It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An easier way for U.S Government to help the economy

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
While trying to figure out where our government went wrong in fixing the economy, I started crunching some numbers. I realized that while our government spent large amounts of money bailing out major corporation, they did little to help out it's citizens. Our government has spent 11 Trillion dollars bailing out major corporations but only 3 Trillion has been invested. You can track it all here.

money.cnn.com...

Here is how many zero's are in trillion. 1,000,000,000,000 thats twelve zero's.

In just the stimulus package alone our government spent 1.2 trillion dollars.

The census bureau only reports that there are 308,939,673 in the US. If you were to do the math it would come out to be $3884.25 per person with just the amount of money spent on the stimulus package. It would have helped the economy greatly, its known as trickle-down economics.

www.answers.com...

Except instead of tax breaks helping the rich and the money trickling down to everyone else. Everyone else would have the money and it would trickle down to all of the businesses.

Now to make things work, anyone who was an dependent would get $1,000. The rest would be split between everyone else. It would help people's debt. They would spend their money on stuff, making the supply and demand go up. Effectively bailing small businesses and major corporations by increasing their stocks, as well as creating more jobs due to the increase in supply and demand.

And like I said that is just with 1.2 trillion dollars. Only a tenth of what our government spent to help the economy, but the way they did it did not help.

The only questions that this seems to leave is did our government spend the money the way they did on purpose? And if so why?




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Personally I think that if they did do this on purpose then they have an end game in mind. They made themselves rich in order to avoid any problems and let the rest fend for themselves. Not sure why they would do this, the only real reason is to prepare for a world war again. Which would explain why the bailed out the corporations, but not the people. They need supplies which they can get from the corporations. As for those with no money, one draft and they have all the soldiers that they need. No money to put yourself in college, no way to back out of going.

Honestly I would much rather think that our government is just stupid. But everything that they do is measured out before any action is taken.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Here is the problem with the Keynesian theory, in my viewpoint.

In the micro, do you go out and borrow money when you are having hard economic times?

This should apply also in the macro.

Also, if companies are doing badly, they need to fail, because they were an inefficient system to begin with. If a business is failing, why would you dump more money into it. Money should never follow the bad, it should follow the good.

Next, the whole up and down swing of the economy is directly related to the Federal Reserve causing it. They try to maintain an ever increasing economy by manipulating the supply of money. This is what causes the erratic behavior of economies in fiat currency.

Now, what you have said, if the crap companies would have been let to fail and then the government gave the money to the people, it would have helped more than what they did. Because the crap company assets would have been purchase by good companies and then the increase in consumer's purchases would have gone up.

But, it still would not have fixed the underlying problem. The government regulations and the Federal Reserve fiat money.

This is a really complex issue. If you want to see where I am coming from, google Austrian Economics.

Now you will probably get a Keynesian in here telling you I am wacked but, the only Economics people that saw this thing coming, were Austrian Economic theorists.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I'm in agreement with you, if the people had money and the company still failed, then it was meant to fail, so let it.

I also understand that it wouldn't have fixed the economy but it would have helped a lot more then what they have done so far. We still have a huge debt to pay back to China. A debt that is mostly due to the U.S government spending money they didn't have. Now they are giving out money they don't have, to companies that don't deserve the money.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pajjikor
In just the stimulus package alone our government spent 1.2 trillion dollars.

funny u should mention the stimulus package
I didn't see a single dime of that
anywhere in my community.
our part must have went to Haliburton !!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I believe that the government did exactly what they were supposed to do. This is just the biggest of a continuous cycle of boom and bust orchestrated by the power banks that increasingly concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Just one of many "hard to believe we fell for it" tales

Any attempt to actually help the little guy would have been extremely complicated but they didn't even worry about it. I would have preferred a trickle up approach where we bailed out individuals mainly by paying their mortgage payments until they were back on their feet and possibly a little extra for the basic necessities. That money would have gone into the system at the point of supply. It couldn't have cost any more than what we've been robbed of already.

And now that Goldman Sachs, et al, have reduced competition, they're preparing to do the same exercise again.

Keep in mind that George Bush started the bailout and Obama kept it going. Ditto with the war, the Patriot Act, etc. (edited to add) In other words, this isn't a Democratic Party screwup, it's a bipartisan attack on us.

Can you say 'Plutarchy?'


[edit on 26-3-2010 by JohnJasper]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
They could fix it in 6 months the question we should be asking is why don't they? It seems like it is planned to slowly painfully fail. Not to fast so we think something is up but rather slow so we get used to it. I believe the are acclimating us to our downfall. Were did all the money go? I don't see them building new roads or even fixing the old ones? WHY?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 


Here is a simpler way. End the war and focus on our borders. Require them to balance out the budget every quarter. Let the states take the majority of the taxes and require that they balance the budget every quarter.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ventian
 


This would be the smart thing to do end all the wars and worry about home for a little while. But I think something bigger is in the works and I smell a rat. They could do many things but is about dividing and pushing America until it breaks for real. Why not just calm things down and get the economy rolling again? And also have town hall meeting to clear the air that is so very stagnant in America. We need to really talk and not shout.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by ventian
 


This would be the smart thing to do end all the wars and worry about home for a little while. But I think something bigger is in the works and I smell a rat. They could do many things but is about dividing and pushing America until it breaks for real. Why not just calm things down and get the economy rolling again? And also have town hall meeting to clear the air that is so very stagnant in America. We need to really talk and not shout.


Yea it has been obvious for awhile now that they are doing this on purpose. As Dave Mustain put it "an FDIC assisted suicide". But don't worry I am sure that as long as we keep putting academics up there instead of blue collar Americans that run independently that things will work out. I mean these academics study the law so they must know more about it than us simple folks.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join