Alternate Stimulus: $10,000 To Every Taxpayer

[liberal N proud]

CLEVELAND - The stimulus plan started off as a great idea -- ballooned into nearly a trillion dollars -- and is becoming more unpopular by the day.

What if Congress instead gave the money to American taxpayers instead?

NewsChannel5 consumer reporter John Matarese said that CNN-Money ran the numbers and said every taxpayer in America would receive a check for almost $10,000, if the all the stimulus money was instead handed out to the people instead of to Banks and other spending projects.

CNN added the bank bailout to the new Stimulus package, then divided by the number of taxpayers, and came up with exactly:


$9,718 dollars per taxpayer

Supporters said that would immediately boost sales at stores, car and boat dealers, and new home subdivisions.

But most economists said it won't work, because people would save the money or pay off debts, and we would remain in a recession.

They point out that last summer's $600 stimulus did nothing to stave off downturn, as most people used it to pay down credit card debt.

So instead, Congress and President Barack Obama are working on an $800 billion package that would net most taxpayers an extra $20 to $25 a week in their take home pay, as a result of a tax cut.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29071596/




My take on this: It would be a great idea if there was a requirement to spend the money. Either on your mortgage, college education food, a new vehicle or even a toward a down payment on a house. But if you just give the money to the tax payer much of it will just get tucked away in bank accounts. Maybe some of that isn't bad either.

Just saw this and thought I would share.

[Joanne98]

1. I think it's a good idea. Even if people save it still goes on the bank's

balance sheets. And what's wrong with paying off debt? I thought that was the problem. They just want to steal it.

[liberal N proud]

2. I should have included paying off debt..

Debt is one of the reasons the economy is in the toilet

[iamalevi2]

3. Extra cash

Wow, an extra $20 or so a week would really solve of my monetary issues! Guess I now will be able to pay for now daughter's college, and my concerns over my medical bills will now be a thing of the past.

[EmilyAnne]

4. No, because it gets nothing done, nothing built, and creates zero jobs.

The stimulus bill, in theory, is to pay American people to do things that need to be done anyway.

We have to make up for ten years of neglect in which we failed to invest in our country, whether in regards to education, technology, updated health care and basic infrastructure.

$10,000 is not enough to employ someone, repair a bridge, provide better internet service to rural areas, etc. Furthermore, when it is spent, its gone. Things purchased may very well be things made in China and/or things that immediately lose value once brought home from the store or car lot.

[liberal N proud]

7. And that is the part the Republicans don't get

They think throwing a tax cut will cure everything.

[Seldona]

10. Creates zero jobs? Please.

Small business employs the vast majority Americans. We KNOW trickle down is bullshit. I haven't seen a thing suporting your claim. In fact I personally can attest to that being misleading.

We looked at a building Friday. Rent is cheap. Location is great. Just don't have the money to PURCHASE inventory. Builders, plumers, electricians, as well as wholesale companies would be getting most of ours.

How does that not only create jobs, but if it takes off we will be back to employing people like we did in the first half of the decade?

[EmilyAnne]

11. What? I really don't understand your post.

[PVnRT]

15. You say trickle down is "bullshit," yet that's exactly what you're arguing

Not to mention extrapolating YOUR situation into everyone's, which is equally bullshit.

[GA_ArmyVet]

51. I agree that Trickle Down is bullshit

Which is exactly why I am against this Bailout. We the taxpayers, through the Govt bail out the Banks and other businesses, then expect them to share their profits down the line when their now solvent company re-starts our economy..It is trickle down from the start and publicly funded on a massive scale.

[earth mom]

12. Bullshit. People could start their own businesses with that money or they could employ

people to work on their homes.

Our family could use that money for house repairs which would put several people to work.

Not only that but there is no doubt there will be huge amounts of the stimulus package that will be stolen and mismanaged.

Investing in the people is a helluva better idea than giving more money out that can't be completely safeguarded and accounted for.

[PVnRT]

33. I take it you don't work for a government contractor

I do work for one doing plenty of infrastructure projects. The money they give to us is accounted for heavily; there are as many people in Project Controls and Procurement as there are engineers and laborers with this company.

But, hey, if you think a weeklong wiring project for a couple of non-union electricians is the equivalent of the 5+ years people will be employed designing and building new schools, roads and bridges, knock yourself out.

