CDC Notifies States, Large Cities To Prepare For Vaccine Distribution As Soon As Late October

[dvcgirl67]

Saw an incredible stat this morning: according to Barron's, Americans have approximately $1.3 trillion in "forced savings", meaning money that would have been spent but hasn't been because of the pandemic. Imagine the economic impact when that gets unleashed...

Steve Rattner was talking about this on TV this morning. He said it was 1.6 trillion....mostly from the stimulus checks that went to people with higher incomes that were not spent in the economy. They were either saved, or used to pay down debt (which is a form of savings). Rattner is calling for a more targeted stimulus.....i.e....don't send these checks to higher income people. Get it to those who need it. Easy to say, tough to do sometimes.

But to your point, I'm not sure when this money will come back in to jolt the economy. I'm sure some will spend more as they begin to feel that it's safe to fully engage in society. This has also been quite an ordeal for this country, and so I wonder if some might keep their powder dry for awhile.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1357752599718617088

 

[dvcgirl67]

Yep. We are considered an upper income household and have spent SOME stimulus money (we got the full amounts because about 1/3 of our income is non-taxable). But overall we are using this opportunity to save, save, save. We have some short term goals and this has given us a jump start. The next stimulus check is going into our brokerage account. We won't be vacationing until at least 2022.

I suspect that your situation is very common. We may see a jolt in 2022, but I question how much of a lift we get from any "forced savings" this year.

 

[godisney14]

Saw an incredible stat this morning: according to Barron's, Americans have approximately $1.3 trillion in "forced savings", meaning money that would have been spent but hasn't been because of the pandemic. Imagine the economic impact when that gets unleashed...

You’re assuming most people who got stimulus checks are privileged to just stash in in the bank for use later. I don’t have any numbers to point to, but as the video from dvcgirl67 shows, some were already spent, and the rest is a combination of savings and paying down debt, which that host groups into savings. (I think for the majority of the country they are eligible for a stimulus check are spending + paying off debt). How can you think that all these additional people unemployed last year are somehow saving the stimulus money? Most people eligible for full stimulus amount are eligible for a reason.

Steve Rattner was talking about this on TV this morning. He said it was 1.6 trillion....mostly from the stimulus checks that went to people with higher incomes that were not spent in the economy. They were either saved, or used to pay down debt (which is a form of savings). Rattner is calling for a more targeted stimulus.....i.e....don't send these checks to higher income people. Get it to those who need it. Easy to say, tough to do sometimes.

But to your point, I'm not sure when this money will come back in to jolt the economy. I'm sure some will spend more as they begin to feel that it's safe to fully engage in society. This has also been quite an ordeal for this country, and so I wonder if some might keep their powder dry for awhile.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1357752599718617088

 

[Joe in VA]

63,000 cases today, a MASSIVE drop from last Tuesday's 96,000. Deaths down almost 50% from last Tues; 1,787 deaths today, down from 3,471.

Cases over Tuesdays:

1/12 230,000
1/19 176,000
1/26 153,000
2/2 116,000
2/9 96,000
2/16 63,000

 

[TLSnell1981]

63,000 cases today, a MASSIVE drop from last Tuesday's 96,000. Deaths down almost 50% from last Tues; 1,787 deaths today, down from 3,471.

Cases over Tuesdays:

1/12 230,000
1/19 176,000
1/26 153,000
2/2 116,000
2/9 96,000
2/16 63,000

Speculation mask mandates will also likely start dropping by summer.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

You’re assuming most people who got stimulus checks are privileged to just stash in in the bank for use later. I don’t have any numbers to point to, but as the video from dvcgirl67 shows, some were already spent, and the rest is a combination of savings and paying down debt, which that host groups into savings. (I think for the majority of the country they are eligible for a stimulus check are spending + paying off debt). How can you think that all these additional people unemployed last year are somehow saving the stimulus money? Most people eligible for full stimulus amount are eligible for a reason.

Anyone who could afford to save or invest their stimulus checks probably shouldn't have gotten them in the first place.

 

[erin1715]

63,000 cases today, a MASSIVE drop from last Tuesday's 96,000. Deaths down almost 50% from last Tues; 1,787 deaths today, down from 3,471.

Cases over Tuesdays:

1/12 230,000
1/19 176,000
1/26 153,000
2/2 116,000
2/9 96,000
2/16 63,000

I’m just curious where you find these stats? Genuinely I’d like to follow them too.

 

[Joe in VA]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Can break down by state, country, etc. Very informative site.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Anyone who could afford to save or invest their stimulus checks probably shouldn't have gotten them in the first place.

