Does anyone know what the equivalent cost of Obama's multi-trillion dollar giveaway will be to each taxpayer or each family?
Putting it differently, how much would each person or family receive if all that money were distributed directly to the people? ...Allowing the people to pour the stimulus money directly into the economy.
I've heard figures all over the spectrum, from $10,000 to $25,000 to $35,000 to as much as $250,000, depending on whether it's per individual or per family, and whether it includes only taxpayers who actually pay taxes or everyone (in the name of fairness!).
AAR
Update...
Cost So Far of Financial Bailout...
The New York Times did some taxpayer-bailout number crunching and found that through March 2, the government has made commitments of $9 trillion (that's $9,000,000,000,000) to support the struggling financial system, and actually so far spent $2.1 trillion (that's $2,100,000,000,000), on investments (purchases of assets), loans and insurance or guarantees.
...FOX Business’ Team Washington finds that the U.S. has spent $18,584 per household to shore up the financial system, and has committed a total of $79,646 per household. (What else would your share of the bailout buy?) ... We're sure the average belly-upped subprime borrower had all intentions of repaying his or her loan, too.
In addition to this spending to cure what ails the finance sector, the U.S. is planning to spend $6,965 per household to stimulate the economy.
3 years of tuition and fees at the average private college, according to the College Board: $75,429
A Mercedes CLS550 Coupe:$70,700
A 995 sq. ft. 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom home in Cleveland, OH:$78,900
A used 2004 Kolb Sport 600 float plane:$75,000
1 share of Berkshire Hathaway:$73,221
1,680 barrels of oil:$79,077
6 (six) 2009 Chevy Aveo sedans:$75,750
AAR
I recently heard $112,000 for every man, woman, and child, but I got the impression that would be to pay off the debt. I did hear $30,000 to pay the interest, and that for this year alone, but don't remember if it was household, adult, or everyone. Good question.......
ReplyDeleteRegarding your query: "Putting it differently, how much would each person or family receive if all that money were distributed directly to the people? ...Allowing the people to pour the stimulus money directly into the economy." I kind of don't like going down that road. To me, asking the question still has the implication that it is ok to take money from some people to give to others, and that the only question is how the money is distributed. Even if that is not your philosophy, the question does seem to further it.
I would like a figure for what Americans would have had to spend OF THEIR OWN MONEY if a tax rate cut had been pushed through, immediately. Right now, people have either had money withheld to pay taxes or are looking at writing checks for those taxes. What would have been the economic stimulus to have all taxes cut 10% for 2008 tax bills? Or a tax holiday for some period of time? How many dollars would have become available, instantly, for investment or spending. Surely the loss of revenue would have been offset to a great degree by the fact that there would be so little involved in getting the money into the hands of the people---no checks to cut for many, for example.
It seems that that, even a simplistic plan like telling us "Take your tax bill for 2008, cut it in half, keep half and send us the rest" would have had not only immediate impact on the economy but a good impact on morale. Add the financial incentive of dropping all capital gains taxes to 10% (or less) and cutting them entirely for profits on properties bought out of foreclosure or in short sales, and you would have had a flood of investment money coming in to get the bad paper off the banks' books.
Again, legislation that could have been pushed through in a week.
And then legislation to stop the excesses and manipulations that caused the problem in the first place, with publicized plans to rein in FM&FM, and I think the nation would be feeling more optimistic and more convinced the problems are on their way to being solved---without taking a penny from someone else.
J
We've all heard the figures, whatever they are, and thought, gee, what would I do with that kind of money dumped in my lap. It's the same feeling we each get when we hear about someone winning the lottery.
ReplyDeleteA true story. Several years ago Time Magazine had a cover story about 401k's. The gist of the story: there is a 20% job turn-over in the U.S. every year, so statically, 100% of the job market turns over every five years.
