The Case for Expanded Stimulus Checks: Economic Necessity vs. Independence

Introduction

The debate over whether a second stimulus check should be more substantial than the initial $1200 allowance is multifaceted. Central to this discussion are the economic experiences of those in low-income jobs and the overall effectiveness of stimulus payments in boosting the economy.

Economic Necessity for Low-Income Essential Workers

Contrary to what some might argue, it's critical to recognize that many individuals in low-income, essential jobs faced no increase in income during the pandemic. These workers continued to risk their lives, facing skyrocketing costs of living, while making the same pre-pandemic wages. This scenario underscores the economic necessity for expanded stimulus checks to adequately compensate these individuals.

Disproportionate Economic Impact on Vulnerable Groups

It's also worth noting that those on other assistance programs, such as Social Security, saw no increase in benefits. This lack of support leaves many vulnerable individuals struggling to make ends meet without substantial government aid. Moreover, the misallocation of funds to corporations and churches over the past few years, while well-intended, has failed to trickle down to those in greatest need. Expanded stimulus checks can help direct funds more effectively to those who will re-circulate them into the economy, fostering a genuine growth rather than merely papering over existing inequities.

Historical Context and Broader Economic Principles

The notion that the government should not pay its citizens is rooted in certain historical and socio-economic beliefs. As Americans have faced numerous challenges over 244 years, the spirit of independence and hard work has historically steered us through. However, this narrative has been complicated by recent government interventions.

Evaluation of Recent Interventions and their Impact

From the bailouts of financial institutions and the automotive industry to stimulus payments under the Obama administration and the subsequent 600-week economic opportunity payment and the $1200 one-time stimulus payment for COVID-19, these interventions have subtly shifted public perception. They have made many believe that the government is a reliable source of financial support, rather than a source of services to be paid for through taxes. This shift in mentality has been reinforced through leftist educational teachings and government actions, leading to a "what's in it for me" attitude among the populace.

Proposed Solutions and Alternatives

Instead of relying solely on stimulus payments, it might be more beneficial to encourage people to return to work. This approach not only addresses immediate economic needs but also fosters a spirit of independence and self-reliance. Governments could consider initiatives that incentivize job creation and re-training programs, empowering individuals to find better employment opportunities and contributing to the long-term economic stability of the nation.

Conclusion

The question of whether a second stimulus check should be larger is not just about individual financial circumstances but also about long-term economic sustainability and fostering a sense of independence. While immediate relief is necessary, ongoing economic strategies that encourage self-reliance and sustainable employment are equally crucial.