Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCJ3Oz5JVKs

Such a classic!

A friend of mine recently had a similar conversation on the internet:


Ok, this one is too funny and I have to share. I usually don't post 
messages to internet forums, but I got an e-mail about Obama's 
"change.gov" website where citizens can voice their ideas. I was 
browsing through and ran across a posting that I felt I had to correct.

Them:
----------------------------
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to give each verified US citizen (or 
household) a one-time grant of $750,000 that could have been used to pay 
off or down mortgages, student loans, or school fees, car loans? Of 
course, folks would have also spent money on other things, clothes, 
cars, vacations, electronics, real estate, investments, savings, health 
care, whatever they wanted or desired.
That would have affected everyone, (even those of us who are not 
documented),and would have stimulated the economy for everyone. It would 
have been been cheaper than giving Bush & his fellow crooks 750 billion 
dollars to finish their ransacking of the US economy one last time 
before they left office.
[...]
If you give me a $1,000.00 stimulus check, I am going to buy groceries 
or pay down the electric /gas bill. Next month I still have to feed my 
family and the electric company will only raise their rates, knowing 
that the stimulus checks are in the mail.
[...]

Me:
--------------------------
$750,000 x 300,000,000 americans = $225,000,000,000,000

That's 225 trillion. So no, it's not cheaper. Not anywhere close.

To put that number into context, the federal budget (not counting 
medicare, medicade, and social security) is 1 trillion.

And if everyone has tons of money, everyone raises their rates (like you 
said the electric company will do if you have a $1,000 stimulus check.) 
It's called inflation, and the money would become practically worthless.

There's no magical solution, and the government can't just pay 
everything off.


Them:
-------------------------
Not to all Citizens,

Children who are still Dependants would not be eligible.
Nor would incarcerated individuals. I am sure that there could be a 
formulation that would lower the grant amount those over a certain 
income level.

Just open your mind to it for a minute. It's better that giving it to AIG


Me:
-------------------------
Even if you exclude criminals and give the money to households, that's 
roughly one out of every ten americans, and the number is $22 trillion.

I can open my mind, but numbers are numbers. You can't just dream up a 
magical solution that sounds exciting. You have to back it with facts 
and reality because in the end, we want life to get better, not to cause 
more problems.


Them:
-------------------------
I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN BUT I THINK THAT YOUR MATH MAY BE OFF.
WE HAVE 300 MILLION CITIZENS. IF WE GAVE EVERYONE 1 MILLION DOLLARS 
WOULDN'T THAT BE 300 MILLION DOLLARS? HOW DID WE GET 22 TRILLION FROM 
750 THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUSEHOLD?

Post a reply to this message