3 ms·

It's a pretty shrewd move.

• nodesocket 4y ago
  Only if you on the lower income scale and don’t have any real assets, real estate, savings, stocks, or retirement. Politicians must think their constitutes are financially illiterate. Actually for their base, they probably are.
• Kon-Peki 4y ago
  I'm not sure if it is "shrewd" or not. But! It is definitely better than all the states that used their Covid windfalls for permanent tax cuts. If we end up with a bad recession, one-time checks are going to hurt an awful lot less than lower recurring tax revenue.
  • jollyllama 4y ago
    The job of the politician isn't to make things better, it's to get re-elected. In this respect their actions are quite shrewd. Making things worse may help them!
  • nodesocket 4y ago
    Tax cuts are better than giving hand outs to people that go out and buy worthless goods and services. At least tax cuts gives money back to people who are actually productive and pay into the system.
    • toomuchtodo 4y ago
      How incredibly out of touch one must be to think that the people getting these checks won’t use from for food, fuel, and rent. The lower classes live in a constant recession, and will put these funds to better use than the marginal dollars of someone very well off: survival.
      • anon291 4y ago
        > How incredibly out of touch one must be to think that the people getting these checks won’t use from for food, fuel, and rent. Hold on hold on. The discussion was whether these checks will cause inflation. If your answer is that, by being sent to the poor, they will be used for food, fuel and rent... then that is going to cause inflation. If you do something that makes people more able to spend more money on limited goods (all goods are at this level), then you will cause those prices to increase.
        • toomuchtodo 4y ago
          With all due respect, reread the comment I replied to. It is not an argument about inflationary pressures. It is a value judgment of the economically disadvantaged.