Which would have been better for the US Economy?

The United States allocated $484 billion for PPP loans. These loans would be given to business owners and if they played the rules correctly... would not have to be paid back.

There were (roughly) 113 million taxpayers in 2019. If we would have given the 2019 taxpayers an even cut of the $484 billion... they would have received $3000 in 2020.

Do you think that would have been better or worse for the economy?

Top | New | Old

Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M

I support extending and increasing unemployment payments because it effectively helps those who have a demonstrated loss. I also support loans and grants for small businesses because I’m seeing the effect all over my city as one business after another closes when their lease is up. Even a loan or grant that can cover 6 months rent is the difference between closing and surviving.

The stimulus checks are a lazy solution IMHO. Those who need the money need more—and should get more. But many of us who haven’t lost jobs or don’t own businesses really don’t need the checks. Just my two cents, no pun intended.

Keepitsimple · 56-60, F

@Harmonium1923 I agree with this to a degree but honestly we will see a decline in employment until March because it’s easy living having the additional money attached to unemployment and just working less so you meet the requirements to get the extra money. It happened last time and for the next 11 weeks it will happen again. ALMOST makes me sad my husband is working this time. We got a lot done and had extra money to do it with. I hope these businesses can hold onto their employees and it doesn’t turn into a loan for them.

Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M

@Keepitsimple You are right that it’s not a perfect system, by a long shot. I was taking more of a “microeconomic” perspective based on the needs of friends, family, and coworkers.

Keepitsimple · 56-60, F

@Harmonium1923 Don't get me wrong. I know there are people that are having a hard time right now for real but I think this enables many people to take advantage of the system.

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

Money to businesses doesn’t work unless you attach conditions.
See current deficit for details.

No point in giving ‘stimulus payments’ ad hoc when you’ve spent twenty years deliberately creating a ‘minimum wage economy’.
In pandering to business all you’ve created is a generation of permanently poor.

As a result of that you’ve effectively killed the housing market. Because the next generation will never be able to afford to buy.

There seriously is nothing sadder than watching populist leaders elected to govern. Because they can’t !
Another lesson one hopes political parties will finally learn.

SW-User

@Picklebobble2 Unfortunately, the populist leader found a foothold because the government/political parties weren't doing the jobs they were elected to do. This is now beyond any party's ability to control. Once Pandora's box has been opened, it's very difficult to shut and latch it.

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

@SW-User Yep ! The last generation of politicians were awful and the current bunch are no better

Crazywaterspring · 61-69, M

A Universal Basic Income (UBI) like Andrew Yang promoted when a candidate for the Democratic nomination proposed would pay for itself based on stimulating economic activity. Working people tend to buy stuff or pay down debt which is itself a healthy thing.

Tax breaks are skewed toward big business and the already wealthy. They tend to hoard money through assets. Lower tax receipts increase deficits unless spending is adjusted.

Who came up with idea a business person would make a good politician?

SW-User

I don't think either scenario is a good one. I think no matter which way we went, printing more money and throwing it at a problem is merely a band aid on a moment in time.

SW-User

@SW-User In many ways, I agree. $3000 isn't enough to pay pandemic rent for those that lost their jobs.

I handed out food last Sunday and I wondered what life would have been like for these people had they received $3000.

SW-User

@SW-User That was a nice thing to do. I can understand why your mind went there. I'm very concerned over where we will be headed these next few years. I fully expect to see a lot more people homeless, living on the streets, and lining up at food banks. We've entered a terrible new inflationary phase in our history.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

To the first part. Depends on what you call small business. And even then you have to make assurances that they are small business and that the money stays in the country.

There are quite a few shark type small business men that own multiple businesses.

To the second I just wouldn't be for it.

PrivateHell · M

Better. Because the majority of these people would have spent their $3000, which in turn helps shops and restaurants, who then pay employees... and the cycle continues.

MarineBob · 56-60, M

Then after the country opened back up there wouldn't be any jobs

SW-User

@MarineBob C'mon. The people with the assets would fill the needs quickly.

The people getting PPP (I'm not talking about the small business folks who actually needed it) probably had boatloads of assets already.

MarineBob · 56-60, M

@SW-User ppp was a cluster fuck to start with...with rules being made as they went along

SW-User

@MarineBob totally agree. It looks just like a big handout now.

Every administration has its bailout to the rich folk. This is no different.

YourMomsSecretCrush · M

giving money to consumers to buy shit will start the economy alot better than transferring the money overseas to those who do not support businesses in the US.

Add a comment...