lustylad please explain the logic of the Florida Governor's logic in giving out 450 dollars...

I just skimmed the article but to me, it just read more like either use it or lose it funds that would have gone from state to federal. Instead of losing it, the governor decided to use the money for his state and not lose it. I guess he wanted to ensure he locked down the welfare votes.

I could have read it wrong though. I've been out in the sun half the day in this hotter than hell weather, so my quick read is perhaps a wrong interpretation.

Maybe this influx of cash will help to save Gap with back-to-school revenue in Florida. Haha

You kinda left out the 2.2 trillion in March 2020 (Cares Act) and the 2.3 trillion in December 2020 that Trumpy signed off on, without hesitation, that flooded the economy with newly printed (electronic) dollars.

So who supercharged inflation? Originally Posted by Submodo

They are very selective in their outrage towards welfare/redistribution

You kinda left out the 2.2 trillion in March 2020 (Cares Act) and the 2.3 trillion in December 2020 that Trumpy signed off on, without hesitation, that flooded the economy with newly printed (electronic) dollars.

So who supercharged inflation? Originally Posted by Submodo

If what you're saying is that the Democrats and Trump supercharged inflation, I agree. The only ones trying to stop the train were Senate Republicans. For example, you mentioned the December, 2020 bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act. It allocated $900 billion to COVID relief, including $600 payments to Americans who made under $75,000 per year ($150,000 for couples.) Pelosi and Trump wanted $2,000 checks and wanted the income cutoff to be higher. McConnell and Senate Republicans held the line at $600 and the lower income limits.

The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was lunacy. Not a single Republican voted for it. We've discussed this ad nauseum in the "How Are We Going to Pay for All This Shit" thread. Larry Summers, the most prominent Democratic Party economist, was aggressively pushing to can this idea before passage of the bill, as he believed it could indeed supercharge inflation. Unfortunately progressives in the Biden administration and the desire of Democratic Congressmen to hand out money won out.

Folks , we only have one economic genius in this forum... without his wisdom and analysis, how can we really know how great the idea of give folks more money to rectify the inflation caused by the prior giving of even more to a larger group of people?

Maybe Tiny can weigh in on how free money given be Biden is so much more inflationary that free money given out by Trump....of course he should run that by lustylad first.


.

No. He's giving "the people's money" $$$$ back to SOME people.

If you can't understand what's wrong with that, you are too far gone for an explanation. Originally Posted by Submodo

I totally disagree with that. The checks are going to the neediest, to poor people with children. Childhood poverty is a big problem in this country.

It was curious that valued poster WTF brought this up. He believes inequality in America is the biggest issue facing the country. But he wants to boil it all down to one number, the Gini Coefficient. What he fails to realize is that the average American is better off than the average citizen of just about any other country. At the average and at the median, only other countries with small governments, like Singapore and Switzerland, and small places and petrostates like Monaco and Norway compare. It's the bottom half of America that got left behind. And it sounds like, in a small way, DeSantis is trying to do something about that.

Folks , we only have one economic genius in this forum... without his wisdom and analysis, how can we really know how great the idea of give folks more money to rectify the inflation caused by the prior giving of even more to a larger group of people?

Maybe Tiny can weigh in on how free money given be Biden is so much more inflationary that free money given out by Trump....of course he should run that by lustylad first.


. Originally Posted by WTF

Hey, again like I just said, Trump belongs in the same category as Biden. He's happy to open the money spigots, especially around election time.

And I'm calling bull shit on "we only have one economic genius on this forum." There are two, LustyLad and Texas Contrarian.

The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was lunacy. Not a single Republican voted for it. We've discussed this ad nauseum in the "How Are We Going to Pay for All This Shit" thread. Larry Summers, the most prominent Democratic Party economist, was aggressively pushing to can this idea before passage of the bill, Originally Posted by Tiny

Do you not understand the hypocrisy in your argument...especially in this thread!



Your argument basically is....Republicans wanted less poison to kill you than Democrats!

Also you have forgotten the Realpolitik of the situtation. And I'll do you a favor and explain it for you. Republicans WANTED the money! They were just smart enough to realize that they knew that they could get what they wanted without having to actually vote for it as they knew the Democrats would pass it without their vote.

So your nonsense holds no water. Larry Sumners should be lauded but not the bulk of Republicans in this matter. They wanted the money and in fact bragged about the money the voted against.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wire...voted-77527236



Republicans promote pandemic relief they voted against
Every Republican in Congress voted against the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which President Joe Biden signed into law three months ago

BySTEVE PEOPLES AP National Political Writer
May 06, 2021, 5:49 AM

Share

3:46
FILE - In this April 15, 2021, file photo, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., speaks during a House Select...Read More
The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said it pained her to vote against the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

But in the weeks that followed, the first-term Republican issued a news release celebrating more than $3.7 million from the package that went to community health centers in her district as one of her “achievements.” She said she prided herself on “bringing federal funding to the district and back into the pockets of taxpayers.”

Malliotakis is far from alone.

Every Republican in Congress voted against the sweeping pandemic relief bill that President Joe Biden signed into law three months ago. But since the early spring votes, Republicans from New York and Indiana to Texas and Washington state have promoted elements of the legislation they fought to defeat.

