Trump Signs Executive Orders For $400 A Week Unemployment Benefits, Extends Payroll Tax Cuts Through

[groundloop]

Source: Newsweek

President Donald Trump signed several executive orders Saturday which extend payroll cuts and a moratorium on evictions as well as diverting funds to provide $400 in weekly enhanced unemployment benefits.

The president railed against Democrats over "voter fraud" and their attempt to "steal this election" as he laid out why no stimulus relief package has made it through Congress since the March CARES Act. Trump's executive orders extend eviction moratoriums and extend payroll tax cuts for employers through the end of the year, although Trump said "if I get elected in November," he may extend payroll tax cuts "permanently." The president's executive actions also expand military veteran benefits and divert Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and CARES Act money in order to fund federal unemployment insurance (UI) payments to jobless Americans.

The move for "additional China virus relief" from the White House comes after months of stalling and failed negotiations between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. "I've had it," the president declared Saturday afternoon from Bedminster, New Jersey about the break down in talks between the two parties.

Recent congressional talks have halted over the extension of $600 in federally enhanced unemployment benefits, which Trump's executive actions will continue at the reduced benefit of $400. Trump administration officials and GOP leaders have repeatedly stated they believe the extra $600 is encouraging people not to return to work.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-signs-executive-orders-400-week-unemployment-benefits-extends-payroll-tax-cuts-through-1523825

[ZZenith]

3. He did no such thing.

[Demsrule86]

10. No he didn't.

He is going to lose...

[stillcool]

11. his 'base' may be that dumb

but the rest of us aren't. You don't go through the last 4 years, and change your mind because of another puppet show. Jeeze...why would any thinking human being fall for it? Unless, it's just people trying their best to create a perception. Is that it?

[Progressive dog]

12. No he didn't

he just continued Putin's campaign to destroy the USA.

[CanonRay]

2. He cannot allocate funds, that is the sole responsibility of Congress

it's just BS.

[PuppyBismark]

4. Well, he can use his own money, LOL

[Lock him up.]

35. If Putin backs his loans (again) but doubtful.

RICO THE TRUMP MOBSTER$ AND THEIr GANG$TER-rEGIME ACCOMPLICE$

[Kaiserguy]

6. That is my take on also

He can't cut the payroll tax or hand out money both require the passing of bills by the House and Senate

[pink]

32. Doesn't the payroll tax pay for social security?

[Kaiserguy]

34. Yes it does

and Trumps action is a scam. The IRS can do a deferred payment for taxes for a year during an emergence. However unless the Congress acts and passes a law to make the deferred payment permanent at the end of the year you will have to pay those taxes.

[Igel]

62. He could tell the IRS not to prosecute anybody who didn't pay it.

Done.

Prosecutorial discretion and all that.

[dixiegrrrrl]

71. and pays for Medicare. n/t

[4139]

7. Congress has to take him to court to stop it.... We stop it and we'll look like the bad guys.

[HotTeaBag]

69. Boom. There you have it.

This most certainly played a role in the decision to go this route.

In fact, my guess is that Mitch, Meadows and Mnuchin made it impossible to reach a deal with Pelosi and Schumer just so this would happen to try to help get Trump's carcass across the finish line.

[Newest Reality]

8. The article addresses that "plan" somewhat:

Trump and White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow suggested last week they were considering unilateral efforts to "re-purpose" hundreds of billions of dollars not spent from the CARES Act. But labor and workers' rights experts said legal challenges should be expected because states can only pay benefits authorized under federal law.

Democrats have repeatedly warned that the White House cannot spend money without approval from Congress.

It will be challenged, so it seems.

[still_one]

26. What if he says it is a state of emergency?

[Hoyt]

37. So, who is going to file a lawsuit if treasury issues unemployment checks? You think Democrats

should complain and let the check bounce? I don't think that would go over very well.

[rockfordfile]

48. Damn right they will fight it.

[Hoyt]

51. Good luck with that.

[groundloop]

5. Is this even constitutional?

Even though I'll be getting that $400 per week I'm very skeptical about this. First, I seriously doubt if he can do this by executive order (someone with more knowledge on this topic please chime in).

ALSO, I'm positive that his failed negotiations with Democratic leaders was all pre-planned so he could seemingly ride in on a white horse and save the day. And anyone that dares to question this move will be an instant villian.

[Dopers_Greed]

13. It's not

But anyone who challenges it is taking $1600 a month from destitute Americans

[mucifer]

16. Exactly! We are so effed!

[LiberalArkie]

17. It would be all Pelosi's fault

[Thekaspervote]

24. Actually taking $400. There's nothing in his worthless EO about the $1,200 stimulus checks

[Chellee]

39. The UI is $400 weekly.

nt

[JudyM]

42. Would not be surprised if this was planned in advance with mcconnell.

[BlueIdaho]

49. As soon as people realize the money isn't coming

They will know who to blame. Look into the details, this isn’t money going to state unemployment systems. This is a whole new federal program States will have to join after they create a new financial system to deliver the “Lost Wages” funds to qualifying citizens.

