1) I'm against it on principle as I would be any welfare, which is just the government forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another. This would be my "ideal-world" response if we were starting from ground zero in building a country.

2) Since we're not starting a country from scratch, and since there's no consensus at all to get rid of welfare or get the deficit under control, I'd be in favor of the checks in the "real world" AS AN ALTERNATIVE to the other spending nonsense in the bill/related bill (e.g., foreign aid), which is what Trump has essentially called for (but won't get). As for the $2,000 amount itself, it's almost irrelevant -- just pick a number from a hat. With that said, based on the amount given to other interests, $2,000 does not seem like too much in context.

3) I'd take issue with calling it "socialism" in this instance, as the economic pain has been caused almost entirely by the government itself (e.g., business closures/restrictions). It's akin to a takings clause/eminent domain scenario in that people should be compensated by the government when the government destroys their livelihoods, which is what has happened here. The checks aren't the only solution, as the PPP is another program dedicated to the same problem, but direct cash payments to people is probably the most efficient way to handle this fiasco at the federal level.


[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 12/28/2020 3:59PM]