Monday, September 29, 2008

Which Is Better?

As we see the financial turmoil around us , I wonder which would be better .


1. Reward the finance companies for complete incompetence with $700 billion + $300 billion already handed out before this bailout

2. Share $1 trillion dollars between taxpayers earning less than $250,000 per year estimate 90 million giving the ordinary taxpayers slightly more than $11,000 each


I suspect plan B would provide liquidity to the finance sector , with people paying down mortgage arrears , credit cards, leaving possible money for people to buy cars and other goods and services helping the economy.


I am afraid I chose less than $250,000 because $11,000 would be a less percentage , I think my figures would provide $22,000 to a couple both working

Let me know am I just plain stupid and missing something obvious

Steve

5 comments:

Twisted Oaks Quarter Horses said...

Steve,I like your plan. The house voted down the bail-out, I don't think they will give up. If it goes the governments way it will cost tax payers anywheres from $2300 to $7000. That was the last estimate I heard. We are already struggling with the cost of living and the government wants to play monopoly. If they do figure out a way to do a bail out, when things are turned around will the tax payers get their money back? Only in our dreams. The banks should have renegotiate the loans so that people could make payments and not lose their houses. That would have cut into the CEO's multi-million dollar pay outs! Wait until Callie sees what you started now:)

The People History said...

jesse
Well I just think it would reward most of the ordinary people who when it comes down to it provide the backbone of the country finances including paying for all the politicians wages. rather than special interests and would help keep these people in their homes seems to me win win , because additional spending also produces taxes for the government and state. The problem with the last rebate is it was enough to achieve anything as far as debts or spending

I would even go so far as to say that when the economy is sorted out they can put an extra penny on taxes to recover the money if that is felt to be needed.

I think the problem is so large they must think outside the box rather than just cater to lobbyists to find an answer

PS Callie said great idea hehehe

steve

Becca said...

I hate the bail out and wish that they would quite crying the sky is falling! If we'd all go back to living within our means, and I mean companies too, we all be better off and the country would be stronger. We had to wait until we could save up enough money to make a down payment and put in a LOT of sweat equity in the first place we bought. We had to do without and work hard to get where we are. No one came by and said "here let us help you out. I don't know why people think "the government" owes them any thing. After all we all are "the government" and it is our money they are taking and giving away. At the very least don't you think someone should tell us exactly what we are buying.

White Horse Pilgrim said...

There is a huge risk, if there is no bailout, that businesses won't be able to borrow (leading to bankruptcies and redundancies) as well as people not being able to obtain mortgages and loans. That will paralyse your economy. In a collapse, expect the Chinese and Russians to buy up your assets at knock-down prices. You need to avoid that scenario.

Whereas, if one just hands out cash to the people, how many of them will buy imported goods (helping someone else's economy) or just fritter it away?

The issue is to combine a carefully planned bale-out with better regulation, barring incompetents and speculators from the finance industry, and ensuring that help goes to honest borrowers who are down on luck (and not the fradsters who knowingly borrowed beyond their means). That's a challenge.

It does not look like the current bale-out is well thought out. It looks like a knee jerk reaction, and smacks of the "Alaska is next to Russia so she knows about foreign relations" style of logic - it seems obvious and reassures the simpletons but doesn't stand up to scrutiny and won't work. Like putting trainspotters in charge of a railroad because "they know about trains".

The big lesson is that better regulation, properly enforced would have avoided this situation in the first place. First the rules must be sorted out. Then the money can follow.

The People History said...

I think your right White Horse Pilgrim , It was not thought through , I also think something MUST BE DONE but the problem is with just a knee jerk reaction of handing money out without the rest gives the wrong signal to the hardworking people of America ( look after the fatcats ) .
If nothing is done banks will fail , I checked on my own bank yesterday and found out they have over 1.5 billion dollars in bad debt , it is tempting to leave the bank and find a safer bank ( while paying a check in yesterday I saw a woman doing exactly that ) but if too many people do that it will become a full financial collapse not only affecting the US but the world .

I honestly believe that most of us had an idea about all this crap 6 to 12 months ago and that was when the government should have stepped in and accepted a recession was going to happen and put in place plans to make it controlled , but now I think with or without the bailout it may become a full scale rout.

The other problem is if America hits realy major finacial meltdown no country in the world will be safe, as seen banks in the UK and Europe have already been nationalised to stop them collapsing

steve