The Republicans' favorite provisions represent a tiny sliver of the massive law, which sent $1,400 checks to millions of Americans, extended unemployment benefits until September, increased the child tax credit, offered housing assistance for millions of low-income Americans and expanded health care coverage. Republicans tried to negotiate a smaller package, arguing that Biden's plan was too expensive and not focused enough on the nation’s health and economic crises.

Recent Stories from ABC News

Democrats are promising to make the pandemic relief vote — and the Republican resistance to it — a central element in their political strategy moving into next year's midterm elections as they defend delicate House and Senate majorities. And there are early signs that Republicans may struggle to defend their opposition to the popular legislative package, which was designed to protect the nation's fragile economic recovery following the worst public health threat in a century.

GOP lawmakers have been especially bullish about promoting the rescue plan's Restaurant Revitalization Fund, which devoted $28.6 billion to the struggling industry. Applications for the program opened this week.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., topped a group of at least eight Republicans who have encouraged constituents to apply in recent days. The others included Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Reps. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.; Greg Pence, R-Ind.; Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash.; Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas; Troy Balderson, R-Ohio; and Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio.

“The Congresswoman is using her platform to inform her constituents of federal funds and resources available to them,” Stefanik spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said. “She did not claim to support the bill in the tweet, and her constituents deserve to know about federal programs they can apply for regardless of how she votes.”

Wicker's office noted that he voted against the full package, but led efforts to ensure the restaurant relief was included.


“Sen. Wicker co-authored the amendment that successfully added the Restaurant provision to the reconciliation bill. Why wouldn’t he want to encourage participation?” Wicker spokesman Phillip Waller said.

The Independent Restaurant Coalition acknowledged the Republican's awkward position, but offered its thanks anyway.

“Senator Wicker did not vote for the package (we wish all members did!), but his work on the RESTAURANTS Act from the beginning made the relief fund possible,” the industry group tweeted. “We are grateful for that work.”

And White House spokesman Andrew Bates sarcastically expressed appreciation for the Republicans who have begun to tout elements of Biden’s stimulus.

Its called politickin" !

Still. i dont like hand outs like this. period

I totally disagree with that. The checks are going to the neediest, to poor people with children. Childhood poverty is a big problem in this country. Originally Posted by Tiny

Dude, have you ever had kids? How the hell are you going to better a kid's life with an extra $1.23 a day unless you live in a place like Liberia? Let's call it what it is; he wants the welfare vote. There is no economic reasoning behind it which is what I assume is the OP's point. All it does is increase spending for no reason other than for votes.

Cool for McDonald's though because now kids can add a couple of hamburgers to their happy meals. Sucks for healthcare/Medicaid though because child obesity is already bad enough in this country.

Dude, have you ever had kids? How the hell are you going to better a kid's life with an extra $1.23 a day unless you live in a place like Liberia? Let's call it what it is; he wants the welfare vote. There is no economic reasoning behind it which is what I assume is the OP's point. All it does is increase spending for no reason other than for votes.

Cool for McDonald's though because now kids can add a couple of hamburgers to their happy meal. Sucks for healthcare/Medicaid though because child obesity is already bad enough in this country. Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Yeah, I agree, it's not much, only a drop in the bucket.

The COVID stimulus plans did decrease childhood poverty a lot. See this article from one of my favorite newspapers, the Guardian (haha),

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...expire-experts

The problem is that they also grew the national debt by about $5 trillion, and a lot of the money went to people and businesses that didn't need it. A lot of it, maybe most of it, was welfare for people in the top half of the income distribution and businesses.

Interesting post. You think DeSantis is pandering to people on welfare, and there should be no social safety net for poor children because the money will just get spent at McDonalds?

I totally disagree with that. The checks are going to the neediest, to poor people with children. Childhood poverty is a big problem in this country.

It was curious that valued poster WTF brought this up. He believes inequality in America is the biggest issue facing the country. But he wants to boil it all down to one number, the Gini Coefficient. What he fails to realize is that the average American is better off than the average citizen of just about any other country. At the average and at the median, only other countries with small governments, like Singapore and Switzerland, and small places and petrostates like Monaco and Norway compare. It's the bottom half of America that got left behind. And it sounds like, in a small way, DeSantis is trying to do something about that. Originally Posted by Tiny

But what would lustylad do!?

I'm throwing you back Tiny...I'm fishing for economic guru's!

But I am glad you're coming around to income inequality in this country!

But what would lustylad do!?

I'm throwing you back Tiny...I'm fishing for economic guru's! Originally Posted by WTF

He'd give the $35 million to the hungry children!

I'm the biggest fish you're going to catch today. And maybe I'm not an economic guru, but I know a lot about Cuban strippers.

But I am glad you're coming around to income inequality in this country! Originally Posted by WTF

Damn WTF, your posts are a moving target today, always changing. I've always been for improving the lot of the less fortunate. I just realize that taxing the hell out of the top 1% isn't going to accomplish that.

While I don't completely agree with WD, I'm pissed that no politician is willing to stand up and say, "stop having children that you can't afford to raise". And make sure the blame is laid at the feet of men and women.

While I don't completely agree with WD, I'm pissed that no politician is willing to stand up and say, "stop having children that you can't afford to raise". And make sure the blame is laid at the feet of men and women. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Are you a proponent of Roe?