It’s not correct to say that people only received $1200. Everyone qualified for that stimulus (depending on income thresholds, it was phased out for higher incomes), regardless of job loss.

Unemployed people receive an additional $600/week from the late-March COVID relief bill through July 31. There are additional measures to extend the duration of regular state unemployment. The combined benefits given to unemployed people are over $10K/person additional, on top of regular state unemployment.

Furthermore, many of the numbers you’re citing are in the form of loans or other non-spending activity. It’s not correct to suggest that we could have simply given that money to the people and arrived at the same budgetary outcome.

I don’t agree with the way all of the funds have been allocated, but suggesting that we could all have received $18K is disingenuous. Proper response should be targeted where needed, such as the unemployment measures and loans for businesses that were forced to close, not just distributed to everyone who kept their jobs and businesses.

This is provably false. It only went to people who filed taxes in 2019 and who met the qualifications.

Despite both of those things still being true, and having lost my job as a direct result of COVID-19, I was still told I would not be receiving the benefits. I was not given a reason by the automated system and I have yet to reach a human being to explain my rejection. I am far from an isolated case

The stimulus check will be part of your 2020 tax return, and you will claim the money as a refund then if you have not already received your money. Any money incorrectly paid out will likewise be reclaimed via that process.

I did not get any notice as such, but my understanding as to why I got $0 was I made too much money to qualify. So I don't think your statement is in any way accurate. It did not go to "everyone"

No, it didn't.

The $1200 went to adults who were not dependents of someone else and who earned less than a certain threshold, with the amount prorated depending on your AGI and your tax filing type (single, married, head of household).

My point was that everyone qualified for it. It wasn’t dependent on losing your job first. You could keep your job and still receive the (up to) $1200 stimulus if your income met the thresholds.

$4T to the FED to prop up the stock market

$700B in forgivable loans to small businesses (PPP program)

$300B in taxpayer stimulus checks

$260B in Unemployment Insurance subsidies

>suggesting that we could all have received $18K is disingenuous. Proper response should be targeted where needed

It is not disingenuous at all to say taxpayers should have received the lions share of these bailouts (bailouts being paid for by taxpayers), or at minimum its not disingenuous to say taxpayers (not law makers beholden to corporate interests) should have dictated where the bailout funds go...I would say it is disingenuous to claim taxpayers would have sent 8x the amount they received to the FED to prop up an overvalued stock market that was already at record highs.

[0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

Reserve Bank credit: 7,009,664

Securities held outright[1]: 6,115,130

[1] Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight securities lending facility (when people talk about JPow money printer go brrr...this is what they are talking about and nearly every night for 2 months after the FED got the $4T overnight the markets would skyrocket)

In 2008, when the banks were "bailed out" - the government used loans - which ultimately turned a profit.

So all of the anger about "socializing the losses and privatizing the gains" was all baloney. Because the taxpayers literally made a profit on the loans they gave to Wall Street.

What’s JP Morgan worth today? That’s a start in calculating how much was stolen from taxpayers.

In a liquidity crunch, perfectly solvent and functional companies can go bankrupt. ...and indeed those that had balance sheets hopelessly underwater DID go bankrupt (ie Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, as well as dozens of other smaller banks).

The fact that the government was able to extend LOANS to other banks is not a "gift" at all, because those loans were paid back with significant interest.

Do you understand, the taxpayer profited from the Wall Street loans of 2008.

Allowing solvent but illiquid companies to go bankrupt is needless economic destruction that serves zero purpose - and the fact that they survived despite having to pay back the gov't loans with interest is evidence of that.

Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 . I understand your sentiment, and it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move.

Another depression wouldn't help anyone, and a majority of Americans have a 401k. The idea that only the super rich benefit from a good stock market is plain wrong - most people depend on it.

Source?

According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1]

[1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...

If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these people to retire is linked to stock performance.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/civilian...

[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...

Also, the vast majority of people shouldn't give two licks about keeping the market high today because the vast majority of people are more than a decade out from retirement. What should have been an event that allowed people to build wealth instead became one to preserve the wealth of those who already have it.

This is like letting your neighbor’s house burn down because you’ve always wanted to buy the land under it.

Whatever that number is, it's going to be much smaller after a stock market crash.

If this isn't a wake up call that individuals have no business managing their own retirement, I don't know what is.

That $18,000 check would have given me the ability to pay off my medical debts immediately, and have complete economic security and peace of mind through COVID.

More importantly people would have stayed home and so we could have tamed the virus which would mean the economy opens up quicker and safer.

This is a people issue and not an economic issue. Dealing it like that would have saved the economy better IMO. Our politicians and companies would never let a good crisis go wasted without appropriating money for themselves.

Take it a step further: All economic issues are really people issues, in one way or another.

The economy exists to serve people. We do not exist to serve it. Whenever there are measures that are "to help the economy", but which are detrimental to ordinary workers, they're not really to help "the economy"—they're to help the people at the very top, at everyone else's expense.

We need to refocus on what helps actual people—what helps the most people—rather than on the misleading abstract of "the economy."

I am assuming you don't know a single person in the 40% that don't have $400 saved up for emergencies.

>it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move.

It isn't without merit...until you look behind the curtain at OZ. The stock market was already in a bubble and we just inflated the bubble even more. P/E ratios in the public markets are beginning to make revenue-less tech unicorns look reasonable.

>a majority of Americans have a 401k

Ok, so they have a conflict of interest in the matter (25% of Americans have no retirement). Of those with a 401K aged 35-44 the median balance is $22k (so its pretty much a wash for them). Then on the very harsh side of things, the free market side, you risked your money by investing, if a portion of your portfolio includes stock in overvalued companies with runaway P/E ratios that didn't have cash reserves to whether the storm, you invested poorly and you should expect taxpayers to bailout your poor investments.

This is an oft misunderstood stat[1][2]. The actual stats from the survey show that 61% of Americans would choose to pay a surprise $400 bill in cash. The remaining people would prefer to use a credit card or other ways of paying. Only around 12% of respondents said they would actually have a hard time paying the bill.

> Ok, so they have a conflict of interest in the matter (25% of Americans have no retirement). Of those with a 401K aged 35-44 the median balance is $22k (so its pretty much a wash for them). Then on the very harsh side of things, the free market side, you risked your money by investing, if a portion of your portfolio includes stock in overvalued companies with runaway P/E ratios that didn't have cash reserves to whether the storm, you invested poorly and you should expect taxpayers to bailout your poor investments.

I think you're moving the goalposts a bit. I could just as easily say "Why should tax payers bail out your poorly chosen career? Just work from home." The point my parent was making is that $6T was allocated for relief but too much of it went to the stock market. My point is that stimulating the stock market has benefits for all. The individual checks sent out should have been bigger, but the question is "Money has been allocated for relief, should a significant amount go towards the stock market?" and the answer is definitely "yes".

If you believe the government should not "bail out" citizens when they need it, that's fine, but be consistent.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...

[2 (non-paywall)] https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2019/06/americ...

An economic depression is bad for everyone. Therefore avoiding an economic depression is good for everyone. Quantitative easing has been shown multiple times to alleviate / avoid massive economic downturns. Therefore QE is beneficial to all.

This is inaccurate. Your savings don't increase until your portfolio is liquidated. If it's liquidated at a time there is blood in the streets, you might has well have taken everything out ahead of time, paid your taxes and been done with it.

The only reason it's "good" to avoid Depressive price movements is because every single academic has demonized the creative destruction resulting from pruning overly wasteful business models. It's unthinkable that people should have all their money anywhere else but in the hands of people virtually guaranteed to not be interested in improving your local community.

Stimulating the stock market was not the right move. You want to talk about putting the money and letting the market do it’s thing, give it to people and let them decide where to put.

Putting the money in the stock market has only benefited those already in the stock market and those with the money to enter it.

Quantitative easing has been shown time and time again to alleviate and avoid economic downturn. Do grocery baggers and bar tenders benefit from an economic depression? Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing.

People need groceries even during a depression. Its often said alcohol is recession proof, in fact alcohol sales seem to thrive even during a pandemic.

I'll tell you what isn't

>Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing.

Actually Bush took out a Stimulus of ~$800-900B before he left office and then Obama took our another $800-$900B when entering office. And I would say the vast majority of people I speak with would rather have seen the banks fail rather than taxpayers bailing them out (for massive fraud they perpetrated to issue bad loans/mortgages and then package them up and sell them to others knowing they were "toxic assets"). Banks used taxpayer money to buy their competitors to concentrate the market and fund foreclosure litigation to foreclose on the taxpayers that bailed them out. In hindsight most people agree the Bush/Obama bailouts should have gone directly to the homeowners, but it was considered a "moral hazard" encouraging bad behavior in the future, whereas ironically they didn't see the moral hazard in rewarding the banks that bear the most responsibility.

Does anyone think that? Bailing out mismanaged financial dinosaurs was a monumentally poor decision. He didn't even have W's excuse: high suggestibility due to low intelligence.

We live in a bubble. There are VAST SWATHES (millions and millions) of people whose ENTIRE NET WORTHS are less than $18,000.

0 - https://www.inquirer.com/news/albertsons-acme-ipo-lubert-202...

1 - https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/why-a-booming-stock-...

"The typical household approaching retirement had $135,000 in combined 401(k)/IRA assets. These assets will provide $600 per month in retirement, an amount whose purchasing power will decline over time with inflation. Moreover, only half of house-holds have any 401(k)-related holdings." [1]

[1] http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/IB_17-18.pdf

You are living in a confirmation bubble, one easily disproven by data. I'm a career engineer and I don't even have a 401k

False. The stock market has zero connection to the health of the actual economy right now, and is only enriching the privileged. Propping up the stock market was a political farce to make it look like the economy is doing fine when it clearly is not.