You should turn on the news. Obama is already trying to sell a 825 billion dollar stimulus package and he wants the rest of the TARP funds released.

So yes your going to be very disappointed.

In retrospect, per person, that really isn't a lot of money at all. Less than 30k? It wouldn't do much.

I don't have a better plan. I wouldn't have a plan at all.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
In retrospect, per person, that really isn't a lot of money at all. Less than 30k? It wouldn't do much.

I don't have a better plan. I wouldn't have a plan at all.

You must be kidding me? There are HOUSES out there for that much, or a little over that are perfectly fine for a family. Not in areas such as LA, NY, but there ARE many, nice, livable conditions out there that are cheap,

If somebody is behind, lets say 10,000 dollars on house and credit card payments, that person is certainly doing something financially irresponsible and they would then deserve such penalties.

My family is living pretty good IMO. I just do not see how somebody could get so far behind in debt that 27,000 dollars could not bring you back on your feet for good. By debt I do not mean the amount you still owe, I mean the amount of money you have yet to pay for your scheduled payments.

There are many folks out there living in huge houses with new cars and can not afford it. There needs to be some type of financial responsibility.
This is off-topic but SERIOUSLY, if a person gets that far behind they have not been mature. I do understand there are cases out there and I do not speak for EVERY single person, but for the majority I do believe 27,000 would be a pretty nice picker upper.

The problem with all this money is also that it is not used for what it is supposed to be used for. The situation would be a lot less worse regarding the housing crisis if the govt. actually regulated the billions and trillions they gave out of imaginary money. Notice I did not say tax payer money - because it has already been blown.

I am by no means an economic scientist...this just seems like common sense.

edit- This is a random quote and not sure how valid it is. I believe I read about 50% of Americans say they are struggling? Now how many of those are living beyond their means? Lets just say 33% of the population got sh*t on. Triple the so called "27,000" if needed - not that it would be fair but that is beyond my point. The people would have fixed the problem themselves it seems to me.


[edit on 16-1-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]

the problem is if the money goes to the people inflation will spike and things will go up in price quickly, give the banks the money and its dead before it is printed so no one ever sees it and inflation doesn't spike

of course thats in magical economics world, in the real world the national economy is ruined and by the end of this year the government cant pay its wages, military bases around the world close, the power of america is seen to be falling and the entire system of lies falls to pieces.

oh and if they gave it to people not banks then they couldn't pocket massive chunks of it and we can't have that now can we. the fat cat must get his cream.

edit to add: oh and 30k house?!?!? lucky, cheepest one in the uk is about £150,000 and its a LOT smaller.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by NatureBoy]

I did not even think of that! When I say 30,000 a house, it could be in a rural area so then we have to include the idea of getting to work...but I would imagine a 30-60 minute drive is better than being homeless.

I realize that giving the American people 27,000 at one time would kill the economy. What if it would have been given in a periodic type way - just enough to help fix the economy?

I just read Bush's speech. He makes claims that his advisors told him that if he were not to act quickly, we would face a MAJOR depression. So these bailouts came to be with little regulation, especially for the first few one.

Would a 1,000 dollar tax break in periods of 1-3 months to Americans making lets say under 60,000 a year (Number could be changed and argued, I picked that for the sake of this one) been a better solution than the current bailouts? Or a paired stimulus that I just stated paired with a bailout HEAVILY monitored?

Capitalism does not support failing businesses - or from what I thought it is not suppose to. So why do we CONTINUE to give out IMAGINARY money (so it seems) to many companies that will continue to fail?

Have we already destroyed the system to much to continue with the one that helped make the country into a prosperous one in the first place? Could it be that it is impossible to go back to our ways without being in a severe depression?

I feel you on this. I never liked the bailouts and I doubt I ever. I know that each American getting 27,000 or even more than a 1,000 just sounds unrealistic - but what I find unrealistic is that they actually gave out that much money to "fix" problems.

If it is ANYTHING says the govt is corrupt it is the handling of these situations. You could blame the war, torture tactics, all that - but this just puts a stamp on their heads saying sell out.

EVEN if the recession goes away - I still wonder how much of this money have been used efficiently and how much has been stolen. For the American people, it is impossible to tell the difference sadly.

okay - so we don't just cut checks to every person, but let's say we issue debt vouchers. These vouchers could be submitted to credit card companies, auto loan companies, mortgage companies and the banks that are holders of a person's debt instrument.

Then the gov pays the banks - because every form of debt instrument ends up at a bank eventually

The banks get their money, much of the debt solution is solved and people still have a home - at least until they no longer have a job.

The $$ ends up at the banks anyway, much of that "toxic paper" gets cleared by virtue of being PAID - if only a portion

Same amount of US debt, but the precious banks who so desperately were failing due to toxic paper are saved as well as the citizens of this country.

at (averaging here) $28K per person - children included since their taxes will still be paying off the debt - the average family of 4 would be able to pay off debt obligations to the tune of $116K.

I can't see how that would not have been a better solution.

Yeah - it would only work if these companies are actually failing due to the amount of debt owed to them. If that is the case, then like you said - that DEBT be paid off.

Then we have the problem of those without debt wanting money, or "debt money" too. Unless only a certain set of income would get it. The problem with that is then it is called welfare on the most extreme of levels, and would cause uproar IMO.

The conspiracy? These bailouts are corrupt.
What we always knew? If you do something corrupt intentionally then you yourself are corrupt as well.

Does anyone know for certain how this money is being used? Are these people in debt all still losing their houses? Are these people in debt getting bills paid for free? Are these companies getting the "debt money" from the govt. AND the money from the people? I might do a little research if no one here knows off the top of their head.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Yeah - it would only work if these companies are actually failing due to the amount of debt owed to them. If that is the case, then like you said - that DEBT be paid off.

Then we have the problem of those without debt wanting money, or "debt money" too. Unless only a certain set of income would get it. The problem with that is then it is called welfare on the most extreme of levels, and would cause uproar IMO.

Why? they would be issued the exact same debt vouchers - if they can't use them, then they eventually expire - no reason that has to be a short expy period either, they could be held to offset student loans for their children at a later date. Someone who lives without debt, but still can get a loan could do just that, get a loan and use the vouchers to pay it off - stimulate the economy.

If you have screwed your credit so bad that no one will loan you money, well... Lie in that bed, baby.

Does anyone know for certain how this money is being used? Are these people in debt all still losing their houses? Are these people in debt getting bills paid for free? Are these companies getting the "debt money" from the govt. AND the money from the people? I might do a little research if no one here knows off the top of their head.

no one who knows for certain is telling; people are still losing their homes - but there are new programs in effect to help them; probably :-)

Ah I misunderstood it at first. No - that sounds perfect.

What I have been wondering is WHY are the companies are getting bailouts when the PEOPLE are still suffering which LEAD to these failing companies?

I get the impression that the government thinks that the working people are not buying these 30,000 dollar new cars and 20 dollar meals every day because the menu is not right or the cars do not look cool.

It is...yup, here it is, because the middle class is CUTTING back. I fail to see how these business plan to stay afloat unless the working class finally get into shape like it was ten years ago.

Anyone else thinking this same thing? Is it not so obvious? Ai ai ai...