The point was, 80% of those seeking new employment each year spend ALL of their 401k moines. Of the remaining 20%, 80% of those spend PART of their 401k and roll over the remaining portion. The remaining 20% of the original 20%. of the original 100%, roll over 100% of their 401k. In other words, the American public is too stupid to manage their own money... they have defaulted to let the government manage their money in the form of Social Security (a means test is coming, count on it).
I suspect each of us in this austere group has seen the stat of those people refinanced by the first government bailout because they could not meet their new ARM adjusted mortgage payment, 63% are once again in default.
During the recent housing run-up I looked for and actually read about a couple that both worked at McDonald's and borrowed $500,000.00 for a home. Here in San Diego there was a couple, showcased by the San Diego Union as poor, needy folk, and both working, whose ARM had adjusted upwards to the point that even if they rented their home they could not make the new payment. We were to feel sorry for them and further down the article (you always have to read the entire article to find the salient points near the end) it was revealed they had in their garage TWO new Hummers and had taken out, not one, but TWO credit card loans to make their down payment. Hello, McFly....
The point of those stories is most people are not smart enough to handle money (I was going to say "that amount of money," but believe I'm still correct in leaving it the way it is). A fact lost on most liberal redistribution theorists is that if ALL the money in the U.S. was dispatched equally among all the citizens, in five years time (give or take a couple), that money would be right back in the hands of the people that have it now. It's also why Reagan's "trickle down" theory was so much more effective that the "trickle up" theory the liberals seem to espouse.
In the end, it's not how much money you make, it's reducing your debt load. If you have a mortgage, college debts (for you or your kids), credit card debt, car payments, well, you are going to work a very long time. Retirement is not in your future. A lump sum, however attractive, isn't going to help the average person on the street, those who find it difficult to walk and chew gum at the same time. Or as a friend said, "Put one foot in front of the other."
To those of us that can see the light at the end of the tunnel and know it's not someone coming at us with a flashlight, and can manage our money like our depression era parents instructed, a lump-sum check from the government would be well served. To the remaining 80%, well, those checks would find there way into new, and bigger lips (California's octomom comes to mind), other plastic surgery (the money given to New Orleans residents by FEMA comes to mind), and more credit card debt (perhaps after first paying off the existing and most vocal of previous debt).
Didn't I read there are 177,000 or it may have been 77,000 people in New Orleans, STILL in government payed-for housing. Some time ago I read that a woman with two kids and her live-in mate (male not that it matters) were being kicked out of their room at the Holiday Inn and had to spend eight hours a day on the hotel's computer looking for additional government housing. Here's an idea, how about looking for a job.
As for me, well, I'd pay off my remaining mortgage - the only debt I have - do a few things around the house those dollars afford, and buy more survival gear/food/ammo for the WY cabin to get through the forthcoming implosion.
Thus endeth my rant for the day. Thank you for listening. Is anyone else getting tired of working their entire lives only to have the money so diligently put away, given to those _________ (insert your fav here).
I am begging for leadership in D.C. If it comes from the Republicans, fine, but if it comes from a new Conservative Party as Julie suggests, well, thats okay too. I know it's not going to come from the Dems.
J.J.
Bloomberg had interesting article a couple days ago. I think, in it's effort to over-reach and do too much, too fast, in too many areas, the whole house of cards is going to come crashing down a lot sooner than anyone could imagine.
ReplyDeleteRS,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link.
Will the American people stop listening to Obama's snake oil speeches and politics and wake up before it's too late? Or are they so dependent on the government and been so indoctrinated by the liberal schools and universities, that they have lost all common sense and ability to think rationally and reasonably?
As you can see, I've been playing around with the "blockquote" options. I tried different variations last night until I could hardly see the screen, but I didn't find any combination that I liked. I finally gave up and just left it the way you see it for the moment.
I also moved (cut, pasted, and reposted) this topic over to the new TCCF URL. I set it up (for now) with the original display settings and options, including the original settings for "blockquote".
http://conservativecountryforum.blogspot.com/
Any thoughts or comments...
AAR