Instead of a Second Stimulus, Why Not Give Struggling States More Aid?

[Yavin4]

It's really a matter of semantics, but semantics rule politics. So, instead of the Obama admin asking for a "second stimulus package", they should just ask for "aid to struggling states" which would prevent layoffs of state workers, save vital social programs, and it could go for more state infrastructure projects. If some states like LA or SC don't want it, so be it. Give their shares to MI, OH, PA, and CA, and let their governors face an angry electorate.

Asking for emergency aid to states would save the Obama admin and the Dems some face and accomplish the goal of trying to stimulate the economy.

[AngryAmish]

1. The point of stimulus is to give people money to spend

NOthing new is created by just allowing states to pay their IOUs.

[DJ13]

2. The point of stimulus is to give already wealthy people money to spend

Goldman Sachs says thank you.

[AngryAmish]

3. touche

[Oregone]

6. Did banks get any substantial funds from the stimulus?

From the bank bailout, yes, but from the actual stimulus, Im not so sure. Correct me if Im wrong.

[Oregone]

4. No, its to increase production

By those means, people will have jobs.


Anyway, regarding the OP, state aid only goes so far (you clearly need to make sure they don't cut programs due to lack of income). But you need to prevent people from needing state aid to start with.

[stray cat]

5. that was a large part of the stimulus

like extending unemployment benefits and food stamps.

[Yavin4]

7. On TDS, Barney Frank Stated The Opposite

A lot of money that the House put in the stimulus bill for the states was stripped out by the Senate.

Restore that money with this emergency aid, and you prevent further layoffs.