General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Do you think we need a stimulus of $1.9 trillion?

Asked by crazyguy (2251points) 2 weeks ago

The number being tossed around is equivalent to just under $5,700 for every man, woman or child in this country. Most of the money is in the form of hand-outs.

What do you think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

56 Answers

kritiper's avatar

All I know is that I could use some extra cash.

zenvelo's avatar

@crazyguy ALL of the stimulus packages for the last year have been “handouts”, including the 2 Trillion package Trump signed last March. It’s just a matter of whose had gets it.

The Biden package will go to those that were ignored in the Trump measures. Biden is not giving money to publicly traded companies, unlike Trump who gave money to protect executive bonuses.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I think that Janet Yellen is probably right. If we don’t have $1.9T stimulus (or more) the economy will recover but it will take 4–5 years to do so, unless other bad things happen.

If we have the $1.9T stimulus it will more likely recover in one year.

So it comes down to a question of how quickly you feel the US should be back at full employment and a growing GNP. I think that the pandemic is/was a black swan and should be treated differently than a normal cyclical downturn.

Two other points:

- if the $1.9T is passed, it should be much more restrictive on what business get funded. Small business, fine. Billion dollar corporations, no. I still don’t know why we bailed out American Airlines.

- the family aid part of it should raise, not lower, the income levels that qualify. The top end should be $200,000, not $50000 or $75000. Middle income people need assistance too.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
JLeslie's avatar

I think that most Republicans didn’t give a damn about printing money and the deficit when Trump was president and they knew it would boost the economy and the stock market.

I’m tired of that.

The Democratic proposal currently on the table has much more in it than I want, but I am critical about spending no matter who is president. The first stimulus made sense, but everything after that probably could have been done better, more targeted.

We really should help those who have had their financial situation basically destroyed by covid, but have no doubt plenty of people are getting money who had zero change to their financial situation and plenty of people “worked” the system in the last year.

I heard Biden wanted to give more money per child to families? Is that in this proposal or a separate thing? I think I can get on board with a UBI before that, but that’s a discussion for a different thread.

dabbler's avatar

I don’t see your historical question about the cost per man/woman/child of the several rounds of tax cuts for people and companies who didn’t need them, and who will never trickle any if it down.
Now when MILLIONS of people need assistance you are worried suddenly about debt?
Please explain your sudden interest in these issues, considering your prior lack of interest.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Yes it is needed.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I think we are in BIG trouble. The money will delay the inevitable until people can get back to work. The big worry is of course inflation.

longgone's avatar

I’m sure it’s needed (and not enough), but I don’t think just anyone should qualify. If people are donating their share, that’s lovely. It also means they maybe shouldn’t have received it in the first place.

I realise it’s tremendously difficult to ascertain who truly needs the help.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That is indeed the problem. Those who don’t need the money are unlikely to do anything productive with it. Where can you invest it? Only a fool would park it in a savings account. The clear indication of just who doesn’t need the money will be reflected as in every package since 08 with the “mysterious” booming of the stock market.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
si3tech's avatar

Absolutely not!

filmfann's avatar

I am retired, and my income was not affected by the shutdown, yet I got thousands of dollars from the government. That is stupid and wasteful.
Certainly many are hurting, and the goverment should help them, but giving money to everyone is crazy.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There is unquestionably something repugnant in finding yourself graced with a windfall you neither require nor deserve. And I cannot count the number of people all too aware of this. But when I consider the length of time it would require a minimum wage worker to assemble a lump sum of the $1800 dollars I have garnered thus far, I am convinced the lines between needy and not are too blurred for setting standards. I would like to believe that those of us who were comfortable yet now find ourselves pulling in more money than when we worked—there are going to be plenty of opportunities to “share the wealth”.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Not sure where you get the number of $5700 for every man, woman and child but that is incorrect.