Eh I don't like it when people say those sorts of things. The life such as this pandemic is that things happen in a blink of an eye. One moment my mom was fine, the next she got the boot from her company because she was older than 55. She got the first stimulus and the second stimulus but has had no job since 2 days before Christmas. At the time of the stimulus she could afford to save or invest (though she's not a high earner really). Now not so much and those stimulus are allowing her to pay the bills months later. I don't try to judge people on should they or shouldn't they. It's a valid discussion for sure however IMO if the trillion $ will end up breathing complete life into the economy or not.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Eh I don't like it when people say those sorts of things. The life such as this pandemic is that things happen in a blink of an eye. One moment my mom was fine, the next she got the boot from her company because she was older than 55. She got the first stimulus and the second stimulus but has had no job since 2 days before Christmas. At the time of the stimulus she could afford to save or invest. Now not so much and those stimulus are allowing her to pay the bills months later. I don't try to judge people on should they or shouldn't they. It's a valid discussion for sure however IMO if the trillion $ will end up breathing complete life into the economy or not.

We are in your Mom's situation. When the first stimulus was sent out, DH was still working. If you go back through my posts, you'll see I didn't feel people like us that hadn't had their income affected should have received the check at that time. I still feel that way. DH lost his job a little over three months ago, so we can now use the extra support. IMO, the financial support should be going to those who have had their income affected either through losing their job or having their hours cut. If they were doing that, they could better make those who lost their incomes whole. Your Mom probably didn't need the money, before she lost her job. Now that she does, she could probably use more than she's receiving. Sending money to those who haven't had their income affected means there's less to send those who have. I have felt from the beginning that they should have spent more time figuring out how to make people whole rather than sending money to everyone, including those who will never have their income affected. To me, it's hard to justify sending money for people to invest or use for vacation, when others are drawing a fraction of what they made or running out of employment benefits completely.

 

[DLgal]

Anyone who could afford to save or invest their stimulus checks probably shouldn't have gotten them in the first place.

It isn't a welfare program. It's a stimulus program. People who didn't need it were supposed to spend it. But they didn't put any stipulations on the money. If they had wanted to do that, they could have simply sent out prepaid debit cards.

 

[Colleen27]

We are in your Mom's situation. When the first stimulus was sent out, DH was still working. If you go back through my posts, you'll see I didn't feel people like us that hadn't had their income affected should have received the check at that time. I still feel that way. DH lost his job a little over three months ago, so we can now use the extra support. IMO, the financial support should be going to those who have had their income affected either through losing their job or having their hours cut. If they were doing that, they could better make those who lost their incomes whole. Your Mom probably didn't need the money, before she lost her job. Now that she does, she could probably use more than she's receiving. Sending money to those who haven't had their income affected means there's less to send those who have. I have felt from the beginning that they should have spent more time figuring out how to make people whole rather than sending money to everyone, including those who will never have their income affected. To me, it's hard to justify sending money for people to invest or use for vacation, when others are drawing a fraction of what they made or running out of employment benefits completely.

The problem with that thinking is that unemployment wasn't the only financial challenge of the pandemic. Our household income was only minimally affected - I'm not subbing this year, but that's not income we've ever relied upon, and DH was deemed essential as the primary building maintenance person for his plant so he worked even when production was shut down in the spring. But we've still had some big pandemic costs, including flying DD19 home from college on less than a week's notice, moving our bonus son back in after moving out months before, and having DS23 back to eating every meal here rather than being mostly on his own because of a 6-days-a-week work schedule. We had to increase our internet speed to accommodate two virtual learners and two unemployed gamers, and we got hit with overages on our data cap every month except for the handful when Comcast suspended the limits because of the pandemic. Of course, with 6 people here 24/7 rather than 4 living here (two working more than full time and one in school) all of our utility bills increased as well. And since DD's campus is closed but being here and trying to do school with a time difference in a busy household wasn't working for her, we're now paying for an off-campus apartment so she could at least go back to work and get together (outdoors and distanced) with some of her peers. None of those expenses are unique, and we're actually quite fortunate in that I don't have a permanent job so I can accommodate whatever changes happen with DD12's schooling - a lot of the working parents I know are also dealing with huge new childcare/mother's helper costs because they both work, either from home or outside of the home, and have kids young enough to need supervision in lieu of school and assistance with their virtual classes.

