Yeah this actually really pisses me off! Instead of throwing money away what they should do is give every American over the age of 21 that make less than a minimum of 250, 000 dollars, 250,000 dollars, hell even just 50,000 dollars. This would actually stimulate the economy. People would, actually be able to pay there mortgages, credit cards, student loans, but new houses, pay off cars, or even buy new cars. Only stipulation would be you can only buy American made goods. The auto makers win, the banks win, the government wins when they collect taxes through the the purchases that you make. They'd have to give this money tax free, and put a price freeze on everything or business owners would have a hayday, and raise pricese to an ungodly amount of money.
Deal is it does no good to bail out the auto makers if people still can't buy there vehicles. This plan of action would creat jobs. Lots of them, and real quick, it get the economy rolling long enough that it could right itself. The banks they haven't even done what there supposed to be doing with the money. They were supposed to start loaning money, but now they're just hoarding it, and blowing it on parties. Give it to the poor and middle class, they'll put cash back into the economy, cause we actully need certain necessities in life.
Last but not least, one politician came on the news and said, ( and just paraphrasing here), " That it was the poor and middle classes fault that the economy is going like it is because they are greedy. They want microwaves, and dishwashers and you don't need those things to live." Yeah betcha he's got one though doesn't he. GREED, let's talk about the good old senator of arizona's 12 houses that he owns. How many houses do you need JOHN?
Bailing out people that don't need it. That haven't helped creat jobs, which gives people money to buy stuff, which still means what? That nothing has happened. Bush bails out the banks and America's new boy Barrack Obama comes right behind him, and wants to bail out the BIG 3 AUTO MAKERS. CHange we need. YEah right what's the difference. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
This could possibly derail the thread, so I only want to touch on these things...
First thing I want to touch on is what the politician said....he's right. What he's referring to, though, is not that the poor and middle class shouldn't buy the things that they need...what he's saying is that the poor and middle class go in debt using credit to buy things that are trivial, and then when the time comes to purchase something they do need, they have to use credit for that as well.
The upper middle class and the rich don't have this problem because they have the money to purchase what they want
and need outright, without using credit for the most part.
Secondly, giving Americans money to spend willy-nilly will get us further in the hole than we already are. It's the same as giving a drunk bum a 50 dollar bill and telling him to straighten out his life...all he's going to do is go buy more alcohol. And as far as putting restrictions on where to spend the money...you can't make people spend wisely. You can't even make people spend money the way you think it should be spent...they spend it how they want to, because it's their money.
Take, for example, the stimulous checks the government sent out back during the summer. That did absolutely nothing to stimulate anything.
I think, and this is just my .02, that as far as bailing out the automakers goes, that they should just leave it alone. Citibank is getting a bailout from the 700 billion....how many other companies are going to step forward with their hands out?
The way I see it, there really isn't a solution to any of this mess, except to try to ride it out and stop throwing money at everything as a fix. I think of it like this:
I'm broke...I owe all kinds of money for medical bills and insurance bills, and my car has just broken down, and I need to get a new car. I'm not wanting to settle for getting a small $500 car to get back and forth to work in, I'm wanting to buy a brand new car that I can be comfortable in, and I want to get a loan to get one. The problem is that I can't get the loan unless my dad cosigns with me.
Well, I have a bad history of not paying my bills on time, and I've been sent to collections on several occasions and have even been to court once or twice to collect on a debt. Now, I'm asking my dad to be responsible for paying what I owe "just in case" I'm not able to pay for it myself.
My dad has the option of declining to cosign, and probably should. Afterall, given my past history of late and null payments, why should he be expected to pay for my screwups if I'm not able to pay? If he's paying for the car because he cosigns for it, then rightfully, he should be able to have the car, and that puts me right back in the situation I started from.
The whole situation could have been corrected if I had accepted the fact that I can afford to be uncomfortable for the amount of time it takes me to earn the money to pay for my other bills and put a good downpayment on a good car. Sure, it could take a while, and no body likes to be uncomfortable, but it's better than not being able to afford the cost of living at all.
That was not a true story, by the way. I hate asking my dad for stuff like that, because he says no regardless...lol.
The point is that if people and companies would priortize what they spend on, none of this would happen. That's what the reporter was referring to...people who can't afford to buy expensive things are buying expensive things on credit to make it appear that they can, in fact, afford to buy the expensive things. Instead, they should be spending that money on things they
need, not things that they
want.
Companies are the same way. The execs from the Big 3 pull up to Washington in private jets asking for money...why not sell the jets and put that money toward the failing companies?? These are points that have been brought up many, many times by other posters with far more info than I have. I think it's just worth mentioning again.
