Trump Regime to Banks: It's OK to steal virus relief checks

The rules on wage garnishments were for "normal." We are not at "normal."

And again this is cutting off your nose to spite your own face. The stimulus checks are as much to keep the economy going as they are to keep individuals going. The more of this money that we are trying to inject into the economy goes to just reducing the amount of some debt ledgers the less effective it is going to be.

We need the money active, in motion, being used, changing hands.
 
In the US, wage garnishment is limited by federal law to 25% or the amount of income that is over 30x the minimum wage. Whichever is lower. But I'm not sure this would fall under wage garnishment as that is an order for your employer to withhold the funds.

Legally, the only people who can garnish tax refunds are governments (for taxes) and for child support. For this payment, the only thing the government will garnish is child support. At least at the federal level.

Bank account garnishment is a little different. There are still limits and it requires a court order. If it's the result of an existing garnishment order, I don't think it could take the whole thing. The cash may become an asset in an ongoing bankruptcy process, however. But that all involves a judge.

Now, the tricky part, which does not involve the courts is the bank itself. If your account is overdrawn, anything you deposit into it will be used to bring the account up to zero first (including overdraft fees). I imagine it would create some serious accounting headaches to avoid this.

I'm not totally supportive of banks on this, because some can be pretty draconian. Some banks, in addition to the original overdraft fee, charge a fee for each day of negative balance. At $10-20 per day, that can add up fast. (There should be a limit on this.)

The other issue is that if you have your mortgage or credit card in the same place as your savings and checking, they can take the funds if you are past due if it's in your loan agreement. (Always read your loan agreements.) They don't have to go to court, because you agreed to it as part of your loan.

I think that is what USAA was probably doing. Making withdrawals to pay bills (insurance/loans) to USAA accounts that were past due.
 
Craig4 said:
But the word stealing motivates people. It makes them hate Trump more. It could cause people to get angry and donate to Biden's campaign . It further drives a polarizing wedge between Americans and Trumptrash, contributing to making them a hated other. So while you are factually correct, there's nothing wrong with calling it stealing.
Click to expand...

Can't tell if serious or sarcasm...
 
Emily's Cat said:
Can't tell if serious or sarcasm...
Click to expand...

Serious. Craig4 has repeatedly announced a strict policy of dealing dishonestly and unethically with Trump supporters, including misrepresenting them and and dehumanizing them, and stoking irrational hatred towards them.

He's also consistently carried out this policy in his posts here, ever since he first announced it.

That's what you're seeing.
 
theprestige said:
Serious. Craig4 has repeatedly announced a strict policy of dealing dishonestly and unethically with Trump supporters, including misrepresenting them and and dehumanizing them, and stoking irrational hatred towards them.

He's also consistently carried out this policy in his posts here, ever since he first announced it.

That's what you're seeing.
Click to expand...

It could be called a form of drama baiting, a common leftie tactic.
 
theprestige said:
Serious. Craig4 has repeatedly announced a strict policy of dealing dishonestly and unethically with Trump supporters, including misrepresenting them and and dehumanizing them, and stoking irrational hatred towards them.

He's also consistently carried out this policy in his posts here, ever since he first announced it.

That's what you're seeing.
Click to expand...

That's horrible.
 
theprestige said:
Serious. Craig4 has repeatedly announced a strict policy of dealing dishonestly and unethically with Trump supporters, including misrepresenting them and and dehumanizing them, and stoking irrational hatred towards them.

He's also consistently carried out this policy in his posts here, ever since he first announced it.

That's what you're seeing.
Click to expand...

Yep, just about sums it up.
 
theprestige said:
Serious. Craig4 has repeatedly announced a strict policy of dealing dishonestly and unethically with Trump supporters, including misrepresenting them and and dehumanizing them, and stoking irrational hatred towards them.

He's also consistently carried out this policy in his posts here, ever since he first announced it.

That's what you're seeing.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he’s got your vote if he runs for president.
 
theprestige said:
It's an economic impact check actually.

Under the current system, people get their wages garnished when they can afford to pay their debts but choose not to. If this check relieves someone's economic impact to the point where they can afford to pay some of their debts, I don't see why that piece of business shouldn't go forward.

