This idea—that releasing $1.5 trillion dollars into the hands of consumers would be good for the economy—should be self-evident.
It would be, if we weren't a people so scared of letting one dollar slip into hands we deem "undeserving" that we'd spend five dollars to prevent it.
It would be, if we weren't a people so scared of letting one dollar slip into hands we deem "undeserving" that we'd spend five dollars to prevent it.
Yes, with the rather notable exception that their argument is a gross lie, since their idea is to release most of the money to people who already have as much money as they need for whatever they need.
If you release student debt, people who didn't have money will now have money.
If you give billionaires a trillion dollars, people who already had all the money have even *more* all-the-money.
One is a stimulus. The other is the endpoint of a money laundering scheme.
If you give billionaires a trillion dollars, people who already had all the money have even *more* all-the-money.
One is a stimulus. The other is the endpoint of a money laundering scheme.
I'm becoming convinced the problem is we're so afraid of others getting good things who we don't think should have them, and we're so intent on controlling hypothetical abuse of a hypothetical good, that we'll make everything worse for everybody—including ourselves—to prevent it.
