The Next "Stimulus Bill" Could Be Close

[DMX7]

Seems we may be getting closer to one as the pandemic rages on. I'm hoping it doesn't include stimulus checks because these seem so inefficient. I totally support expanding and enhancing unemployment benefits but just giving away money as "stimulus" to everyone not making over a certain salary seems so wasteful to me.

[DMC]

Seems we may be getting closer to one as the pandemic rages on. I'm hoping it doesn't include stimulus checks because these seem so inefficient. I totally support expanding and enhancing unemployment benefits but just giving away money as "stimulus" to everyone not making over a certain salary seems so wasteful to me.

The government doesn't possess the wherewithal to manage a better system that can actually filter out those who don't need it, and do so quickly. This is the same government the left wants to run healthcare.

[spurraider21]

The government doesn't possess the wherewithal to manage a better system that can actually filter out those who don't need it, and do so quickly. This is the same government the left wants to run healthcare.
they run medicare just fine.

[Winehole23]

Seems we may be getting closer to one as the pandemic rages on. I'm hoping it doesn't include stimulus checks because these seem so inefficient. I totally support expanding and enhancing unemployment benefits but just giving away money as "stimulus" to everyone not making over a certain salary seems so wasteful to me.There's no need to means test direct stimulus to citizens during a recession/pandemic. Simply giving money (cash transfers or temporary UBI) to people to stay at home, like Canada is doing, would be good both for the economy and mitigating the spread of COVID.

Just give people money.

(not pie in the sky, we did it last spring, at least 90 other countries have some form of direct cash transfers)

[DMC]

they run medicare just fine.

OK

[Winehole23]

OKsr21 has got you there.

[DMX7]

There's no need to means test direct stimulus to citizens during a recession/pandemic. Simply giving money (cash transfers or temporary UBI) to people to stay at home, like Canada is doing, would be good both for the economy and mitigating the spread of COVID.

Just give people money.

There's not obligation to stay at home. Like I said, it's so inefficient.

[DMC]

sr21 has got you there.

No

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's not obligation to stay at home. Like I said, it's so inefficient.

I don't get the inefficient angle. it definitely helped the economy back when it was put in once ago and we have definitely been impacted from the lack of a similar stimulus since then.

Inefficient compared to what?

[Winehole23]

There's not obligation to stay at home. Like I said, it's so inefficient.If we don't, the recession will be longer and the recovery slower. During a demand shock, the government needs to pick up the slack.

[Winehole23]

NoYou like to overstate the prevalence of fraud and abuse and ignore the efficiencies, but go ahead, try to back that up again. "Philo" slapped your dick in the dirt last time you tried.

[boutons_deux]

I don't get the inefficient angle. it definitely helped the economy back when it was put in once ago and we have definitely been impacted from the lack of a similar stimulus since then.

Inefficient compared to what?

with $600/week, while unemployment skyrocketed, POVERTY went down.

600/40 = $15/hour. Dems won't do it. They'll fecklessly fold when Repugs/right wing hate media propagandize "$15 kills jobs" for which there is no proof

$15/hour lifts people out of poverty and saves $Bs in public assistance

[Dirks_Finale]

The government doesn't possess the wherewithal to manage a better system that can actually filter out those who don't need it, and do so quickly. This is the same government the left wants to run healthcare.

Like all the dead folks who got stimulus checks last time.

[baseline bum]

I don't get the inefficient angle. it definitely helped the economy back when it was put in once ago and we have definitely been impacted from the lack of a similar stimulus since then.

Inefficient compared to what?

It's the national religion that any subsidy to go through the job creator class first.

[Th'Pusher]

The government doesn't possess the wherewithal to manage a better system that can actually filter out those who don't need it, and do so quickly. This is the same government the left wants to run healthcare.
I’ll bet the ROI on filtering out “those who don’t need it” is super low. I wouldn’t even put the max income limit on the direct payment. The fed only knows how much you made in 2019. Assuming you still make that in this economy is presumptive.

[Spurminator]

They had no intention of filtering out people who didn't need it. This wasn't government inefficiency, it was Republican governance working exactly as intended.

[Winehole23]

It's the national religion that any subsidy to go through the job creator class first.Republicans are the party that thinks government is incompetent and they keep trying to get elected to prove it.

[Neo.]

The government doesn't possess the wherewithal to manage a better system that can actually filter out those who don't need it, and do so quickly. This is the same government the left wants to run healthcare.

yet somehow you think they can easily immunize the whole american population within a couple months with a vaccine that requires equipment that most clinics dont possess :rollin

[DMC]

You like to overstate the prevalence of fraud and abuse and ignore the efficiencies, but go ahead, try to back that up again. "Philo" slapped your dick in the dirt last time you tried.

You're stupid. There's never any truth to what you say, you're a cheerleader.

[DMC]

yet somehow you think they can easily immunize the whole american population within a couple months with a vaccine that requires equipment that most clinics dont possess :rollin

Where did I say that I think that?

[Winehole23]

You're stupid. There's never any truth to what you say, you're a cheerleader.I recall the conversation distinctly; perhaps your memory has faded.

[DMC]

I recall the conversation distinctly; your memory must be bad.

You can recall all you like, your reading comprehension is poor and you cannot make up for it with fancy words.