[earth mom]

40. You mean those government contractors like Halliburton-the war profiteers?

Halliburton, who is corrupt beyond belief?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/halliburton200711

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/dpc_hearing062705.html

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/60950

"According to the most reliable estimates, we have doled out more than $500 billion for the war, as well as $44 billion for the Iraqi reconstruction effort. And what did America's contractors give us for that money? They built big steaming shit piles, set brand-new trucks on fire, drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped bags of nails in ditches. For the most part, nobody at home cared, because war on some level is always a waste. But what happened in Iraq went beyond inefficiency, beyond fraud even. This was about the business of government being corrupted by the profit motive to such an extraordinary degree that now we all have to wonder how we will ever be able to depend on the state to do its job in the future. If catastrophic failure is worth billions, where's the incentive to deliver success? There's no profit in patriotism, no cost-plus angle on common decency. Sixty years after America liberated Europe, those are just words, and words don't pay the bills."


How about those government contractors? The ones that literally build shit and who charge ridiculous amounts for hammers and toilets?

C'mon now.

Everyone knows government contractors are some of the biggest rip off artists out there!

But of course, your company is as pure as the driven snow. :eyes:

Your post must be a joke. :rofl:

[PVnRT]

42. As opposed to your trickle-down economics bullshit?

Yeah, my post is a joke. That's why I'm spending hours evaluating competitive bids for a two million dollar construction subcontract. Because everyone who is a government contractor is completely corrupt.

By the way, Halliburton got a no-bid, cost-plus contract because of corruption at the highest levels of government. That tends not to happen with contracts to build roads. Not that I expect a Reaganite warrior such as yourself to understand.

How is the weather in the supply-side fantasy world?

[earth mom]

45. Reaganite? WTF? Speaking about yourself again?

Only someone who is a slave to the Reagan legacy would be so anti the people like you are proving to be in this thread! :puke:

[EmilyAnne]

36. Starting a business with $10,000 and then hoping that you have some customers?

How many months would someone get out of that until going out of business?
There should be some kind of government assistance to people who want to start a small business, but deciding to give each taxpayer 10,000 because some people just might try to start a small business is absurd.

We have aging infrastructure (levees, bridges, etc.) that must be repaired. We need to address our energy issues. We need to invest in education and technology and science, etc. These are smart investments. None of these will be addressed by simply giving out checks. They will still need to be done.

Furthermore, can you imagine the nightmare of deciding just what a "taxpayer" is? Is it someone who has paid taxes for years? Someone who has paid taxes just once? How about someone who is currently on welfare? Or someone who has been unemployed for the last two years? People who now owe taxes, but have paid them in the past?

And what do children get out of this? Under the stimulus package, they will receive the benefits of improved infrastructure, education, alternative energy sources, scientific research, etc.
Under the alternate plan, they won't receive anything because they are not yet taxpayers.

The stimulus plan is, in theory, good in both the short and long term.

[PVnRT]

43. Didn't you get the memo? All government contractors are like Halliburton.

Therefore, they are evil, and we should depend on the spending of the wealthy to provide for a few temporary jobs here and there. Trickle-down economics is now a progressive value.

[earth mom]

46. See, even you admit that government contractors are evil rip off artists. nt

[earth mom]

44. The stimulus package is not good for the people-it's good for big business.

Let the people have control of the hard earned money they paid in.

It's MY money after all and I'm sick to fucking death of it being squandered and ripped off and given to the fuckers on Wall Street!

Give every person in this country 10K and quit splitting hairs about who deserves what.


BTW-your point of view on who deserves what smells and sounds rethuglican.

FYI-We are ALL equal.

Or do you think that some people are "more equal" than others? :eyes:



p.s. One other thing you are wrong about: People can and have started successful home based businesses with 10K or less. I know many people who have.

[EmilyAnne]

62. Please, reread my post! You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder that makes you

defensive and irrational. My point of view on who deserves what??? Do you seriously not get the point that I was making?

You sound like you belong on Free Republic. Seriously.

[earth mom]

72. WTF? Because I'm for the people I belong on FR? You must be crazy.

:crazy:

I've seen some twisted logic before here on DU but this takes the cake!

[EmilyAnne]

77. You think you are for the people, but you are for yourself.

You are certain that you would qualify as a "taxpayer" under this Republican-backed alternative stimulus bill.
Therefore, because you would personally really really like to have $10,000, all infrastructure repairs, green energy updates, education improvements, and the state of the entire economy should go to hell so that you can have your $10,000.