JLeslie's avatar

@Dutchess_III I think it’s 1.9 trillion divided by 330 million Americans.

crazyguy's avatar

@Dutchess_III @JLeslie is absolutely correct. Except I used 335 million instead of 330 million.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie Thanks for the assist.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Dutchess_III's avatar

Getting individual Americans an assistance payment is not the only thing factored into the bill. You’re being simplistic if you think it is, and If you’re doing the math like it is.

crazyguy's avatar

@filmfann I agree 100%. I also see the difficulty of better targeting of the largesse. I think a good start to targeting is lowering the dollar amounts that qualify for assistance.

Response moderated
crazyguy's avatar

@longgone I agree 100%. Targeting is easier said than done. However, by setting the AGI cutoff act a lower level, you do have a better chance of restricting the largesse to the needy.

crazyguy's avatar

@Dutchess_III I am perfectly open to reading and possibly critic-ing your number.

crazyguy's avatar

@kritiper I think we all could use some cash. The question is: do you need it to survive?

crazyguy's avatar

@dabbler As I recall, the tax cut was for all income levels – even The NY Times admitted that the liberal press played games with the numbers.

See
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html

crazyguy's avatar

@zenvelo The first, second and third stimulus packages were bills legitimately passed by Congress. This last one is being shoved down our necks by the fake Reconciliation Process. Therefore, your comment: “The Biden package will go to those that were ignored in the Trump measures.” makes ZERO sense.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie You wrote about 400 words. About half of them were arguments with yourself. I thought I asked a rather simple question. Please advise which way you lean on this particular bill.

Response moderated
JLeslie's avatar

I lean towards too much being packed into the bill. Somewhere in between what the Republicans want and what the Democrats proposed is where I’m at.

kritiper's avatar

@crazyguy It doesn’t matter if I need it or not. If it’s being handed out, I am just as deserving to receive it as the next guy, if not more so.

Dutchess_III's avatar

What number @crazyguy? We’re getting $1200, each, one of these days. That’s the only number I’m worried about.

Strauss's avatar

I think we should go all the way $2T. The more money is put to work (circulate) in the economy the better. When more cash is able to be spent on food, shelter, transportation and entertainment, the more it will benefit all sectors of the economy.

crazyguy's avatar

@Strauss Why stop at 2?

@Dutchess_III The number is actually $1,400. Yes, that will be the handout. The rest of the allocated funds will fund wasteful spending bu state and local governments, and corporations.

@kritiper That, my friend, is the whole point. It is being justified as a need.

@JLeslie Oh, you want compromise, like the good old days? You know full well that ain’t happening. So you have to take a position for or against the package that will be passed.

Strauss's avatar

@crazyguy Why stop at 2? Why indeed!

If the government pays an unemployed worker $50 to dig a hole, and pays another unemployed person $50 to fill that hole, the $100 will do more to improve the economy than if they gave the same amount to a Fortune 500 CEO.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Strauss gets the point. For a change, give the money to the people who will spend it. It will be a refreshing change from shoveling money at the fking banks, and lowering taxes for billionaires and corporations. You or I may get money we don’t need or deserve, but that is EXACTLY what is going on already. At least this way, the average guy on the ground will FINALLY get his turn at the trough. People who would otherwise NEVER see a $1400 dollar payday might for once in their dreary lives have their existence verified.

Strauss's avatar

A lot of homeowners I know of who are receiving stimulus checks but don’t really “need” them are adding to their vacation savings, (which they’re not using due to covid) and hiring contractors for home improvements. Contractors pay trades workers (carpenter, tile, plumber, etc.), workers keep busy, economy rises. That should be the way an economic stimulus works.

Dutchess_III's avatar

So much for completely missing my point @crazyguy.

kritiper's avatar

@crazyguy The point of need is moot. To each his own!

crazyguy's avatar

@kritiper I think what you are saying is that we should throw money at many people, some of whom need it and others who may or may not spend it. The whole idea of a stimulus program is to create a multiplier effect.

@Dutchess_III So you are worried only about yourself?