Unemployment and the federal supplement is supposed to help those who have lost income. The stimulus is to help offset the other costs of the pandemic and to encourage consumers to continue spending at a time where insecurity might prompt them to scale way back. We need the latter if we want jobs to rebound to help address the former.

 

[jlwhitney]

Speculation mask mandates will also likely start dropping by summer.

A couple places have already not extended them. I agree many will start dropping them by summer .

 

[godisney14]

It isn't a welfare program. It's a stimulus program. People who didn't need it were supposed to spend it. But they didn't put any stipulations on the money. If they had wanted to do that, they could have simply sent out prepaid debit cards.

The second stimulus was in the form of debit cards. But, you could still use those to pay bills where the service provider accepts them. All my internet, phone, water, garbage, and electric/gas can be paid by debit card.

Speculation mask mandates will also likely start dropping by summer.

And now watch the numbers start going back up in those places without mask mandate. Should really lessen those precautions AFTER vaccination has been sufficiently distributed. Or, maybe their strategy is to sacrifice some lives for earlier herd immunity. Worked great for the UK and Sweden last year.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

It isn't a welfare program. It's a stimulus program. People who didn't need it were supposed to spend it. But they didn't put any stipulations on the money. If they had wanted to do that, they could have simply sent out prepaid debit cards.

The problem with that thinking is that unemployment wasn't the only financial challenge of the pandemic. Our household income was only minimally affected - I'm not subbing this year, but that's not income we've ever relied upon, and DH was deemed essential as the primary building maintenance person for his plant so he worked even when production was shut down in the spring. But we've still had some big pandemic costs, including flying DD19 home from college on less than a week's notice, moving our bonus son back in after moving out months before, and having DS23 back to eating every meal here rather than being mostly on his own because of a 6-days-a-week work schedule. We had to increase our internet speed to accommodate two virtual learners and two unemployed gamers, and we got hit with overages on our data cap every month except for the handful when Comcast suspended the limits because of the pandemic. Of course, with 6 people here 24/7 rather than 4 living here (two working more than full time and one in school) all of our utility bills increased as well. And since DD's campus is closed but being here and trying to do school with a time difference in a busy household wasn't working for her, we're now paying for an off-campus apartment so she could at least go back to work and get together (outdoors and distanced) with some of her peers. None of those expenses are unique, and we're actually quite fortunate in that I don't have a permanent job so I can accommodate whatever changes happen with DD12's schooling - a lot of the working parents I know are also dealing with huge new childcare/mother's helper costs because they both work, either from home or outside of the home, and have kids young enough to need supervision in lieu of school and assistance with their virtual classes.

Unemployment and the federal supplement is supposed to help those who have lost income. The stimulus is to help offset the other costs of the pandemic and to encourage consumers to continue spending at a time where insecurity might prompt them to scale way back. We need the latter if we want jobs to rebound to help address the former.

I understand what the stimulus was for & realize there were no stipulations. To me, that was an ill thought out plan. Anyone who is in the position to make those decisions should have been able to predict what happened. As far as unemployment, in many states it's a small fraction of what most people make & is limited in time. Thankfully, we had emergency savings. That is quickly being depleted, but we can still pay our bills. There's no way most people could live on what they draw in unemployment.

 

[wenrob]

We are in your Mom's situation. When the first stimulus was sent out, DH was still working. If you go back through my posts, you'll see I didn't feel people like us that hadn't had their income affected should have received the check at that time. I still feel that way. DH lost his job a little over three months ago, so we can now use the extra support. IMO, the financial support should be going to those who have had their income affected either through losing their job or having their hours cut. If they were doing that, they could better make those who lost their incomes whole. Your Mom probably didn't need the money, before she lost her job. Now that she does, she could probably use more than she's receiving. Sending money to those who haven't had their income affected means there's less to send those who have. I have felt from the beginning that they should have spent more time figuring out how to make people whole rather than sending money to everyone, including those who will never have their income affected. To me, it's hard to justify sending money for people to invest or use for vacation, when others are drawing a fraction of what they made or running out of employment benefits completely.

I appreciate where you’re coming from but if were easy to do it that way they would have. It already takes them forever to come up with an agreement. Can you imagine how long it would take to go into that much detail on every American’s income? Then to have to reevaluate that for the next one? In theory it’s supposed to get money out quick and into the economy. They start to nitpick the details and it would never happen.

 

[jlwhitney]

The second stimulus was in the form of debit cards. But, you could still use those to pay bills where the service provider accepts them. All my internet, phone, water, garbage, and electric/gas can be paid by debit card.



