4 Trillion divided by 300 Million equals...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for helium_flash
#1 Posted by helium_flash (9245 posts) -

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

Avatar image for fastesttruck
#2 Posted by fastesttruck (25353 posts) -
each of the folk should get the money so they can save them selfs
Avatar image for Dark-Sithious
#3 Posted by Dark-Sithious (3914 posts) -

Both ideas suck

Avatar image for clembo1990
#4 Posted by clembo1990 (9976 posts) -
Capitalism must die! Working men of all countries unite! Take down your bourgeois oppressors!
Avatar image for CJL13
#5 Posted by CJL13 (19137 posts) -

If everyone had all that money prices would skyrocket.

Avatar image for hamstergeddon
#6 Posted by hamstergeddon (7188 posts) -
We already tried something like that. It was the Economic Stimulus Bill of 2008. Didn't work. Did it?
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#7 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
If you just give someone a large tax rebate they are either going to save it in a bank (a bank that right now probably won't lend it) or pay off debts. Bush tried this last year and Ford tried the same thing in the 70's.
Avatar image for helium_flash
#8 Posted by helium_flash (9245 posts) -

We already tried something like that. It was the Economic Stimulus Bill of 2008. Didn't work. Did it? hamstergeddon
That bill only gave every adult like... $200 :lol:.

Avatar image for swazidoughman
#9 Posted by swazidoughman (3521 posts) -

Will the US end up like Animal Farm ?

Avatar image for kemar7856
#10 Posted by kemar7856 (11743 posts) -

thats a bad idea people
1.thats socalism it will cost an inflation in prices
2.only temporary people still needs jobs

Avatar image for horgen
#11 Posted by Horgen (116365 posts) -
Maybe you could pay your debt with that money :P
Avatar image for MarioRPGer
#12 Posted by MarioRPGer (11345 posts) -

Will the US end up like Animal Farm ?

swazidoughman

I really hope we dont turn into animals.

Avatar image for Pirate700
#13 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

Neither are great but the idea of the citizens getting it is better, but ONLY if the people actually spend it and don't just put it away.

Avatar image for kemar7856
#14 Posted by kemar7856 (11743 posts) -

[QUOTE="swazidoughman"]

Will the US end up like Animal Farm ?

MarioRPGer

I really hope we dont turn into animals.

communism sucks lol
Avatar image for limpbizkit818
#15 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15044 posts) -

Neither are great but the idea of the citizens getting it is better, but ONLY if the people actually spend it and don't just put it away.

Pirate700
Why is everyone in this country so against savings? Savings is good. Anyway, both ideas are bad. How about we not give out free money?
Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
#16 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -
Neither would work.
Avatar image for Bourbons3
#17 Posted by Bourbons3 (24248 posts) -

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

helium_flash
And everyone would simply save most of it, like they did with the rebate. Saving money doesn't help the economy. If everyone was going to spend the bulk of that, then it might help. But in this case, the government knows more on how to save the economy than the average person.
Avatar image for spazzx625
#18 Posted by spazzx625 (43433 posts) -
Considering a lot of that money is a loan, I'm fine with not owing the government that much money.
Avatar image for Pirate700
#19 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Neither are great but the idea of the citizens getting it is better, but ONLY if the people actually spend it and don't just put it away.

limpbizkit818

Why is everyone in this country so against savings? Savings is good. Anyway, both ideas are bad. How about we not give out free money?

We already saved. The problem was people spending beyond their means which is what got us intot his mess. Spending is good. The economy depends on it. The problem now is some people are afraid to spend at all. The citizens are the main issue.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
#20 Posted by Bourbons3 (24248 posts) -
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Neither are great but the idea of the citizens getting it is better, but ONLY if the people actually spend it and don't just put it away.

limpbizkit818
Why is everyone in this country so against savings? Savings is good. Anyway, both ideas are bad. How about we not give out free money?

Saving is good for the person saving. When it comes to the economy as a whole, its the constant movement of money that drives it. And the main way to achieve that is through spending.
Avatar image for Theokhoth
#21 Posted by Theokhoth (36799 posts) -

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

Bourbons3

And everyone would simply save most of it, like they did with the rebate. Saving money doesn't help the economy. If everyone was going to spend the bulk of that, then it might help. But in this case, the government knows more on how to save the economy than the average person.

Are you sure about that?

If the government knew what the hell it was doing then we'd probably not be in this mess in the first place.

Avatar image for kemar7856
#22 Posted by kemar7856 (11743 posts) -
Considering a lot of that money is a loan, I'm fine with not owing the government that much money.spazzx625
well if a company or person declares bankruptcy then they dont have 2 pay it back
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#23 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] Why is everyone in this country so against savings? Savings is good.