[Winehole23]

You can recall all you like, your reading comprehension is poor and you cannot make up for it with fancy words.That's your opinion, others can decide what it's worth.

Keep making this thread about me and ignoring the topic, it makes you look really smart. :tu

[DMC]

sr21 has got you there.


That's your opinion, others can decide what it's worth.

Keep making this thread about me and ignoring the topic, it makes you look really smart. :tu

:lol

idiot

[Winehole23]

lol fancy words

It's just English, man.

[ducks]

Send the cost to China along with other ones passed

[DMX7]

I don't get the inefficient angle. it definitely helped the economy back when it was put in once ago and we have definitely been impacted from the lack of a similar stimulus since then.

Inefficient compared to what?

Compared to giving extended/enhanced unemployment benefits that at least go to people who are unemployed... This money is much more likely to be put in the hands of people who need it more and who are more likely to spend it on essentials and not on the stock market (where we know a lot of the first stimulus money went) or luxury goods.

[DMX7]

Send the cost to China along with other ones passed

Oh you mean like how Trump tried to pass the bill to Mexico for the wall and instead a ton of the money came out of the U.S. Defense Budget to pay for it??

[ducks]

Oh you mean like how Trump tried to pass the bill to Mexico for the wall and instead a ton of the money came out of the U.S. Defense Budget to pay for it??

Mexico is paying for it
They have their forces on boarder
Damm your dumb

[Isitjustme?]

600/40 = $15/hour. Dems won't do it. They'll fecklessly fold when Repugs/right wing hate media propagandize "$15 kills jobs" for which there is no proof


Biden mentioned supporting $15 an hour every speech he gave :lol Not everyone is a trust fund baby like yourself who can sit around playing games and waiting for Republicans (who give two shits about actually helping people) to fold and cave in to all our demands like we are the only ones with leverage

[DMX7]

Mexico is paying for it
They have their forces on boarder
Damm your dumb

Where's the cash?
You gullible as fuck

[TimDunkem]

Pretty sure this bill doesn't include the checks.

[DMC]

I’ll bet the ROI on filtering out “those who don’t need it” is super low. I wouldn’t even put the max income limit on the direct payment. The fed only knows how much you made in 2019. Assuming you still make that in this economy is presumptive.

Low for their intent which isn't to boost struggling people but to boost a struggling economy. Spending is spending.

[boutons_deux]

Biden mentioned supporting $15 an hour every speech he gave :lol Not everyone is a trust fund baby like yourself who can sit around playing games and waiting for Republicans (who give two shits about actually helping people) to fold and cave in to all our demands like we are the only ones with leverage

Dems won't do $15 because their BigDonor class doesn't want to pay Labor.

[AaronY]

Seems we may be getting closer to one as the pandemic rages on. I'm hoping it doesn't include stimulus checks because these seem so inefficient. I totally support expanding and enhancing unemployment benefits but just giving away money as "stimulus" to everyone not making over a certain salary seems so wasteful to me.

What's inefficient about the stimulus? The unemployment where people were getting regular unemployment plus $600 seemed even more inefficient since it disencentivizes people from getting jobs

[DMX7]

What's inefficient about the stimulus? The unemployment where people were getting regular unemployment plus $600 seemed even more inefficient since it disencentivizes people from getting jobs


Compared to giving extended/enhanced unemployment benefits that at least go to people who are unemployed... This money is much more likely to be put in the hands of people who need it more and who are more likely to spend it on essentials and not on the stock market (where we know a lot of the first stimulus money went) or luxury goods.

[boutons_deux]

"disencentivizes people from getting jobs"

that's Repug propaganda. There is no evidence supporting that bullshit to justify giving pandemic unemployed NOTHING.

[TimDunkem]

What's inefficient about the stimulus? The unemployment where people were getting regular unemployment plus $600 seemed even more inefficient since it disencentivizes people from getting jobs

BS. Many gave it up when states reopened because they wanted their jobs. Many went back to jobs that paid less.

[TimDunkem]

"disencentivizes people from getting jobs"

that's Repug propaganda. There is no evidence supporting that bullshit to justify giving pandemic unemployed NOTHING.




Amazing that some still eat that Repug propaganda up.

[AaronY]

BS. Many gave it up when states reopened because they wanted their jobs. Many went back to jobs that paid less.
If their jobs still existed im sure they went back to them but many don't exist still. If I'm making like $900 a week on $300 unemployment+$600 a week bonus why would I want to get a minimum wage job where it would take me three weeks to make that much lol.

[AaronY]

How much of a dummy you gotta be to take a $300 a week minimum wage job when you be making $900/week for doing nothing?

[AaronY]

Amazing that some still eat that Repug propaganda up.
Lmao any critique of you guys in any way is a rightwing talking point

[ElNono]

If their jobs still existed im sure they went back to them but many don't exist still. If I'm making like $900 a week on $300 unemployment+$600 a week bonus why would I want to get a minimum wage job where it would take me three weeks to make that much lol.

That's more an indictment on where the minimum wage sits right now than bad policy, tbh.

But, regardless, the reason would be that aid is temporary due to the health emergency, and you don't want to create a situation where you make the most economically vulnerable people (who probably don't even have health insurance) risk their health, or become spreaders because of their desperation.

There's no reason for this aid to be longer than 3 months (considering the prospects of a vaccine right now), and ultimately it can be extended again then if needed.

