Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 While fishing the other day, I got chatting with fellow, and the conversation turned to politics. Despite his Bush Derangement Syndrome, he did present a rather simple idea that I hadn't really thought of. What if the original 700 billion dollar bailout had been given to every man, women, and child in this country, instead of to the financial people. He said that would be 10 thousand dollars for everyone. I later checked the math, and it's more like $2300. But still, for a family of four, that would be over $9,000. People could be keeping their homes and cars and the economy would still be going strong. It's an interesting idea. More of a trickle up approach than a trickle down approach. Too late now.
Chump Change Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 We tried that on a smaller scale with the initial Bush stimulus. Granted the numbers were smaller ($1200 per family). I would argue that if they're borrowing money that I as a taxpayer am going to have to pay back, I'd rather have it in my pocket to spend where I deem necessary instead of Nancy, Harry (Bush and Hank too) and their stooges deciding for me where it was spent.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 They would blow every nickel on Obama commemorative plates.
KD in CA Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 They would blow every nickel on Obama commemorative plates. Yeah, but think of the jobs that would create...... .....in China.
blzrul Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 They'd use it to pay down debt they shouldn't have incurred in the first place so the net effect would be nil.
Chef Jim Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 They'd use it to pay down debt they shouldn't have incurred in the first place so the net effect would be nil. So the money would get to the banks and people would reduce their debt? I find the effect anything but nil.
BuckyFillUps Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 If we got the money who would give teh guys on wallstreet the huge bonuses they deserve?
bills_fan Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 The $9,000 would be great....for six months, tops. After those six months....time for round 2....
Chef Jim Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 I really, really, really need a tax break this year not a check.
/dev/null Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Doesn't matter if it's trickle up or trickle down The rest of us are getting p*ssed on full stream
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 While fishing the other day, I got chatting with fellow, and the conversation turned to politics. Despite his Bush Derangement Syndrome, he did present a rather simple idea that I hadn't really thought of. What if the original 700 billion dollar bailout had been given to every man, women, and child in this country, instead of to the financial people. He said that would be 10 thousand dollars for everyone. I later checked the math, and it's more like $2300. But still, for a family of four, that would be over $9,000. People could be keeping their homes and cars and the economy would still be going strong. It's an interesting idea. More of a trickle up approach than a trickle down approach. Too late now. Catch anything?
Fingon Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 When you say trickle up, does that include giving money to the waste products of society?
RkFast Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 While fishing the other day, I got chatting with fellow, and the conversation turned to politics. Despite his Bush Derangement Syndrome, he did present a rather simple idea that I hadn't really thought of. What if the original 700 billion dollar bailout had been given to every man, women, and child in this country, instead of to the financial people. He said that would be 10 thousand dollars for everyone. I later checked the math, and it's more like $2300. But still, for a family of four, that would be over $9,000. People could be keeping their homes and cars and the economy would still be going strong. It's an interesting idea. More of a trickle up approach than a trickle down approach. Too late now. You think nine grand is going to really allow people to keep their homes and cars? Where the !@#$ do you live? Tibet?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 While fishing the other day, I got chatting with fellow, and the conversation turned to politics. Despite his Bush Derangement Syndrome, he did present a rather simple idea that I hadn't really thought of. What if the original 700 billion dollar bailout had been given to every man, women, and child in this country, instead of to the financial people. He said that would be 10 thousand dollars for everyone. I later checked the math, and it's more like $2300. But still, for a family of four, that would be over $9,000. People could be keeping their homes and cars and the economy would still be going strong. It's an interesting idea. More of a trickle up approach than a trickle down approach. Too late now. I like this idea, but I think that it will only buy some time on the economic front. If people are in mortgages they can't afford and with the unemployment front only getting worse, the only thing the government could do is pay down (forgive a portion of a mortgage in return for a bank lowering the month note.) If the government is going assume these mortgages anyway, doesn't it make sense to keep people in their homes? Then, whatever income they do have could be used for consumer goods which would actually stimulate the economy and then the banks would eventually get their money back. But it would have to be only for those going into foreclosure proceeding etc. I am not sure what the side effects of this are. Maybe that housing prices would not fall as far as they need to.... Obviously added debt to the government, which is not good.
finknottle Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 While fishing the other day, I got chatting with fellow, and the conversation turned to politics. Despite his Bush Derangement Syndrome, he did present a rather simple idea that I hadn't really thought of. What if the original 700 billion dollar bailout had been given to every man, women, and child in this country, instead of to the financial people. He said that would be 10 thousand dollars for everyone. I later checked the math, and it's more like $2300. But still, for a family of four, that would be over $9,000. People could be keeping their homes and cars and the economy would still be going strong. It's an interesting idea. More of a trickle up approach than a trickle down approach. Too late now. That is confusing the purpose of the original 700 billion. It was not intended to stimulate the economy, ala a tax cut or trickle down economics. It was intended specifically to unfreeze the credit markets - banks lost confidence and were paralyzed in their lending. So in your scenario, everybody gets 9k and, for purposes of argument, sets out on a spending binge which hopefully will lift the markets. But what would have happened on payday, when their company couldn't make payroll because they couldn't get a short-term payroll loan? How good is the 9k going to be when everybody is laid off because of accounting glitches? Or how far does that 9k go in buying a house when the banks are afraid to pick up another mortgage? That's the big problem with the discussion of the stimulous package and the auto bailouts. Everybody wants to point to TARP and say 'see, they got their bailout to save their jobs, where is mine?' TARP wasn't about saving jobs (as anybody formally in the financial secter will tell you) nor was it about stimulating the economy. It was supposed to be a targeted response to a particular acute problem in the market. One can argue whether it was the right response, or whether it has been implemented well, but don't use politics to redefine its purpose.
/dev/null Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 When you say trickle up, does that include giving money to the waste products of society? What do the Dallas Cowboys have to do with this?
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 27, 2009 Author Posted January 27, 2009 You think nine grand is going to really allow people to keep their homes and cars? Where the !@#$ do you live? Tibet? No, that's what he said. I just hadn't thought of it in those terms. As several people here have said, it's probably just a six month delay of the inevitable. But, I wonder how it would have went over if we were told the government is going to give the financial institutions $2300 for every man, woman and child that lives here.
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 While fishing the other day, I got chatting with fellow, and the conversation turned to politics. Despite his Bush Derangement Syndrome, he did present a rather simple idea that I hadn't really thought of. What if the original 700 billion dollar bailout had been given to every man, women, and child in this country, instead of to the financial people. He said that would be 10 thousand dollars for everyone. I later checked the math, and it's more like $2300. But still, for a family of four, that would be over $9,000. People could be keeping their homes and cars and the economy would still be going strong. It's an interesting idea. More of a trickle up approach than a trickle down approach. Too late now. It wasn't an economic stimulus, it was an emergency bailout of the credit markets. If you'd distributed it across all Americans, the credit markets still would have caved in, and it ultimately wouldn't have done much, if any, good for the people that received it anyway.
Adam Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 They'd use it to pay down debt they shouldn't have incurred in the first place so the net effect would be nil. Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't a massive credit payoff free up more credit to be spent- not that buying on credit is a good thing, but....... If it makes sense in my head, shouldn't it make sense?
Recommended Posts