I have been unemployed for two years, so who knows if I would qualify?
Do you actually think my examples of who may or may not qualify were my opinions about who should qualify?
My point this is yet another aspect of this stupid alternative bill that could further screw people.
Our children aren't taxpayers so they would receive nothing. No investment in the future of this country. Nothing. So, too bad. But, in this plan, they would be paying for this deficit spending in the future without enjoying any benefits such as a repaired economy, modernized transportation, education, etc.
College students about to graduate, not yet paying taxes but just about to be out on the floundering job market? Nope. But good luck kids and hope you get a job real soon to pay for all these $10,000 checks we just cut!

[earth mom]

79. You obviously can't read. Because I said give the money to EVERYONE.

EVERY SINGLE LEGAL RESIDENT.


What I am against is the squandering of taxpayer money which has happened time and time again to the point of absurdity.

Look no further than how contractors have ripped off taxpayers in Iraq.

Look no further than how the banks are spending taxpayers money on bonuses and bullshit!



FYI-I never said we don't need jobs.

We do and the first place we should start is with green technology.

I am 100% with Al Gore about the environment and how green technology is the answer to many of the problems this country faces.



That said, I am extremely wary and doubtful that any of the money will be spent how it's earmarked to be spent.

So why not give an decent sized amount of money to the people who will actually do something to help the economy?

Because the way it's going is obviously NOT working.

[WI_DEM]

14. not necessarily with a stimulus that large I think many people would buy a new car

with a big down payment or other products which would pump $ into the economy and still put some $ towards savings/paying off debts.

[Johonny]

49. I agree

10 K for every American might get everyone a nice TV and maybe a little construction around the house. Maybe it saves some retail stores and jobs but it does nothing to improve the American infrastructure.

[Vinca]

5. If people were ordered to spend it, the Chinese economy would benefit.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, after a brief blip in the numbers, we'd be swirling the drain again because no jobs had been created.

[liberal N proud]

6. True

[carlyhippy]

8. It would make a dent in my debt, it would pay off 1 credit card

that would o.k., would have 200.00 a month extra to add to the food bill....rob peter to pay paul it would be at my house, although that European cruise we have always wanted to take sounds good, too.....

[MadHound]

9. It would be nothing more than a feel good band-aid that wouldn't fix the problem

Or even stop the bleeding. In fact it would make things work, because we will have taken on that extra added debt, along with the attending interest and hike in inflation, and gotten nothing more than a short term boost in exchange.

We need jobs, real jobs that provide good money to people. We need to renew our infrastructure, invest in education in order to invest in our future and provide long term solutions.

Cutting everybody a check wouldn't do any of this.

[anonymous171]

13. JOBS! WE NEED FUCKING JOBS. nt

[liberal N proud]

19. True, we need jobs

But if everyone had $10,000 dollars to spend and a majority of those did spend it, wouldn't that create jobs?

I would tend to think that this would be the opposite of trickle down, it would grow the economy from the consumer up.

Give me $10,000; I take that money and buy a new car. The car company needs to hire workers to build that car. They are now working and spending their paycheck buying other goods and services, putting more people to work. It just grows from there.

Maybe I am just wrong but it sounds better than 42% of this bill being tax cuts.

[anonymous171]

21. How do you buy a car when the banks' wallets are shut tight?

In fact, why would you spend free money on non-essentials if you didn't have a job?

[liberal N proud]

23. If you don't have a job, you are going to use the money to live

It doesn't have to be a car and there are a few cars for $10K.

But for the unemployed, they will use the money on everyday items that they may really be suffering without. It is still spending on good and services that will grow up through the economy.

Maybe it is too late for something like this to work because of the unemployed. Maybe we just need instant jobs created. The problem is we are so far in this shit hole bu$h left us and no one is sure what would work.

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

70. Bullshit. We know what works

and we know that tax cuts, even if they seem even do not. We just have Republican a$$holes appealing to people's greed. Give me my $10,000!! $$$$ $$$$. I still have my job, like 80% of the workforce, but I want my $10,000. Screw the people who have lost jobs. Some of them can get $10,000 too (unless they lost their job in February of last year and still haven't found a new one and thus don't make enough money to pay taxes) but hey, give ME $10,000 and the help will trickle down to them somehow, someway.