Saving would be good if there was an excess of demand, but we aren't facing an excess of demand right now. It is not that there aren't enough goods and services to go around right now, it's quite the opposite. There is plenty of supply but not enough demand for it, and if that problem continues, deflation could become a serious concern.
Avatar image for danjammer69
#24 Posted by danjammer69 (4284 posts) -

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]We already tried something like that. It was the Economic Stimulus Bill of 2008. Didn't work. Did it? helium_flash

That bill only gave every adult like... $200 :lol:.

I got $600 for me and $300 for each of my 2 kids, for a total of $1200. It really helped when I got it, but it certainly is gone now.
Avatar image for danjammer69
#25 Posted by danjammer69 (4284 posts) -
[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Considering a lot of that money is a loan, I'm fine with not owing the government that much money.kemar7856
well if a company or person declares bankruptcy then they dont have 2 pay it back

Not exactly. Chapter 7 allows for complete liquidation, which in turn will not have to be repaid. Chapter 11 puts you on a payment schedule depending on whether or not you could pay back all debt reasonibly within 5 years.
Avatar image for Bourbons3
#26 Posted by Bourbons3 (24248 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

Theokhoth

And everyone would simply save most of it, like they did with the rebate. Saving money doesn't help the economy. If everyone was going to spend the bulk of that, then it might help. But in this case, the government knows more on how to save the economy than the average person.

Are you sure about that?

If the government knew what the hell it was doing then we'd probably not be in this mess in the first place.

So the government gives all the money to the people, not the banks or the corporations. What are people going to spend it all on if the government doesn't bail out companies? And where are people going to save it if all the banks go bust?
Avatar image for Theokhoth
#27 Posted by Theokhoth (36799 posts) -

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"] And everyone would simply save most of it, like they did with the rebate. Saving money doesn't help the economy. If everyone was going to spend the bulk of that, then it might help. But in this case, the government knows more on how to save the economy than the average person.Bourbons3

Are you sure about that?

If the government knew what the hell it was doing then we'd probably not be in this mess in the first place.

So the government gives all the money to the people, not the banks or the corporations. What are people going to spend it all on if the government doesn't bail out companies? And where are people going to save it if all the banks go bust?

I'm not saying we should give the money to the people. If it were up to me, we wouldn't be throwing money around in the first place.

Avatar image for limpbizkit818
#28 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15044 posts) -

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] Why is everyone in this country so against savings? Savings is good. -Sun_Tzu-
Saving would be good if there was an excess of demand, but we aren't facing an excess of demand right now. It is not that there aren't enough goods and services to go around right now, it's quite the opposite. There is plenty of supply but not enough demand for it, and if that problem continues, deflation could become a serious concern.

I assume you are talking about asset deflation and not price deflation?

Savings is the ground work for investment and future consumption. I believe (don't quote me on this one) that the average savings rate in the US in 1960 was around 7%. Now? It's under 0. How much more debt can this country seriously take? We need to get our mindset out of the 1990's: those consumption levels are not coming back. People are making less now then they were 8 years ago, and unemployment is higher. The government needs to encourage savings simply because we have no more moeny to spend.

Sorry for the long reply time, but I'm a little busy right now.

Avatar image for Vandalvideo
#29 Posted by Vandalvideo (39655 posts) -
I'm not saying we should give the money to the people. If it were up to me, we wouldn't be throwing money around in the first place.Theokhoth
Yeah, we should just let all those banks fail and have everyone's savings totally dissappear. Heck, it would reduce everyone down to a 100K saving baseline. I don't know about you, but I would lose a couple thousand in saving if that were to happen. Banks failing = no no. Businesses failing = yay yay.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#30 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] Why is everyone in this country so against savings? Savings is good. limpbizkit818

Saving would be good if there was an excess of demand, but we aren't facing an excess of demand right now. It is not that there aren't enough goods and services to go around right now, it's quite the opposite. There is plenty of supply but not enough demand for it, and if that problem continues, deflation could become a serious concern.

I assume you are talking about asset deflation and not price deflation?

Savings is the ground work for investment and future consumption. I believe (don't quote me on this one) that the average savings rate in the US in 1960 was around 7%. Now? It's under 0. How much more debt can this country seriously take? We need to get our mindset out of the 1990's: those consumption levels are not coming back. People are making less now then they were 8 years ago, and unemployment is higher. The government needs to encourage savings simply because we have no more moeny to spend.

Sorry for the long reply time, but I'm a little busy right now.

