3 ms·

[EDIT] - Ignore. The article summary and the article are unrelated so my comment is unrelated. I can't read beyond the summary, but this is true in my experien

[EDIT] - Ignore. The article summary and the article are unrelated so my comment is unrelated. I can't read beyond the summary, but this is true in my experience: > Its hastly designed scheme sent much of its relief money to people who didn't need it My neighbor's granddaughter (age 18 or so) got relief money to the tune of more than she had ever earned in her life. She got purses. Many of them. My wife's friend got relief money atop unemployment. She was a waitress and stopped working during the time and she was making more than she could if she was working. A buddy's friend's work strategically cut hours so employees could get the relief checks atop their pay for a net pay increase. On the other side, my dad's work dried up and he was able to stretch things due to the checks.

NationalPark 5y ago
The article is about PPP, which gave out forgivable loans in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to businesses and self-employed individuals. The total cost of this was about the same as the direct payment stimulus checks, but went to about 10m borrowers rather than the ~150m who received the checks. As for your anecdotes, it was sort of the point of giving people money that they would spend it, "stimulating" the economy. It was not intended to become a nest egg or to satisfy some cosmically appropriate amount of money for an 18 year old to have. It's macroeconomic policy, not moral policy. In many cases, the cost of doing means testing so you don't accidentally overpay someone you think is undeserving is more than the amount saved.