4 ms·

More than that; the entire point of the $1,200 was to get people money quickly to buy time to work out a longer term solution (some of the proposed longer term

More than that; the entire point of the $1,200 was to get people money quickly to buy time to work out a longer term solution (some of the proposed longer term solutions happened to involve some form of ongoing stimulus checks modeled after the initial one).

pc86 6y ago
And instead what we got was the PPP and EIDL, the majority of which ended up going to huge corporations (I know Ruth's Chris returned it after the staggering public backlash). And those of us on this forum just worked from home and continued getting our paychecks. I don't know a single person that lives paycheck to paycheck in a working or middle-class job who got anything more than that $1,200.
- paulpauper 6y ago
  I don't think the $1200 helped that much, A large chunk (33%) of the money was saved and another chunk invested. I think politicians and media oversold the efficacy of stimulus.
  - MR4D 6y ago
    Apparently, many of the middle class invested in the market according to reports [0]. Maybe not the best form of savings for some, but I’m not here to argue one way or another. [0] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/many-americans-used-part-of-their-coronavirus-stimulus-check-to-trade-stocks.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/many-americans-used-part-of-...
    - adventured 6y ago
      And collectible cards (baseball, basketball, football, pokemon, magic the gathering, etc). The card market exploded upward during the pandemic. (existing asset bubbles from low rates + $1,200 onto the fire + people stuck inside = huge shot of demand from buyers of cards; it wouldn't do much in the million dollar art world, however most cards are obviously more in the affordable range as it pertains to a $1,200 injection). The stock (CLCT) for the largest card grading service went up 200% over the past year, after hardly moving the prior four or five years.
  - NationalPark 6y ago
    The one time $1,200 payments were more of a campaign thing than practical policy - remember the physical checks signed by Donald Trump? The real relief package was in the unemployment insurance (the federal government added $600 a week to unemployment payments - huge in poor states where unemployment might be only $250 a week maximum) and in the payroll "loans" that will mostly be forgiven because they went to, well, payroll. Edit: Maybe my editorializing wasn't well received, but the facts are correct regardless: The spending primarily includes $300 billion in one-time cash payments to individual Americans (with most single adults receiving $1,200 and families with children receiving more[5]), $260 billion in increased unemployment benefits, the creation of the Paycheck Protection Program that provides forgivable loans to small businesses with an initial $350 billion in funding (later increased to $669 billion by subsequent legislation), $500 billion in aid for large corporations, and $339.8 billion to state and local governments.[6]
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    > A large chunk (33%) of the money was saved Another term for 'saved' is 'spent slowly'.
    - pc86 6y ago
      And the benefit of that is a discussion worth having, but the point of the $1200 was to inject it into the economy during the height of the shutdown. Having it spent slowly over the course of a year or more doesn't help the waitress getting tips when the restaurant she works at is operating at 25% capacity in May. In this context specifically, money being saved or invested is a failure.
      - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
        >And the benefit of that is a discussion worth having, but the point of the $1200 was to inject it into the economy during the height of the shutdown. That could have been a point. However the important and highly cited purpose was to provide assistance by 'getting cash into the hands of Americans that need it' (following job loss, etc). The point of assistance is to assist the recipient.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- eli 6y ago
  Unpopular opinion, but I didn't really have a problem with corporations taking PPP money they were legally entitled to. The problem is that Congress didn't do enough for everyone else. The PPP program concluded with $130 billion still in the bank. What a waste!
  - morelisp 6y ago
    The tragedy of the PPP is going to be the companies that took the money, spent it on something other than payroll, and then collapsed or accounted their way out of repaying it. Unfortunately it's harder to get people to care about those abuses than the companies that didn't "need it" but still took. Americans are always so disproportionately concerned about moochers rather than grifters.
    - ohyeshedid 6y ago
      > Americans are always so disproportionately concerned about moochers rather than grifters. That's by design, sadly.
- runako 6y ago
  FWIW unless you meant "unmarried, living without family members", the benefit was indeed higher for many households. As an example, a family with two middle-class wage earners and 3 kids received $6,000. For a total household income in the "middle class" range, that's a nice bump.

