Bailouts for Everyone!

Sep 30, 2008 11:24

What would happen if, instead of bailing out financial institutions, the government bailed out all those homeowners taht are defaulting on those loans?

Would it make a difference?

Leave a comment

gkr September 30 2008, 18:39:06 UTC
There's actually a couple of proposals like that out there.

One I like is for the government to buy up properties that are in default, and then rent them back to the former homeowners. No one gets put out of a house that way, but they still don't get free money for making bad decisions.

Reply

pacie September 30 2008, 18:42:58 UTC
oh that's a good idea

Reply

taufactor September 30 2008, 21:22:52 UTC
I had an alternative proposal for the gov't-

Send out a $100,000 stimulus package to each registered voter.

300-600 dollars in "stimulus" doesn't really do squat.

100 grand would ease a LOT of debts out there. Even for people who aren't in trouble, 100 grand would get put back into the economy very quickly. People would either be buying things, or investing their money.

Might drive inflation up a bit, can't say for sure. But, imagine how much money would suddenly get infused into the economy! People facing foreclosure could put it to paying down/refinancing parts of their loans, or if they were forclosed out, they'd have money to find housing.

So, if the gov't wants to refuel the economy with a "bailout", give it to the taxpayers.

Reply

dangergirljones September 30 2008, 21:37:47 UTC
I thnk it would have to be tax payers, not registered voters. I thought this too, but when I did the math, (Bailout divided by US population) it amounted to $23 each :(

Reply

taufactor September 30 2008, 21:59:46 UTC
700 billion/300 million comes out to $2333.00

Of course, that 300 million total population, including children, immigrants both legal and illegal, and everyone else.

So, it'd actually be closer to 150 million, if you take out the non-registered immigrants, children below working age, people ineligible to work, etc.

I'd also say that people who are already worth more than a million in liquid funds should get less, or none.

Reply

dangergirljones September 30 2008, 22:06:16 UTC
I must have missed/added a zero somewhere.

Not sure if $2300 is worth it, most people would probably pay Japanese electronics or cars with it

Reply

taufactor September 30 2008, 22:21:25 UTC
Still, that'd be more helpful than a piddly 300 dollars. Sure, some people might blow their checks on gadgets and toys, but there's plenty of people out there that it might just break them out of a catastrophic financial situation.

One thing I wish more people out there would learn (and many have the hard way), credit is a privilege, not a right. It's only half the banks fault for extending loans to people who couldn't afford it in the first place.

I don't think it's right to burden the taxpayers for someone else's debts, but I'd rather that than the economy bleeding completely to death. It's a shit situation, either way...

Reply

machine_logic September 30 2008, 22:07:21 UTC
The rich don't need the help.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up