Debts are a legitimate and important expense. Paying debts when you can afford to do so is morally and ethically correct. It is also just. Creditors are entitled as a matter of justice to be repaid as soon as a creditor can afford to repay them.

The point of the economic impact payments is to help people afford their expenses. Owing a just and moral debt is a valid expense, and one that we as a society generally put at the top of the list of compulsory obligations. Hence garnishment when people choose not to fulfill that obligation.
Click to expand...


That just names it, it does not tell us what the payment is for or meant to do.

Have you details as to the purpose of this economic impact amount?
 
Scopedog said:
What if it gets you that for another 4 years? What if it gets you someone worse in 2024?
Click to expand...

The data says hatred is working. Every election since 2016 has been a blow to Trump. If you stay on message, Trump is stupid, Trump is corrupt, Trump is disloyal, Trump supporters are the hated other you keep the poll numbers where they are now. Keeping a hold your nose and vote voter from going to the polls is the same as a vote for Biden.
 
Scopedog said:
What if it gets you that for another 4 years? What if it gets you someone worse in 2024?
Click to expand...

Good point.

The important thing is to soothe the fragile egos of the people actively risking all of our lives with their ignorance and selfishness.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The rules on wage garnishments were for "normal." We are not at "normal."

And again this is cutting off your nose to spite your own face. The stimulus checks are as much to keep the economy going as they are to keep individuals going. The more of this money that we are trying to inject into the economy goes to just reducing the amount of some debt ledgers the less effective it is going to be.

We need the money active, in motion, being used, changing hands.
Click to expand...

Then for an economy, groups that lend money are in a better position to lend if money if these garnishments are paid.
 
Darat said:
That just names it, it does not tell us what the payment is for or meant to do.

Have you details as to the purpose of this economic impact amount?
Click to expand...

I have no opinion about that.

Ask the people misnaming it, in order to support their argumenta, if they have the details you're interested in. Or just read the text of the bill itself, and let us know if find anything you think is relevant here.
 
johnny karate said:
Between what and what?
Click to expand...

A. A strict policy of dealing dishonestly and unethically with Trump supporters, including misrepresenting them and and dehumanizing them, and stoking irrational hatred towards them.

B. The important thing is to soothe the fragile egos of the people actively risking all of our lives with their ignorance and selfishness.
 
Scopedog said:
A. A strict policy of dealing dishonestly and unethically with Trump supporters, including misrepresenting them and and dehumanizing them, and stoking irrational hatred towards them.

B. The important thing is to soothe the fragile egos of the people actively risking all of our lives with their ignorance and selfishness.
Click to expand...

Okay, I understand your confusion now.

My point wasn’t that it was an either or choice.

My point was that no one should care about what these people think because their stupidity and selfishness has risen to the point that is has literally become a threat to all of our lives.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Also, “misrepresenting”? “Irrational”? Are you being serious?

Have you not been watching the news this week? These people do not care if they help spread a virus that could kill you or someone you love. Their actions prove that.

I think you sympathies might be misplaced.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I have no opinion about that.

Ask the people misnaming it, in order to support their argumenta, if they have the details you're interested in. Or just read the text of the bill itself, and let us know if find anything you think is relevant here.
Click to expand...


Then you cannot have any opinion as to it being right or wrong for it to be subject to being garnished .
 
Craig4 said:
The data says hatred is working. Every election since 2016 has been a blow to Trump. If you stay on message, Trump is stupid, Trump is corrupt, Trump is disloyal, Trump supporters are the hated other you keep the poll numbers where they are now. Keeping a hold your nose and vote voter from going to the polls is the same as a vote for Biden.
Click to expand...

That highlighted bit is where you lose me. I'm pretty strongly opposed to purposefully vilifying a large segment of your fellow americans. That's how you get violence, murder, and persecution. You're laying the foundation for rationalizing the removal of rights from a subset of people, and justifying violence against them. It's only a step away from an inquisition.
 
Darat said:
Then you cannot have any opinion as to it being right or wrong for it to be subject to being garnished .
Click to expand...

Of course I can. My opinion is based on my understanding of the garnishment system currently in place. The lawmaker's idea of how the money should be spent is irrelevant, in this context. If they didn't write the idea into the law as such, then I think the current system is probably fine for handling it the same way it handles other income.