pc86 6y ago

And instead what we got was the PPP and EIDL, the majority of which ended up going to huge corporations (I know Ruth's Chris returned it after the staggering public backlash). And those of us on this forum just worked from home and continued getting our paychecks. I don't know a single person that lives paycheck to paycheck in a working or middle-class job who got anything more than that $1,200.

paulpauper 6y ago
I don't think the $1200 helped that much, A large chunk (33%) of the money was saved and another chunk invested. I think politicians and media oversold the efficacy of stimulus.
- MR4D 6y ago
  Apparently, many of the middle class invested in the market according to reports [0]. Maybe not the best form of savings for some, but I’m not here to argue one way or another. [0] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/many-americans-used-part-of-their-coronavirus-stimulus-check-to-trade-stocks.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/many-americans-used-part-of-...
  - adventured 6y ago
    And collectible cards (baseball, basketball, football, pokemon, magic the gathering, etc). The card market exploded upward during the pandemic. (existing asset bubbles from low rates + $1,200 onto the fire + people stuck inside = huge shot of demand from buyers of cards; it wouldn't do much in the million dollar art world, however most cards are obviously more in the affordable range as it pertains to a $1,200 injection). The stock (CLCT) for the largest card grading service went up 200% over the past year, after hardly moving the prior four or five years.
- NationalPark 6y ago
  The one time $1,200 payments were more of a campaign thing than practical policy - remember the physical checks signed by Donald Trump? The real relief package was in the unemployment insurance (the federal government added $600 a week to unemployment payments - huge in poor states where unemployment might be only $250 a week maximum) and in the payroll "loans" that will mostly be forgiven because they went to, well, payroll. Edit: Maybe my editorializing wasn't well received, but the facts are correct regardless: The spending primarily includes $300 billion in one-time cash payments to individual Americans (with most single adults receiving $1,200 and families with children receiving more[5]), $260 billion in increased unemployment benefits, the creation of the Paycheck Protection Program that provides forgivable loans to small businesses with an initial $350 billion in funding (later increased to $669 billion by subsequent legislation), $500 billion in aid for large corporations, and $339.8 billion to state and local governments.[6]
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  > A large chunk (33%) of the money was saved Another term for 'saved' is 'spent slowly'.
  - pc86 6y ago
    And the benefit of that is a discussion worth having, but the point of the $1200 was to inject it into the economy during the height of the shutdown. Having it spent slowly over the course of a year or more doesn't help the waitress getting tips when the restaurant she works at is operating at 25% capacity in May. In this context specifically, money being saved or invested is a failure.
    - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
      >And the benefit of that is a discussion worth having, but the point of the $1200 was to inject it into the economy during the height of the shutdown. That could have been a point. However the important and highly cited purpose was to provide assistance by 'getting cash into the hands of Americans that need it' (following job loss, etc). The point of assistance is to assist the recipient.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
eli 6y ago
Unpopular opinion, but I didn't really have a problem with corporations taking PPP money they were legally entitled to. The problem is that Congress didn't do enough for everyone else. The PPP program concluded with $130 billion still in the bank. What a waste!
- morelisp 6y ago
  The tragedy of the PPP is going to be the companies that took the money, spent it on something other than payroll, and then collapsed or accounted their way out of repaying it. Unfortunately it's harder to get people to care about those abuses than the companies that didn't "need it" but still took. Americans are always so disproportionately concerned about moochers rather than grifters.
  - ohyeshedid 6y ago
    > Americans are always so disproportionately concerned about moochers rather than grifters. That's by design, sadly.
runako 6y ago
FWIW unless you meant "unmarried, living without family members", the benefit was indeed higher for many households. As an example, a family with two middle-class wage earners and 3 kids received $6,000. For a total household income in the "middle class" range, that's a nice bump.