Surprise: Washington Post Comes Out Against $2,000 Checks

The Washington Post Editorial Board has finally chimed in on give Americans $2,000 checks, and their kneejerk Trump Derangement Syndrome leads them to coming out against Trump

Why increasing the stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000 is a bad idea

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.

See, “there was a case…” Coming from people who haven’t missed a paycheck this year, and whose business was never considered “non-essential.” And, consider, many who were considered essential still saw reduced hours and reduced income. Not the newspaper business. Everything went along as normal.  Most of the people on the WPEB are looking at six figure salaries.  Anyhow, lots more could be said about that, but, here it comes

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.

See? It’s all Trump’s fault. It’s not like Trump wasn’t pushing $2,000 months and months ago. And it doesn’t even matter that Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez, and even China Joe Biden jumped on board now: Blame Trump. TDS. See, it doesn’t matter that Americans are hurting, Americans are out of work, Americans are seeing their businesses go away, that government is keeping things locked down, and that outlets like the Washington Post are advocating for all the lockdowns and restrictions. I’m betting a goodly chunk of the people in the direct sphere of the Washington Post, D.C, Alexandria, etc, would disagree with the WPEB’s take.

This was simply where Trump Derangement Syndrome takes them. They even go after the Progressive left, specifically Comrade Bernie Sanders, because of TDS, in the next paragraph, and support Mitch McConnell. TDS is a hell of a thing. What will they do when China Joe is president?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Surprise: Washington Post Comes Out Against $2,000 Checks”

  1. Dana says:

    Imagine if you will how doing things the way the editors of the Post would have things done. They would convert the stimulus into welfare, and that means people who needed it would have to apply for it. A real boon for social workers, I s’pose.

    The reason the first stimulus plan generated little opposition was that it covered most Americans; it wasn’t just another welfare program. It applied to anyone making less than $99,000, with a full check at $75,000, and the median household income in 2019 — off which the first stimulus was based — was $68,703. Well over half of American families got the whole thing.

    Much of this is going to be saved, not spent, since restaurants are closed and air travel limited.

    The editors must’ve forgotten their own newspaper’s story noting that renters who lost income due to the vastly overreached government action are an average of $5,800 in arrears on rent. As non-eviction orders are expiring, a lot of this money is going to keep roofs over people’s heads!

    Since I’ve retired, our income has dropped, and we’re now eligible for the stimulus, but I’ll admit it: we don’t need it. No one in my family lost a job, or even income, due to COVID-19, and if the stimulus didn’t pass, I’d be perfectly happy. But I’m not opposed to it, because it would be getting back some of the money I had stolen from me by the government in taxes.

    As I said on Twitter, “if you get the stimulus payment, you hadn’t lost money and don’t need it, earmark it for a good charity! Better that you decide who gets it than the bloated government.”

  2. Hairy says:

    Teach
    When Bernie and AOC wanted $2000 months ago I can’t remember your position on that
    Could you tell us now ?

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Trumpist mantra: Trump wants it, I back it!

    Economic stimulus works when money goes to those that will spend it, not save it.

    Relief payments, e.g., jobless benefits, keep people housed and fed.

  4. Dana says:

    Mr Dowd wrote:

    Economic stimulus works when money goes to those that will spend it, not save it.

    Unless the recipient simply takes it out in cash, and stashes it under his mattress, it will get spent. Even if the recipient simply puts it in a savings account, the bank will lend out that money to others.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Trump and the Democrats advocate $2000 stimulus checks over the $600. Senate Republicans have blocked it.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10129 access attempts in the last 7 days.