The main counterpoint is that this stimulus would be needed to counter massive demand-side deflation.
What we see now it large parts of the stimulus package are devoured by the top level bureaucracy never doing anything but being transferred to Cayman islands as performance bonuses.
How about we try the trickle up economy for once?
We are. The vast majority of the stimulus so far has gone to benefit the bottom 3/4 of the US economically.
Here is some of what's in the $2 trillion recent stimulus:
- $268b to extend & expand unemployment benefits.
- $293b one time check (which won't be one time)
- $377b small business loans & grants; this has been more than doubled since then
- $150b aid to state & local governments
- $153b boost health related spending
- $42b boost to smaller social safety net programs, such as SNAP
- $45b boost to disaster assistance
- $40b boost to education spending
People will attempt to retort that: well, but big corporations have improperly taken some of the small business loans; they'll try to use a rare edge case to attempt to nullify the overwhelming point that in fact most of the stimulus is going to the bottom 3/4, not the top 1%.
Further, we'll do more stimulus programs yet around sending direct checks to individuals, which will continue to tilt this scale in the favor of the bottom 3/4.
The small business loans, unemployment benefits boosters and individual checks also do not have to be paid back, unlike the big business bailouts (such as with the airlines).
Most likely direct checks alone will cost over a trillion dollars before this is over. There is very little capable resistance to doing more in that regard, it will happen.
The gp you're responding to sounds like he/she is talking about personal investment advice to protect an individual's purchasing power (i.e. micro economics).
However, your response is about a macro economic government policy.
Those are 2 different conversations.