Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 27 2021 05:51am)
Get yourself a bypass paywall add-on. :P
Here you go:
https://i.imgur.com/brqFzo8.jpgBeing badly affected by covid != wrecked economy. There is no one-to-one relationship between these two. Like the article said: blue states which imposed very harsh lockdowns suffered more economic damage than red states which tried to keep their economies open as much as possible.
At the end of the day, the scope of lockdowns was a political decision. State governments chose between a higher death toll and more economic devastation. This bill rewards those states which chose the "leftist" approach to this tradeoff.
Yeah, right, because ""temporary"" government programs never ever get extended ad infinitum. Guantanamo was supposed to be a temporary solution. The Patriot Act was not supposed to be a permanent power grab by the executive either. The Bush tax cuts were extended time and time again until Obama made them permanent for almost everyone in 2012.
Did I already tell the anecdote of the German champagne tax? It was introduced as a temporary measure in 1902 to finance the construction of an imperial war fleet for Emperor Wilhem II (fender's great-great-grandfather). The emperor abdicated over 100 years ago, monarchy was abolished, there have been two world wars, 3 different states, 3 currency reforms, yet 119 years later, we're still paying this tax...
Ok, that's fair.
If your economy was affected by lockdowns and/or consumer fear, I'd argue that's a direct result of COVID. Vermont is a blue state but they are getting very little in relief because their unemployment is low. AZ and TX are red states with higher unemployment rates and they will get significantly more relief. This is the most reasonable thing to do if your goal is to address unemployment...
The scope of the lockdowns was political in that politicians were the ones who implemented restrictions. I'd argue that it's more of a public health issue which is why the CDC and state/local health agencies were issuing guidance. Was some of it political? Sure. But it is mostly informed by public health professionals. That is only a "leftist" approach if you drink the Trump kool-aid.
If the EITC extension is popular, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be permanent. As of now though, it's a way to help the people most affected by COVID. Are Democrats hoping that it ends up permanent? I'm sure many are. I guess I don't fault the Democrats for pushing solutions for a crisis while they are in power. If the GOP pushed for "temporary tax cuts" during a recession, I wouldn't be mad because that's just smart politics. The party in power is doing what they think is helpful AND politically expedient. I don't think there is an objective solution to all this given that economists don't even agree on what's best.
At the end of the day, this needs to be sold to the American people as a COVID relief bill. Most of this stuff can easily be sold as that. The minimum wage increase is a tougher sell and there will be economic impacts (~1 million jobs lost over time) associated with that which one of many reasons why it's very unlikely it will make it into the bill. Holding up the bill to skirt the Senate parliamentarian would be very unpopular given the urgency of the current situation.
Quote (EndlessSky @ Feb 27 2021 06:04am)
Blue States were affected more because their politicians are shittier.
They deserve to have higher unemployment rates.
Giving them more money is a moral hazard and immoral.
That's a fine position to have but then I'd argue that we shouldn't have ANY relief and we should simply focus on vaccine distribution.