I think this is a profoundly bad idea. It's just as dumb as the fed trying to prop things up. You're not going to solve this problem with money, but with a strong response to the root cause, the pandemic. That said ...
> My wife and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we all still need to eat
I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you.
People working many hourly jobs net less than $1,000 per month and cannot afford to take unpaid time off. So they go to work and spread the virus. Providing them and others with enough money to at least cover their most dire bills reduces that need to go to work sick. If money is not provided to these people, the odds that they are soon homeless if their work closes down is very real.
~40% of America cannot afford a $400 emergency, all of those people are at real risk of hunger and homelessness.
Giving everyone cash allows the country the freedom to implement programs that run a real chance of preventing the spread. It also goes a long way towards preventing societal chaos as people without savings and suddenly no income are now provided a way to continue living and feeding their families.
> People working many hourly jobs net less than $1,000 per month and cannot afford to take unpaid time off.
Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance.
Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it. That's just redistribution of wealth by another means. Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic.
"Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance."
This probably works well in upper class neighborhoods, but a good portion of the US don't live in communities with much to spare. People unable to afford a $400 emergency or who rely on schools to ensure their children have at least one good meal a day generally dont have much to share with their neighbor. Most of the community organizations that serve those communities are in the same boat. Your suggestion also removes a good portion of people who don't attend religious services. Charities are limited in what they can provide.
Unemployment is difficult. For example to be eligible, Florida requires "You must be able to work, available to work, and actively seeking work. This includes being able to get to a job and have child care if necessary." Not many people hiring in the middle of a pandemic and further complicated by the closing of schools.
"Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it."
~75% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and 40% of US citizens cant afford a $400 emergency meaning that most of them do indeed need it.
"Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic." - You seem upset which I can completely understand in this stressful time but please note; looking to ensure that people, especially children have food to eat and can afford their most basic of bill should not be seen as a political agenda, its simply trying to be a good human.
Your point is absolutely valid, but there is no reason why the same doesn't apply to this new scheme as well. You would need to distribute the money and the same distribution problems apply. People are people.
Give everybody $1k? Who's everybody? If you're in this country illegally, do you get $1k? What about people who got stranded here due to border closures? How are you going to identify people? How will you stop fraud, double dipping, etc?
Maybe instead of creating a new bureaucracy in the middle of a crisis, use the existing systems that are already in place and just pump more cash into them?
I think focusing on 1, 10 or 100 people double dipping or potentially getting funds they should not have is besides the point. We implement this to keep people from starving and going hungry. Plenty of time to track down people who abuse the system after the crisis. As far as distribution that's not an impediment. The IRS already has a list of people and addresses and we can mail them a check. Is it complete? who knows but its a start and probably covers 95% of people. Not doing anything because of bleeding edge cases is not a solution.
The existing systems you mentioned before are not setup for mass distribution. There is no way the local unemployment office can scale up to 100x. In addition we are not going to just give money to the other private entities to distribute as they are not equipped to do so.
This. The purpose of the money is to address the immediate demand shortfall. We have until December to figure out who might have gotten more than their fair share and claw it back. Hell, even if a fair chunk is wired to Central America it will mean those people won’t starve.
We need to be A-10 Warthogging cash now and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> charities ... churches, synagogues, etc., and frankly good old fashioned neighborly assistance
All of those things have displayed discrimination against groups they don't like in the past, or have an overt or covert missionary agenda. Charities have also come under fire for spending much of their funds raised on high executive salaries and not so much on actual aid to the needy. It is no surprise that much of the developed world no longer considers them a reasonable social safety net. (Indeed, in the Nordic countries the churches have largely given up their historical niche as a distributor of charity, since they feel the state can do a better job of taking care of the needy than they can.)
You could cut out the vast majority of giving people $1000 they don't need by only giving it to people that ask for it. If you wanted to go further you could check the persons last tax return. If they exceed some threshold then you could deny them.
You're right, I don't get it. Its much better to have these people who are suffering under an economic collapse outside of their control go to work sick, and spread the virus before finally losing their jobs and homes and go without food instead of getting money and then using that money to buy necessities and in turn stimulate the economy. In addition the people who's children relied on school lunches should be glad they are not getting money to feed them so as to keep it out of the hands of big industry. Thank you for illuminating my ignorance I was blind to it before.
A strong response to the pandemic will leave millions of people with no income. Many have zero in savings. These issues are tightly coupled: we can't expect people to make the right choices for everyone if doing so threatens their survival.
> My wife and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we all still need to eat
I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you.