It’s important to remember that States deliver allocated unemployment funds, not the federal government. My guess is this new Trump con will not deliver one red cent before November 3rd. Additionally, Trumps EO on evictions can only impact those in federal housing so 2/3 of those facing eviction can still find their shit on the curb.

This is a con - and not a very good one at that.

[Demsrule86]

14. He also said states would pay part of it...they won't...completely full of shit.

[AZ8theist]

53. I disagree. Mexico is paying for the wall, so......

[Eyeball_Kid]

66. You may not be getting $400.00 a week. The Court may decide. n/t

[Yonnie3]

15. He only signed one Executive Order

namely "Executive Order on Fighting the Spread of COVID-19 by Providing Assistance to Renters and Homeowners"

He signed additional memorandum.

See it all at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ or not if you choose.

I haven't bothered reading them. I'm sure I'll hear more than I want about the old fool's nonsense.

[QED]

18. Dems need to link the payroll tax cut as the first step to the elimination of social security

Maybe people will pay attention to that.

[bucolic_frolic]

19. It's all about the election, obviously, but no $1200 and he's whacking Social Security again

Voters are not that dumb.

Maybe some good government groups will sue him. Everyone has standing, he's undermining the viability of Social Security long term, and hence, their retirement income stream.

[NotANeocon]

20. Of Course it is constitutional!

Just because King Caligula says so.

Just put a burning candle under a copy of the constitution and the extra clauses in invisible ink will be found. The anti-tax FF wrote them in.

[bucolic_frolic]

21. If Republicans in Congress allow this, every President will have a black check to do anything

This is a real test - do we have rule of law, or no?

[groundloop]

29. Nope, we all know that GOPers will be all bent out of shape when a Democratic President does this

Just like the Supreme Court. Heaven forbid an opening on the court occurs, they'll be hell-bent on filling it while King Donnie is still in power.

[totodeinhere]

30. It's not up to the Republicans in Congress to allow this.

The Republicans cannot authorize an unconstitutional tactic like this. It will be struck down in the courts.

[Freethinker65]

22. I believe it is $300 UI from the Feds and $100 from your state, if they can afford it

The student loan and eviction stuff was in the Democratic bill passed in May!

Payroll tax suspension was dead in both the Senate and House. Blatantly cutting/starving Social Security is politically toxic.

[duforsure]

23. Just claiming he was doing this cost him,

The seniors of Florida, who will help turn that state blue.

[Thekaspervote]

25. Yeah!!

[AC_Mem]

72. Exactly

This makes me (a Florida senior) more inclined to volunteer to help get the word out. I'm waiting to see who the VP will be and then will look into how I can help (besides donating)

[machI]

27. Straight up vote buying

Anybody want to sell their vote for $400? Trump has a deal for you.

[durablend]

31. Yeah but it's the Democrats that are "cheating"

[totodeinhere]

28. This is all about politics and the upcoming election.

He cannot unilaterally do that and this executive order will never fly. And he probably knows that so he sees it as a win win for him. He is seen as trying to help the unemployed while in reality it won't happen so his real desire to see the unemployed suffer will prevail. We have to make sure that the American people see this for the cynical tactic that it is.

[Lock him up.]

41. He should be impeached again right there for stealing the power of Congress.

And see what the complicit repug$ in the Senate will do THIS time. Otherwise, might as well just abolish Congress.

AND RICO RICO RICO THE TRUMP MOBSTEr$ AND THEIr GANG$TEr rEGIME ACCOMPLICE$

[cstanleytech]

33. Only Congress has the power of the purse not the President. If he wants to do this he has to get

their approval otherwise it's illegal and anyone in the government that follows his orders to do this could be placing themselves in legal jeopardy.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. Exactly

Anyone complying with any order that obligates funds without an appropriation will be in direct violation of the Antideficiency Act.

[FBaggins]

44. Untrue. This isn't the "power of the purse"

The "power of the purse" refers to spending money. This would be failing to take it in the first place. The president (through the treasury secretary) has the power to do that. Not only is it not illegal fact... he already did when they moved the tax deadline back three months earlier this year.

Note - what he can't do is change the fact that the tax must eventually be paid. He's just changing it from an automatic payroll deduction into something you'll have to pay directly later... unless he convinces Congress to go in after the fact and reduce the tax owed.

The other gap in the plan is getting the employers to let the employees have the money. They're likely worried that they'll have to send it in eventually and might have to debit larger amounts from future paychecks.

