[vkou]

> That social support system has to come from taking a slice out of the economy. And who is going to be paying for that social support system while the economy is shut down? There's no god of socialism who will simply rain infinite amounts of manna upon us in the form of debt just because we will it to happen.

Surely, you're aware that we're currently printing money hand-over-fist, to help corporations make ends meet in the short-term? We've already printed 1.7 trillion dollars, for this purpose, and that was entirely at the discretion of the Fed.

When the dust settles, and QE ends, many of those loans will not be made good on.

If a stroke of a pen by an unelected bureaucrat can parachute 1.7 trillion in corporate bailouts, surely, we can figure out how to make grocery bills for a few months.

[owenmarshall]

Helicopter money is fine if it exists to prop up the market. And if it vanishes ~30 minutes after we put it in, who gives a toss?

Helicopter money is never acceptable if it is sent directly to households to ensure they keep spending. It's far preferable to allow the machine to seize up without oil.

This contradiction is somehow the bedrock of American fiscal policy.

[Apes]

There haven't been any bailouts issued yet. Congress is still in the process of working out what the stimulus bill is going to look like.

You're referring to overnight loans made by the federal reserve to facilitate liquidity in the market. If you're not aware of the significance of the difference, this isn't the appropriate place to go over it.

Regardless, the stimulus package is going to have some form of social support in it. My point is just that it's not going to be a free win, it's more of a least bad option at this point. There's going to be long term economic and social damage from this even with the most generous of social support offerings.