Trump would be getting the taxpayers to pay for it so technically speaking he'd be giving himself $5000.
Considered as a policy it would actually amount to a one-off universal basic income. So not actually an income, but otherwise its effects over the short term would be similar.
It is not the first time Trump has promised free money. Remember the "DOGE Dividend"? It was also supposed to be $5,000 paid out from all the money DOGE would save the US. Except that DOGE failed to save the promised money and the checks never issued. But it is interesting that the amount ($5,000) and the characterization ("dividend") is the same as his new vote-buying plan.
And then there was the $2,000 "tariff rebate" check to be paid from the zillions that tariffs would bring in. That got scuppered because there was not enough tariff revenue to actually fund the idea.
In other words, this was just a standard lie by Petulant Trump to try to buy popularity.
People have been saying that Trump's promise of $ 5 000 is an illegal bribe, but is it really? Because there's no quid pro quo at the level of the individual voter, but rather a government policy(albeit of a rather crude nature) covering everyone, regardless of how they vote.
People have been saying that Trump's promise of $ 5 000 is an illegal bribe, but is it really? Because there's no quid pro quo at the level of the individual voter, but rather a government policy.
Agreed, and the money doesn't come from Trump but from the national coffers. I'd say no, it is not.
People have been saying that Trump's promise of $ 5 000 is an illegal bribe, but is it really? Because there's no quid pro quo at the level of the individual voter, but rather a government policy.
Agreed, and the money doesn't come from Trump but from the national coffers. I'd say no, it is not.
I agree. I’m not even sure I’d call it a bribe morally. It’s basically a campaign promise, akin to “elect Republicans and we’ll cut taxes.” “Elect Republicans and we’ll return some of your tax dollars to you.”
A chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard, as it were.
Of course, we know how Trump is about keeping his promises.
A chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard, as it were.
But I think Hoover was promising to create an economy in which people would have enough money to eat well and buy a car, rather than actually give them money to buy those things.
A closer parallel would be "Vote for me, and I'll increase your social-security cheques by 10% per month."
A chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard, as it were.
But I think Hoover was promising to create an economy in which people would have enough money to eat well and buy a car, rather than actually give them money to buy those things.
Another quibble. Hoover never said it; it wasn’t his promise. It’s from an ad published by a group of Republican businessmen in support of Hoover just prior to the 1928 election, who said prosperity resulting from Republican government had resulted in “a chicken in every pot. And a car in every backyard, to boot.”
A chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard, as it were.
But I think Hoover was promising to create an economy in which people would have enough money to eat well and buy a car, rather than actually give them money to buy those things.
Another quibble. Hoover never said it; it wasn’t his promise. It’s from an ad published by a group of Republican businessmen in support of Hoover just prior to the 1928 election, who said prosperity resulting from Republican government had resulted in “a chicken in every pot. And a car in every backyard, to boot.”
Yes, I know not quite parallel.
Thanks! I think a Mad magazine book of historical cartoons is responsible for my impression that it was a direct quote from Hoover, though I'm sure it's a wider distribution than that.
I will say that I think it's odd that "Is Natalie Harp a weirdo?" has been the primary issue that people have milked from this quote, as opposed to, say, "Should the POTUS be flying around in a plane gifted by the very regime that many of his own supporters claim to be a major sponsor of anti-American activity?"
We've all already heard about the plane. We haven't all already heard about Natalie Harp. A person in his inner circle who is frequently the last person in the room (which always matters but especially matters with someone as ill-informed as Trump), a person who is feeding him information and/or misinformation every day, a person who has access to quite a bit or perhaps all of what comes across Trump's desk -- who sounds like a complete nut job and who has no security clearance.
So yeah, she's the focus at the moment.
I will put into the record that we now have this side-controversy about Trump's 40 grand gift to Harp making the rounds. Based on my own speed-reading of a few articles, the mainstream consensus seems to be something like the gifts may or may not have been in violation of some regulatory thingamabobs, but were in any case pretty inappropriate.
More or less inclined to file this way as another MAGA world scandal no one's gonna care about in a week(see Signalgate, for just one example), but it might be good to have in play alongside the 5 000 dollar payouts, as they both fall pretty easily, if not entirely accurately, into the broadly perceived vicinity of "bribery".
Comments
Why should voters be treated differently from donors?
He also has a reputation for not paying his legal bills and some others. I would be worried about him even sending a cheque.
I’m sure it would be “In the post”.
I have no idea why....
To those with longer memories that brings Robert Maxwell to mind.
Considered as a policy it would actually amount to a one-off universal basic income. So not actually an income, but otherwise its effects over the short term would be similar.
And then there was the $2,000 "tariff rebate" check to be paid from the zillions that tariffs would bring in. That got scuppered because there was not enough tariff revenue to actually fund the idea.
In other words, this was just a standard lie by Petulant Trump to try to buy popularity.
I have no doubt it is, but does Trump know, or care?
People have been saying that Trump's promise of $ 5 000 is an illegal bribe, but is it really? Because there's no quid pro quo at the level of the individual voter, but rather a government policy(albeit of a rather crude nature) covering everyone, regardless of how they vote.
A chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard, as it were.
Of course, we know how Trump is about keeping his promises.
But I think Hoover was promising to create an economy in which people would have enough money to eat well and buy a car, rather than actually give them money to buy those things.
A closer parallel would be "Vote for me, and I'll increase your social-security cheques by 10% per month."
Yes, I know not quite parallel.
Thanks! I think a Mad magazine book of historical cartoons is responsible for my impression that it was a direct quote from Hoover, though I'm sure it's a wider distribution than that.
I will put into the record that we now have this side-controversy about Trump's 40 grand gift to Harp making the rounds. Based on my own speed-reading of a few articles, the mainstream consensus seems to be something like the gifts may or may not have been in violation of some regulatory thingamabobs, but were in any case pretty inappropriate.
More or less inclined to file this way as another MAGA world scandal no one's gonna care about in a week(see Signalgate, for just one example), but it might be good to have in play alongside the 5 000 dollar payouts, as they both fall pretty easily, if not entirely accurately, into the broadly perceived vicinity of "bribery".