Talk:American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

Trouble citing contents of the bill without copyright infringement

Where do we cite our sources if we put a descriptive list of the provisions of a bill, as I've seen in other notable US laws like the CARES Act or the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021? Do we put a citation beside every point? Or is just accepted public information? Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for reason stated - discuss

"I believe we should merge this into the Presidency of Joe Biden page" Mikehawk10

I disagree with your statement. Biden hasn't even proposed his $1.9 trillion stimulus package through Congress yet, and every major stimulus package that the President and Congress passes needs its own page, similar to Obama's Recovery Act and Trump's CARES Act (among others). Once it has been introduced into congressional committees, published, and reported on the news, Biden's stimulus package will get much more traction and information available. Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement, this page does not need to be deleted since it still a proposal law.--Stefen moss (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree as the page heavily slants towards progressive attitudes towards the bill. If it can't be somewhat balanced, at the very least it should be on Bidens page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by username or ip (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Infobox US federal proposed legislation

AmericanRescuePlan2021 Thanks for helping me with the US law infobox! I haven't been in WP long and don't have much experience when it comes to editing infoboxes. Do we need to include the parts when the Senate adds amendments during the reconciliation process? Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a section about the amendments. --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

AmericanRescuePlan2021 The House voted 219-209 to pass the resolution, and Harris cast tie-breaking vote for Senate to pass budget resolution. The votes that you put on the infobox is just to open debate on the resolution. Does that stuff get included or isn't it just passage? Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Phillip Samuel: I think it works there. There is a section regarding the budget resolution. There will be soon regarding the reconciliation and vote on the bill. Other editors are free to add to the Infobox if necessary. AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

About sections

Hi Phillip Samuel, regarding the Budgetary impact section of American Rescue Plan, what would be a good thing to mention? AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking over the actual CBO study to see if there's anything notable we need to add. Phillip Samuel (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Phillip Samuel, I just included new information regarding bills that were introduced by Cory Booker and Raphael Warnock. I also made it into a section called "Farm bills" and created a redirect to Booker's bill. Do you this is a good section? --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very good, I think it should be in the budget reconciliation passage section. The budget resolution passage is over Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you think I should then erase the "farm bills" section and move it to that section Phillip Samuel? There will be more votes regarding the reconciliation process and I just moved the farm bills section. I also created a peer review for the article as I plan to nominate it for GA-status in the future (before or after it is signed into law). --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Political Commentary: NPOV Issues

Hello. The current section labeled "Political Commentary" appears to take its content extensively from a single self-published White House document. While this might be notable, many of the statements in there should be attributed, since the source has a political bias. The statements I am challenging as requiring attribution are below:

...given the lack of compromise and recent bipartisanship in proposals between the vastly different plans from Biden and the GOP, Biden criticized Republicans for their efforts to obstruct and signaled openness to passing the legislation without any support from congressional Republicans.

This is both an issue of WP:NOR and WP:POV, where we are uncritically publishing the claim that Republicans are engaging in an effort "to obstruct" and that there has been a "lack of compromise and recent bipartisanship in proposals between the vastly different plans from Biden and the GOP". If Biden is claiming that the GOP is obstructing, we need to attribute that to Biden (or to a neutral, disinterested RS that is reporting that the GOP is indeed obstructing an attempt at some deal). We also need to attribute the "lack of compromise and recent bipartisanship in proposals between the vastly different plans from Biden and the GOP" (or find a neutral, disinterested RS that is indeed reporting that this is the case). We're currently asserting both of these claims in wikivoice based on a single partisan source, which we should not be doing per Wikipedia policy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"17 Senate Committees to draft details"

It was reported after the budget was approved that 17 Senate Committees will immediately go to work drafting the details. Likely there are an equal or greater number of committees on the House side who will draft.

• List_of_United_States_Senate_committees#Standing_committees
• List_of_United_States_House_of_Representatives_committees#Standing_committees

Given time and urgency pressures, especially with a budget approved in advance, there will not be much time to put this together and check the details. Some were speaking of it enacted into law by March. It looks like one committee (at least) has a draft already. see energycommerce.house.gov. Shouldn't Wikipedia cover the drafting work-in-process here? (i.e. the actual committees working up drafts and reconciling differences?) Does anyone know who is actually writing at the senior staff level once the committees are identified?

“This is why Congress needs time to actually read this package before voting on it. Members of Congress have not read this bill. It’s over 5000 pages, arrived at 2pm today, and we are told to expect a vote on it in 2 hours,” Ocasio-Cortez

“@AOC is right. “It’s ABSURD to have a $2.5 trillion spending bill negotiated in secret and then—hours later—demand an up-or-down vote on a bill nobody has had time to read. #CongressIsBroken” Ted Cruze

Better know what's in the drafts because >5000 pages is pretty tough to review in two hours! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.200.231 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The 628-page Senate bill

Wikipedia page will include every single provisions in the 628 page? RepublicanMMA (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the article gave an overview of the main points, not ever point from every page. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

1099-k reporting requirement change

This should probably be mentioned: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/05/gig-workers-coronavirus-relief-bill-losers-473902 https://fee.org/articles/democrats-just-snuck-a-1-billion-tax-hike-on-workers-into-their-covid-bill/ Terrorist96 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Section on Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic needs work

This section is poorly written and contains factual and grammatical errors. For example:

• "The United States also faced a eviction..." should be "The United States also faced an eviction..."
• "Over 30 to 40 million Americans..." doesn't make sense. This should be "Over 30 million..." or "Over 40 million..."
• There are several extraneous "Additionally" and "also" words in the paragraph.
• "On January 20, the day after Joe Biden was inaugurated,..." is factually incorrect. January 20 was the day Biden was inaugurated, not the day after.
• The last sentence about Trump's plan is a point relating to something two sentences earlier. The flow is bad.
• Over all, the paragraph reads like a jumble of unrelated sentences, and the ones about the existence/non-existence of Trump's distribution plan are not really even within the topic of the section. Jhamkins (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Section on Key Elements of Bill

This section confuses the child tax credit with the similarly named child and dependent care credit. The sentence describing the child tax credit adds '...up to a maximum of $8,000 in annual child care costs.' This is incorrectly applying a limit for the 'child and dependent care credit' as if that is a limit for the 'child tax credit'. 2601:CF:8000:52D0:D502:678F:72E0:F4C2 (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Biden signing on March 11 not March 12

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1370065491197300737 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberoamicis (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Amazon's support?

https://pfnyc.org/news/new-york-business-leaders-join-national-support-for-biden-stimulus-package/

Am I blind or what? Amazon, Jeff Bezos (President, CEO, and Chairman).... did not Support for Biden Stimulus Package.

Can someone confirm it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:49FD:268B:2E3C:9E6E (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

So...? Does this have something that needs correction in the article? Otherwise, WP:NOTFORUM... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:V, it needs verification and transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:250:4570:49FD:268B:2E3C:9E6E (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Except it isn't mentioned in the article (either of Amazon or Bezos); so I don't see what needs correcting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Unsupported Claim About Republican "Focus"

Towards the end of this article, this claim is made: "While debates and negotiations over the stimulus package were on-going, Republicans focused instead on culture war issues unrelated to government actions, such as the decision by the Dr. Seuss estate to stop publishing a racially incendiary Dr. Seuss book and the re-branding of the "Mr. Potato Head" toy."

Besides a single Washington Post article, is there any support for the claim that CONGRESSIONAL Republicans were "focused instead on culture war issues" at the expense of opposition to the bill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.126.96.19 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/18/the-nightmare-politics-of-fighting-the-recovery-bill-476830 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You have any modicum of doubt left that Wikipedia is left-biased garbage at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermoir (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Not one bit of doubt that wiki has turned into a left-wing opinion site. I think certain articles, like political-related articles should be remade by a consensus of a bipartisan group of pundits and politicians and then made permanent.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:609E:D406:9CA4:488F (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If you folks have points to bring up then constructively suggest edits that build the encyclopedia instead of just complaining.

Wikipedia is not a "pundits and politicians" site. 166.196.75.131 (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Would there be any utility in including the breakdown of budget authority and outlays for the entire Bill?

I've been trying to search for this information for a long time and I think having a page/additional items with a complete breakdown might be worthwhile. It's hard to find this information quickly, and seems to be only printed on the CBO website. NotBrandonJones (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Inflationary impact

The inflationary impact section seems, in my opinion, inadequately researched and cited.

The first paragraph has three citations, but one (a CNBC video) is a prediction of higher inflation rather than a retrospective analysis, and another (a reason.com article) is quite evidently politically biased. Unfortunately, the third citation (a WSJ article) is behind a paywall, so I couldn't assess its relevance. I think this sentence should either be removed or given better sources. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to add better sources.

The second paragraph is about a study released by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. The description of this study on the wiki page had several factual inaccuracies that I think I've corrected. The study also mentions that their estimate falls "in the upper range of findings from other recent research", but it is not clear what research they are referring to. If other estimates are found they should be added to the section.

The last paragraph is about a statement by respected economist Paul Krugman who says he was wrong about inflation in relation to the American Rescue Plan Act (specifically he was too "relaxed" about inflation), but it's not clear to me from the article what he thinks the actual inflationary impact of the act is. I don't know if there is a more detailed write-up by Krugman somewhere, but I don't think the cited article gives much useful information for Wikipedia readers, since it lacks much analysis. A recent twitter thread by Krugman also seems to indicate that he may have pulled back from the view he expressed in the linked Op-Ed. I think this final paragraph should be removed for now due to lack of analysis and a possible change in the view of the author.

Since the causes of inflation have recently been a contentious issue, I decided to ask here before removing any content from this section. Smoclon (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the first and last sentences from this section essentially for the reasons above.

The first sentence claimed that commenters said the act increased inflation. It had three sources, two of which were predictions, not post-inflationary analyses, and neither of them mentioned this act specifically, and only barely mentioned stimulus spending in general. These sources did not seem to support the claim. The only remaining source was an evidently politically biased article not sufficient by WP:NPOV for the statement as it stood. I removed the statement rather than try to find a bunch of other statements to meet WP:NPOV.

The last sentence was based on a statement by Paul Krugman that was at least partially contradicted by a twitter thread, and now by a much more recent opinion piece that includes the claim (emphasis mine)

"Several economists had warned that the American Rescue Plan, the large spending bill passed early in the Biden administration, would be inflationary, warnings that appeared to be vindicated by the inflation surge of 2021-22. In retrospect, these economists may have been right for the wrong reasons, since inflation eventually surged, not only in America but almost everywhere: This suggests that inflation may have had less to do with overspending than it did with pandemic-related disruptions;"

Given Krugman's possible change in view, I opted to remove the statement rather than write at any length about how the views of this one author have changed over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoclon (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction

Why does the introductory paragraph discuss legislative history? The intro should probably be a brief summary of the different pieces of the bill and what they actually do. The history can be discussed later on. The section in its current form probably dates back to the time when the bill was still under consideration. That would make the history more appropriate for the intro. Once the bill has passed, I as a reader don't want any history in the intro, I want to read what the bill does. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)