense I'm with Trump on this one (and yes, I didn't know that my fingers could type that sentence). One of his objections was that the money was ineffectively targeted. We have massive un- and under- employment. Some estimates are as high as 20% or 25%. OK: then send the money to those guys. From just a $ point of view, COVID has been good to me. I've nothing to spend my money on; the mortgage is paid thanks; and the 401K rolls merrily along in the current of the Dow. On those rare occasions I get a take-out or a hair cut, I leave a much larger than normal tip. I understand the 'no evictions' thing but if my trade happened to be landlording, I'd be pissed.

[Crackpot]

We got about $150 didn’t need it the wife and I are fully employed. The wife is essential (nurse practitioner) I can and have been working from home. Tho that payment was enough to put me into a 6 figure (personal) income for the first time in my life.

[Sue U]

Tho that payment was enough to put me into a 6 figure (personal) income for the first time in my life.

Don't worry, you'll be paying taxes on it soon enough.

In a sense I'm with Trump on this one (and yes, I didn't know that my fingers could type that sentence). One of his objections was that the money was ineffectively targeted. We have massive un- and under- employment. Some estimates are as high as 20% or 25%. OK: then send the money to those guys.

While that is true and certainly good policy, these payments were not meant solely as life support but also as an economic stimulus, so whether you "need" it or not you're supposed to go spend that money to keep what's left of the economy going. It's your patriotic duty to get out there and patronize your local sandwich shop, auto dealer, department store and whoever else might still be open for business.

[Bicycle Bill]

While that is true and certainly good policy, these payments were not meant solely as life support but also as an economic stimulus, so whether you "need" it or not you're supposed to go spend that money to keep what's left of the economy going. It's your patriotic duty to get out there and patronize your local sandwich shop, auto dealer, department store and whoever else might still be open for business.

Ah, yes, the theory that money spent in a community turns over many fold.  I wonder why that isn't considered 'voodoo economics' along with the 'trickle-down' theory.  Granted the intended recipients get the money instead of expecting it to flow downward, but it still seems to me there's enough opportunity for a stimulus payment to be a 'one-and-done' rather than churning over and over.

-"BB"-

[Jarlaxle]

In a sense I'm with Trump on this one (and yes, I didn't know that my fingers could type that sentence). One of his objections was that the money was ineffectively targeted. We have massive un- and under- employment. Some estimates are as high as 20% or 25%. OK: then send the money to those guys. From just a $ point of view, COVID has been good to me. I've nothing to spend my money on; the mortgage is paid thanks; and the 401K rolls merrily along in the current of the Dow. On those rare occasions I get a take-out or a hair cut, I leave a much larger than normal tip. I understand the 'no evictions' thing but if my trade happened to be landlording, I'd be pissed.

My cousin and his wife are going to lose their life savings...both unemployed, and the duplex they bought hasn't brought in a dollar of rent in at least six months.

[Big RR]

I have a friend who owns several apartment complexes and he has had a number of people who have not paid rent since last year. There;'s not much he can do, he cannot evict them, he cannot withhold services (in one complex he pays for heat and water), and he effectively has no resources. Yes, he can sue them for payment, but finding assets of renters is difficult. Most people, even those who have significant economic stress, are trying to keep up or at least pay something, but there are some jerks who just ignore any attempt to collect rent.

Now the moratorium may be well intended and benefit the public, but why place that on the backs of the landlords--he still has to pay his mortgage and property taxes (no moratorium there), but if this is for a public benefit, should not the public bear the cost?

And face it, it's not just the big landlords; many working class people buy 2+ family houses because they need the income to pay their mortgage and taxes, and are now losing their life savings. It's unfair to place this burden on them.

[Scooter]

I think there needs to be an at least two pronged approach to residential rent: both an ongoing income replacement program to allow those who are unemployed the ability to continue to pay rent, plus agreement by landlords to permanently forgive a portion of rent in recognition of the fact that said income supports are never going to be enough to meet actual living expenses. I think that a lot of what is being perceived as tenants taking advantage of the eviction moratorium to skate on paying rent results from landlords not being willing to negotiate in good faith about what is affordable in the circumstances. If I were a tenant of little means, and my landlord was going to eventually be evicting me despite my best efforts because I will be unable to pay rent owing to the last penny, then I would probably be throwing up my hands and refusing to pay anything, and saving that money toward the inevitable move.

[Big RR]

Scooter--While you may be correct in some cases, I do know for a fact that the landlords I work with often will try to work with the tenants, and as I said, most tenants realize this and are paying something toward the rent. I can think of a lot of times when we have gone to court with a tenant who was clearly over his/her head, and we refused to take the little bit of money offered offered to stave off the eviction (telling them that that they appear to be unable to keep up with any payments plan for past rent and the current rent, and we will be back in court again) and we tell them to use the $1000 or whatever to find a smaller or cheaper place they can afford. Other times we work to put together a workable way out of the back rent debt over and extended period of time if they have the means to pay it. It would be easy to jut take the money (it was owed) and then just have them evicted a few weeks later (or demand quick payment); but as one of my landlords says , why kick a man when he's down--he needs that money more than I do. We have written off months of past due rent for people, including families of deployed people (or returning veterans), and the tenants generally realize this and respond in kind. But just as there are bad landlords, there are deadbeat tenants, those who are more than content to take advantage of people.

As for the landlords being forced to permanently forego the rent, I see no reason for that, unless it is combined with an agreement by the taxing authority to give a credit against the property tax owed for that forgiveness; but fat chance ever getting that. Again, if the people are generally realizing the benefit, they should pay the cost.

[Scooter]

I think it's unreasonable to give a break on the rent now if tenants are going to be expected to pay it back later, because most will never be able to manage that. And it's unreasonable for landlords to expect that they are going to be the only sector of the economy that comes out of this unscathed. If they aren't willing to sacrifice a portion of rents now, then they are going to have to deal with mass evictions later, and that isn't going to hurt them any less.

[Big RR]

Maybe, maybe not. But no one is telling the market to cut its prices. No one is telling the taxis, buses, etc. to reduce their fares. No one is telling the utilities to reduce their charges. No one is insisting that physicians treat people for free. People have had their accounts siezed, autos repossessed... in this time. So how are the landlords he only sector to come out unscathed--even if you can evict the tenant, it is pretty unlikely (at least in most rental markets) that you would see a penny of back rent in a civil suit.

[Jarlaxle]

I have a friend who owns several apartment complexes and he has had a number of people who have not paid rent since last year. There;'s not much he can do, he cannot evict them, he cannot withhold services (in one complex he pays for heat and water), and he effectively has no resources. Yes, he can sue them for payment, but finding assets of renters is difficult. Most people, even those who have significant economic stress, are trying to keep up or at least pay something, but there are some jerks who just ignore any attempt to collect rent.

Now the moratorium may be well intended and benefit the public, but why place that on the backs of the landlords--he still has to pay his mortgage and property taxes (no moratorium there), but if this is for a public benefit, should not the public bear the cost?

And face it, it's not just the big landlords; many working class people buy 2+ family houses because they need the income to pay their mortgage and taxes, and are now losing their life savings. It's unfair to place this burden on them.

They have pretty much resigned themselves to losing the building and all the money they put into it. They're considering moving out of the area, probably to Florida.

I wonder how long before the mysterious rental property fires start.