> My wife and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we all still need to eat
I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you.
~40% of America cannot afford a $400 emergency, all of those people are at real risk of hunger and homelessness.
Giving everyone cash allows the country the freedom to implement programs that run a real chance of preventing the spread. It also goes a long way towards preventing societal chaos as people without savings and suddenly no income are now provided a way to continue living and feeding their families.
Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance.
Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it. That's just redistribution of wealth by another means. Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic.
All of those things have displayed discrimination against groups they don't like in the past, or have an overt or covert missionary agenda. Charities have also come under fire for spending much of their funds raised on high executive salaries and not so much on actual aid to the needy. It is no surprise that much of the developed world no longer considers them a reasonable social safety net. (Indeed, in the Nordic countries the churches have largely given up their historical niche as a distributor of charity, since they feel the state can do a better job of taking care of the needy than they can.)
> All of those things have displayed discrimination against groups they don't like in the past, or have an overt or covert missionary agenda.
The welfare office discriminates against groups they don't like? It has an overt missionary agenda? This is news to me.
This probably works well in upper class neighborhoods, but a good portion of the US don't live in communities with much to spare. People unable to afford a $400 emergency or who rely on schools to ensure their children have at least one good meal a day generally dont have much to share with their neighbor. Most of the community organizations that serve those communities are in the same boat. Your suggestion also removes a good portion of people who don't attend religious services. Charities are limited in what they can provide.
Unemployment is difficult. For example to be eligible, Florida requires "You must be able to work, available to work, and actively seeking work. This includes being able to get to a job and have child care if necessary." Not many people hiring in the middle of a pandemic and further complicated by the closing of schools.
"Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it." ~75% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and 40% of US citizens cant afford a $400 emergency meaning that most of them do indeed need it.
"Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic." - You seem upset which I can completely understand in this stressful time but please note; looking to ensure that people, especially children have food to eat and can afford their most basic of bill should not be seen as a political agenda, its simply trying to be a good human.
Give everybody $1k? Who's everybody? If you're in this country illegally, do you get $1k? What about people who got stranded here due to border closures? How are you going to identify people? How will you stop fraud, double dipping, etc?
Maybe instead of creating a new bureaucracy in the middle of a crisis, use the existing systems that are already in place and just pump more cash into them?
The existing systems you mentioned before are not setup for mass distribution. There is no way the local unemployment office can scale up to 100x. In addition we are not going to just give money to the other private entities to distribute as they are not equipped to do so.
We need to be A-10 Warthogging cash now and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
* facepalm * I'll edit to clarify.