Sunday night, a time of the week that is usually quiet on social media and in the real world, lit up like the Christmas sky when President Trump made a rather unexpected move.
Despite his blatant disagreement with the new $900 billion coronavirus relief package and the additional $1.4 trillion government funding bill attached to it, he announced that he would be signing it.
Here is the most notable excerpt from the speech he made regarding his decision:
“I will sign the Omnibus and COVID package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill.
I am signing this bill to restore unemployment benefits, stop evictions, provide rental assistance, add money for PPP, return our airline workers back to work, add substantially more money for vaccine distribution, and much more.”
The Motley Fool reports on what exactly this means with respect to Americans, as the details of the government funding bill are largely uninteresting to anybody who is not deeply entrenched in the nasty field of politics:
“Americans are in line to receive stimulus checks valued at $600 per adult and $600 per eligible child dependent.
The full amount is available to single tax filers with incomes up to $75,000 and joint filers with incomes up to $150,000. For incomes above these thresholds, eligibility phases out at a rate of $5 per $100 in extra income – so those with earnings above $87,000 as a single filer or $174,000 as a married joint filer will not receive money.”
And they rightly point out that Trump’s request for redlining wasteful spending, eliminating/reforming Section 230, and investigating the voter fraud that happened in the 2020 Presidential Election does NOT have to be considered by Congress when they vote on the bill.
Not only that, but they are extremely unlikely to do so as President-elect Biden is set to be inaugurated on January 20th as the 46th President of the United States (barring some extraordinary event).
But most importantly… they are not obligated to increase the stimulus checks handed out to each American from $600 to $2,000.
This has Trump’s base furiously divided in two. While some people insist this is part of a bigger plan, others say that this is a blatant act of betrayal and caving to the “Deep State” that will forever taint his one-term legacy as POTUS.
The only thing we can do now is wait to see how Congress will vote on each of these individual redlined issues for the duration of today. The votes have to be in and fully processed before midnight, otherwise the government will enter a state of shutdown and the American people will get NOTHING!
Which leaves me with the burning question I have for you: What do YOU think will happen with the COVID-19 relief bill and the wasteful government spending? Will Trump get his way on any of the items he wants changed, or will this prove to be his biggest mistake yet?
Reply to this newsletter and share your predictions with us!
Is it Risky for Investors to Buy and Hold Tesla Shares!?
As Tesla closes out the year with a +700% increase in share value, the bulls are out in the streets celebrating. And those of us who didn’t buy Tesla stock early are slamming their heads against the table, wondering if it’s too late for them to get in and still become a “Tesla millionaire” from a single bet.
According to CNBC contributor Michael Farr, the answer is a clear and resounding NO:
“A few hot-concept momentum stocks actually do pan out and become fabulous long-term investments. But many more do not, and the high-profile success stories that are Apple and Amazon and Microsoft can cause investors to rationalize their decisions to follow the herd, ignore valuations, and effectively throw caution to the wind.
Considering buying Tesla shares? Two points: all else equal, when you buy stocks at high valuations, your expected future returns are going to fall. Second point: all high-growth companies begin trading in anticipation of huge future growth.
Tesla has already been a fabulous success for investors, and it could work out as a great long-term stock someday. But when stocks become this expensive, there is far, far less margin for error. Tesla at these levels is more dependent on momentum investing and the ‘greater fool’ theory than anything else right now. It is much too speculative for investors like us.”
In his view, your money is better spent gambling in casinos than buying Tesla shares. He could possibly be right, but he could also be a bitter old man who is kicking himself because he doesn’t own any shares of Tesla.
I bet he would write a MUCH different column if he got in early and held his shares throughout the past year of extreme volatility!
Imagine Hating Trump for Wanting $2,000 Stimulus Checks…
I never imagined this would be possible, but there are people who are actually arguing AGAINST President Trump’s desire to increase the stimulus checks to $2,000 instead of $600.
One of such individuals is Bloomberg writer Lawrence Summers, who had the following to say:
“…the existing stimulus bill is sufficient to elevate household income relative to the economy’s potential to abnormally high levels — unheard of during an economic downturn. With President Donald Trump’s add-on, we are in completely uncharted territory, with household incomes more than 15% above their normal level relative to economic potential.
We frankly have no confident basis for judging how much and how fast this excess, and the pre-existing backlog of saving from the CARES Act, will be spent. There is the possibility of some overheating, particularly if the economy’s potential supply remains constrained by COVID protection measures.
I am all for a far more expansive approach to fiscal policy. But that does not mean indiscriminate support for universal giveaways at a time when household income losses are being fully replaced and checking account balances (at least as of October) were above pre-COVID levels.”
As he said in the byline of the article, there is a real risk of “overheating the economy” and family incomes are “not down much” due to COVID-19.
I don’t need to read the entire article to know that his main thesis reeks of sheer stupidity.
Must be easy to espouse such nonsense when your newspaper job still pays you a full-time salary that hasn’t been reduced or faced the possibility of extinction a single time during the entire course of the COVID-19 pandemic…