Should all Americans receive another stimulus check? How about 2 or 3 more?

[Euclid]

Just questioning the vehement “NO!”. This forum gets boring quickly without dissent.

Just questioning the vehement “NO!”. This forum gets boring quickly without dissent.

[David61]

From a financial perspective: The answer would be yes. The US has a better credit rating (lower borrowing rate) than we do as individuals, so they can borrow 10 year debt for 0.95% while we would need to pay at least about 2.25% on a 15 year mortgage, so let them borrow, give me the money, and we'll pay it back with their interest rate over coming decade.

From a practical perspective, those who receive the stimulus will likely pay back little, and those ineligible to receive will pay for most of it. In effect this is a redistribution of wealth, on a modest level, and to stabilize the economy (and the stock market). (and this time its obvious the beneficiaries include many many hard working people including small business owners)

I'm fine with this as a matter of policy, if the economists feel its needed to support the economy, but I sure hope we don't need any more after this most recent one! Perhaps the next one, if needed,  should be conditional up receiving the vaccine.

[EliJelly]

Don’t like when there are opposing viewpoints?

The two mentioned have different styles of dissenting. One's is refreshing.

[S209]

The two mentioned have different styles of dissenting. One's is refreshing.

I find both refreshing but not too contrarian honestly

[Kobe Bryant]

Don’t like when there are opposing viewpoints?

If I were responding to a post, I would quote it. I am responding to the OP. Simple as that.

[S209]

If I were responding to a post, I would quote it. I am responding to the OP. Simple as that.

Interesting. Considering you have posted multiple times on this thread in the past and responded immediately after a previous post you can understand how it might have been interpreted, yes? Apologies for misunderstanding.

[AsherO]

If I were responding to a post, I would quote it. I am responding to the OP. Simple as that.

I was actually thinking this when pondering what your resounding “NO!” meant.

[Kobe Bryant]

Interesting. Considering you have posted multiple times on this thread in the past and responded immediately after a previous post you can understand how it might have been interpreted, yes? Apologies for misunderstanding.

Considering the new developments....

[yos9694]

From a financial perspective: The answer would be yes. The US has a better credit rating (lower borrowing rate) than we do as individuals, so they can borrow 10 year debt for 0.95% while we would need to pay at least about 2.25% on a 15 year mortgage, so let them borrow, give me the money, and we'll pay it back with their interest rate over coming decade.

From a practical perspective, those who receive the stimulus will likely pay back little, and those ineligible to receive will pay for most of it. In effect this is a redistribution of wealth, on a modest level, and to stabilize the economy (and the stock market). (and this time its obvious the beneficiaries include many many hard working people including small business owners)

I'm fine with this as a matter of policy, if the economists feel its needed to support the economy, but I sure hope we don't need any more after this most recent one! Perhaps the next one, if needed,  should be conditional up receiving the vaccine.

Whoa there. I would completely agree with you but the stimulus check is only around 22% of the freebie money in the bill. Total amount that will go to ordinary people is $200 Billion, and the other $700 Billion will go to the wealthy and special interests. The same thing with the "CARES" act - it was around $600 Billion to people and $1,600 Billion to the wealthy and special interests.

It is a redistribution of wealth - but not from rich to poor. It is redistributing from middle class to upper class (with a small bone for the poor) and that's what's wrong with it. Sickening that they couldn't pass a bill with just the stimulus check for the people who needed it on its own and dealt with the other garbage separately.

[yesitsme]

usually we buy a lotto for 2$ dream 1 night till we find out that we lost, the current administration is giving us all free tickets and they are letting us dream for more then one night!!

[AsherO]

usually we buy a lotto for 2$ dream 1 night till we find out that we lost, the current administration is giving us all free tickets and they are letting us dream for more then one night!!

Maybe if the $900 billion was earmarked for me. but it wasn’t, so the lottery makes for a much better dream

[PlatinumGuy]

From a financial perspective: The answer would be yes. The US has a better credit rating (lower borrowing rate) than we do as individuals, so they can borrow 10 year debt for 0.95% while we would need to pay at least about 2.25% on a 15 year mortgage, so let them borrow, give me the money, and we'll pay it back with their interest rate over coming decade.

From a practical perspective, those who receive the stimulus will likely pay back little, and those ineligible to receive will pay for most of it. In effect this is a redistribution of wealth, on a modest level, and to stabilize the economy (and the stock market). (and this time its obvious the beneficiaries include many many hard working people including small business owners)

I'm fine with this as a matter of policy, if the economists feel its needed to support the economy, but I sure hope we don't need any more after this most recent one! Perhaps the next one, if needed,  should be conditional up receiving the vaccine.

This argument falls apart if you're a taxpayer. Half the country doesn't pay any taxes, so the gov't is giving you $600 but taking back more to give the $600 to those who aren't paying it back. If you aren't paying taxes, the $600 isn't a loan it's a gift.

That being said, I do support government spending now. I'm not sure blanket stimulus check are the best way to go about it, but when there is zero inflation and thus zero interest (and talk of negative interest rates) the government should increase the monetary supply as much as it can. Any measured response that is properly deliberated won't destabilize the currency, especially when there aren't any safer currencies around. Now is the time to spend spend spend. Maybe green energy and infrastructure will do us better than giving people checks, but never expect too much competence from the government. It's not like they managed to improve testing, stocked vaccines prior to approval, or bought the IP to produce vaccines quicker now.

Frankly, for 20% of this bill they could've bought the entire Pfizer outright and published the vaccine recipe for everybody to produce.

[zh cohen]

Frankly, for 20% of this bill they could've bought the entire Pfizer outright and published the vaccine recipe for everybody to produce.

Is there lots of (safe) vaccine production capacity that is not being used now? If yes, wouldn't Pfizer (or Moderna) be paying those companies to produce for them?

[PlatinumGuy]

Is there lots of (safe) vaccine production capacity that is not being used now? If yes, wouldn't Pfizer (or Moderna) be paying those companies to produce for them?

Moderna subcontracted a Swiss production line. I can't believe there aren't others. It's not like Pfizer had anything unique for mRNA production a year ago.

It's a good question why self-interest isn't driving more partnerships, my guess would be the numbers involved are simply too small for Pfizer/Moderna to damage their reputation by outsourcing to competitors like Roche, and potentially losing their IP along the way. Even if it was a perfect win-win deal, it's not easy to actually put together a deal. Peace with Israel is a win-win but took 70 years to accomplish.

[yesitsme]

$2000 + $2000 plus other family members. Not $600. Remember, it was China’s fault!

[Kobe Bryant]

$2000 + $2000 plus other family members. Not $600. Remember, it was China’s fault!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1343027900740734976

[yesitsme]

Black Lives Matter calls for 'monthly' stimulus checks for families crushed
by pandemic
Fox News
7 hours ago

What a pity you can't loot direct deposits

[lubaby]

Black Lives Matter calls for 'monthly' stimulus checks for families crushed
by pandemic
Fox News
7 hours ago

What a pity you can't loot direct deposits

With the way police keep ‘making the news’, you can however make monthly “peaceful protests” and get your stimulus value that way.

[avromie7]

Black Lives Matter calls for 'monthly' stimulus checks for families crushed
by pandemic
Fox News
7 hours ago

What a pity you can't loot direct deposits

Isn't that what unemployment is for?

[yesitsme]

Black Lives Matter calls for 'monthly' stimulus checks for families crushed
by pandemic
Fox News
7 hours ago

What a pity you can't loot direct deposits

https://twitter.com/KolHaolam/status/1345512098814685185