Why Stimulus Payments Are Wrong in Most Cases

The $600 or the $1200 stimulus payment makes sense only if you believe that it is going to people in genuine need.  We should ask ourselves: Do government workers who have not missed a paycheck need financial assistance?  It is arguable that because of the limited available activities due to the shutdowns, those whose income flow is un-interrupted are actually better off financially.  I know I am – a lot fewer restaurant meals, haircuts, trips to the gym and less home entertaining.

It is a fact that the vast majority of those receiving the checks have maintained their normal incomes.  That means the checks are going to a lot of people with substantial income – or even two-income households.

There is an exclusion for people who made more than $100,000 in the previous year.  But there is no means test for net worth.  That means people with a significant amount of money in the bank will also be getting the stimulus money.

Even people who have died in the current year will receive a check.  Only in America can dead people get money from the government and vote.  Perhaps the cemetery reflects their right to assemble.  After all, they are social distancing from the rest of us by approximately six feet.

Demographically, those in genuine need – living without sufficient money for food, rent and medicine — will be getting only a fraction of the stimulus money.  We have been led to believe that those on the left and leaders of the Democratic Party hate the Bourgeoisie.  So, why would they want to make people who have money even richer?

When you listen to the Democrats’ public statements – and the reports of the media – you would think that the impoverished needed ALL that money.  They say that the money is necessary for the very survival of the people.  They interview families in desperate need – suggesting that they are the primary recipients of the funds.  Not so.

If we want to send a couple trillion dollars to the people, why not focus on those who are really in desperate straits?  

If $600 or even $1200 is not enough to carry the desperately poor through this pandemic, why not give them $5000?

And give folks like me … nothing.  It would actually be cheaper overall.

We also must keep in mind where we get this money.  Since spending money we do not have is the policy of the folks in Washington, we will have to borrow it from other countries.  One of our problems with China is that we have made them our national banker.  They currently hold more than a trillion dollars of our current debt – and we are piling on more and more.

New York Times favorite economist, Paul Krugman, is an example of the deception of the left.  He is a staunch proponent of the government providing money to the people all the time.   He once stated that he could not  even conceive of a deficit or debt that was too large.

In a recent Times editorial, Krugman said, “In times of crisis, government aid to people in distress is a good thing.”  I added the highlight.  He says, “in distress,” but he supports most of the money going to those NOT in distress.

That is the false messaging from the left.  They engage in economic and political fairytales as purpose-challenged bad economics.  They spread Uncle Sam’s money around recklessly to gain political support – to bribe we the people with our own money.

In fact, Krugman believes that the free-market economics of Milton Friedman and President Reagan is dead. Even though their policies have produced jobs, great wealth and a higher standard-of-living whenever it was applied.  Yet, Krugman is happy to write the obituary.

Of course, they know full well that the money is going to people who are NOT in dire straits.  They say it is to stimulate the economy and produce jobs.  There are two problems with that explanation.  If they withheld money from those not in need and shifted it to those in need, it would have the same stimulus effect.

The claim of producing jobs with stimulus money is also a bit of a flimflam in these times.  There is no shortage of jobs because of lack of money or lack of demand.  The unemployment is the result of the government shutting down the economy.  As long as restaurants, gyms, theaters and entertainment parks are closed or limited, there will be fewer jobs to be had.  If you are a restaurant worker, you will not get your job back until the government allows your place of employment to open. No matter how much stimulus money the government injects in the system.

If helping those in need was the primary purpose, we would be spending the taxpayer money on those suffering real economic hardship and not using the pandemic as an excuse to expand the progressive policy of economic redistribution based on politics and the desire to entice more people to rely on money from Uncle Sam.

So, there ‘tis.