MountainBiker
Veteran Member
The broad brush aspect of this whole thing confuses me vs the feds having used a more targeted approach. Most of those who have lost their jobs will be making more than they were when they were working due to the extra $600 per week being tacked on. Retirees such as myself continue to still have the same income we had before this all started. Most of those who are still working still have their full pay. It would seem to me that they should have targeted those who are still working but have had hours or wages cut and independent contractors, gig economy workers, and (very) small business owners who have substantially lost their income but who don't qualify for unemployment. This is especially so given it is all deficit spending we are talking about. This isn't giving us back our hard earned tax dollars. It is all borrowed money that can never be paid back.
If we add in the fact that there is a substantial chunk of the population that doesn't have a pressing need for the money and will just leave it sit in a bank account, maybe part of the unstated purpose if this broad brush approach was to shore up banks with this infusion of cash without having to admit the intent was to shore up banks.
If we add in the fact that there is a substantial chunk of the population that doesn't have a pressing need for the money and will just leave it sit in a bank account, maybe part of the unstated purpose if this broad brush approach was to shore up banks with this infusion of cash without having to admit the intent was to shore up banks.