Are you in favor of $2000/month in stimulus payments?
Why or why not?
- roderick_youngLv 71 month ago
I would need to see the full characterization of where it would go. I would be against it going to people who don't need it, including myself.Source(s): I'm one of those few who downloaded the whole 880-page CARES act and read at least some of it.
- DevorealLv 61 month ago
If more people have money then they tend to spend that money.
When people have enough money to quit their second and/or even THIRD job..that opens up employment for other people.
When people spend money it is taxed.
When people earn money it is taxed.
Taxes pay off the budget deficit.
Keeping people unemployed and/or under employed means they are tapping in to more government funded social programs, unemployment, food banks and medicare. That means a bigger budget deficit.
Full employment, even if it is leveraged by giving people money to spend, creates more tax revenue both now and in the future. It relieves pressure on food banks and charities and allows funding that currently goes to prop up poor people to be used to make the community at large better...things like infrastructure and clean water...and when you make the community better...that also increases the tax revenue. And...as well all learned in 8th grade economics class....tax revenue balances the budget.
- JudyLv 71 month ago
- babyboomer1001Lv 71 month ago
Sure - when money starts to grow on trees.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Brian McilweeLv 51 month ago
YES! Because it is proven that people will spend it and help the economy:
This is how it works: Betty is a divorced person with a dog and two adult children who do not live with her. She works full time as a receptionist and part time nights and weekends as a cashier.
SO: If Betty gets that $2,000 a month she can quit her night job (which opens up a job for someone who is unemployed) and she can spend more time with her children... if that involves going out to dinner or to a show then she is spending money at a place that will then spend that extra money to pay their employees...or maybe hire EXTRA employees or even expand -open a second location and hire even MORE people...reducing unemployment.
If Betty has money left over after wining and dining her children...she will probably spend it on her dog. Perhaps she will have her dog groomed once a month instead of doing it herself. If yes...then the doggie place will probably have to pay and employee to do an extra dog...creating more income for both the business and the employee.
But...you say...what if Betty is a drug dealer and a prostitute?
...So what if she is? Betty gets that $2,000.00 a month. What if she decides to spend it on cocaine and sexy clothes? Well...the people at the sexy clothes store will notice that they are selling more clothes ...and they will make more money and eventually expand to another location which creates jobs. What if Betty spends it all on Cocaine? Then the person she is buying it from will probably be spending at least part of that money on gasoline, fast food, and a lawyer. The gas station, fast food franchise and the lawyer all make extra money.
What if Betty sees that $2,000. and says to herself "I hate this life...but Now I have this cash...I can get on a bus and go far away from here, check into rehab and finally get control of my life.
So she does...and that $2,000 a month is enough to see her through rehab, job training and getting her life back together...which she would have never done earning $50 a pop for drugs or sex.
So what if Betty has a million dollar trust fund? ok...so what is to stop he from GIVING AWAY that money every month...the same way many people are giving away their current stimulus checks to charity?
The $2,000.00 a month is a great thing and only an evil, selfish, judgmental child pornographer would ever think differently.
- yLv 71 month ago
Nope, stimulus from here on out should be means tested, not just thrown around at everyone. Same as that additional 600 from unemployment, means tested to make on whole. No reason one should make more for not working, no reason those who continued to work should get stimulus.
- Anonymous1 month ago
People who have lost their jobs from COVID-19 are already receiving $2400/month in federal unemployment benefits plus their regular state unemployment benefits. Many are making more than they were making when working.
85% of the workers in the USA are still employed. There is no reason to provide the vast majority of the population any money because they still have their income.
Stimulus money does very to stimulate the economy when the businesses where people want to spend it are closed. The best economic stimulus for this country will be when state and local governments decide it's safe to open up businesses again - and it will cost zero taxpayer dollars. Restaurants, pubs, salons, gyms, movie theaters...people are looking forward to spending at these places when the govt. says it's ok. And yes, at least 85% of the population has their regular income with which to do so. And once they start doing so, workers will be rehired and that 15% unemployment rate is going to come down.
The answer to economic stimulus is not more across the board hand-outs.
- Anonymous1 month ago
If Trump and the Cons can afford to give TRILLIONS to billionaires and corporations, they can afford to give to Americans who are unemployed and starving thanks to their failed response to Coronavirus. After all, it's OUR money, not theirs!
- 1 month ago
No. I'm against ALL extortion and in order to get the money to give it would need to be extorted from people and/or businesses first and extortion is always wrong.