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.
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 e again with coming lockdowns and social distancing.
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.
the $1200 stimulus checks were trivial bull 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
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-04-2020 at 12:32 PM.
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.
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.
what David Brooksfails 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.
They're finding the fraud everywhere. It'll go down as one of the biggest in history.
that's a moral argument about who deserves money and who doesn't and has absolutely nothing to do with economic efficiency.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Was this the 900 billion deal? Even that was too much for the turtle?
Especially at near-historically low rates of interest.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
