Why Some Americans Oppose a 2k Stimulus Check: Fiscally Unwise and Indiscriminate

Amidst the ongoing debate over economic relief, a significant portion of the American public remains skeptical about the idea of a 2k stimulus check. Critics argue that this approach is both fiscally irresponsible and indiscriminate in its distribution. This article delves into the reasons why some Americans view the 2k stimulus checks unfavorably, discussing their impact on inflation, the macroeconomic effects, and the potential for more targeted relief.

Fiscal Irresponsibility and Inflation

One of the primary concerns raised by opponents of the 2k stimulus check is its alleged contribution to high inflation. The argument is that while these checks may provide temporary relief, the benefit is offset by the detrimental impact on inflation. If recipients earned enough income to begin with, they would reportedly lose out over time due to rising prices. This perspective suggests that the economic relief provided by the stimulus check is short-lived and unsustainable, leading to long-term financial strain.

Fiscally Inadequate and Indiscriminate Policy

Politicians, particularly those in opposition, argue that stimulus checks are fiscally irresponsible and lack a targeted approach. Senator McConnell, for example, describes such measures as 'fire hosing the country with borrowed cash,' emphasizing the indiscriminate nature of the relief. The argument is that this type of relief, which targets all individuals regardless of their economic circumstances, fails to address the specific needs of those hardest hit by the pandemic, such as the unemployed, small businesses, and struggling states and local governments.

Effectiveness and Targeted Relief

The effectiveness of a 2k stimulus check is also questioned. Critics argue that such measures are not as effective at helping people, the economy, or businesses hurt by the pandemic as targeted spending would be. For instance, the money would be better allocated to help the unemployed, aid small businesses, and support state and local governments, which have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

Moreover, the suggestion that anyone making less than $75,000 per year is in need of relief while those making more are considered "the extremely wealthy" is seen as a misdirected approach. This argument questions the fairness and efficacy of such policy, insisting that relief should be targeted at those most in need rather than offering blanket checks to everyone.

Financial Clarity and Information

Fiscal transparency is crucial in determining the validity and effectiveness of stimulus measures. The article points out that with a population of roughly 330 million, the cost of a 2k stimulus check is astronomically high at $660 billion. However, it highlights that the distribution of these funds is not equitable. Why, for instance, does the federal government take on this responsibility when state and local governments have also been burdened by the economic fallout?

The controversial distribution criteria are further analyzed. With approximately 141 million federal income tax returns in 2019, and assuming 60% of individuals earn less than $75,000 annually, the recipients of stimulus checks could be fewer than 84.8 million. This number is then multiplied by the proposed $2,000 checks, leading to an estimated cost of around $169.6 billion. Alarmingly, the remaining $90 trillion of spending, which includes a 5500-page COVID relief bill, would not be targeted equally, raising questions about the scalability and effectiveness of such measures.

In conclusion, the debate over the 2k stimulus check underscores the need for a more fiscally responsible and targeted approach. Critics argue that such checks are not only ineffective but also contribute to fiscally irresponsible behavior, particularly when alternative, more targeted measures can achieve better economic outcomes.