@Strauss Sounds like trickle down to me!

kritiper's avatar

@crazyguy You act like it’s your money they’re giving away. Why do you care? The whole point of the stimulus is to get money circulating in the economy. I can do that!

kritiper's avatar

Tax season is fast approaching and some of us can use the money to pay our taxes! YAY!

Strauss's avatar

It’s not tricky trickle-down. This is more direct.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You asked me for “my number.” The only number I am concerned about is the $1400 check they’ll be sending. I didn’t say I only cared about myself. My point is I don’t have any other numbers to share with you.

crazyguy's avatar

@kritiper Actually some of it will be my money. However, that does not bother me. What bothers me is that the money will be spent, and soon forgotten; and living standards will go back to where they were. Actually, living standards will one a little worse because the national debt will have gone up.

@Strauss Try telling that to the trades worker.

@Dutchess_III I asked you for a number because you said my number of “just under $5,700 for every man, woman or child in this country” was incorrect.

Strauss's avatar

@crazyguy I don’t know how old you are, or how long you’ve been in the country, but you obviously don’t know what trickle-down economics is. Once again, I’ll offer a history lesson that I experienced as current events.

The trickle-down theory of economics is also known as_Reaganomics,_ or Voodoo Economics. (Check out the link.
(Apologies to any practitioners of Voudin)

This theory holds that any stimulus or tax breaks beneficial to the top tier of taxpayers (corporations included) will eventually magically move down the food chain to the lowest tier of the economy, the poor.
This has never been successful.

The only way to revitalize this economy is to put money into the hands of those who will spend it.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

”@Strauss Sounds like trickle down to me !”

It sounds like socialism to me with the government sending checks out !

kritiper's avatar

@crazyguy Let us hope the big bad CORONAVIRUS will run it’s course soon. That’s the main bug in the ointment now…
Sure, the national debt will go up but that doesn’t bother me. The minimum wage going to $15 will have a much larger effect with inflation. What goes around comes around and soon everybody who was making $15 will be wanting the minimum wage to go up AGAIN because $15 won’t be enough.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@crazyguy geeez. Your figure of $5700 for every man, woman and child only flies if the 1.9 trillion is for personal stimulus checks only. Obviously, it’s not because the checks are for $1400. What could that mean??
Why are you having such a hard time grasping this? And why is JLeslie doing math like it is?

elbanditoroso's avatar

A good part of the $1.9T is going to:
– state & local gov
– small business
– COVID vaccine distribution and logistics

Using $1/9T as the dividend is misleading. And using 330 million people as the divisor is misleading because there are many people who make too much money to qualify anyway.

The math being thrown around here is beyond flaky.

crazyguy's avatar

@Strauss Thanks for the history lesson. I am a fence-sitter on Reaganomics; but I know the concept real well.

Now please explain the difference between “any stimulus or tax breaks beneficial to the top tier of taxpayers (corporations included) will eventually magically move down the food chain to the lowest tier of the economy…” and “A lot of homeowners I know of who are receiving stimulus checks but don’t really “need” them are adding to their vacation savings, (which they’re not using due to covid) and hiring contractors for home improvements. Contractors pay trades workers (carpenter, tile, plumber, etc.), workers keep busy, economy rises.”

crazyguy's avatar

@elbanditoroso The calculation I made was clearly explained: “just under $5,700 for every man, woman or child in this country.” If you exclude the people who do not qualify for one part of the benefit, the number goes even higher.

crazyguy's avatar

@Dutchess_III The math is absolutely correct. You are misinterpreting it. Nowhere in my question do I imply that each man, woman and child in this country shall receive $5,700. YOU decided to put that interpretation on it.

crazyguy's avatar

@kritiper I am not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not. Whatever the government deems shall be the minimum wage, it will continue to be set by labor supply and demand, just like it is today. And I believe-in D I believe the new minimum wage law will have a built-in inflation adjustment. But I know that won’t stop anybody asking for more, more, more.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther