Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Krugman: THIS IS NOT ABOUT STIMULUS. [View all]Hugin
(36,920 posts)8. This is why I'm glad any time I hear someone refer to it as 'relief', instead of...
Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2020, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)
'stimulus'.
It's not a stimulus. The tea-partiers (now Trumpanzees) turned the word 'stimulus' into a dog whistle in 2008.
It is not clear from this article if Krugman realizes much of the financial and economic doings of the government have been turned over to the Randian Objectivists (they call themselves, Libertarians) under the Turd Reich. Understand them and you understand exactly what Mnuchin is doing. They see themselves as John Galt.
"Galt is acknowledged to be a philosopher and inventor; he believes in the power and glory of the human mind, and the rights of individuals to use their minds solely for themselves. He serves as a highly individualistic counterpoint to the collectivist social and economic structure depicted in the novel, in which society is based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces mediocrity in the name of egalitarianism, which the novel posits is the end result of collectivist philosophy."
I guess in their minds "a culture that embraces mediocrity in the name of egalitarianism" is worse than a culture that embraces mediocrity in the name of heredity. Which is what Trumpism is all about.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

It's based on the fallacy that if we just goose the economy we can get back to where we were
Klaralven
Dec 2020
#1
"Most people don't need it; meanwhile utterly inadequate for those who do need help."
bucolic_frolic
Dec 2020
#3
I doubt people - poor or middle class - did anything other than bank it IF they could
bucolic_frolic
Dec 2020
#23
Maybe have the limit be 55,000 instead of the 75,000 it was at per adult
questionseverything
Dec 2020
#48
What's telling is how other countries gave checks out monthly large enough to prevent harm
duforsure
Dec 2020
#4
This is why I'm glad any time I hear someone refer to it as 'relief', instead of...
Hugin
Dec 2020
#8
"...a special mix of cruelty and cluelessness." That sounds right. Totally inadequate for millions.
Evolve Dammit
Dec 2020
#13
And a friend continues to work even though she knows she was exposed...just got the job and
Demsrule86
Dec 2020
#32