I think the reason people are fixated on the $2000 checks is because that's immediate in a way the other stuff in the bill isn't.

Minimum wage increase is great! But I expect employers and states to fight it tooth and nail. Utility assistance sounds great! But we all know the horror stories about how impossible it is to qualify for relief programs.
Most of us have seen direct checks from the IRS come in immediately and be used for stuff the next day. That's fast relief, which is what we need.
If you're working 40 hours at, say, $11 right now, the $15 minimum wage increase won't even show up for a week and when it does that's $160 more per week ($15*40 - $11*40).

That's not nothing! But it's not a RIGHT NOW check for $2000.
Folks need $2000 right now, hell, they need $20,000 right now--10 months of back pay. Maybe that's impossible, but it's not helpful to act like the people who need it don't care about the rest of the bill.
Surely we all understand that a bill can be good AND not enough, and that advocating for more isn't necessarily done from bad faith.
Idk, I get that everyone is super frustrated, but I thought we were all on the same page that we were gonna have to hold the phones, hold their feet to the fire, and demand every mile we can imagine.
I feel like we're fighting each other online when we could all be calling our reps and demanding $2,000 checks instead of $1,400. Whether it was a promise or not, let's do it because it's the right thing to do.
Also:

- We desperately need a minimum wage increase.

- But a minimum wage increase is not a substitute for *covid relief* when so many of us lost our jobs or had our hours reduced because of the deadly pandemic.
Some of us want monthly checks so folks can afford to stay home and stop spreading a disease that will kill us all, and it's vexing to see people be like, "you're not praising the portion of the bill that still requires people to go to work in order to not die!!" 🤔
Well, YEAH, I'm not praising that portion of the bill because while it is desperately overdue and I'm glad to see it finally arrive, making it so everyone can survive the DEADLY PANDEMIC by not NEEDING to work outside the home is kinda my higher priority right now!! Wild!!
Idk, I feel like a lot of you are fighting that one douchebro left dude via subtweet and aren't realizing that you're punching sideways at a lot of other people who *aren't* That Guy.
And I'm really tired of people just *assuming* we don't know about / don't support the other stuff in the bill when the reality is that we're skeptical the other stuff will actually be implemented properly.
I know people who've been trying to get on unemployment for the ENTIRE PANDEMIC, so it's not that I don't care about unemployment expansion, it's that I know it's not reaching people who need it in the way $2000 checks for everyone would.
This is another good point I hadn't thought of: checks can't be easily "recalled" in the same way that the other benefits of the bill can be fucked with by states/courts after it passes. https://t.co/M3f5ANTKo1

More from Finance

The Dutch regulator and DNB as financial supervisor are a tough cookie to deal with. In essence they hyperregulate EU-rules into goldplated Dutch rules which go beyond what is prescribed in Europe.

All NL-customers at British banks may thus be kicked out on brexit.

Thread

/1

If we start with the capital requirements directive, it says attracting deposits is forbidden. In article 9.

https://t.co/RYl7SXligC


Now the translation of that rule into Dutch law is slightly expanded to not only prohibit attracting deposits, but to also prohibit, having those deposits under custody ('ter beschikking hebben').

That's not in EU law, but it is in our Dutch law.

https://t.co/PsbWfNY3PA


So if you wonder how this would work out for UK banks and Payment institutions servicing Dutch customers. Have a read at the technical explanation of DNB, the financial supervisor and their summarising table.

https://t.co/LL0fAnYkRJ

Passive servicing of Dutch is not allowed!


Any bank or PSP in the UK that continues to serve Dutch customers (as in retail customers, professional players are excepted) can thus be subject to fines and policing under Dutch law.

Meaning we not only have Accidental American issues in payments, but also Accidental Dutchies

You May Also Like

#தினம்_ஒரு_திருவாசகம்
தொல்லை இரும்பிறவிச் சூழும் தளை நீக்கி
அல்லல் அறுத்து ஆனந்தம் ஆக்கியதே – எல்லை
மருவா நெறியளிக்கும் வாதவூர் எங்கோன்
திருவாசகம் என்னும் தேன்

பொருள்:
1.எப்போது ஆரம்பித்தது என அறியப்படமுடியாத தொலை காலமாக (தொல்லை)

2. இருந்து வரும் (இரும்)


3.பிறவிப் பயணத்திலே ஆழ்த்துகின்ற (பிறவி சூழும்)

4.அறியாமையாகிய இடரை (தளை)

5.அகற்றி (நீக்கி),

6.அதன் விளைவால் சுகதுக்கமெனும் துயரங்கள் விலக (அல்லல் அறுத்து),

7.முழுநிறைவாய்த் தன்னுளே இறைவனை உணர்த்துவதே (ஆனந்த மாக்கியதே),

8.பிறந்து இறக்கும் காலவெளிகளில் (எல்லை)

9.பிணைக்காமல் (மருவா)

10.காக்கும் மெய்யறிவினைத் தருகின்ற (நெறியளிக்கும்),

11.என் தலைவனான மாணிக்க வாசகரின் (வாதவூரெங்கோன்)

12.திருவாசகம் எனும் தேன் (திருவா சகமென்னுந் தேன்)

முதல்வரி: பிறவி என்பது முன்வினை விதையால் முளைப்பதோர் பெருமரம். அந்த ‘முன்வினை’ எங்கு ஆரம்பித்தது எனச் சொல்ல இயலாது. ஆனால் ‘அறியாமை’ ஒன்றே ஆசைக்கும்,, அச்சத்துக்கும் காரணம் என்பதால், அவையே வினைகளை விளைவிப்பன என்பதால், தொடர்ந்து வரும் பிறவிகளுக்கு, ‘அறியாமையே’ காரணம்

அறியாமைக்கு ஆரம்பம் கிடையாது. நமக்கு ஒரு பொருளைப் பற்றிய அறிவு எப்போதிருந்து இல்லை? அதைச் சொல்ல முடியாது. அதனாலேதான் முதலடியில், ஆரம்பமில்லாத அஞ்ஞானத்தை பிறவிகளுக்குக் காரணமாகச் சொல்லியது. ஆனால் அறியாமை, அறிவின் எழுச்சியால், அப்போதே முடிந்து விடும்.
The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW