homersapien 11,392 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-increasing-the-stimulus-checks-from-600-to-2000-is-a-bad-idea/2020/12/29/d012ca70-49f6-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html Opinion by Editorial Board Dec. 29, 2020 GIVEN HOW 2020 has gone, we probably should have known it would end with Congress and the president wasting their final days on one last bad idea: $2,000-per-person direct payments, supposedly to offset the hard economic times brought on by the coronavirus pandemic. As we have previously pointed out, there was a case for including modest “checks” to the hardest-hit, low-income segment of the population. In the $908 billion stimulus it did pass, however, Congress went well beyond that, providing $600 payments that will send up to $3,000 for families of five earning as much as $150,000 — and at least a few dollars to those earning up to $210,000, before phasing out entirely. The bill does this while extending unemployment benefits a mere 11 weeks. In short, the measure short-shrifted the neediest and showered billions on people who suffered little or no lasting hardship from the pandemic. This, at a time when the economy has healed significantly and coronavirus vaccinations are underway — unlike the chaotic days of April, when Congress sent checks (of only $1,200) to help people cope with economic free fall. Yet a just-passed House bill would compound all of those errors by increasing the $600 payment to $2,000, at a total cost of $464 billion. It would phase out completely only for families of five earning above $350,000. Much of this is going to be saved, not spent, since restaurants are closed and air travel limited. The resources would be far better spent, in terms of both economic equity and economic growth, on longer extension of unemployment benefits, aid to state and local governments, and vaccines. But if the $2,000 payout is a bad idea, it is a bad idea whose time has come because of politics, not economics. President Trump deserves primary blame, by criticizing the initial $600 per-person version as too small and threatening to veto the stimulus bill. That created an opening for Democrats in Congress, who seek to exploit the proposal’s simplistic appeal to help their party’s two candidates in Georgia’s Jan. 5 Senate runoff. Especially wrongheaded in this regard is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who depicts the $2,000 as aid to “desperate” Americans despite the huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families. Then again, Republican would-be populists such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) made common cause with Mr. Sanders; and now at least one other GOP politician with presidential ambitions, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), has jumped on the bandwagon, as have the two Republican Senate candidates in Georgia. Only the Senate can stop this wasteful policy. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked an immediate vote on the House bill Tuesday, while hinting that he might hold a vote on the $2,000, but linked to Trump-backed provisions that Democrats could not accept: repeal of a law that protects social media companies from liability and an investigation of purported fraud in the 2020 election. Mr. Sanders, meanwhile, threatens to delay a defense-bill veto override, which would keep senators in Washington for New Year’s Eve. Blowing the holiday for senators would be a small price to pay for keeping them from blowing nearly half a trillion taxpayer dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdefromtx 3,159 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 They should have just kept it the same as last time. Except let college students get their $500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,429 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 The Editorial Board at WaPo can KMA. There are millions of households wiped out by COVID shutdowns. Jobs gone forever, Careers may be gone forever. Unemployment ebenfits and Unemployment additions gone too. Lost Eviction coverage 12-26-20. If you are this heartless, GFY. You and the Republicans in the Senate can GFY. This article is the WaPo doing nothing but providing cover for people that now know they were on the Wrong Side of Doing the Right Thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 Actually, I disagree with them. Now, I'd probably phase it out faster than the $350k level, but people are hurting and the stimulus checks are not only about direct payments to those affected most, it's incentive to spend by those who are not in dire straits and I know I've seen this both in my own personal experience and in those I know. I didn't lose my job and neither did my wife. We have some savings and were doing ok. But I'll tell you some examples of how stimulus money was spent in my circles: - Neglected home projects were done. I know people who had homes painted, rotted boards replaced, new windows put in, swimming pool liners replaced. - People spent on outdoor living spaces. Because they were confined to their homes and yards, they tried to make those spaces more enjoyable. Some screened in a patio or deck. Others installed TVs in an outdoor living area. Another had a company come and build a fire pit area so they'd have a place to get together with people outside and remain distanced. Others bought a trampoline or a new play set for the kids. - People made larger purchases - they updated home computers or bought another laptop (or two) because everyone was at home and having to use screens to go to class or do work. - Restaurants were open for takeout so I and others I know made a point to order more frequently from especially local eateries and tipped far above the regular amounts to help out the waiters and staff. The stimulus money made it easier to not sweat the expense. - Others used the money to help with a down payment on a newer car or truck. - Money was donated to charities I'm sure other people could provide similar examples. The point being, yes some of the money was saved or in some cases all of it. But in a whole lot of cases, people who didn't "need" the money used it to keep the economy afloat, and to help businesses survive. And I think the amount of it was important. A smaller amount like $600 and you probably do just throw it in the bank. But a larger chunk at one time encourages people to use a good bit of it on a purchase they've put off. I do agree that the bill was bloated with a bunch of unnecessary pork. It should have focused on unemployment benefits, PPP loans, and stimulus checks. But I do not agree that $600 was sufficient and $2000 would be a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 I'm with you, @TitanTiger. We're in the same general situation as you in terms of finances- both still working, doing okay, don't "need" the money. Four $600 checks (2 kids) for our family will go straight to credit card payments or savings. Four $2000 checks? Now we're talking about a down payment on a new car for my wife, which we have already been discussing but which we are telling ourselves we don't need need yet. Now, anyone can feel free to dissect our logic and decision making, but that's not the point. The point is, we aren't atypical Americans in terms of our spending habits and a lot of people will absolutely make similar decisions. And that will be great for businesses. Not to mention rates are low, the market's high, and it's just not an investment-friendly environment right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Tiger 136 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 7 hours ago, McLoofus said: I'm with you, @TitanTiger. We're in the same general situation as you in terms of finances- both still working, doing okay, don't "need" the money. Four $600 checks (2 kids) for our family will go straight to credit card payments or savings. Four $2000 checks? Now we're talking about a down payment on a new car for my wife, which we have already been discussing but which we are telling ourselves we don't need need yet. Now, anyone can feel free to dissect our logic and decision making, but that's not the point. The point is, we aren't atypical Americans in terms of our spending habits and a lot of people will absolutely make similar decisions. And that will be great for businesses. Not to mention rates are low, the market's high, and it's just not an investment-friendly environment right now. This is such a great illustration of what a stimulus check should and shouldn't be. I'm in the same boat, except three $600 checks vs three $2,000 checks and our 'stimulus' will just be used to pay CC debt from Christmas and/or savings. If it were three $2,000 on the other hand, we'd probably use it for some home improvements repairs. Now which of those two actions actually stimulates the economy? Other than the folks who need the $600 check to put food on the table, it will do nothing to stimulate our economy because much of it will just go back to lenders or savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodford 3,660 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 Here’s an idea for a stimulus: end the lockdowns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,429 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 How about this. To all the adults in the room: Your stimulus check belongs to you and how you spend it is no one else's business. Whether you "spend it at Home Depot" or pay off a credit card and then later on spend it on a car purchase, WhoTF Cares? This is one of those instances where we have grownups straining at gnats while other people are literally losing it all. All these heartless cruel people are just showing who they really are. No govt distribution or stimulus is going to be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 14 hours ago, CT Tiger said: Other than the folks who need the $600 check to put food on the table, it will do nothing to stimulate our economy because much of it will just go back to lenders or savings. And those folks that do *need* $600 actually do *need* $2000 much more. Relief is what's needed for millions of Americans right now. Stimulus is what's needed to get the economy going and start getting many of those same Americans back on their feet. The bigger the number on the checks, the better both of those things get accomplished. Yes, a lot of it will still just go into savings and to creditors. But I think we're looking for the net win here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 2 hours ago, DKW 86 said: How about this. To all the adults in the room: Your stimulus check belongs to you and how you spend it is no one else's business. Whether you "spend it at Home Depot" or pay off a credit card and then later on spend it on a car purchase, WhoTF Cares? This is one of those instances where we have grownups straining at gnats while other people are literally losing it all. All these heartless cruel people are just showing who they really are. No govt distribution or stimulus is not going to be perfect. I notice that McConnell and other Republicans complaining about money going to people who "don't need it" didn't seem to have any problem with that result when they were doling out humongous tax cuts a couple of years back. Giving a gazillion dollars back to millionaires and billionaires? Totally awesome. Giving $2k per person to a mix of people in desperate need and some others making up to $350k that might not "need" it? "Whoa, whoa, WHOA - we gotta worry about the deficit and stuff!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodford 3,660 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Haha money printer go brrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Just now, woodford said: Haha money printer go brrrr Look, maybe you aren't familiar with how things work here, but flippant responses like this don't belong in the regular Politics Forum. That sort of silliness is fine in the Political Smack forum, but in here, if you don't have something more substantive to add to a discussion, just keep it to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,816 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 40 minutes ago, woodford said: Haha money printer go brrrr Just curious if you qualified and received stimulus the first go around? Have had mixed feelings myself but Titan makes some excellent points. Called “stimulus” for a reason. If you receive a card cutting it up is an option. Receive a direct deposit and “pay it forward”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,392 Posted December 31, 2020 Author Share Posted December 31, 2020 For the record - since I am the OP - I would rather see a focus on the people who really are in a dire financial crisis. Or - as McLoofus said - need "relief". And there are millions of them. As far as "stimulus", once the pandemic is under control, I think the economy will take care of itself. But there are millions of people who can't afford to wait that long, especially considering how we are fumbling the vaccination program. For myself, I'm retired and set financially. As much as I like "free money", I don't really need financial relief. And spending a windfall while rationalizing it's for the sake of simulating the economy seems obscene while people are literally going hungry. That epitomizes "trickle-down" economics. I plan to re-direct my share into charitable relief programs as a moral obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 37 minutes ago, homersapien said: For myself, I'm retired and set financially. As much as I like "free money", I don't really need financial relief. And spending a windfall while rationalizing it's for the sake of simulating the economy seems obscene while people are literally going hungry. That epitomizes "trickle-down" economics. I plan to re-direct my share into charitable relief programs as a moral obligation. This is also a good option if you don't need the funds. Meanwhile, I'm sure the local people I employed to do some work on and around my house appreciated the business during a time where not every locally owned business survived. As far as the "trickle-down" swipe - I get it. In most cases that money never actually went beyond the rich people it initially went to. But in this case, when you literally do spend the money directly to hire or purchase goods from someone (especially local), the trickle-down actually occurs and it's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,429 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 http://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/2906034563053722 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,429 Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 We plan to do some very needed work on my son's Rogue and then to our home. If keeping people employed at one of the local repair shops and at Home Depot is a crime than come and get me. Note* I absolutely bust a gut with these facepalms. It is hilarious to me how myopic some folks are...Just hilarious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.