[AaronY]

That's more an indictment on where the minimum wage sits right now than bad policy, tbh.

But, regardless, the reason would be that aid is temporary due to the health emergency, and you don't want to create a situation where you make the most economically vulnerable people (who probably don't even have health insurance) risk their health, or become spreaders because of their desperation.

There's no reason for this aid to be longer than 3 months (considering the prospects of a vaccine right now), and ultimately it can be extended again then if needed.
Just gives $1500 a month to anyone with medium to low household income but don't take it away if they get a job or something. Should just be adjusted to the area maybe and cost of living

[ElNono]

Just gives $1500 a month to anyone with medium to low household income but don't take it away if they get a job or something. Should just be adjusted to the area maybe and cost of living

An UBI is a different matter altogether, IMO, and we can discuss it's merits separately. This is simply a temporary health emergency, and it's frankly ridiculous it's not treated as such.

Ultimately, the government ends up on the hook anyways. Either they temporarily pay them to stay at home, more or less, or end up having to foot the bill for their healthcare + all the other uninsured people they infect, or see Texas having to extend SNAP benefits, etc.

The main street economy is going to stay in the tank until this pandemic is under control. If it wasn't clear before, I think it's pretty clear by now.

[boutons_deux]

An UBI is a different matter altogether, IMO, and we can discuss it's merits separately. This is simply a temporary health emergency, and it's frankly ridiculous it's not treated as such.

Ultimately, the government ends up on the hook anyways. Either they temporarily pay them to stay at home, more or less, or end up having to foot the bill for their healthcare + all the other uninsured people they infect, or see Texas having to extend SNAP benefits, etc.

The main street economy is going to stay in the tank until this pandemic is under control. If it wasn't clear before, I think it's pretty clear by now.

The govt won't bail out all the unemployed people with taxpayer health care.

100Ks will die for want of health care, as has been PROVEN in states over 10 years that didn't expand Medicaid. 15M+ dead and state-wide longevity lower than states with expanded Medicaid.

Thanks, Capitalism. Thanks, Repugs. criminal negligent manslaughter unpunished in failed society.

Southwest furloughing 7000, probably eventual layoffs

San Antonio bailing out for $13M+ a luxe hotel it helped finance as part of HBG Convention center expansion

Commercial property occupancy rates WAY down, putting pressure on the creditors and commercial MBS

But Repug whores' BigDonor class doing great, so no need to help non-BigDonor

[Winehole23]

I can't recall the last time I agreed with David Brooks about anything, but this article is spot on:


The means to prevent this suffering are also glaringly obvious. We did it less than a year ago with the CARES Act. All we have to do is pass a version of what we did before. How hard can this possibly be?

The $2 trillion CARES Act was one of the most successful pieces (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-11-24/cares-act-saved-the-coronavirus-economy) of legislation of modern times. Because of the lockdowns, U.S. economic output contracted by a horrific 9 percent in the second quarter of 2020, compared with the first quarter. But because of the CARES Act, disposable household incomes increased by 10 percent. The personal savings rate increased by 34 percent in April.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/opinion/covid-relief-mitch-mcconnell.html

[Winehole23]

Either we roar out of this pandemic with the economic might and surging wages we enjoyed in 2019, or we endure another decade of grinding stagnation, more populist anger, more people losing faith in America. Microscopic interest rates make this additional debt a relatively easy lift for us.

[MultiTroll]

Do we have any Kentucky residents here?

How in the F does Bitch McConnell keep getting reelected?

[DMX7]

"But because of the CARES Act, disposable household incomes increased by 10 percent. The personal savings rate increased by 34 percent in April."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/opinion/covid-relief-mitch-mcconnell.html

Didn't disposable income and personal savings really increase because suddenly people who were employed (which was still most people) couldn't spend their money on things they normally would have like the gym membership, travel, fine dining, etc.? I didn't lose my job and that was my experience. I suddenly had extra money in my pocket because I had nothing to spend it on that I usually would have spent it on.

[Winehole23]

Didn't disposable income and personal savings really increase because suddenly people who were employed (which was still most people) couldn't spend their money on things they normally would have like the gym membership, travel, fine dining, etc.? I didn't lose my job and that was my experience. I suddenly had extra money in my pocket because I had nothing to spend it on that I usually would have spent it on.It's both. The one-time check plus UI were the equivalent of a large raise for millions of people, as well as padding the bank account for folks who didn't lose their jobs.

[DMX7]

It's both. The one-time check plus UI were the equivalent of a large raise for millions of people, as well as padding the bank account for folks who didn't lose their jobs.

Yeah, but my point is we shouldn't be giving tax payer funded checks to people as "padding" for their bank account if they didn't lose their job. If anything, they need it even less if they didn't lose their job because they probably have fewer discretionary expenses as a result of COVID.

[Winehole23]

Yeah, but my point is we shouldn't be giving tax payer funded checks to people as "padding" for their bank account if they didn't lose their job. If anything, they need it even less if they didn't lose their job because they probably have fewer discretionary expenses as a result of COVID.Expediency cuts against that. People need the money ASAP, delays for means testing would mean more deaths, more economic wreckage, and more social dislocation.

There's also no telling who is *about to* lose their job. Weekly new claims have been between 700,000-900,000/week since the end of August and may spike again with coming lockdowns and social distancing.

