A majority of Americans view $600 in individual stimulus checks — which the House and Senate agreed to as part of a greater $2.3 trillion coronavirus relief and government spending bill — as too small, according to a Business Insider survey released this week.
The survey, taken December 21 among 1,123 respondents, found that 62 percent view $600 stimulus checks as too small, with over three-quarters expressing the belief that payments should be $1,000 or greater. Forty-three percent of respondents said checks should be over $2,000.
According to Insider, respondents were asked to name the “right amount of money” for a “one-time federal economic stimulus payment at this time.” The median requested amount was $1,500 — greater than the amount received in the first round of relief, which was $1,200.
President Donald Trump publicly responded to the massive spending bill this week and asked Congress to amend it, increasing the “ridiculously low $600 to $2000, or $4000 for a couple.”
“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries and lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it,” Trump said, asking Congress to “get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation.”
Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and members of the far-left “Squad,” quickly backed the president’s call to increase direct payments to Americans.
According to the AP, “House Republicans shot down a Democratic bid on Thursday to pass President Donald Trump’s longshot, end-of-session demand for $2,000 direct payments to most Americans as he ponders whether to sign a long-overdue COVID-19 [coronavirus] relief bill.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), one of six GOP senators who voted against the bill this week, blasted his colleagues — whom he dubbed “free money Republicans” — for voting for what Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) described as a “legislative monstrosity.”
“Maybe these new free money Republicans should join the everybody-gets-a-guaranteed-income caucus. Why not $20,000 a year for everybody? Why not $30,000? If we can print up money with impunity, why not do it?” Paul asked.
“The treasury can just keep printing the money. That is, until someone points out that the emperor has no clothes and that the dollar no longer has value,” the Kentucky Republican added.