[Doremus]

80. Yeah, it would create jobs .... for about 5 minutes.

Once people ran through their dough --and it wouldn't be long-- we'd be right back at square one.

No jobs, no improvements, no infrastructure, no nuttin', just an empty wallet.

[NeedleCast]

16. WOuld just create short term inflation

[maxsolomon]

17. they'd get the money back from me to pay off my student loan

the dept of education holds the note. after i paid off visa, of course.

13 years after finishing, only 15K left to pay on my education!

[Earth_First]

18. I'd by a member of Congress... n/t

[Still Sensible]

20. Say it over and over again.... Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

This would be a great idea if we had done it 18 months or two years ago, but we have lost about three million jobs just in the last year. $9,700 per taxpayer may sound like a great thing, but how many of those three million people would be put back to work. Even for the out of work $9,700 per taxpayer or $19,400 per couple would look great for a few months (more in the heartland and less on the coasts)... but then it's gone. And gone even quicker if half of it gets spent catching up bills at the outset. Thats why the mantra right now has to be JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

[killbotfactory]

22. Yes, it would be horrible if I could pay off my debt

and spend more of the money I earn on goods and services. If everyone could do that it would send the economy further down the tubes.

[scarletwoman]

24. Yeah, I'd love a $10,000 windfall. And I know exactly what I'd do with it.

Pay off an outstanding hospital bill and put the rest in my savings account.

I'd definitely NOT spend it -- are you kidding? I'm socking away as much money as I can so I've got something to survive on if I lose my job.

$10,000 to me and and everyone else would be nice, but it wouldn't solve anything.

sw

[DanNewman]

25. We Need Both

I proposed a less-costly variation of the CNN-Money rebate in an op-ed for the Washington Post this weekend, through a $2000 gift card to help us get through the next months while job creation takes root.

We do need jobs programs, and expanded healthcare, and a less-leaky electrical grid. And we need better financial regulation, more transparent accounting, and a fairer tax code. But all those things take time, and unless we act quickly, there are going to be a lot more jobs lost in the meantime.


You can read more thoughts on the topic in this DU thread. I'm not tooting my own horn - I realize most of the responses there are quite critical - but I do believe we need fast action, and more debate is good step. Right now, there isn't a single short-term stimulus active in the Senate, beyond tax breaks.


>But most economists said it won't work, because people would save the money or pay off debts, and we would remain in a recession.
>It would be a great idea if there was a requirement to spend the money. Either on your mortgage, college education food, a new vehicle or even a toward a down payment on a house. But if you just give the money to the tax payer much of it will just get tucked away in bank accounts. Maybe some of that isn't bad either.

Saving in the long run can help, but with businesses suffering and jobs being lost now, we need a short-term boost - an astounding view you can hear now even from conservative economists. One summed up the view with:
“Just as Augustine prayed, ‘Lord, make me Chaste, but not yet,’ America needs to pray, ‘Lord, make me Thrifty, but not yet’ — or at least make us thrifty gradually.”

Last year's rebate checks were saved at too high a rate to help with short-term trouble, but the American Gift Card can do better, as it never sits in a bank. It's the difference between having a bowl of chips on your counter instead of having one stashed at the back of the top shelf.


Do we really want more consumerism?

Whatever your views on "consumer culture," in the short term there's one and only one thing that keeps businesses from folding, and that's consumer demand. We can start cheering about reduced consumption after people stop losing their jobs.


When your house is on fire, there are things to do before choosing a new sprinkler system. The 600,000 jobs lost last month represent only one sixth of the the total losses since the start of the recession. We need relief now, while all other plans take root.

[Median Democrat]

26. That Was The GOP's Idea, They Just Called It A Tax Refund

I thought it was a gimmick then, and still think its a gimmick. There are longstanding structural problems with the economy that are not going to be solved by simply printing money and issuing checks or "tax refunds" despite what the Republicans say.

[bobbolink]

27. Of course. It's sooo "PROGRESSIVE" to cut out the poorest.. those who DON'T pay income taxes!

Thank you all so very much for continuing to ignore us.

And then demand that we vote for your candidates!

Fuck it all.

Share that.

[TahitiNut]

30. GMTA

So many DUers forget that "taxpayer" doesn't just mean INCOME TAX. The jobless (and homeless) still pay taxes!! But EVERY one of these geniuses spew prattle about federal income tax refunds ... and NOT relief for the folks who pay taxes without the benefit of an income.

Imbeciles with their heads up their asses! :grr: :grr:

[bobbolink]

34. WILLFULL IGNORANCE! The information was put right out in front of them, but they don't WANT to

know!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4800489

Yes, I pay taxes! Yes, I'm homeless.

Yes, I didn't receive a "stimulus" like everyone else last time.

Yes, it's very likely I won't this time.

Yes, LOW-INCOME HOUSING HAS BEEN CUT FROM THE BILL.

Does it matter to the oh-so-smart DU "progressives"?

Not damned likely.

As long as they get their "cut", fuck the rest of us.

But, we BETTEr keep voting for them and their interests!

FUCK IT ALL!

[hfojvt]

71. I just wonder where the hell all these libertarian anti-government types came from

It's the DLC writ large, socially liberal and economically conservative these people. I am supposed to be the conservative one here :banghead:

[liberal N proud]

39. In order to get this nation out of these never ending cycles

of growth, recession, the poor will have to be addressed.
I would think that $10K in the hands of the poor, unemployed and homeless would go much further than in the hands of the employed, middle class or upper middle class.

The poor who are not spending any more money than they absolutely have to would actually use money like that to buy goods and services. I think that would stimulate job growth in my perceptions.

I have a saying; Give poor man, $10 he will spend it but give the rich man $100 and he will put it in his pocket. Which will stimulate the economy more?

[bobbolink]

53. Of course, you're completely right. BUT... look at this... this is the ignorance

that "progressives" fall for!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5013681&mesg_id=5016008

[liberal N proud]

55. I can't recall where but the return on investing in low income is $1.56

It is either $1.56 or $1.36. Either way, it is a far better return than a tax cut or bailing out banks.

[bobbolink]

56. I believe it's the second figure. If you can locate the source for that, I'd be most

grateful.

Thank you for understanding, and not being one of the willfully ignorant ones! :pals:

[liberal N proud]

60. I have been there

It was called the Reagan years

Here is some information on the rate of return: it's $1.50 according to the Philadelphia Inquirer

Toward the bottom of the article:

Why spend rather than cut taxes? Different kinds of fiscal expenditures generate different amounts of return.

Zandi's model projects the most "bang for the buck" from temporary boosts in food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, and increased infrastructure spending. Each would generate more than $1.50 in increased economic activity for each $1 spent, he says.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090210_Sizing_up_the_economic_stimulus.html

[bobbolink]

64. Thank you for the figures, and the attribution.

So, now I must ask... why are you falling back on the same old "taxpayer" meme?

If you KNOW these figures, and KNOW the absurdity of your OP assertion, why do you cling to it?

Are we THAT invisible?

Do you just want us to fade away? (In other words, die quietly?)

What gives?

Do you have any idea how completely discouraging and HOPELESS it is to read stuff like this over and over and over and over.....?

[Initech]

28. With $10gs I could pay off my car.

And probably pay a sizable portion of my credit card as well.

[NeedleCast]

29. Wouldn't do anything to stimulate the economy though

and that's what we're trying to do with the stimulus package...I think.

[Initech]

31. Actually it would.

Because by not paying car payments I would have a lot of money to spend on other things. Car payments for me are around $450 / month so that would really add up.

[NeedleCast]

32. Only if you think the problem is consumption

Your money wouldn't go any further, probably not much anyway. A major influx of cash (everyone in the US getting 10K) would lead to massive short term inflation as everyone jacked up their prices because of the glut of available cash. Simply giving away big stacks of money might briefly increase your buying power, but it wouldn't do anything to stimulate the economy in the long term and I think it would probably make things worse.

[Rockholm]

65. You are so right.

Watch out for the incoming flames, however. Having a $450.00 car payment probably means you have a nice car. Remember, to some on Du, you should either be poor and using the bus, or drive a Ford Focus.
God forbid a progressive Democrat enjoy the finer things in life. My $519.00 car payment could be going to other things.

[Initech]

68. I drive a 2007 Nissan Altima.

Nothing flashy but it gets the job done. But yeah I get kind of sick of the holier-than-thou people on this board who think we shouldn't spend money on nice things. :eyes:

[Darkhawk32]

74. Hey! I drive a Ford Focus!

And I think you should drive whatever the hell you want. ;)

Actually, I'm thinking about doing this:

There will likely be an increase in the tax credit given to first time homeowners. I'm hoping to purchase a home sometime in the next 12 months.