[DMX7]

Expediency cuts against that. People need the money ASAP, delays for means testing would mean more deaths, more economic wreckage, and more social dislocation.

The official unemployment rates is 6.8%, which dramatically understates the severity of the problem, BUT it does make clear that a minority of people actually need money ASAP. The major economic wreckage is principally a result of both lockdowns and changes in consumer behavior as a result of COVID -- and not necessary because people don't have money in their pockets to spend at certain businesses. In fact, the NY Times article you cited indicated that earlier in the year people did have money in their pocket and yet the businesses directly impacted by COVID the most were still crushed. Airlines, movie theaters, dry cleaners, the local nail salon, etc. etc. etc. are losing business because of safety precautions related to COVID and more stimulus to consumers will have little impact on them.


There's also no telling who is *about to* lose their job. Weekly new claims have been between 700,000-900,000/week since the end of August and may spike again with coming lockdowns and social distancing.

One time stimulus checks are an expensive way of not even really solving this issue. The most effective use of tax payer funds would be to target those actually filing for unemployment benefits even if it's not perfect it's still a more efficient use of tax payer funds.

[boutons_deux]

the $1200 stimulus checks were trivial bullshit compared to the $600/week

$1200 doesn't cover a small family's cost of living for even one month, assuming $600 min for rent

[boutons_deux]

House Repugs want to adjourn, having done nothing

[DMX7]

House Repugs want to adjourn, having done nothing

Where the heck is Trump? He wrote that he wanted a stimulus deal larger than even Nancy and yet Mitch pretends that Trump won't sign anything other than a tiny bare bones bill.

[boutons_deux]

Where the heck is Trump? He wrote that he wanted a stimulus deal larger than even Nancy and yet Mitch pretends that Trump won't sign anything other than a tiny bare bones bill.

Trash's priority is Confederate names remaining on military stuff, ready to veto the defense bill.

I expect NOTHING from Trash, except what he's delivered for the past 5 years.

[Winehole23]

The official unemployment rates is 6.8%, which dramatically understates the severity of the problem, BUT it does make clear that a minority of people actually need money ASAP. The major economic wreckage is principally a result of both lockdowns and changes in consumer behavior as a result of COVID -- and not necessary because people don't have money in their pockets to spend at certain businesses. In fact, the NY Times article you cited indicated that earlier in the year people did have money in their pocket and yet the businesses directly impacted by COVID the most were still crushed. Airlines, movie theaters, dry cleaners, the local nail salon, etc. etc. etc. are losing business because of safety precautions related to COVID and more stimulus to consumers will have little impact on them.



One time stimulus checks are an expensive way of not even really solving this issue. The most effective use of tax payer funds would be to target those actually filing for unemployment benefits even if it's not perfect it's still a more efficient use of tax payer funds.I think the severity of the the fiscal cliff we're standing on now and the very long tail both the pandemic/recession are likely to have removes concerns about efficiencies. The bigger the push the better. It doesn't matter if people who don't really need it get the money, this isn't an ordinary recession.

[baseline bum]

I think the severity of the the fiscal cliff we're standing on now, and the very long tail both the pandemic/recession are likely to have removes concerns about efficiencies. The bigger the push the better. It doesn't really matter if people who don't really need it get the money, this isn't an ordinary recession.

All that matters is keeping the stock market high so the dirty poors can't buy into it at discounted rates.

[Winehole23]

All that matters is keeping the stock market high so the dirty poors can't buy into it at discounted rates.The pandemic and the suite of human needs arising therefrom will not be mocked in the long run. There will be economic and political consequences for whatever path we take. I'm hoping hard that the pandemic and people's needs get prioritized more than they have until now. Fellating Wall St. and rentiers is going to happen no matter who's in charge.

[boutons_deux]

The pandemic and the suite of human needs arising therefrom will not be mocked in the long run. There will be economic and political consequences for whatever path we take. I'm hoping hard that the pandemic and people's needs get prioritized more than they have until now. Fellating Wall St. and rentiers is going to happen no matter who's in charge.

USA Of The People could benefit from an FDR and his country-saving projects, but America doesn't produce FDRs anymore.

[baseline bum]

USA Of The People could benefit from an FDR and his country-saving projects, but America doesn't produce FDRs anymore.

We have an FDR in the senate right now from Vermont. Who of course has no place in the modern Democrat party of Bill Clinton and Rahm Emmanuel.

[boutons_deux]

I can't recall the last time I agreed with David Brooks about anything, but this article is spot on:


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/opinion/covid-relief-mitch-mcconnell.html

what David Brooks :lol fails to recognize is the the oligarchy/Repugs actually WANT govt to fail to do its job For The People.

The only way CARES got passed is that the oligarchy also got $100Bs, $Ts from the Fed, so The Rest Of Us Got something.

They are finding many many $Bs of fraud, theft in PPP, EIDL, etc and I am CERTAIN that much of it was done by legit operators and businesses skilled in dealing with govt.

[DMX7]

They are finding many many $Bs of fraud, theft in PPP, EIDL, etc and I am CERTAIN that much of it was done by legit operators and businesses skilled in dealing with govt.

They're finding the fraud everywhere. It'll go down as one of the biggest in history.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Compared to giving extended/enhanced unemployment benefits that at least go to people who are unemployed... This money is much more likely to be put in the hands of people who need it more and who are more likely to spend it on essentials and not on the stock market (where we know a lot of the first stimulus money went) or luxury goods.

that's a moral argument about who deserves money and who doesn't and has absolutely nothing to do with economic efficiency.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would even go further to save it it's inefficient even in getting it into the hands of people that need it.

Your way is essentially saying let's cut out McDonald's worker from the benefit because CEO might get a thousand bucks.

[DMX7]

that's a moral argument about who deserves money and who doesn't and has absolutely nothing to do with economic efficiency.

It has to do with efficient use of taxpayer funds. We don't have unlimited taxpayer funds regardless of the low interest rates. The principal of any newly issued federal debt will have to be paid off or refinanced at higher rates later regardless of where the interest rates are today.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It has to do with efficient use of taxpayer funds. We don't have unlimited taxpayer funds regardless of the low interest rates. The principal of any newly issued federal debt will have to be paid off or refinanced at higher rates later regardless of where the interest rates are today.

That's quite the assertion. Do you have anything to back up that idea?

It does seem the deficit doomcasting is back in Vogue now but deficit spending over the last 40 years doesn't led to any economic catastrophe in and of itself that I've seen

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, but my point is we shouldn't be giving tax payer funded checks to people as "padding" for their bank account if they didn't lose their job. If anything, they need it even less if they didn't lose their job because they probably have fewer discretionary expenses as a result of COVID.

Should go to everybody. Most people are likely to spend it, and those that don't, paid down debts, given the data. Given the likely effects of job cutting going forward in the next year that is fairly prudent.

WH also makes a good point about the likely cost of means testing.

[ChumpDumper]

This is so stupid. We're talking about another half year of aid. There is an actual time frame with the vaccines. Pearl clutching about the debt now is disingenuous and pretty much unmitigated evil.

[RandomGuy]

It has to do with efficient use of taxpayer funds. We don't have unlimited taxpayer funds regardless of the low interest rates. The principal of any newly issued federal debt will have to be paid off or refinanced at higher rates later regardless of where the interest rates are today.

We pour endless oceans of cash into defense, and don't bat an eye. We have given trillions to the richest who don't need it.

It might not be unlimited, but it certainly doens't seem like we are close to any real limit. Fed will be holding interest rates low low low for a long time.

The cost of US government debt service has actually been going DOWN.

[Reck]

1334935651540750337

Was this the 900 billion deal? Even that was too much for the turtle? :lol

[Winehole23]

This is so stupid. We're talking about another half year of aid. There is an actual time frame with the vaccines. Pearl clutching about the debt now is disingenuous and pretty much unmitigated evil.Especially at near-historically low rates of interest.

[DMX7]

We pour endless oceans of cash into defense, and don't bat an eye. We have given trillions to the richest who don't need it.

It might not be unlimited, but it certainly doens't seem like we are close to any real limit. Fed will be holding interest rates low low low for a long time.

The cost of US government debt service has actually been going DOWN.

All of this ignores the crucial point of whether it's an efficient and effective use of tax payer dollars. And our outrageously high spending on defense is not an excuse for more bad spending.

[DMX7]

That's quite the assertion. Do you have anything to back up that idea?


What specifically is quite an assertion? That we don't have unlimited taxpayer dollars?



It does seem the deficit doomcasting is back in Vogue now but deficit spending over the last 40 years doesn't led to any economic catastrophe in and of itself that I've seen

Whether we should have deficit spending at all is a separate point. I support deficit spending in general, but that is different from deliberately spending on highly ineffective and inefficient programs like stimulus checks, where only a fraction of them really go to people who need it with the rest often going towards ridiculous things like inflating the stock market.

CNBC: Trading stocks was among the most common uses for the government stimulus checks in nearly every income bracket (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/many-americans-used-part-of-their-coronavirus-stimulus-check-to-trade-stocks.html)

The total federal debt never exceeded our entire national GDP in the last 40 years but it's about to. The last time it actually did was during WWII, and the U.S. benefitted from an economic boom for the ages that followed with the extraordinary circumstances of returning GIs and a Europe and Japan that were in shambles and taking economic aid (a lot of it directly from us in the form of U.S. exports). We can't count on that this go around. Sooner or later interest rates will rise if we maintain this pace of spending because those who loan to our government will realize how irresponsible we have become and because there may be no miracle economic boom that mitigates the effects of the debt (e.g., inflation).

We need stimulus now given the circumstances but we don't "need" more stimulus checks IMO.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What specifically is quite an assertion? That we don't have unlimited taxpayer dollars?



Whether we should have deficit spending at all is a separate point. I support deficit spending in general, but that is different from deliberately spending on highly ineffective and inefficient programs like stimulus checks, where only a fraction of them really go to people who need it with the rest often going towards ridiculous things like inflating the stock market.

CNBC: Trading stocks was among the most common uses for the government stimulus checks in nearly every income bracket (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/many-americans-used-part-of-their-coronavirus-stimulus-check-to-trade-stocks.html)

The total federal debt never exceeded our entire national GDP in the last 40 years but it's about to. The last time it actually did was during WWII, and the U.S. benefitted from an economic boom for the ages that followed with the extraordinary circumstances of returning GIs and a Europe and Japan that were in shambles and taking economic aid (a lot of it directly from us in the form of U.S. exports). We can't count on that this go around. Sooner or later interest rates will rise if we maintain this pace of spending because those who loan to our government will realize how irresponsible we have become and because there may be no miracle economic boom that mitigates the effects of the debt (e.g., inflation).

We need stimulus now given the circumstances but we don't "need" more stimulus checks IMO.

It seemed that you were implying that deficit spending in this case would cause some real problem. If not then I fail to see your problem.

That article headline is misleading. "Among the most common uses" It doesn't state what the actual usage breakdown was.

Here is another take:


How Are They Spending It?
In households that spent their stimulus checks, respondents reported using the money for a variety of expenses, and many reported spending it on more than one thing: About 80% of these respondents reported using it on food, and 77.9% on rent, mortgage and/or utilities, including gas, electricity, cable, internet and cellphone.

More than half (58.2%) of such respondents reported spending stimulus payments on household supplies and personal care products. About a fifth (20.5%) reported spending the money on clothing.

A smaller share (8.1%) said they spent or would spend the stimulus on household goods like TVs, electronics, furniture, and appliances or on recreational goods like fitness equipment, toys and games.

These reports indicate the importance of the stimulus payments to help cover basic expenses such as housing and food.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/06/how-are-americans-using-their-stimulus-payments.html#:~:text=In%20households%20that%20spe nt%20their,%2C%20electricity%2C%20cable%2C%20inter net%20and

Ineffective? The CARES Act correlated with a bump in the economy. It accomplished what it was supposed to. When it ran out it correlated with a decline.

And there is no historical analog to what we are dealing with now. In my view, the issue is Trump's tax cuts and not the stimulus that is sorely needed until the vaccine can get us to herd immunity.

[DMX7]

It seemed that you were implying that deficit spending in this case would cause some real problem. If not then I fail to see your problem.


I'm not really sure how you fail to see my problem here. If we're going to deficit spend then we should do it effectively and efficiently or it eventually will cause a problem... Do you actually disagree with that?

The original CARES Act was a lot more than just a one time stimulus check. In my opinion, the enhanced unemployment benefits were a more effective feature of it that I support. I'm highly skeptical of what some people may have self-reported what they used the stimulus check money on especially given how easy it is the fudge the numbers (e.g., one might say "I spent the stimulus check on essentials" but then leave out that he used the money he had originally budgeted for those essentials on the stock market or on a new gadget from Best Buy). And so yes, there are some people who genuinely need the stimulus but we should target those people most effected by COVID such as those unemployed as result of COVID and maximize the benefit to them. There is no perfect solution but blanket stimulus checks are the worst IMO.

Trump's tax cuts are one issue for the deficit; however it's the cumulative effect of many decisions that have us where we are on the fiscal side of things. Not making the most of our deficit stimulus spending will just add to that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not really sure how you fail to see my problem here. If we're going to deficit spend then we should do it effectively and efficiently or it eventually will cause a problem... Do you actually disagree with that?

The original CARES Act was a lot more than just a one time stimulus check. In my opinion, the enhanced unemployment benefits were a more effective feature of it that I support. I'm highly skeptical of what some people may have self-reported what they used the stimulus check money on especially given how easy it is the fudge the numbers (e.g., one might say "I spent the stimulus check on essentials" but then leave out that he used the money he had originally budgeted for those essentials on the stock market or on a new gadget from Best Buy). And so yes, there are some people who genuinely need the stimulus but we should target those people most effected by COVID such as those unemployed as result of COVID and maximize the benefit to them. There is no perfect solution but blanket stimulus checks are the worst IMO.

Trump's tax cuts are one issue for the deficit; however it's the cumulative effect of many decisions that have us where we are on the fiscal side of things. Not making the most of our deficit stimulus spending will just add to that.

My problem has to do with your assertion of efficiency. It should be quite evident I do not agree with you. In a vacuum efficiency is better but i don't see it here.

Do you have anything to support your claim of which component of CARES was more effective than another?

The quote I gave showed only 8% of people spent the money on electronics or the like. We have zero idea what percentage spent money on stocks. the link I gave also points out that few people making under $75k spent money on stocks or 401k.

As for efficiency in general, UBI is arguably more efficient than means based programs.

[DMX7]

My problem has to do with your assertion of efficiency. It should be quite evident I do not agree with you.

If you don't agree about it being effective/efficient then we simply have to agree to disagree at this point.



Do you have anything to support your claim of which component of CARES was more effective than another?


It seems self-evident to me that sending enhanced continuous support directly to people who are unemployed is a more effective and more efficient than sending a one time checks to people who are both unemployed and employed, with most people being the latter. I haven't seen anything that makes me think otherwise.



The quote I gave showed only 8% of people spent the money on electronics or the like.


Is any of that data verifiable (meaning we know with absolute certainty what it was spent on)? You can say you spent it on whatever you want if it's self-reporting, and if the government asked you what you spent it on you would probably be more inclined to say it was spent on essentials especially if you support another round of stimulus checks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you don't agree about it being effective/efficient then we simply have to agree to disagree at this point.



It seems self-evident to me that sending enhanced continuous support directly to people who are unemployed is a more effective and more efficient than sending a one time checks to people who are both unemployed and employed, with most people being the latter. I haven't seen anything that makes me think otherwise.



