In my opinion, it feels more like damaged image management to me.

Direct cash flow to citizens gives immediate association to the source of the cash and helps restore faith in the current US economic system and government, or at least makes people a little less cranky to soften the blow.

People want change and these issues are further highlighting massive systemic problems in the US to the population at large who are already looking for significant change.

To most, a onetime $1000 (the idea that was floating, this could be different) may pay one months rent or part of it to some, but it's not going to help when it comes to layoffs and downsizing businesses are sure to follow up with. To me, the elephant in the room will be medical expenses many are sure to incur and their associated fallout that's going to be very hard to make people forget.

> suspend debt payments and interest growth?

You could do this with the major banks and associations, but poorer Americans are already unbanked and have no available credit.

In addition, where a major component of our economy is housing and that's a major concern; there are many private landlords that depend on that income; targeting just landlords with a credit would require an entire amdministration.

One of the goals of UBI is it cuts the bureaucracy. Instead of a person or group of people deciding who benefits how, it goes to everybody indiscriminately.

The debt payments go to someone. Suspending those still creates a cashflow hole.

I haven’t fully thought through the effects of handing out cash, just wanted to point out that suspending debts isn’t costless. Landlords would reduce spending, and banks might slip into crisis.

And what of those with no debt, but who can’t work due to virus? Or those with debt, but who can’t work? They still need to eat.

You would also have to suspend payments for food, paying rent, child care, health care, heating, ... The list of potential things that has to be suspended is endlessly large and by picking winners you are potentially creating a moral hazard. Rich homeowners with mortgages get bailed out while renters who have missed one payment may miss their second and third one and then get thrown out.

because some people might need to buy food

I feel like that would advantage folks who have a lot of debt ... who in fact might actually be not in need of assistance as it might otherwise seem.

You’re suggesting a handout to house owners (especially those with large houses) over renters would be better?

Actually, we should be paying Interest only for the next few months. The Principal should be deferred.

I think someone pointed this out in a recent discussion that handing out money is literally 100x simpler than fiddling with debt payment, interest collection and other sort of fianicial tools which may have unforeseeable consequences.

Giving money universally benefits people universally. Suspending debt payments only benefits those who (irresponsibly?) took on lots of leverage.

If you give money (enough to cover debt payments etc). It's the same thing but you can keep taxing people who can pay debt without problem.

Because then the banks will go under. The government isn't the recipient of loan payments.

I suspect it will need a bit of both.

Does it have to be one or the other?