I suspect this is a ploy to kickstart negotiations.

[cstanleytech]

45. By giving them 400 he is spending money so unless its from a discretionary fund Congress

authorized him to divert as he wants he needs to get their approval.

[FBaggins]

46. He lists three discretionary pools already authorized

Most specifically from DHS's Disaster Relief Fund

[cstanleytech]

61. Ah but when Congress set that up did they specify how, when and where the money

had to be used? If they did and if this is not one of those then he cannot do it.

[Doreen]

36. Hmm, last time they cut taxes and people had more each month

most either got less back for income tax returns, got nothing, or owed. I met just a couple of people who benefited by getting more and it was mot a lot more.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. Congress would have to do it

which is what was done under Obama for a brief period when he signed legislation by Congress - The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012

[pfitz59]

67. I owed a lot!

Because of changes in with-holding. Trumps 'tax cut" did nothing for me

[videohead5]

38. Biden needs to get ad's on in Florida ASAP

About Trump wanting to defund Social Security and Medicare.

[stuffmatters]

47. This

[kimbutgar]

50. He also said he is eliminating capital gains taxes

Now if you have capital gains in your investments you don’t need another tax cut. It does nothing to stimulate the economy.

[Gilbert Moore]

52. Stimulus

Kimbutgar,

Actually cutting the cap gains rate does stimulate the economy by freeing money up that is stuck in winning or old investments. If you had money in a mutual fund from 1980 it is probably worth 10 times the amount you put in. $5,000 becomes $50,000. It would "cost" $12,500 to $15,000 (tax rate of 25% or 30%) to "free" that money up, a sacrifice many may not be willing to make.

It is without a doubt free money for rich people.

[James DiPalma]

54. Long-term capital gains

Long-term capital gains (that would be paid on a mutual fund from 1980) rate:

0% if taxable income is less than $78,750
15% if above 0% rate and below $434550 for an individual

[Gilbert Moore]

60. Just checked

0% $0 to $40,000
15% $40,001 to $441,450
20% $441,451 or more

Thanks for the heads up

[beachbumbob]

55. I guess we will see what democrats in congress are made of.

[manicdem]

56. Lose the election?

If Stump is somehow able to get UI checks out to people and stop evictions it puts us in a bad spot. People getting those benefits will rebel if Democrats in Congress file a lawsuit to stop it. Then again Stump will have unlimited power in the future if we don't do anything.

Is stopping him now worth losing the elections?

[rockfordfile]

59. no it won't

Of course they will file a lawsuit if they have to. Americans support the Democratic party.

[jgmiller]

64. I'm sorry but the last 4 years have proven that many Americans are clueless at best

and stupid at worst. They don't understand the sepration of powers and frankly they don't want to understand it. Those of us who care about this stuff live in a bubble and thing everyone thinks like we do, they don't.

Find someone else with standing and file a lawsuit and leave congress out of it. In the end frankly this doesn't matter. Just because you don't sue for this doesn't mean you can't sue later and check his power.

[RussBLib]

57. This will cause his approval rating to rise

Even if not legal.

Lots of people don't look too deeply.

[rockfordfile]

58. No.

[Nexus2]

63. It might. It depends on how many buy his BS.

The spin that tries to paint the Democrats ('Radical Left America haters!) as obstructionists trying to keep the generous (pittance compared to what the wealthy received) amount of money from the common people because they're greedy elites that want to give it to fer'a ners.

I'm hopeful that will be sweet red meat for his base but won't find fertile ground much beyond that. Those eager to believe or with suspicions about Democrats that keep them on the fence but use it for an excuse for what they were probably going to do anyway. But I'm pretty certain that won't be significant number to do much but maybe make his approval twitch up by a minute amount.

[Grokenstein]

65. Trying to buy your vote while pandering to his wealthy benefactors

"If he trades you dimes for nickels and calls watermelon pickles,
then you know you're talkin' to the reefer man"
-- Cab Calloway (with apologies to Mr. Calloway)

[nitpicker]

68. Mostly dead on arrival

1. Even if states normally would have been willing to pay the extra $100 a week, now with revenues slashed...WITH WHAT MONEY??

2. The eviction moratorium expired 1 Aug, but it's unclear if an EO to extend it is constitutional.

3. The student loan moratorium is due to expire 30 Sep. It's unclear if the EO would cover merely federal student loans, or all student loans.

4. He probably can suspend the employer share of payroll tax, but if your business is effectively shut down ((again)), so what?

[jcgoldie]

70. None of this shits going to happen there's no money appropriated

The whole game was grab the headline going into the weekend, "President breaks congressional gridlock with executive orders on coronavirus relief." Who cares how much confusion it causes, only appearances matter anyway.