> Government should NOT provide relief.

Why? Isn't this one of the very core responsibilities of a government? Otherwise what would be the point of having a government to begin with?

> They didn't even discuss alternative solutions.

Which solutions do you have in mind? I mean, you mentioned QE and arguably QE has been going on for a decade or so.

> Otherwise what would be the point of having a government to begin with?

You tell me. It seems the reasons keep expanding.

Ostensibly governments were initially for defense of a nation. People even resisted the creation of the US federal government. Unfortunately even then there were financiers willing to lend against future taxation for the expense of qwelling dissent.

In these conversations consent of the governed, and the source of the 'relief' is never considered.

>Ostensibly governments were initially for defense of a nation.

Can you elaborate on this conclusion? At least in the U.S., the Constitution explicitly defines responsibilities of the government that go beyond national defense.

One-time taxes is the alternative I suggested. That's what they did in parts of Europe after WW2. QE is not a valid option in my opinion.

> One-time taxes is the alternative I suggested. That's what they did in parts of Europe after WW2.

Why do you believe that creating/increasing taxes all on itself will address the problem caused by a) economic stagnation, b) workers seeing themselves out of a job and without a paycheck?

I'm not sure if I understand your question. I simply suggest that people should be paid using one time tax income by the state instead of being paid by newly printed money. Of course the taxes need to be targeted at people who have enough money to pay it and not at people who need it.