Is any of that data verifiable (meaning we know with absolute certainty what it was spent on)? You can say you spent it on whatever you want if it's self-reporting, and if the government asked you what you spent it on you would probably be more inclined to say it was spent on essentials especially if you support another round of stimulus checks.

The link was from the census. If you do not have something to contradict that then it is what we have. There is no basis for your claim of what people's motivations for their answers. There is no certainty in pretty much anything.

And the unemployment means test leaves a whole lot of people falling through the cracks.

What we know is that a UBI approach leaves no one behind. We know that it took us out of the free fall we were in that Spring. We know that it will be limited in timeframe given the AZ and Pfizer vaccines otw.

[DMX7]

The link was from the census. If you do not have something to contradict that then it is what we have. There is no basis for your claim of what people's motivations for their answers. There is no certainty in pretty much anything.

And the unemployment means test leaves a whole lot of people falling through the cracks.

What we know is that a UBI approach leaves no one behind. We know that it took us out of the free fall we were in that Spring. We know that it will be limited in timeframe given the AZ and Pfizer vaccines otw.

I don’t find this particular data reliable at all based on how easily it can be fudged and it seems obvious to me that just about everyone wants a “free” stimulus check -- "free money", right?

I fully realize UBI leaves no one behind. We’re circling back to my original point that checks to people who are mostly employed is not an efficient use of taxpayer funds with regard to COVID recovery, but we’re not going to agree on that so I’ll let it go.

We don’t know that the one time stimulus checks took us out of the fall were in at all because the CARES Act included many things and we can make judgements about what worked best or barely worked at all, but we could only say for certain that “the stimulus checks” are what took us out of the fall we were in if that were the only stimulus measure we took at the federal, state and local level. There was a lot of de facto stimulus all around including from the federal reserve and our monetary policy.

[tholdren]

Need a vax and a mask and a stimulus?

[ElNono]

^ gossip

[boutons_deux]

Nothing for the unemployed, that will fucking teach them not to be predatory, extractive Capitalists

What's in the $908 Billion Bipartisan Stimulus Proposal?

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-908-billion-bipartisan-stimulus-proposal

Biden approves, as do Chuckie and Nan, so it will pass.

the fraud, cheating, lying, stealing is back on again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don’t find this particular data reliable at all based on how easily it can be fudged and it seems obvious to me that just about everyone wants a “free” stimulus check -- "free money", right?

I fully realize UBI leaves no one behind. We’re circling back to my original point that checks to people who are mostly employed is not an efficient use of taxpayer funds with regard to COVID recovery, but we’re not going to agree on that so I’ll let it go.

We don’t know that the one time stimulus checks took us out of the fall were in at all because the CARES Act included many things and we can make judgements about what worked best or barely worked at all, but we could only say for certain that “the stimulus checks” are what took us out of the fall we were in if that were the only stimulus measure we took at the federal, state and local level. There was a lot of de facto stimulus all around including from the federal reserve and our monetary policy.

You don't trust stated numbers from a poll with a known margin for error but you do trust an article that makes qualitative generalizations about how numbers rank?

You definitely seem emotionally invested in your position.

And I propose they do something of the scope of the CARES Act again because we known that works.

[DMX7]

You don't trust stated numbers from a poll with a known margin for error but you do trust an article that makes qualitative generalizations about how numbers rank?

You definitely seem emotionally invested in your position.

And I propose they do something of the scope of the CARES Act again because we known that works.

Accusing me of being emotionally invested in my position sounds to me like projection on your part.

I'm 100% open to a compelling case for stimulus checks that addresses my concerns, but you haven't presented one that convinces me.

And frankly, the burden of proof should be on you if you want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxpayer money

[DMX7]

Need a vax and a mask and a stimulus?

:lol

[baseline bum]

Nothing for the unemployed, that will fucking teach them not to be predatory, extractive Capitalists

What's in the $908 Billion Bipartisan Stimulus Proposal?

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-908-billion-bipartisan-stimulus-proposal

Biden approves, as do Chuckie and Nan, so it will pass.

the fraud, cheating, lying, stealing is back on again.

Another fucking airline bailout. Ugh I hate how every piece of aid has to filtered through the oligarchs first. Why the hell don't we just give that $45 billion directly to the employees the airlines say they'll have to axe / furlough without a bailout? Fuck this country.

Piece of shit Biden, Pelosi, and Shumer giving the greenlight to McConnell's liability shield without getting shit in return. America truly is fucked and unfuckable.

:pctoss

[baseline bum]

Should have done at least another stimulus check as well as put money into infrastructure that way you have something awesome to show for all the money you spent. Like high speed rail so we'd have more choices to offset all the airline consolidation. But we don't make shit in America, we're in the Jordan on the Wizards phase of this nation.

[DMX7]

Nothing for the unemployed, that will fucking teach them not to be predatory, extractive Capitalists

What's in the $908 Billion Bipartisan Stimulus Proposal?

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-908-billion-bipartisan-stimulus-proposal

Biden approves, as do Chuckie and Nan, so it will pass.

the fraud, cheating, lying, stealing is back on again.

Yes there is something for unemployed. It says enhanced UI benefits, rental assistance, food assistance, etc.