I will take the tax credit (rumored at as much as $15k) and pay off my car along with a few other bills.

Take the money I was paying for rent in my 2-bedroom apartment and combine it with some of the money I was spending on my car payment to pay for my mortgage.

As you all know, most of the mortgage that you pay in the first few years goes toward mortgage interest. That money is tax-deductible. I will take that deduction and get a bigger refund the following year from the government.

That's a way I'm trying to think of to create my own stimulus package.

Oh and I'm trying to go back to college and finish my degree.

[Rockholm]

83. No harm intended, DarkHawk...

You are doing the RIGHT thing. And the stimulus will work for you, as it will for most Americans.
I was going to single out Subaru's but knew I would get killed for that car choice. The reason I chose the Focus is probably who you bought one...a very good car for not a lot of money, better than most on gas mileage and easy to park in the city. Hence a car that is "approved" by those on DU who frown on material things.
You have a great plan in place and I am confident that it will work out very well indeed.

[bobbolink]

35. You actually want to "stimulate" the economy, or just better your OWN situation?

Because if you actually want the money to improve the economy, you'll make sure it gets to poor folk, rather than muddleclass people.

But, that isn't your agenda, is it?

[NeedleCast]

38. No, I want to stimulte the economy

Create jobs. Get people back to work, across income lines. Increase the ability of institutions to lend money.

Why do you think giving a one time cash stack to poor folks is going to stimulate the economy? Bush's "stimulus plan" failed for the same reason this one would fail. Because most people either banked the money because they saw worse times ahead or they used the money to pay down debt.

A one time, large influx of cash would probably make things far worse for the poor, as it would lead to heavy short term inflation as goods and service costs shot up.

[bobbolink]

52. Your "information" is totally wrong.

While MOST of you totally ignore poverty, even Rachel Maddow is saying that the money to poor folk would stimulate the economy MORE than the actual dollar amount.

"Bush's "stimulus plan" failed for the same reason this one would fail. "

You really don't know what you're talking about. Poor folk never GOT anything from the previous * plan!!

"Because most people either banked the money because they saw worse times ahead or they used the money to pay down debt."

You are completely WRONG. Poor people are the ONLY ones who will spend it!

I don't know where you're getting all of this, but it must be from a different source than the rest of the "left" uses!

[liberal N proud]

54. Give poor man, $10 he will spend it...

Give poor man, $10 he will spend it but give the rich man $100 and he will put it in his pocket.

[bobbolink]

57. Exactly. But, you see, many "progressives" don't like that reality.

They're like the RW, and would rather see us suffer.

:nuke:

[taught_me_patience]

37. Why not make it 100k?

10X more stimulation!

[carlyhippy]

41. if they gave me 100,000...I would have no debt

and I would stimulate the economy by going out and buy buy buy because I would have no more house payment, student loans, car payments etc etc....really...just give me 100,000 I can jump start the economy by myself, I was once a shopper, now too broke, shopping is a drag.

[spanone]

47. stupid idea

[liberal N proud]

48. I am not disagreeing with you but can you explain why?

Just want to hear everyones opinions and I may or may not comment. I don't know it is a good idea or not. On the surface it could make sense. More than the $700 billion to Wall Street.

[hfojvt]

69. it's too hit or miss and would take too long

Our state government here is cutting $300 million in spending. That means people are losing jobs. So you take a $40,000 a year teacher who has lost a job and give him/her $20,000. Sure that will tide him over for a while, but in the meantime the city is not hiring, the university is not hiring and the state is not hiring. Maybe people who don't lose their jobs go down to the furniture store and buy a new sofa or buy a plasma TV. Nice little windfall for a family which is already better off than the people who lost their jobs. Sure it provides income to the furniture store and maybe helps keep them from laying people off or closing, and it provides a nice boost to the TV company, which is most likely manufactured in China.

It's just more direct to give the money to the states so they give the money to the schools and so that guy does not lose his job to begin with. A bunch of people who keep their jobs can feel secure to buy that new couch or TV or do some home remodelling. The state can take $1 from $100 million taxpayers and turn it into a $100 million road project instead of giving people enough money to buy two extra cans of pop.

