Two straightforward questions should be asked of every Keynesian or monetarist (i.e., a monetary rather than a fiscal Keynesian):
1. If you agree that increasing everyone's cash balance by the same amount and somehow making everyone aware that such an increase has occurred makes it impossible to increase aggregate spending (since under such conditions the prices of all goods and services, including factors of productions, will, ceteris paribus, instantaneously adjust upward), then how on earth do you plan to achieve such an effect by increasing cash balances of the select few in the world of ineradicable uncertainty?
2. If you agree that doing the above will falsify economic calculation and effect a redistribution of income from the totality of private property owners to the most immediate recipients of newly created money, and if you claim that these results will trigger a psychological reaction whereby people's time preferences are going to increase (hence making at least some of them willing and able to spend more), then why would you not advocate equipping everyone with his or her own money printing machine, making toilet paper a legal tender, etc., all of which would make "liquidity provision"/"quantitative easing" much easier and more expedient?
Notice that the above questions do not even contest the preposterous view that spending rather than saving and investing is the driving force of the economy.