Jon Stewart's Stimulus Plan

Disclaimer: My knowledge of economics is very limited, so be nice.

Jon Stewart Stimulus Plan

Jon Stewart basically proposes that instead of bailing out the banks and financial institutions, we should give that money to the people. The people will then use that money to pay off their debts and to consume. This will result in the bad loans becoming good loans and paid off, as well as boosting the overall economy because people will have the resources to consume.

Of course, this is assuming you can trust the American people to use that money for their debts. I think that there will be plenty of people who just pocket the dough and buy a new car (maybe a GM car..?), but the overwhelming majority will want to get out of debt.

This seems like a very simple solution and of course, lacks detail, but would something along these lines actually work? Right now, we are simply prolonging the life of businesses that, in the "real world", would have failed and closed up shop by now. We are doing nothing for the people in terms of helping them to eliminate debt and get back on their feet.

If you agree with this stance or disagree, I'd love to hear what ATS thinks of this.

Isn't that pretty much socialism?

Take taxpayer money, and spread it around.

At its simplest?

Edit to add: Okay I noticed some where thinking I was attacking socialism, I was just pointing it out. We already took some odd billions and mailed everyone a check last year, didn't seem to work to good.

It is time for new ideas, not additions to old ideas. Not just the economy but everything. Planes I would of thought would be extinct by now, but we keep trying to add to them, and well what if we went back to scratch.

I vote we simply let everything fail that is going to, and start over again, start better, stronger, more effiecent.

I have no real Ideas, because noone pays me millions to, When I get those millions, I'll give you some ideas.



[edit on 21-4-2009 by Republican08]

[edit on 21-4-2009 by Republican08]

Originally posted by Republican08
Isn't that pretty much socialism?

Take taxpayer money, and spread it around.

At its simplest?

It would be so terrible if instead they gave the money to corporations that are just squandering the money... oh wait.. nevermind they did.

reply to post by Republican08

Take taxpayer money, and spread it around.

What do you think is happening right now?

The same thing.

Have you not noticed the bailouts, SS, Medicare, Welfare, our MILITARY, unemployment....anything really.

Taxes spread the wealth around everyday. What is questioned is how much and who or what for.

Doing this would be stupid though.

They have got to CUT SPENDING so they can cut taxes...the government is sucking the people of this country dry.

It's a must..we've got to do it. We are digging the hole too deep.

Everyone is pulling back in their own lives...the government should be doing the same.

We need to brave the storm.... not fall victim to it!!!

reply to post by kawz1


That's what I've been saying for the last year. For the what, 1.4 Trillion that has been spent in bailouts for the banks, AIG, $300 stim checks, they could have spread out 1/4 of that to the taxpayers, you know, the legal citizens who work to keep this country going. Then the money would go back to the banks to pay loans off, thus eliminating the housing crisis, and the banking crisis. The money leftover, would be spent at places like Circuit City, Carver Yacht, Cub Foods, and all of the other retailers that couldn't stay afloat.

If the wealth is to be spread, spread it to those who need it, not those who are already rich who will squander it on vacations instead of using it to support the company it was meant for.

reply to post by Republican08


Call it whatever you want, but would you prefer AIG execs get a tropical vacation, or you get a house and a new car?

reply to post by Republican08




Ya, take money from the poor and give it back to the poor...

OOOOOHHHHHHH NNNNNNNNOOOOOO thats socialism and so its EVIL!!!

Much better to take from the poor and give to the rich... idiotic actually

Parrot answers like "its socialism NOOOOOO" are so annoying

Its sad that John Stewart could run this country better than the ones that currently are.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by XTexan]

This is B.S.

Consider this:



FORECLOSURE DENIED! How One Man Did It - Zeitgeist Addendum

www.youtube.com...

On a smaller scale, though, suppose you had a hot dog stand and worked really, really hard and smart and made a lot of money. Now the government comes along and says, "Hey, good job. Now give us most of that money and we're going to give it to that lazy bum over there on that bus bench so he can buy a new car."

If there's nothing you can do about it, I imagine that you might start to ask yourself why on Earth you're working so hard just so a bum can get a new car. The fact is, unless they're obsessed, if people have no way of profiting in proportion to their efforts, they're just going to do the least possible to get by. People need motivation, and buckets of money is a good motivator for some people.

Yeah, it seems like the AIG executives, or whoever, make a lot more money than they deserve. But you know one way to change your opinion of that? That's right! Work really, really hard so that you, yourself, become a rich corporate executive. You'll be amazed at how your attitude will change.

And you can say, "I'll never be able to do that." But really, that's just negative thinking and maybe more than a little bit of laziness. Work hard, go to business school, work even harder, up the corporate ladder, and someday you too can be hated by anonymous guys on the Internet!

reply to post by Mekanic


Exactly. Screw it, not even new. I'd take a used car and some money to save for rent at an apartment! Money for food. Even the luxury of dinner and a movie. I mean come on. The general public is struggling to get by with bare necesseties while some of those getting bailout funds are living like kings.

reply to post by Nohup


I could care less how much more they make versus what I make. But they are taking our tax dollars now. If OUR tax dollars are to be used to fix the broken economy, why can we use them to do so?

reply to post by Heatburger


True! My wife and I both work 40 hour weeks, and are limited to such hours. And yet we are both considering looking for part-time second jobs, just to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.

reply to post by Nohup


Ya, but in your scenario this is whats happening:

Your a hot dog vendor and you work really really hard for the money, then the government comes and takes its cut and gives it to the bank down the street... then the bank charges you $5 because after the fed gave them your money you couldnt keep the minimum balance.

