I’ve finally heard of an economic stimulus plan that really makes sense. During the meltdown of 2008, lots of money was given to bailout the large companies that failed. To my understanding, the companies were given wheel-barrels full of money because they were deemed “too big to fail”. Is anyone with me when I say, “you’re giving the people that fucked it up in the first place more money to fuck it up again?”
Most people that really screwed up their job get fired. Imagine an elementary school teacher:
Teacher: Sit down you little shits. Practice those hand writing skills. Suzy, you fucked it up again. That q looks like an octopus.
Suzy wails a comically ridiculous cry.
Teacher: There is no crying in school!
The Principal walks into the room.
Principal: Is there a problem?
Teacher: Suzy better stop crying or I’ll beat her ass!
Suzy stops.
Principal: You handled that very well! I’m impressed. Here’s a raise.
Once again, why do we give money to the people that screwed it up?
Which brings me to another point, why give breaks to the people that have the most money? The “trickle down effect”, a term coined in the Reagan years, was an idea that if the rich get more money, it will trickle down to the hands of the average person. The idea being that they will create jobs via new ventures. In action, it’s more on the lines of the “trickle down urine effect”. Think about how corporations make more money. They cut jobs. Trickle Trickle. They run out small businesses. Trickle Trickle. They outsource the jobs. Trickle Trickle. Call centers and stores staff the minimum, creating longer waits. Trickle Trickle. I could go on but to bend the words of Dave Chappelle “I rather be pissed off than pissed on.”
All that being said, I really don’t have any deep seated issue with large companies making lots of money. It’s the methods some corporations use to make more money that I disdain. I find no problem with the “good customer service, superior product or service, and ethical responsibility” model of making money. I try to have my personal dollars go to those companies anyways. But giving breaks to them will give the bad ones breaks too.
How do we fix the problems? I think the “Trickle-Up” theory sounds like the best way. Give the middle class money and they will use the extra to make purchases. I’d love to buy a new guitar. I don’t because I don’t have the money. However, if I were to get an extra bit of cash, I’d be in the guitar store tomorrow. When I buy stuff, ultimately the upper class sees the benefit of that money.
The economic stimulus plan that really seems to make the most sense is student loan forgiveness. I’ve always questioned the system that starts out person in their career path $40,000 in debt. Most people seek a better career through education so they can buy a house, apartment, car, new furniture, etc. When they are making extra payments or even crippled by those payments, they don’t contribute that money to the economy.
Most with student loan debt are at the beginning of their careers. They have many years of contributing to the economy ahead of them. Why start them at a disadvantage when we want them to spend and create new growth? The key is getting rid of those monthly payments. Even if the student loan debt is only $200 a month, that’s $200 a month that will be sunk back into the economy any number of ways (buying stocks, a car payment, shopping at the mall, eating out, a new cell phone, a trip to Disneyland and so forth).
Taking away student loan debt will add money back into the economy and ultimately back into the pockets of the wealthy. It will prevent an entirely new generation of people in the job market from starting their career path at a disadvantage. Finally, it’s a system that doesn’t reward those that screwed up the system in the first place. Yes, I do have student loan debt myself and yes, I will go buy a guitar if that debt is relieved. But think of all the people like me that will also buy something. If you wish to support this idea, please sign this petition.
In order to make the plan work for the long term, the next step will be to re-evaluate how we pay for education in this country but that is step we must take after fixing the immediate concerns.
Time Burrito 
I’m interested in this idea, but I don’t have enough details to really evaluate it. Are everyone’s student loans forgiven? Does it matter when they were taken out or consolidated? Certainly we would have more spending power each month if our loans were forgiven. What is the total cost of such a plan? Brian graduated in 2000 and I did in 1999 and we still have a few years before they are paid off, but maybe they are thinking of just recent grads?
I believe it’s to forgive all student loan debt. The best benefit would be to get rid of it all. Only getting rid of half or something like that would not eliminate the monthly payment issue. As far as who it affects, I’m not sure. Even if it only supports college graduates in 2011 (which is not me), I’d still support it because I believe that giving the middle class a reason to spend would help in any amount. Although the smartest move would be for everyone to have them wiped. It sounds like the money will come from money usually given to large corporations (which they should eventually get anyway when people start spending). Either way if you’d like to look it up the plan is H. Res 365, introduced by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI).
Here is the website of the person spearheading this movement: http://www.forgivestudentloandebt.com/
Not to be a prick, but this is comically oversimplified and not really that funny. You focus too much on the rhetorical devices of politicians, and then propose equally idiotic (literally, rhetorically identical) alternatives to the existing format. I am liberal, but this is just dumb.
While I take no issue with the rhetorically identical and “this is just dumb” comment, this is a humor blog titled “Ideas that Won’t Change the World” after all. I take issue with this comment:
“but this is comically oversimplified and not really that funny.”
You oversimplify the idea of what exactly is funny! I will accept that this post was not funny to you. And if a statistically sufficient amount of people say this wasn’t funny, I will also concede to the percentage that found it unfunny. But to say “not really that funny” is an oversimplification in itself.
I thought it was funny. I especially enjoyed the trickle down urine part.