This isn't my idea, infact I received it in an email from a friend but, I agree with it whole heartedly. *********************************
This is from an article in the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday.
The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?"
I think this guy nailed it!
Dear Mr. President:
Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy.
Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the Following plan.
You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force.
Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:
1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars ordered- Auto Industry fixed.
3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.
It can't get any easier than that!
If more money is needed, have all members of Congress pay all their taxes... ***************************
No, I don't have a link to prove this was really in the St. Petersburg Times. I can see that money being more stimulating that what has been dealt out so far. Though, I'm not sure a million bucks will last me the rest of my life, probably ought to make that two million.
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force.
Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement ...
While fun to contemplate, this "plan" fails the most basic of sanity checks; the numbers don't work. That's 40 trillion dollars ($40,000,000,000,000.00), and it would require about $200,000 from every remaining man, woman, and child in the U.S. One likely result of this would be inflation on the order of that currently happening in Zimbabwe ... > 100% per day.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 05-06-2009).]
Originally posted by FieroRumor: Sounds like a great plan- till the gov steps in and taxes it, which will leave each recipient with 13 bucks in his or her pocket...
Don't you mean thirteen bucks and CHANGE ?
IP: Logged
12:03 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
What a great example of our goverment trying to fix a problem without comprehending the numbers involved.
Sure, giving 40 million people over the age of 50 $1 Million each will certainly do everything suggested. People love the idea and send it to their friends because it sounds so simple, it has to work.
Then nobody took the time to figure out that 40,000,000 x 1,000,000 = $40,000,000,000,000. That's $40 Trillion. That's 10+ years worth of Obama's current budget and 80 times Bush's last budget deficit. It's approaching the Gross Product of the entire Planet.
But, just give out that much money and all our problems are solved.
Let me guess, people read that as the program would only cost $40 Million, right? Sure, here's a dollar. Now, retire, buy a house and a car. When you figure that out, let me know.
IP: Logged
12:45 PM
RandomTask Member
Posts: 4547 From: Alexandria, VA Registered: Apr 2005
Second, watch inflation go through the roof and everyone be poor again.
I think we're gonna see this anyway.
------------------ Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.
IP: Logged
01:38 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Better idea. Kill everyone over the age of 60. SS fixed, Unemployment adjusted./ fixed - (That's a lot of grave digging) Medi-care/aide fixed
Would pretty much ensure we'd get fresh blood into the house and senate.
BTW one time shot.. Only affects those currently 60 or older and those turning 60 in 2009
A more practical way would be to encourage smoking again. Several recent studies show that smokers die much earlier and are less a burden to Social Security and Medicare than healthy oldsters.
A more practical way would be to encourage smoking again. Several recent studies show that smokers die much earlier and are less a burden to Social Security and Medicare than healthy oldsters.
SSHHHHHH, that is an inconvenient truth and goes against the current witch hunt.
IP: Logged
02:35 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Instead of giving the 'bailout' to the Banks, they should have returned the money they lost on behalf of the PUBLIC,TO the Public who lost that money. If the Public had money in the first place, they obviously had enough savvy to accumulate it, and therefore enough savvy to avoid putting it BACK in the hands of corporate thieves and charlatans. WHY give it to the BANKS? WHY?? THEY LOST IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! THEY WILL LOSE IT AGAIN. I'm darned SURE if the money was returned to my pension and trust funds, I would make better use of it than the bloody BANKS. And the CEO of Royal Bank of Scotland has still got a pension of nearly ONE MILLION POUNDS A WEEK, and people are defending him for refusing to give it back! Nick
IP: Logged
02:59 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
A more practical way would be to encourage smoking again. Several recent studies show that smokers die much earlier and are less a burden to Social Security and Medicare than healthy oldsters.
So it isn't true that smokers immune sytem is weakened, and smoking can lead to cancer? Both of those things I would think would lead to a strain on teh healthcare system. But if it is all about money I suppose the taxes on cigs could get jacked up to cover it.
IP: Logged
03:08 PM
railshot Member
Posts: 1310 From: Pell Lake, Wisconsin, USA Registered: Jul 2006
So it isn't true that smokers immune sytem is weakened, and smoking can lead to cancer? Both of those things I would think would lead to a strain on teh healthcare system. But if it is all about money I suppose the taxes on cigs could get jacked up to cover it.
LMAO, they have done that here in Wisconsin already. The cheapest pack I can buy now is $5.00 each..... and what did they do with the "extra" money they have collected for the additional health care issues?
They have pi$$ed it all up on who knows what!
$0 in the account, nada, zip, zero. Now I did not mind paying the tax if it were available to pay for smoking related illnesses, but this is just a f**kin robbery in my opinion! They could have at least kept enough around to bury us decently!
And you wonder why I have been calling for a "revolution" now for over 10 years!
[This message has been edited by railshot (edited 05-06-2009).]
IP: Logged
06:12 PM
proff Member
Posts: 7401 From: The bottom of the world Registered: Oct 2004
Clinton - Poor people need to own ther homes. Congress - You will loan these poor folks money to buy their homes Freddie and Fannie. Banks - We can't take this risk, we need to sell these debts as investments, maybe our friends in Congress can pull some strings and get them and A+ risk rating. Poor - Hooray, I got me a house! Now I don't have to pay the rent!
The government should have stayed out of the deal from the beginning. Look at the mess they made.
Bailout, by the Government (many of the same players, even). Should have stayed out of it. Look at the mess they made.
If the banks had tanked, other financiaql institutions would have stepped in to pick up the business, they would have lent money, people could continue to live beyond their means, and we would still be screwed, just stretched it out some.
We are a nation of irresponsible fools, starting at the top, clear to the bottom, with very few exceptions.
IP: Logged
10:38 PM
katatak Member
Posts: 7136 From: Omaha, NE USA Registered: Apr 2008
Clinton - Poor people need to own ther homes. Congress - You will loan these poor folks money to buy their homes Freddie and Fannie. Banks - We can't take this risk, we need to sell these debts as investments, maybe our friends in Congress can pull some strings and get them and A+ risk rating. Poor - Hooray, I got me a house! Now I don't have to pay the rent!
The government should have stayed out of the deal from the beginning. Look at the mess they made.
Bailout, by the Government (many of the same players, even). Should have stayed out of it. Look at the mess they made.
If the banks had tanked, other financiaql institutions would have stepped in to pick up the business, they would have lent money, people could continue to live beyond their means, and we would still be screwed, just stretched it out some.
We are a nation of irresponsible fools, starting at the top, clear to the bottom, with very few exceptions.
Amen Brother!
IP: Logged
11:46 PM
May 7th, 2009
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Clinton - Poor people need to own ther homes. Congress - You will loan these poor folks money to buy their homes Freddie and Fannie. Banks - We can't take this risk, we need to sell these debts as investments, maybe our friends in Congress can pull some strings and get them and A+ risk rating. Poor - Hooray, I got me a house! Now I don't have to pay the rent!
The government should have stayed out of the deal from the beginning. Look at the mess they made.
Bailout, by the Government (many of the same players, even). Should have stayed out of it. Look at the mess they made.
If the banks had tanked, other financiaql institutions would have stepped in to pick up the business, they would have lent money, people could continue to live beyond their means, and we would still be screwed, just stretched it out some.
We are a nation of irresponsible fools, starting at the top, clear to the bottom, with very few exceptions.
To be fair, that started under Carter, no Clinton. Clinton did expand on it, though. Then when the Bush administration tried to enact stricter regulations on Fannie-Mae before the housing crisis, it was stonewalled by the Democrats in Congress.
There wasn't 1 bad decision that lead to this. Lots of people made it worse over many years until the bubble burst.
IP: Logged
01:06 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33000 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
To be fair, that started under Carter, no Clinton. Clinton did expand on it, though. Then when the Bush administration tried to enact stricter regulations on Fannie-Mae before the housing crisis, it was stonewalled by the Democrats in Congress.
There wasn't 1 bad decision that lead to this. Lots of people made it worse over many years until the bubble burst.
OK, so many of you don't like the original idea and I won't pretend that I thought it was feasible but, if all the bail out money had gone out to individual tax paying Americans (the same folks that will have to pay off the debt) instead of corporations, those taxpayers would have paid off personnal debt, bought things and stimulated the economy at least equal to what has occurred up to this point if not more. The result would have been immediate. Am I wrong?
IP: Logged
01:11 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
OK, so many of you don't like the original idea and I won't pretend that I thought it was feasible but, if all the bail out money had gone out to individual tax paying Americans (the same folks that will have to pay off the debt) instead of corporations, those taxpayers would have paid off personnal debt, bought things and stimulated the economy at least equal to what has occurred up to this point if not more. The result would have been immediate. Am I wrong?
Correct, but also keep in mind that money has to come from somewhere. Give out x amount of money now, you're going to have to collect it back at some point later.
That's why standard GOP ideas of lowering taxes come from. Lower the taxes on people and businesses, so they have more money to spend. They spend the money, the economy grows, and you end up with more tax revenues from the larger economy even though the percentage per person may be less. It's a balance, though. Tax too much and you kill spending. Tax too little and returns don't keep pace with growth.
Better idea. Kill everyone over the age of 60. SS fixed, Unemployment adjusted./ fixed - (That's a lot of grave digging) Medi-care/aide fixed
Would pretty much ensure we'd get fresh blood into the house and senate.
BTW one time shot.. Only affects those currently 60 or older and those turning 60 in 2009
sounds like a plan i suport this
honestly im not a economic expert but, from what i understand throwing money at a problem isnt gunna fix it. i think with the new bailouts thre is more regulation. as compared to the begining with little reuglation here is 10 billion dollers just have fun. i think they need to have plans in place like they did with pointaic (crystler) um wow i spell bad...
IP: Logged
02:27 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
honestly im not a economic expert but, from what i understand throwing money at a problem isnt gunna fix it. i think with the new bailouts thre is more regulation. as compared to the begining with little reuglation here is 10 billion dollers just have fun. i think they need to have plans in place like they did with pointaic (crystler) um wow i spell bad...
Sick thing is some people probably would support it.
IP: Logged
02:34 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33000 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by Formula88: Correct, but also keep in mind that money has to come from somewhere. Give out x amount of money now, you're going to have to collect it back at some point later.
That's why standard GOP ideas of lowering taxes come from. Lower the taxes on people and businesses, so they have more money to spend. They spend the money, the economy grows, and you end up with more tax revenues from the larger economy even though the percentage per person may be less. It's a balance, though. Tax too much and you kill spending. Tax too little and returns don't keep pace with growth.
Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those that have never supported the "bail outs". It just seems to me that our current administration is hell bent on giving away money, I just want it to go to where it'll do the Tax Payer's the most good.
IP: Logged
02:53 PM
bobble Member
Posts: 113 From: lees summit, MO, USA Registered: Apr 2009
the bailouts are a tempory fix there ment to keep the companies from goin bankrupt and the nation having a 40% unemployment rate. not to fix the problem just to keep it from getting worse. so, in otherwords its somthing that needs to be done but, alot of people wont be happy. if we dont give it out to the companies then it would only be hurting ourselfs and the american economy. i dont think people should get money for nothing. but were not bailing out theses big compaines were bailing out the american people for the companies mistakes.
IP: Logged
03:51 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
were bailing out the american people for the companies mistakes.
All it would have taken to "bail out" the American people was that three month tax holiday Louie Gohmert was pushing. They could have kept it from costing too much by simply giving every government employee a three month unpaid vacation.
But Is it really a bailout in the first place if you just let someone keep their own earnings ?
edit - Oh... wait. Two months. My mistake. Same difference though.
[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 05-07-2009).]