I brought up the correct name of the thing not because I think it describes the nature of the thing, nor because I intend to make an argument from the name of the thing. You shouldn't make an argument from the name of the thing, but if you do, you should at least use the right name.

If you're going to push back on people appealing to the name of the thing in their arguments, you should probably focus your attention on the people actually doing that.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
That highlighted bit is where you lose me. I'm pretty strongly opposed to purposefully vilifying a large segment of your fellow americans. That's how you get violence, murder, and persecution. You're laying the foundation for rationalizing the removal of rights from a subset of people, and justifying violence against them. It's only a step away from an inquisition.
Click to expand...

Trump has been successful turning lots of different groups into a hated other already. We're already where you're afraid we're going. You're like the kid in the backseat of the car who falls asleep, wakes up and asks if we're there yet after we've arrived. The only question left now is who is going to be the hated other, Americans or Trumptrash.
 
theprestige said:
I have not.

However, I do not believe that matters of public policy can only be discussed by people directly affected by the policy. In fact I believe the opposite. So my personal experience is irrelevant. As it should be. So let us speak no more of it.
Click to expand...

Is this a new thing among you guys now? Dictating who can and can't talk about stuff? It's pathetic.

The reason I asked, and the reason I'll continue to talk about any ******* thing I feel like, is because if you weren't familiar with the process, perhaps you didn't realize that your garnishments, withholdings, etc. are generally based on a sliding scale of your income. So, as I said, maybe you didn't realize that payment plans that were setup in front of a judge includes things like pay stubs, tax return forms, detailed analysis of your monthly expenditures, etc. Those things can be subject to emergency reviews based on "change of life" scenarios. A spouse dies, a divorce, you get injured, or you lose your job. That being said, if the courts aren't open to provide those reviews then the people doing the garnishments, or the judge that ordered it, would\should have a different opinion of what can be deducted. This seems pretty common senseish, though sometimes that isn't so common.

The point is that until the courts can re-open and some of the literally ******* millions of ******* people, that have lost their jobs could get some review, maybe just leave a check designed to piece their lives together for a month alone.

I know, I know, something, something bootstraps, something, something, savings, something something 'i r better tahn teh poorz'.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Is this a new thing among you guys now? Dictating who can and can't talk about stuff? It's pathetic.

The reason I asked, and the reason I'll continue to talk about any ******* thing I feel like, is because if you weren't familiar with the process, perhaps you didn't realize that your garnishments, withholdings, etc. are generally based on a sliding scale of your income. So, as I said, maybe you didn't realize that payment plans that were setup in front of a judge includes things like pay stubs, tax return forms, detailed analysis of your monthly expenditures, etc. Those things can be subject to emergency reviews based on "change of life" scenarios. A spouse dies, a divorce, you get injured, or you lose your job. That being said, if the courts aren't open to provide those reviews then the people doing the garnishments, or the judge that ordered it, would\should have a different opinion of what can be deducted. This seems pretty common senseish, though sometimes that isn't so common.

The point is that until the courts can re-open and some of the literally ******* millions of ******* people, that have lost their jobs could get some review, maybe just leave a check designed to piece their lives together for a month alone.

I know, I know, something, something bootstraps, something, something, savings, something something 'i r better tahn teh poorz'.
Click to expand...

I think he was maybe agreeing to disagree, or at least say lets drop it. No reason to get an agitated about it. But I see veiled drama baiting and the like which makes the agitation that much more pointless.
 
rockysmith76 said:
I think he was maybe agreeing to disagree, or at least say lets drop it. No reason to get an agitated about it. But I see veiled drama baiting and the like which makes the agitation that much more pointless.
Click to expand...

I don't want, need, or give any weight to your advice or statements about my debates or conversations. Your statements are falling on deaf ears, so save them.
 
plague311 said:
I don't want, need, or give any weight to your advice or statements about my debates or conversations. Your statements are falling on deaf ears, so save them.
Click to expand...

