Sending money to every American whether they need it or not is just plain stupid.
Economists disagree with you friend, Irk. These same economists point to the Spring of 2020 when the GPD didn't take a hit as it should have because folks used that money in the economy. Frankly, there should the been another infusion last Summer 2020.
Dr. Baker and fellow researchers looked at how recipients spent their stimulus checks. The surprising find was the spending behavior was very different depending on how much cash people had in the bank. The people who had $3,000 or more in their checking accounts had no response to the appearance of their stimulus check. So the stimulus checks to those with cash in the bank did nothing to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, those who maintained accounts with $500 or less spent almost half of the deposits—44.5 cents per every dollar—within 10 days. The stimulus checks to those with little cash in the bank, resulted in 44.5% of the check amount going back into the economy in 10 days, which further stimulated the economy.
The other finding of the research was that people used the stimulus checks to pay for food, household items, bills, and rent. Unlike stimulus funds in the past, this money wasn’t used for purchase of durable goods such as electronics, furniture, or cars. So the stimulus checks didn’t stimulate the hard-hit areas of the economy like manufacturing or retail.
Yet some liberals are hesitant or outright against the checks. "There is no good economic argument for the $2,000 checks," writes economist Larry Summers in Bloomberg. Paul Krugman is more measured in The New York Times, arguing that a better focus would be "on enhanced unemployment benefits for the millions of workers who, thanks to the pandemic, have no income at all." In the Washington Post, Catherine Rampell frets that checks are "not a terribly efficient use of resources."
So, not all economists.
How eager they are to be slaves - Tiberius Caesar
Coulda tripped out easy, but I've changed my ways - Donovan