Where did the $700 billion bailout figure come from? I doubt Treasury Secretary Paulson, or Fed Chairman Bernanke pulled the number out of thin air, so where did it come from?
My guess is they used roughly 65% of $1.1 trillion dollars, with $1.1 trillion being the estimated value of first-lien subprime mortgages and 65% being the estimated percentage of good mortgages.
Anytime this administration has come up with a plan to "help" the economy, it has been a dismal failure, which can be readily determined by the $4 trillion dollars added to the National Debt during the Bush administration.
With that in mind, it is real doubtful this new plan will do anything except get us further in the hole. So what should we do?
Instead of bailing out the banks, why don't we bail out the residents of the country? If we take the proposed $700 billion dollars and divide it by the number of people in this country, approximately 300 million, there would be enough money available to immediately turn around all problems with the economy.
This plan might also eliminate the problem with illegal residents - if you cannot prove you are a legal resident, you don't get your check until such time as you prove legal residency.
For children under the age of 18, their checks would be put into trust until such time as they are of age.
My Plan
|
Posted By: Patricia L Johnson Posted on: Sep. 26, 2008 at 8:30 AM |
3.7 / 5
Based on 3 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Sep. 26, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM
|
||
It's not taxpayer money, Mody - it's Chinese and Saudi, just like Bush's $600 stimulus distribution! How'd you like your chop suey and baba ganoush prepared? |
||
|
Anonymous Voice #36181
Sep. 26, 2008 at 09:56:33 AM
|
|
| June, If you want to become admired and respected like vice-president Palin, you need to bone up on your research. Your comments are becoming one note and tedious. Palin is refreshing and dynamic. You're long-winded, boring and some of the so-called "factual" statements you make are not accurate, some not even close. |
||
|
Sep. 26, 2008 at 10:05:48 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by June on Sep. 26, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM]
June
Sep. 26, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM It's not taxpayer money, Mody - it's Chinese and Saudi, just like Bush's $600 stimulus distribution! How'd you like your chop suey and baba ganoush... View this Comment June, I saw a great quote someplace this week. It said the the US couldn't let the banks fail because they were too big, but because they were too Chinese! |
||
|
Anonymous Voice #36186
Sep. 26, 2008 at 10:08:20 AM
|
|
| so prove here wrong instead of being a tool
|
||
|
Sep. 26, 2008 at 10:20:51 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Anonymous Voice #36181 on Sep. 26, 2008 at 09:56:33 AM]
Anonymous Voice #36181
Sep. 26, 2008 at 09:56:33 AM June, If you want to become admired and respected like vice-president Palin, you need to bone up on your research. Your comments are becoming one note and tedious. Palin is refreshing and dynamic. You're long-winded, boring and some of the so-called... View this Comment If refreshing and dynamic are your criteria for leadership, then you sure got a winner in Capt. Marvel McCain. Shazam!!! Sarah Palin should debate Miss South Carolina next week, not Joe Biden. Now that would be a clash of the mental Titans. |
||
|
Sep. 26, 2008 at 10:24:51 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by indie616 on Sep. 26, 2008 at 10:05:48 AM]
indie616
Sep. 26, 2008 at 10:05:48 AM June, I saw a great quote someplace this week. It said the the US couldn't let the banks fail because they were too big, but because they were too... View this Comment Good Wun, Lady! It's unbearable to even think of life without Visa and Orange Chicken take out, right? |
||
|
Sep. 26, 2008 at 11:41:28 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| Patricia I received an email similar to what you suggest. The amount given would be taxed but many people would be able to pay off their mortgages with their share. Brilliant idea, but I can't see it happening.
|
||
|
Sep. 26, 2008 at 12:32:54 PM
|
||
| Patricia, I am inclined to agree with you. I believe Randi Rhodes was the first person I have heard to articulate this solution. But, in fact, the underlying principle of jump-starting an ailing economy with a wad of money from Uncle Sam is not unheard of. Remember our paltry economic stimulus checks? Of course that $600 was laughable compared to the economic loses that most Americans were taking in almost nearly every other way, so the effect was little more than a bump in the night. $700 billion divided by 300 million is $2333/person, and that would likely have a more profound and lasting effect. What won't work is the almost certain Republican counter-proposal that people without houses, or people who don't pay income taxes, should have no part of this bailout of the people. After all, the whole thing flies in the face of their most cherished religion: trickle down economics. And what won't work (for anymore than a fleeting moment and a temporary bump in the stock market) would be a bailout of the banks. That is a bailout of the wealthiest, and by very definition, more of the same piss-down economics that got us into this fine mess in the first place. |
||
|
Sep. 26, 2008 at 12:34:29 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by My 2 cents on Sep. 26, 2008 at 11:41:28 AM]
My 2 cents
Sep. 26, 2008 at 11:41:28 AM Patricia I received an email similar to what you suggest. The amount given would be taxed but many people would be able to pay off their mortgages with their share. Brilliant idea, but I can't see it... View this Comment I am heartened to see that you are all agog over this very populist and ground-up solution. Power to the People, my friend!!! |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


Are you DAFT!?! Taxpayer’s money to the taxpayers?? What do you think we pay taxes for? Anyway!?!
/span>
Wait a minute …
/span>
The Republickn’s mantra is that it is “our money”. This would be an opportunity to put that foundation principle into concrete action.
/span>
And how would it be paid back? Taxes on business that is racking in the filthy lucre and profiting in it?
/span>
Would it be taxable as income for the recipients?
/span>
Would there be a means test?
/span>
And … /span>
Report Abuse