You were yelling at the Prestige for controlling a conversation even though they weren't and now you're doing the same in the same thread. And you villified an opinion they never offered. The easiest way to not get garnished is to have your financial house in order. Sorry you're having such a bad day.
 
plague311 said:
Is this a new thing among you guys now? Dictating who can and can't talk about stuff? It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
Not dictating. Indicating my preference. That said, if you have something more to say about the process and your opinions/conclusions about the process, you're welcome to say it. You don't need to waste two days on pointless personal Q&A, if the below paragraph was something you wanted to add to the discussion. You can just add it.

The reason I asked, and the reason I'll continue to talk about any ******* thing I feel like, is because if you weren't familiar with the process, perhaps you didn't realize that your garnishments, withholdings, etc. are generally based on a sliding scale of your income. So, as I said, maybe you didn't realize that payment plans that were setup in front of a judge includes things like pay stubs, tax return forms, detailed analysis of your monthly expenditures, etc. Those things can be subject to emergency reviews based on "change of life" scenarios. A spouse dies, a divorce, you get injured, or you lose your job. That being said, if the courts aren't open to provide those reviews then the people doing the garnishments, or the judge that ordered it, would\should have a different opinion of what can be deducted. This seems pretty common senseish, though sometimes that isn't so common.

The point is that until the courts can re-open and some of the literally ******* millions of ******* people, that have lost their jobs could get some review, maybe just leave a check designed to piece their lives together for a month alone.

I know, I know, something, something bootstraps, something, something, savings, something something 'i r better tahn teh poorz'.
Click to expand...
 
Craig4 said:
Trump has been successful turning lots of different groups into a hated other already. We're already where you're afraid we're going. You're like the kid in the backseat of the car who falls asleep, wakes up and asks if we're there yet after we've arrived. The only question left now is who is going to be the hated other, Americans or Trumptrash.
Click to expand...

Umm... no, I think you're wrong. TRUMP hates a lot of people, and a small minority of people follow his lead. But there are lots of people who don't buy in to the hatred.

And you know, purposefully persecuting people whose beliefs you disagree with has always been a recipe for massive atrocities. Intentionally defining a groups as "hated other" is the reptilian tribal instinct that justifies genocide and murder.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Umm... no, I think you're wrong. TRUMP hates a lot of people, and a small minority of people follow his lead. But there are lots of people who don't buy in to the hatred.

And you know, purposefully persecuting people whose beliefs you disagree with has always been a recipe for massive atrocities. Intentionally defining a groups as "hated other" is the reptilian tribal instinct that justifies genocide and murder.
Click to expand...

Do you really think a Biden administration is going to build death camps for Trumptrash? We're talking about being socially ostracized and hated. Not the same thing as genocide and there are significant barriers to genocide in the US now.

As for a small minority, don't kid yourself. It might be a small minority that cheer the kids in cages on the Mexican border but the rest of his supporters just don't care. Those scum will vote for Trump because they think it's good for their online trading accounts.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Umm... no, I think you're wrong. TRUMP hates a lot of people, and a small minority of people follow his lead. But there are lots of people who don't buy in to the hatred.

And you know, purposefully persecuting people whose beliefs you disagree with has always been a recipe for massive atrocities. Intentionally defining a groups as "hated other" is the reptilian tribal instinct that justifies genocide and murder.
Click to expand...

The MA prohibits us from explicitly advocating for that kind of thing. Craig4 would probably get a suspension if he even implied that the things you're warning about are features, not bugs, of his program.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Umm... no, I think you're wrong. TRUMP hates a lot of people, and a small minority of people follow his lead. But there are lots of people who don't buy in to the hatred.
Click to expand...

In what respect do you think they "don't buy into the hatred"? Do they not agree that the hatred exists? Or do they admit that they hatred exists but they just don't care enough to object?

They claim they don't share the hate but enable those that do. I don't quite see that as a consolation.

This is "Lost Cause" Confederacy. Oh, what about those soldiers who didn't support slavery but were just fighting for the Confederacy? Oh, that makes it ok to fight for institution that maintains slavery as long as you say you don't agree.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
However, I do not believe that matters of public policy can only be discussed by people directly affected by the policy. In fact I believe the opposite.
Click to expand...

Looks like you think policy about problem X affecting group Y should be discussed with exclusion of that group.

Does that apply to policies affecting rich white republicans too? Or it is just for lowly proles and unwashed masses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom