Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 01, 2014

Mark Blyth and Eric Lonergan, Foreign Affairs: Rather than trying to spur private-sector spending through asset purchases or interest-rate changes, central banks, such as the Fed, should hand consumers cash directly. In practice, this policy could take the form of giving central banks the ability to hand their countries' tax-paying households a certain amount of money. The government could distribute cash equally to all households or, even better, aim for the bottom 80 percent of households in terms of income. Targeting those who earn the least would have two primary benefits. For one thing, lower-income households are more prone to consume, so they would provide a greater boost to spending. For another, the policy would offset rising income inequality.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

AndreaMackris

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Why not ... what could go wrong ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Because they would buy Nike Air Jordans and Samsung TVs. It would boost sneaker and electronics retail for one week.

#1 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-28 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bush did that in 2008 and you saw how great that worked.

money.cnn.com

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-28 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sort of an end run around the Do Nothing Congress.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-28 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bush did that in 2008 and you saw how great that worked.
money.cnn.com
#2 | POSTED BY 726

It would be waaaay more $$$ than that 726. Also it would be periodic. Rather than give it to bankers, give it to the people, how can you be against that?

Sort of an end run around the Do Nothing Congress.
#3 | POSTED BY DANNI

Nothing to do with government... just SHOW ME THE MONEY!...

But the reality is that this is a trial balloon. Eventually this sort of thing will happen and hyperinflation won't be far behind.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-08-28 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

This just might be the answer to the impending economic crisis associated with the inevitable Robot Economy.

The Robot Economy and the Crisis of Capitalism: Why We Need Universal Basic Income

www.abc.net.au

And then there's this:

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-28 04:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rather than give it to bankers,

OMG that is hilarious. Don't give banksters money? Ahahahahaha.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-29 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Giving anybody 'free' money or free anything never was a good deal.

Do you know the difference between your 4X4 pickup and a rental car?

There are places you won't take your 4X4.

#7 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Giving anybody 'free' money or free anything never was a good deal.

Are you including all the free money we give to the banking industry?

What's worse: giving the money to bankers who keep it, or to Americans who use it to live?

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-09-01 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Sounds like a step towards a guaranteed minimum income. I've heard worse ideas, but it'll never happen here because the powers that be that have bought and paid for our politicians and judges make more off the current system of subsidizing the wealthy.

#9 | Posted by censored at 2014-09-01 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sort of an end run around the Do Nothing Congress.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-28 12:13 PM | Reply |

No, it's an end around a "we got ourselves in a box and we don't have any rational ideas any longer on how to get us out of it." So, let's really get stupid and just throw money at the problem. Then with an expanding economy and a good dose of inflation, maybe, just maybe, we'll get lucky and everything will turn out fine. We are freaking economically doomed. We moved away from sound money concepts years ago and have been playing Keynesian games (taught in our institutions of "higher learning") ever since and now the day of reckoning is on the horizon---this is another idiotic proposal to attempt to put off the day of reckoning. Stupid is as stupid does.

#10 | Posted by matsop at 2014-09-01 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've always felt that if the reason for the feds to give away money was to stimulate the economy, it should go to rednecks instead of banks and the top .1%.

Give 10K-30K to a redneck, he'll spend it.

Give 100K-200K to a .1%, they'll save it off shore and never spend it.

I gave 10x more money to a .1% than a redneck, because there are 10x more rednecks than those well off.

#11 | Posted by bat4255 at 2014-09-01 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Well, it looks like our partisan democratic fans are even admitting this economy sucks. Of course, they don't seem to want to put the blame where it belongs. What's that ol' saying of "the buck stops here"----it seems they want to adjust where the buck stops.

#12 | Posted by matsop at 2014-09-01 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Rather than give it to bankers, give it to the people, how can you be against that?"

In other words, "FROM each according to his need, TO each according to his need," right, danni? I don't see why government should be "giving" money to bankers, slackers, frauds, or anyone else unless they are disabled and physically or mentally incapable of supporting themselves. I'd hate to think I had to work to support ol' Jason Surfer Dude because he "needed" more lobster for his cookouts.

#13 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

You don't give money directly to the people because you don't want politicians buying votes. That stops mob democracies poor from voting in whoever promises to give away the most money.

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2014-09-01 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"You don't give money directly to the people because you don't want politicians buying votes. "

Yet special interests are buying politicians so they vote in their favor instead of the peoples best interest.

#15 | Posted by bat4255 at 2014-09-01 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Good deflection Bat, without ever addressing my comment.

You are becoming a good little troll.

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2014-09-01 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We moved away from sound money concepts years ago and have been playing Keynesian games (taught in our institutions of "higher learning")..."

Like MOST things, "higher learning" has bastardized Keynes just like it has wrecked most other things. Keynes actually proposed government spending, lower taxes and deficits during poor times and then raising taxes and paying off the deficits during good times. Our "progressive" professors and governments are completely ignoring the "paying off" part and just using surpluses in good times to create new programs and buy votes which create bigger deficits. It's not just the "progressives" either, although THEY have raised it to an art form. You're right though, "a day of reckoning is on the horizon."

#17 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bat provided a direct response, not a deflection, which goes to the heart of how our Democracy has been corrupted.

This proposal would be a return to Government of, by and for the people instead of what the Rethugs and SCOTUS have engineered, Government of, by and for the Corporation. Much is said in the name of family farms and small businesses and little is done.

#18 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-01 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Our "progressive" professors and governments are completely ignoring the "paying off" part and just using surpluses in good times to create new programs and buy votes which create bigger deficits."

It hasn't been progressives who have repeatedly slashed taxes or who told us we needed to return the Clinton surplus to the taxpayers through tax cuts. We have a progressive President right now yet the deficit is shrinking.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2014-09-01 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You don't give money directly to the people because you don't want politicians buying votes. That stops mob democracies poor from voting in whoever promises to give away the most money."

You don't? Does that mean we shouldn't rent a fleet of buses and promise free breakfast for all those "low information" voters to go down and vote for whomever they're told to vote??? That's an interesting concept, Boaz. Maybe they should be required to answer three questions successfully to qualify first? I suggest these for now.
1. Which two countries border the U.S.?
2. Which country did Russia recently invade?
3. Who are your current U.S. senators.

#20 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, we need to bring back literacy tests and poll taxes. Sad that anyone today would ever suggest such a thing.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2014-09-01 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Yet special interests are buying politicians so they vote in their favor instead of the peoples best interest."

Absolutely...that's a very good reason to adopt the Fair Tax which would eliminate politicians' ability to to manipulate favorable tax benefits for cronies and would eliminate the IRS which punishes their enemies. Then, we could repeal or SERIOUSLY reform Obamacare to eliminate politicians' ability to create "exemptions" for cronies like labor unions and others. THEN, some term limits would prevent a lot of the "empire building" politicians do so well.

#22 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You don't give money directly to the people because you don't want politicians buying votes."

OK BOAZ, Then why are the powers that be, buying the special interests vote for more money in their pocket?

Giving money to the poor so they can bribe the politicians as much as the special interests, might give the people a level playing field.

#23 | Posted by bat4255 at 2014-09-01 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Are you including all the free money we give to the banking industry?

What's worse: giving the money to bankers who keep it, or to Americans who use it to live?

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner

Money of stuff should NOT be given to anyone.

#24 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

We have a progressive President right now yet the deficit is shrinking.

#19 | Posted by danni

But the debt is increasing by leaps and bounds.

#25 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Yeah, we need to bring back literacy tests and poll taxes"

I never mentioned any taxes, danni, get real. As far as literacy tests, the questions could be oral and not require any reading or writing. Of course, it would help if they could read the names of the candidates instead of having some "helper" have to tell them which box to check...right?

"Sad that anyone today would ever suggest such a thing."

What's really sad is having so many voters who wouldn't pass the test. Too many are electing politicians by their hair style, or some other meaningless characteristic without knowing whomever they're voting for or what issues a candidate supports.

#26 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, we need to bring back literacy tests and poll taxes. Sad that anyone today would ever suggest such a thing.

#21 | Posted by danni

A guy was ask, "if you are going 60 MPH, how far would you go in an hour/" The guy could NOT answer yet he votes. Is this a great country or what?