I'd rather the poor guy on the street got my money, at least he might stop by and buy a hot dog.

reply to post by kawz1


I agree with this. Though I'd prefer no obscene bailout at all, if the government had to do it, why didn't they just give it back to the people who need it, and let the corrupt industries fall?

I know if I received stimulus money, I'd pay my student loan in full, pay off my 10K in medical bills, and pay off my last remaining credit card. Then I'd pay full tuition to attend a college of my choice, then work as a graphic designer, supply a service, earn money, and put that money back in to the economy. Maybe even on a ridiculous TV or something else I want but don't feel the need to dump my savings on.

That's just me though. And many other people I know, I think it would work out. Obviouslt it's too late for that but yeah. Oh well.

I think I could probably agree to this on two conditions. First, the spending has got to be reigned in, it's gotten ridiculous and it's just getting worse. Second, if they gave the money to the people instead of bailing out banks and companies then it should be in the form of an income tax cut as suggested. They take home more of what they earn, but they still have to earn it to get it so it's not a hand-out or socialism. It's people getting more of the money they have earned. Some might save it, but there will be more people using the extra cash to pay bills and buy food than people saving it so it's still going to get back to the banks and most of the failing companies eventually. The only question would be if it would be quick enough.

reply to post by Mekanic


That's me. I work 60 hours a week to earn my keep, go to school 15 hours a week to one day become an "upstanding citizen" (bs, but to get a job nowadays you pretty well need a degree) and I struggle. My boyfriend and I lost our apartment and are now living with my parents. It's ok and all, because I get to save money, but just having my independance ripped away from me even after I bust tail to make ends meet has really sucked, for lack of a better way to say it.

Originally posted by kawz1
Disclaimer: My knowledge of economics is very limited, so be nice.

Jon Stewart Stimulus Plan

Jon Stewart basically proposes that instead of bailing out the banks and financial institutions, we should give that money to the people. The people will then use that money to pay off their debts and to consume. This will result in the bad loans becoming good loans and paid off, as well as boosting the overall economy because people will have the resources to consume.

Of course, this is assuming you can trust the American people to use that money for their debts. I think that there will be plenty of people who just pocket the dough and buy a new car (maybe a GM car..?), but the overwhelming majority will want to get out of debt.

This seems like a very simple solution and of course, lacks detail, but would something along these lines actually work? Right now, we are simply prolonging the life of businesses that, in the "real world", would have failed and closed up shop by now. We are doing nothing for the people in terms of helping them to eliminate debt and get back on their feet.

If you agree with this stance or disagree, I'd love to hear what ATS thinks of this.

I'm sorry, but I saw this and I had to register an account just to correct you, because I thought you didn't do Jon Stewart's plan justice with your post. What he said multiples times on his show was he proposed directly buying out consumer debt, from all the financial lending institutions in America. He never proposed giving it to the people. Essentially, what he proposed was just paying out everyone's debts and loans by giving the money to the banks and lending institutions. That way, people might be out of a job, but not only will they be debt free - but the banks will have billions and billions of capital that will replace their "toxic assets." That's essentially the plan, the same money would go to essentially the same companies and people - but it will actually make sense because it will do two things at the same time.

I was actually going to make this topic myself, but didnt feel the need to join until now. What really really struck me to do so in the first place was because Jon's plan was so genius, nobody on his show really responded to it. And he had guests come in that were former Executives of the Fed, members of the Treasury, members of Congress and Senate. And he asked them that at least 3 times, and none of those people could give him a straight answer - most actually just ignored him.

Personally, my "far out theory" is that the banks are scared to lose their "slaves" - essentially the majority of Americans who work for their Credit Card companies. These institutions would rather risk their very survival AND the fate of the economy, by making sure that even though they're as broke as the people they're lending to - those people will continue to owe interest and will keep slaving away paying interest on their credit cards until they stop working. That's my idea, pretty much. What do you guys think, could I be on the right track? I know its far out, but over time I have realized all banks are very very shady institutions....

How about we just stop spending money we don't have?

No one gets bailed out and no one gets their debt payed for.

Instead why not let people pay the price for doing bad buisness and for taking out loans they can't possibly pay for?

I have two vehicles. 1 car and 1 motorcycle. The car is for the wife and I ride the motorcycle. When it is cold, raining or both I always want to go out and buy a new or slightly used car, but I don't. I don't because even though I can easily get the loan, I cannot afford the payments and insurance.

Everyone should be held responsible for their decisions. If it means companies going south and people losing their homes then that is just the way it should be.

reply to post by kawz1


Except that when all the debts are paid for, the banks have nothing to generate profit.. with out obscene mortgages, credit cards, etc.. the banks loose money. Since most loans form the crux of most derivatives, it would indicate that the vast majority of loans, from car to homes to what ever, are purchased debt from another institution. This would mean the banks could collapse if such a plan where to take place.

In fact.. if we the people simply stopped purchasing obscenely and just paid the debts we have and do not incur and further debts, the entire banking system will suffer accordingly. Banks thrive on our need of debt, and reduction in that need diminishes profits from interest charges. They are seeking a return to the equilibrium of good debt to income ratio that we have expanded beyond in the past decade.

jd said it best: It's about fiscal responsibility.

What's wrong with tax cuts instead of stimulus packages?

How about allowing people to keep what they earn rather than taking it away and giving it to them/ others.