If somebody has a huge cut on their arm, you don't plaster the whole body with bandages. In the same way if the economy is bleeding jobs, you deliberately direct money where it is needed, not just throw money at everyone and HOPE it gets where it is needed. Also, like others have said, this would exclude the poorest people in America who are not paying income taxes. Like the Bush tax cuts that were tried in 2001 and 2003, it would give more money to the top 20%, where everyone would get a check, and less to the bottom 20% where half the people in that group would not get a check since they are too poor to pay income taxes. (those lucky duckies).

[Cleita]

50. Taxpayers implicate people with jobs. It's the people without jobs that

need the money more than anyone else. Anyway the last taxpayer give away proved to be a failure. Instead of buying stuff, people paid off debt, money already spent. We need good paying jobs for everyone. That stimulates the economy. National Healthcare would also stimulate new jobs and the economy as a result.

[Horse with no Name]

58. If it were $100k, I would agree

but honestly--$10k is NOT that much money.

[Nevernose]

59. That's 1/4th of my student loan

At least I've got a stable job. Even if they start laying off teachers -- which Nevada is expected to do next year, thanks to the worst Republican governor in the lower 48 -- I've got seniority over half my school, so I'm safe.

But shit, ten grand's not enough for a down payment on a house, or even to substantially pay down a mortgage. It'll equal nothing, and create ZERO jobs. Some will be spent on cars and clothes and stuff, and help in the short term, but it wouldn't really create any jobs.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. That's $3 Trillion In Cash

How is that an alternative plan? That's at least 3 times the cost.

And, if it's $10,000 per household, then that's just silly and pointless.
GAC

[greenman3610]

63. NO. the damn country is fallling down around our heads. we need targetted

spending on infrastructure - sewers, roads bridges, and especially a new
electrical grid.
The infrastructure that was built in the 30s laid the groundwork
for the prosperity of the 50s and 60s, and really, has undergirded our
economy for 60 years.

[Fire1]

66. That sounds like an economist CNN would use as an

'expert analyst.' Epic Fail. Would not work. "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, he eats for a life time,' and I paraphrase. $10,000.00 is a 'short term' band aide on a problem that requires major surgery.

[jmg257]

67. "Every" being the keyword - give it to people who will spend it on stuff.

[EmilyAnne]

75. With this Republican backed alternative bill, the keyword is actually "taxpayer."

Come on. We're too smart for this nonsense. It makes for a nice daydream, but it would not have a positive effect on our current economic problem.

[notesdev]

78. "Taxpayer" includes non-paying filers

People who file and owe nothing (because they make too little) still qualify.

This is actually a very good idea, and it IS targeted properly. The problem that needs to be overcome is excessive debt. $10k of pay-down per person is a lot of debt repayment. This will put a lot of people in position to actually spend money again, people who now are limited to necessities due to debt burden. And those who didn't dig themselves a debt hole get rewarded instead of getting the shaft as they have been under every other proposal.

[Contrary1]

73. That wouldn't make up for what my husband and I have already lost...

but we'll take it.

[ferrous wheel]

76. Just print up enough to give every person a million bucks...none of us will ever have to work

again.
:eyes: :silly:

[NuttyFluffers]

81. fun analogy time! that's like trying to power wash a dirty car with a drizzle of rain

sure, the whole car gets wet; you get to target all the soil at one time. and eventually the soil will moisten and gravity may slough it off -- after a very long time. but we don't have the luxury of time and corrosion will set in by then.

why stimulus works, especially a mix of gov't jobs & project and food stamps, is because its like a high powered hose. sure it doesn't target everyone simultaneously, but that's not the point. it has the power behind it to blast off the largest clumps of glob stuck on our nice economic vehicle. once the big globs are knocked off you can soap the whole car down with less pressure; target a broader spectrum of the populace. after that you spot treat with a little elbow grease problem areas. and finally you wax down the car (install regulations) to make sure the general day-to-day accumulation of gunk doesn't have that much of a chance to stick. maintain by not off-roading into the mess in the first place (deregulation & irresponsible spending) and not choking off your washing water supply (pointless feel-good tax cuts). voila', healthy economic vehicle.

what the GOP is offering, compared to this $10,000 plan, is even worse. their tax cuts are like trying to wash the car with a drip irrigation system. a great idea when you are awash with reserves and running a surplus, but patently brain dead when in the midst of a crisis.

[jmowreader]

82. This would be a good use of it

Ten thousand dollars would amount to full-ride tuition/fees/supplies at most if not all community colleges.

This isn't to say they should do such a thing--but if they did, education would beat buying cheap chinese crap.