It's weird how the national debt is only a problem when the proposal is helping ordinary people and never a problem when the proposal is to go to war overseas.

12.5% of the $2T is "helping ordinary people". And some of us have been teargassed protesting wars..

Why is it only 12.5%? Why not 50%? Or 80%?

2,000,000,000,000 / 250,000,000,000 = 12.5%

That's the amount which will be sent out in checks directly to families.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-seeking-85...

Yes, I'm asking why the amount is not larger than that, because it needs to be much larger.

I don't like either and think both are largely wastes of money. In both cases there are always the very few poorest who need help from others and there are always a very few situations where we need to go to war. Would you please stop with the tu quoque now?

Why do we have to stop with the tu quoque, it's a relevant point especially how we are posting anti-drug ships outside of Venezuela and talking about Iran sneak attacking us. Even in the throes of a pandemic we haven't missed a step in trying to throw billion dollar military platforms into useless trillion dollar wars.

Because we're in a thread discussing the virus problem? This is an attempt to derail the very reasonable cost concerns about these gov't bail-outs. Besides, "helping people" already accounts for a much greater portion of our spending and of the national debt. Also, in terms of debt contributed, first bail-out alone is $2T while the military budget is less than one.

You have very few people who agree with you. 95% of the time "the national debt" is only used a cudgel against proposals to help the working class.