[Spurminator]

How much of a dummy you gotta be to take a $300 a week minimum wage job when you be making $900/week for doing nothing?

Technically you're breaking the law if you do this. To collect unemployment you have to actively be looking for a job, and if you are offered a job and you turn it down, you can be reported and lose your unemployment benefits. As I understand it.

[ChumpDumper]

Technically you're breaking the law if you do this. To collect unemployment you have to actively be looking for a job, and if you are offered a job and you turn it down, you can be reported and lose your unemployment benefits. As I understand it.There have been varying requirements for job searches in Texas from what I've been told. It's been waived in times of stupid high COVID infections, for example. Couldn't tell you the exact criteria.

[Blake]

Where the heck is Trump? He wrote that he wanted a stimulus deal larger than even Nancy and yet Mitch pretends that Trump won't sign anything other than a tiny bare bones bill.

Don't forget, his fantastic new healthcare plan is coming soon. Many many people working on this fantastic plan.

[DMX7]

Don't forget, his fantastic new healthcare plan is coming soon. Many many people working on this fantastic plan.

It's two weeks away!

And next week is Infrastructure Week at the White House. Can't wait!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Accusing me of being emotionally invested in my position sounds to me like projection on your part.

I'm 100% open to a compelling case for stimulus checks that addresses my concerns, but you haven't presented one that convinces me.

And frankly, the burden of proof should be on you if you want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxpayer money

The proof is recent history. The CARES act caused a minor rebound out of a lesser downward trend. If anything we should be doing more not less than what was done with CARES if you were really interested in effectiveness and efficiency.

And the reason why I say you are emotionally invested is because of how you are judging sources. Your MSNBC source was vague at best and offered no numbers. You trusted it full heartedly. OTOH, the census had specific numbers of what people were spending on and claim that you cannott rust said numbers. An impartial judgement would have applied said logic to your MSNBC source and been even more untrustworthy. instead you give it a pass and even moreso insist on it.

The only explanation cannot be logical therefor it must be emotional.

[Winehole23]

Noah Smith on "the new macro"



The rest of the symposium is similar. There’s no theoretical discussion of whether fiscal stimulus is effective; everyone seems to be in tacit agreement that it is, even Ken Rogoff (1:19:50), who was a well-known deficit hawk (https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-reinhart-and-rogoff-controversy-a-summing-up) last time around. Nor is there much theoretical discussion around debt sustainability — overwhelmingly, the consensus is that interest rates are low, and have been trending down for a while, so it’s safe to borrow more for now. There’s some minor concern about the possibility that rates might rise in the future, but theory is not brought to bear on the question of when and why this might happen.

The “give people money” consensus will find a sympathetic ear in the Biden administration. Janet Yellen, who repeatedly worried (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/seven-times-biden-treasury-pick-yellen-said-the-debt-was-unsustainable) in the past that the national debt was unsustainable in the past, now advocates for massive stimulus (https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/economic-outlook-fed-yellen-stimulus-needed-coronavirus-slows-recovery-fiscal-2020-10-1029694850#).

In other words, at least as far as policy debates go, arguments about optimal fiscal policy based in formal macroeconomic models seem to be out, replaced by a consensus that giving people money is necessary and good (at least, for the forseeable future).

Why did this change occur?

The simple answer is that economists have learned their lesson. DSGE models proved frustratingly difficult to apply during the 2008-9 crisis, leading central bankers to fall back on a combination of simple heuristic models and intuition. Models that predicted rising real interest rates and/or rampant inflation were consistently proven wrong, as both quantities stayed low in advanced economies.


https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:s teep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F 86303a1a-4375-4843-8638-dac1227d4259_1168x450.png (https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F 86303a1a-4375-4843-8638-dac1227d4259_1168x450.png)
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-new-macro-give-people-money

[Winehole23]

But by their nature, economic models are about finding an optimal middle ground between too much and too little (in econ jargon, modelers like to find interior solutions). That emphasis on tradeoffs means that nearly any macro model will come with a warning about how much stimulus is too much. So then if you use that model, you end up worrying about when to stop.


But such worries have proven (https://voxeu.org/article/fiscal-multipliers-and-eurozone-consolidation) disastrous (https://voxeu.org/epubs/cepr-dps/permanent-effects-fiscal-consolidations) in practice (https://voxeu.org/article/austerity-aftermath-great-recession) since 2008. Blanchard himself prominently recanted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/03/an-amazing-mea-culpa-from-the-imfs-chief-economist-on-austerity/) his support for austerity in the Eurozone crisis, and now says that we’re (https://twitter.com/ojblanchard1/status/1334054562743934978) “on the verge of a shift in fiscal paradigm”. The IMF, once a bastion of deficit hawkishness, has evolved substantially (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/08/19/is-the-imf-rethinking-austerity/) on the issue. The repeated failure of austerity since 2008 may mean less appetite for models that focus on telling policymakers that too much is too much.


A third possibility is that macroeconomic thinkers are paying more attention to politics than before. Global unrest exploded in 2019, even before the pandemic. U.S. society seems to be coming apart at the seams, with massive unrest on the left and increasing authoritarianism and threats of violence on the right. Economists and policy advisors may conclude — probably correctly — that the need to mollify political tensions means that the government should err on the side of handing out cash. There’s no DSGE model that tells you how to balance public anger against the risk of a future rise in interest rates!