Did I hear this right, or did Jon Stewart — while talking to PBS’ Gwen Ifill — reveal the best economic stimulus package concept thus Read the full post.
Jan 28
2009
04:01 PM ET
Jon Stewart's beautiful (stimulus) package
- Comments 52
- Add comment
Latest News
- TV in 2011-12: Let's assess
- 'Revenge': Gabriel Mann live chat tonight!
- Jim Parsons comes out in news article
- 'DWTS': Donald Driver wins season 14
- 'Hunger Games': Watch Blu-ray/DVD trailer
- Adam Lambert's 'Trespassing' is No. 1
- 'American Idol' poll: Jessica or Phillip?
- 'American Idol,' 'Glee,' more TV recaps
Consumers should ignore the commentary admonishing them of spreading “weakness,” and “lacking confidence.”
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-watch-consumers-and-learn.html
Stay the course.
I’m proud of you responsible people without debt, that’s awesome. But realize that some of us are being responsible by acquiring such debt such as by going to college to get a better job to support our families in something better than a trailer while working at McDonalds. My debt all came from school and surviving while in school. I’m “proud” of the debt I earned and if you’re well-off enough that you never needed to acquire it then that’s great; be happy for those of us less fortunate that required debt to be more successful in life and supply for our families. Especially for those who get laid off and debt is the only means of survival. Saving the economy in this manner is good for those not getting the money as well since it prevents you from going through a depression as well. I think this plan is fool-proof and win-win-win all the way around.
I just thought of this too, why not simply loan the money to the americans with debt at a 2% rate or something awesome? Banks get freed, people get a huge reduction, the money isn’t free, and the gov’t now has income from millions of debtors
2 trillion divided by 300 million Americans is $6,667 dollars per person (a family of four would get $26,668). Rule out rich families and every single person would probably get $7,500 and a family of four would get $30,000. This would get people spending. Even if people just paid off debt or saved it, this would still lead to future spending (plus banks would get a lot of their money back). The reason you don’t see this even mildly discussed amongst policymakers is because our leaders mind-set is on trickle-down economics. But if you really want to get people spending, give them the money directly–it doesn’t matter whether they spend it immediately or eventually. (Also, raise the taxes on the rich–too much money has concentrated at the top, which is horrible in a consumer driven economy)
I would limit the payout to legal, adult, taxpaying citizens. Nothing wrong with being rich, as long as you’re an honest tax payer. But once I become rich (whatever that means) I don’t want to be taxed more than everyone else just because I was finally successful.
dz,
I understand your concern about being taxed too much if you become rich. However, a progressive tax system, where the rich are taxed at a higher % helps the economy. A progressive tax helps ameliorate the income distorting effects of the free market. Without such progressive taxation, the consumer class is starved out of the market. They won’t be able to buy your products and your wealth will eventually suffer. This happened during the Great Depression, and it is happening now.
Stewart keeps hammering on this idea; I wonder if it could take hold? It certainly has its flaws, but let’s think a minute:
1) You bring your mortgage statement in.
2) You get a loan, similar to a student loan in that you will be Hounded To Your Grave if you default, but also at a fixed rate and low interest. Maybe even tied to your income.
3) Did I mention, it’s not a loan, as in, “here’s a check, made out to you,” but “here’s a check, made out to your lender,” so the original “toxic” assets actually become “non-toxic?”
Now yes, this does reward some shady lenders who we’d really like to see die. But isn’t it a sort of zombification of those lenders? i.e. they are still dead, but can walk around a little? If we adequately fund regulators, and restrict lending policies, I would think the sleaziest of the sleazy would go under anyway, right?
The psychological effect of people being able to A) stay in their homes and B) pay off their loans should not be underestimated. It’s easy t