No, I'm referring to price deflation. Price deflation right now can trigger a deflationary spiral, where prices decrease which then results in lower production which leads to lower wages, lower employment, and ultimately lower demand, and because of the lower demand prices would continue to go down further and the whole cycle repeats itself.
Avatar image for McJugga
#31 Posted by McJugga (9453 posts) -
Instead of giving money to auto companies, why don't they pay for part of the bill when someone buys a new car. Or is that not a good idea?
Avatar image for Franko_3
#32 Posted by Franko_3 (5729 posts) -
Basic economy, if you give 10 000$ to everyrone price will inflate, because the company know that you have more $ in your pocket. So that sexy, but almost useless, 1080p hd-tv at 1500$ will be 3000$-5000$.
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#33 Posted by foxhound_fox (96695 posts) -

Never going to happen. The modern western politicians don't have the foresight to understand what doing that sort of thing could do to benefit the economy.

Avatar image for EmyrsII
#34 Posted by EmyrsII (286 posts) -

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]We already tried something like that. It was the Economic Stimulus Bill of 2008. Didn't work. Did it? helium_flash

That bill only gave every adult like... $200 :lol:.

it was 600$ actually.

Avatar image for EmyrsII
#35 Posted by EmyrsII (286 posts) -

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

helium_flash

well know after the census coming up.. but your figures are off..
its more like 375million in the states, and 310-325 over 18

im all for giving this new kind of spending a chance.. after years of taxcuts in a worsening economy, they havent been enough to bouy it. besides, i dont need to see every 20yr old driving around a new escalade just because they got $15k from the government and think they can afford it now.

some people may be smart with how they use money, but you should know that doesnt hold true to the majority of people in the US.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#36 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

EmyrsII

well know after the census coming up.. but your figures are off..
its more like 375million in the states, and 310-325 over 18

im all for giving this new kind of spending a chance.. after years of taxcuts in a worsening economy, they havent been enough to bouy it. besides, i dont need to see every 20yr old driving around a new escalade just because they got $15k from the government and think they can afford it now.

some people may be smart with how they use money, but you should know that doesnt hold true to the majority of people in the US.

Thats because we are a nation of borrowers.. The majority of the wealth to the United States did not increase it merely was a fantasy backed by borrowing.. And who can blame them? Look at the costs of numerous things! College for instance are reaching ridiculous prices, where high pay jobs like successful doctors will find them selves paying off their debt for years..

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#37 Posted by comp_atkins (34300 posts) -

If everyone had all that money prices would skyrocket.

CJL13
/thread
Avatar image for cametall
#38 Posted by cametall (7692 posts) -

Both ideas suck

Dark-Sithious
This ^^^^
Avatar image for McJugga
#39 Posted by McJugga (9453 posts) -
Thats because we are a nation of borrowers.sSubZerOo
You are a nation of Kramers!
Avatar image for darkmark91
#40 Posted by darkmark91 (3027 posts) -

How about give half the money to the people and half to the banks?

Avatar image for Famiking
#41 Posted by Famiking (4879 posts) -

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

helium_flash
$13,333.33, because the average American family size is 3 or 4.
Avatar image for helium_flash
#42 Posted by helium_flash (9245 posts) -

Neither are great but the idea of the citizens getting it is better, but ONLY if the people actually spend it and don't just put it away.

Pirate700

If the government issued it out over a period of... saaaaay... two years, then I think a large amount of it would be spent.

Avatar image for remmbermytitans
#43 Posted by remmbermytitans (7214 posts) -

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

helium_flash
Oh, I could totally spend $13,333. Why don't they just spread it out that way?!
Avatar image for helium_flash
#44 Posted by helium_flash (9245 posts) -

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

$13,333.33.

That is how much every American citizen could get if the government instead bailed out the people instead of the banks. There are 75 million children in the USA. If we take away the children, then every adult would get...

$17,777.78.

Which bailout do you think would work?

remmbermytitans

Oh, I could totally spend $13,333. Why don't they just spread it out that way?!

Is that sarcasm or anger?

Avatar image for kono11
#45 Posted by kono11 (947 posts) -

That's a hefty sum of money! :P

Avatar image for trubluah
#46 Posted by trubluah (3678 posts) -
Time to move to canada and france guys
Avatar image for mutenpika
#47 Posted by mutenpika (2940 posts) -
So... uh... say we don't bail out the banks. Invariably, they fail and then suddenly NOBODY has any money. I understand you want moolah now, but getting the money yourself will produce nothing except for a momentary boost. Without a credit source, there's almost no room for social mobility, for entrepreneurship, for any sort of economic growth at all: we get a boost to existing industries for a month, then we're right back where we started. It's an instant-gratification "solution." It might look bad to see the banks getting the money, but it's the only way to stabilize this and get us back on our feet. Give the banks their stability and a few more regulations, and the healing can begin. EDIT: Remember FDR's first priority? Saving the banks.