5 ms·

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 stro

by maratd 7y ago

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.

tjr225 7y ago
> I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you. * facepalm * I'll edit to clarify.
CubsFan1060 7y ago
$2500. Kids were worth $500 I guess.
danenania 7y ago
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.
wonderwonder 7y ago
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.
- maratd 7y ago
  > 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.
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    > 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.)
    - maratd 7y ago
      >> charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. > All of those things have displayed discrimination against groups they don't like in the past, or have an overt or covert missionary agenda. The welfare office discriminates against groups they don't like? It has an overt missionary agenda? This is news to me.
  - izzydata 7y ago
    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.
  - 7y ago

by maratd 7y ago

tjr225 7y ago

> I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you. * facepalm * I'll edit to clarify.

CubsFan1060 7y ago

$2500. Kids were worth $500 I guess.

danenania 7y ago

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.

wonderwonder 7y ago

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.

maratd 7y ago
> 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.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > 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.)
  - maratd 7y ago
    >> charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. > All of those things have displayed discrimination against groups they don't like in the past, or have an overt or covert missionary agenda. The welfare office discriminates against groups they don't like? It has an overt missionary agenda? This is news to me.
- izzydata 7y ago
  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.
- 7y ago