RainDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 03:14 PM
Original message |
|
since a bail out will mean hyperinflation, since we're looking at a recession anyway, I have a simple question to ask.
with a population of a little over 300 million, wouldn't a better use of funds be a direct investment in Americans? If every adult in the U.S. received a "rebate" or "stimulus package" of, say, 100k, wouldn't people be able to renegotiate loans with stable banking institutions?
wouldn't people be able to buy a Prius, or a more energy-efficient refridge or gas heater, or put solar panels on their roofs... they could get health insurance and medication.
yes, we could see inflation that way too. we could also see people get out of bad debt or afford college for their kids.
isn't that a more effective use of taxpayer funds than throwing huge amts of money at the crooks who have already demonstrated they are not worth the public trust?
what politician, in a month before an election, is going to vote against this one?
why does the redistribution of wealth in this country only seem acceptable when it benefits a very small minority that doesn't need the money anyway?
greenbriar had a thread about this with some large sum - and sort of as a joke - but honestly, no one is going to stop working with a 100k stimulus check.
if we're going to have hyperinflation with the money the fed is printing up now, why does it have to have its hardest impact on those least able to withstand this?
|
amdezurik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 03:16 PM
Response to Original message |
1. that in itself would trigger hyper-inflation |
|
after all to get 100k in the hands of 300 million people would require the presses to be printing money 24/7 for years.
|
RainDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. but if it's going to happen anyway... |
|
how is it better for banks that have failed to get this money, spend outrageous amts. on a few people, still leave people homeless or unable to pay for college for their kids, etc. etc...
oh, and of course, to pay for this, top tax rates would increase, or rather there would be a temporary surtax on incomes above, say, 3 million.
|
anarch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 03:16 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I would pay off my debt, buy some food, maybe pay a couple months rent in advance, and probably not have a whole lot left over. That probably wouldn't help the economy very much.
|
RainDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. no, not just your purchase alone, would it? |
|
but we're not just talking about you.
|
Jim__
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-30-08 03:40 PM
Response to Original message |
3. wouldn't people be able to buy a Prius? |
|
Edited on Tue Sep-30-08 03:41 PM by Jim__
Not unless they could knock out Priuses about as fast as they could print that money. Knocking out the Priuses might be a little more difficult. :shrug:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 07:19 PM
Response to Original message |