It’s inevitable if you believe that hippie economist F. A. Hayek.
Well, you resist, you’re going to get your channel changed pretty quick, but I think you have a reason to smile.
If you pay somebody for nothing, what do you get for your money?
To answer your question, they aren’t better.
The more successful you are, the more you should be penalized.
Of course the republicans aren’t much if any better.
The multiplier effect
No. That’s not what the multiplier effect is.
what do you think the multiplier effect is?
The ability to put it into the economy.
The government NEVER lowers costs. EVER.
It’s a stupid ass idea period.
Its first hurdle is arithmetic. As Robert Greenstein of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, a check of $10,000 to each of 300 million Americans would cost more than $3 trillion a year.
Where would that money come from? It amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. Nothing in the history of this country suggests Americans are ready to add that kind of burden to their current taxes. Cut it by half to $5,000? That wouldn’t even clear the poverty line. And it would still cost as much as the entire federal budget except for Social Security, Medicare, defense and interest payments.
I know what it is, I looked it up.
You made the claim, you support it. You aren’t changing variables, you’re simply shifting resources.
If you increase one person’s spending power by 30k units, you necessarily have to decrease somewhere else. Because they are not earned units. There is no production.
It’s already in the economy. By the people who earned it.
Where is it working. Forewarning, I looked.
Oh, and if it’s universal, who gets it?
You’re shifting resources to the biggest spenders in the economy. That money will cycle many more times than if you give it to a corporate entity or to a person who will save it
I guess eliminating entire departments isn’t something conservatives want anymore?
And why on earth would we write $10,000 checks to babies?
Well, I don’t think that’s true. Unless you mean they’re going to spend it all and keep demanding more. Are you going to do away with the other programs? Food stamos and such?
What do you have against savings?
Of course it is, but it isn’t enough.
How could you not, it’s universal?
People spend money.
They are going to spend almost all of it, yes. And yes, you could either eliminate programs like SNAP and TANF or roll them into a single program.
Savings don’t stimulate the economy.
People have that money now.
