Pensions are either from taxes(Now who is going to pay that on properties where people stay for free?), or from profits made in investments in larger economy. Where do the profits come from? People who borrow money to run businesses(which now have no profits, and are running on losses because people stay for free).
Read that all in reverse. The effects will be felt all over the economy.
The poor aren't stupid. They can figure out schemes and strategies just as well as Wall Street, they just have less opportunity in most circumstances.
I'm all for people being happy and especially for people being more successful while working less, as long as the "less work" means higher effective productivity per hour, or a choice to be happy by some other means.
The problem is when policy transfers wealth from people who do work to people who don't. Then the person isn't happy because of their own choices or more effective or better chosen efforts, it's just a transfer of happiness from a responsible person to someone who may or may not be.
Why is it that this line is brought up when it might be a poor person getting a hand out but never when it is a rich person being given a hand out? You'd think the focus would be on stopping the ultra-wealthy from draining the rest of society with their out-sized influence, not weighing the hearts of the poor against a feather.
Both have the effect of harming the professional, responsible, hard working, broader middle class.
And even hurting the professional, responsible, hard working, working poor. Because if you're working really hard for $10/hr and someone else is getting a handout, that means you have nothing extra to show for your efforts except exhaustion at the end of your day.
To be less acrimonious and more specific, when the people that Jimmy Johns employs require public assistance to make ends meet, who do you accuse of accepting hand outs? If it is the people in poverty I think you've gotten tricked into forgetting the people with the power to change things.
Most other nations had much stronger safety nets than a few one-time payments of a few hundred dollars.
Quite a set of priorities are on display here.
Here's the breakout of the 2020 budget in picture form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...
Alas, this argument is as old as the Constitution itself. "Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States."[1]
Congress has the power to spend federal revenue. The responsibilities of Congress are explicitly defined in Section 8 of the Constitution. The first clause of Section 8 does include "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That is for the welfare of the Union, not the individual residents of states. None of the powers of Congress are to distribute funds to individuals with charity programs. In fact, for much of the nations history using public funds for charity was an abhorrent idea.
[1]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_2/...
It hasn't impaired them? Owning an obligation is much worse than owning the cash. If someone didn't pay rent for 9 months, landlords might never see that money. When they could evict, they might only eat 3 months of losses, now they will have 9-12 months of losses. The owners are basically paying "rent" (debt service), so freeloaders can live there.
If anything, a chunk of relief money to renters should have been debt vouchers to their landlords that can redeem them for cash from the gov't. The gov't can then get repaid through federal tax returns. (or forgive them as a benefit)
The supreme court said the CDC exceeded their statutory authority [0]:
> As he often does, Kavanaugh wrote to explain why he voted to allow the moratorium to remain in place. On the one hand, he said he agreed with the District Court that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a nationwide moratorium.
> But, he said, because the CDC has said it will end the moratorium in a few weeks he would allow it to remain in place. He said the extra weeks will "allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds."
> Kavanaugh made clear however, that if the government were to extend the moratorium past July 31, it would need "specific congressional authorization."
So it sounds like the eviction moratorium was illegal.
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/eviction-moratorium-expiring...