Democrats Propose Giving Two Thousand A Month To Americans During The COVID-19 Crisis
When Trump gave COVID-19 emergency relief checks, this was just the beginning of the move towards a Universal Basic Income/hyperinflation as the government has decreed to print money to the point of it becoming worthless. Having noted this, Americans do not care, because there is a lack of basic understanding as to what money is and how it functions, for many just see a “free check” from Uncle Sam and numbers on a computer screen.
Now the Democrats are going to ‘one-up’ Trump with a proposal to pay Americans two thousand dollars a month for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis.
Sens. Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey introduced a bill Friday to give most Americans $2,000 a month during the coronavirus pandemic, as historic job losses leave millions scrambling to cover bills.
The legislation would provide a direct payment to people who make up to $120,000 throughout the crisis and for three months after it. Married couples filing jointly would receive $4,000, and parents would get $2,000 per child for up to three children. The plan would be retroactive to March.
Harris, D-Calif., Sanders, I-Vt., and Markey, D-Mass., released the plan on the day the government jobs report for April showed the wreckage left by business closures designed to slow Covid-19 infections. The U.S. lost a record 20.5 million jobs for the month as the unemployment rate spiked to 14.7% — the highest level since the Great Depression.
The bill would try to iron out what critics called issues with the $1,200 direct payments to individuals included in the $2 trillion stimulus package passed in March. The senators said it would ensure “every U.S. resident” gets money, even if they have not filed a recent tax return or do not have a Social Security number. It would also bar debt collectors from taking the relief money, and deliver payments to homeless and foster youth.
The proposal, which likely carries a hefty price tag, is unlikely to gain much traction in a Republican-held Senate growing increasingly wary of spending taxpayer money to blunt the health and economic damage created by the outbreak. Even so, it sets a marker for debate as Congress considers how next to offer relief to Americans devastated by the pandemic. (source)
This is not a good thing. It will lead to hyperinflation. But is speeding the process of hyperinflation- something that is veritably inevitable at this point -a bad thing when it cannot be stopped?
Think of a man who has a serious infection in his leg. It is so serious he will have to have his leg amputated. What is better- to cut the leg off now, or prolong the inevitable?
The same is with the currency. It is in, for all purposes, hospice care. It is going to die. Nobody can stop this from happening. The question is, do we set the conditions up to ‘pull the plug’ now, or later?
Later means more economic destruction. Now means immediate pain, but the ability to heal faster. However, Americans will not want to pull the plug fast.
So what is the fastest way to ‘pull the plug’ without the realization that is happening? It arguably would be printing money, for it speeds the process of driving the currency to zero.
I’m not saying this is good. I don’t want bad things to happen. However, the inevitable must pass before the healing can take place.
At this point, if the Democrats want to run the money printers, let them. Both parties have ran it for decades, and the party was going to end at some point. At this point, if printing money is the only way to forcibly end the ‘party’, then it is better it happens, for perhaps when people are forced to deal with their actions is when there can be a hope for positive change.
Comments are closed.