[chrisk]

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now. Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank. A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

[chrisk]

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now. Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank. A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.