And now watch the numbers start going back up in those places without mask mandate. Should really lessen those precautions AFTER vaccination has been sufficiently distributed. Or, maybe their strategy is to sacrifice some lives for earlier herd immunity. Worked great for the UK and Sweden last year.

Our second stimulus was direct deposit
Just like the first one.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

The problem with that thinking is that unemployment wasn't the only financial challenge of the pandemic. Our household income was only minimally affected - I'm not subbing this year, but that's not income we've ever relied upon, and DH was deemed essential as the primary building maintenance person for his plant so he worked even when production was shut down in the spring. But we've still had some big pandemic costs, including flying DD19 home from college on less than a week's notice, moving our bonus son back in after moving out months before, and having DS23 back to eating every meal here rather than being mostly on his own because of a 6-days-a-week work schedule. We had to increase our internet speed to accommodate two virtual learners and two unemployed gamers, and we got hit with overages on our data cap every month except for the handful when Comcast suspended the limits because of the pandemic. Of course, with 6 people here 24/7 rather than 4 living here (two working more than full time and one in school) all of our utility bills increased as well. And since DD's campus is closed but being here and trying to do school with a time difference in a busy household wasn't working for her, we're now paying for an off-campus apartment so she could at least go back to work and get together (outdoors and distanced) with some of her peers. None of those expenses are unique, and we're actually quite fortunate in that I don't have a permanent job so I can accommodate whatever changes happen with DD12's schooling - a lot of the working parents I know are also dealing with huge new childcare/mother's helper costs because they both work, either from home or outside of the home, and have kids young enough to need supervision in lieu of school and assistance with their virtual classes.

Unemployment and the federal supplement is supposed to help those who have lost income. The stimulus is to help offset the other costs of the pandemic and to encourage consumers to continue spending at a time where insecurity might prompt them to scale way back. We need the latter if we want jobs to rebound to help address the former.

Imagine being in that position, if your DH had lost his job. To me, most of that is the price of being a parent, when you're thrown a curve ball. I do think they should have made it possible for people like you who could proved you were able to make a certain income subbing to draw unemployment based on what you could have made. Unfortunately, that would have forced them to actually do some work to figure out what that would have been. Basically, I don't think there should have been stimulus checks at all. The money should have only gone to people who had their income affected.

I appreciate where you’re coming from but if were easy to do it that way they would have. It already takes them forever to come up with an agreement. Can you imagine how long it would take to go into that much detail on every American’s income? Then to have to reevaluate that for the next one? In theory it’s supposed to get money out quick and into the economy. They start to nitpick the details and it would never happen.

Yeah, I know that was their reason for doing the easiest thing possible. They put very little effort into figuring out the best way to help those who had lost their income, due to the pandemic. That lack of planning would never be considered acceptable in the private sector. It's not like we're still working with pen & paper. It would be easy to prove incomes for those who had their income affected either by loss of hours or loss of job. They would just need to dedicate the manpower to do it. As far as reevaluating the situation the second time, you can almost understand them taking the easiest route possible the first time, because they felt like they had to do something quickly. IMO, taking the easy way out the second time is inexcusable. They had more than enough time to figure out a better plan.

The theory that it would put more into the economy didn't pan out. People who lost their jobs were using it to pay bills. People who didn't were saving or investing it. They should have been able to foresee that. The best way to assure the money was used to support the economy would have been to give more directly to businesses that were struggling.

I realize most of us like free money, but this money isn't free. We're all going to be paying it back for decades. I don't mind paying to keep a business afloat, helping someone keep a roof over the head, the lights on or food on their table, but I'm not crazy about paying for someone's vacation or paying for their investments on my dime.

ETA: Sorry I sent this thread OT. That wasn't my intention. I'll bow out of this discussion, so we can get it back on topic.

 

[TLSnell1981]

And now watch the numbers start going back up in those places without mask mandate. Should really lessen those precautions AFTER vaccination has been sufficiently distributed. Or, maybe their strategy is to sacrifice some lives for earlier herd immunity. Worked great for the UK and Sweden last year.

Maybe...maybe not. Some states have always had stricter mask mandates and draconian lockdowns. It didn't necessarily produce a better outcome.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I appreciate where you’re coming from but if were easy to do it that way they would have. It already takes them forever to come up with an agreement. Can you imagine how long it would take to go into that much detail on every American’s income? Then to have to reevaluate that for the next one? In theory it’s supposed to get money out quick and into the economy. They start to nitpick the details and it would never happen.

I don't understand why they are still sitting on funds from the last package. There are people who desperately need help.