General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYes. Some "un-derserving" people will get a check from the govt. So what.
And, they may spend it on alcohol. Again, so what. Every dollar that the government sends out will be spent. And, every spent dollar keeps multiple people employed.
So, let's say they buy booze. Okay, the liquor store owner makes a sale and stays open. S/he pays their distributor to re-stock inventory. That distributor pays truck drivers to deliver the booze and rent on a warehouse to store the booze. They then pay the maker for more inventory. The booze maker pays their employees. And on and on and on.
catrose
(5,068 posts)People buying beer means he gets to keep delivering beer, which the company pays him to do. Win-win-win-win.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,516 posts)elleng
(130,995 posts)their incomes are not jeopardized by 'isolation,' as one example.
Yavin4
(35,443 posts)The problem is figuring out who "needs it" and who doesn't will take a long time and cause a lot of unnecessary pain. More importantly, it will push the economy from being in recession to being in depression.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)... quibbling about 700 checks out of 210 million is pointless.
The same with regards to cutting checks to people who don't financially need it. We can cut checks now and help people, or we can get bogged down in negotiating the details. AoC is right, we can claw the money back from the people who didn't need it later.
bullimiami
(13,099 posts)But it appears the sticking points are on the stupid slush fund and getting protections for workers. Those are important. Luckily it looks like Democrats are ok with the checks now. But hopefully this is solved very soon as the nation needs big help.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,360 posts)more than what they need. "Deserve" is used as a weapon and ultimately hurts those who need help.