#27 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You don't give money directly to the people because you don't want politicians buying votes."

OK BOAZ, Then why are the powers that be, buying the special interests vote for more money in their pocket?

Giving money to the poor so they can bribe the politicians as much as the special interests, might give the people a level playing field.

#23 | Posted by bat4255

That is right up there with dumb question of the week bat.

Buying power and votes just ain't right, and you know it.

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This proposal would be a return to Government of, by and for the people instead of what the Rethugs and SCOTUS have engineered, Government of, by and for the Corporation."

I might point out that corporations and other cronies, like big labor, are the biggest supporters of this president and his administration too. DemocRATS are every bit as guilty. You may have forgotten, for instance, how GE paid no taxes, moved jobs to China and CEO Jeff Immelt was then appointed Jobs Czar by Obummus...LOL.

#29 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Buying power and votes just ain't right, and you know it."

You are correct, but until the laws are changed, we need to work with what we have.

The laws will not change because, there is too much money to lose by those who make the laws.

#30 | Posted by bat4255 at 2014-09-01 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"We have a progressive President right now yet the deficit is shrinking."

LOL...completely ignoring the trillion dollar deficits and doubling of national debt by your idol, danni?
I don't know why I even address your inanities, danni, probably just for amusement. BUT...here's how the CBO views the wonderful results of Obummus Maximus brilliant economic policies. I'm sure it's Bush's fault though.

The CBO estimates that the deficit will rise by $7.3 trillion over the next decade - a trillion more than the CBO's last estimate.

www.americanthinker.com
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

#31 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

#31 | Posted by jestgettinalong

It takes a true idiot to buy any of the crap being peddled at the Amerikan Stinker.

Good job, jesty.

.

#32 | Posted by Dave at 2014-09-01 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

justget,

Obama is to the far right of progressive Wussies, based on what he does, not what he says. We actually agree on one thing, but you'll never realize that.

#33 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-01 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't see why government should be "giving" money to bankers, slackers, frauds, or anyone else unless they are disabled and physically or mentally incapable of supporting themselves.
#13 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Really? You don't understand that we bailed out the banks to try to prevent a major recession becoming a crash bigger than the Great Depression?

I don't know why you think you have any informed opinions about economics if you can't figure out something as simple as that.

We need banks. If the banks collapse, so does most everything else. That's reality. Perhaps you are not capable of discerning certain basic truths? Seems like if your neighbor's house was on fire you wouldn't turn on your hose to help. Even at the cost of the fire then spreading to your house.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Our "progressive" professors and governments are completely ignoring the "paying off" part and just using surpluses in good times to create new programs and buy votes which create bigger deficits.
#17 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Those votes must come real cheap. "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households." www.cia.gov

So even with all those votes being bought, only the top 20% of households are seeing substantial gains.

Meanwhile, "Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income." Whose votes do you think that buys? If you answered campaign contributions from the rich to buy the votes of our politicians, you're right!

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Oh wow Social Credit hmm what guy on this site has been supporting social credit policies for the past decade or more?

No one takes the idea seriously but then again no one has bothered to read about it.

It is the only answer to the coming robot workforce. The effects we are experiencing now are just the beginning in 20 years if nothing is done with our economic system even the high end jobs repairing and designing the machines that are rapidly replacing our jobs won't pay crap because there will be 10,000 people for every 1 job.

Currently the Fed gives 40 Billion a month to bankers in terms of QE, no idea how much in other programs. That would come to 126 bucks for every man woman and child in the US. Don't say hyper-inflation since that is the amount we are already printing so it would have no additional inflation effects to give it to the people instead of the bankers.

#36 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-09-01 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

How about the Fed just stop's printing more money out of thin air and not give to banks or people as the more they 'print' the higher the national debt climbs and it is already ridiculously high. Why, oh why do so many feel something should have something just handed to them because they exist?

#37 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-09-01 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It takes a true idiot to buy any of the crap being peddled at the Amerikan Stinker."

Ahhh, the "American Stinker" was just reporting the "crap" reported by the CBO, you know, the OFFICIAL agency for estimates required for Congessional budget estimates. Did you think the editors of American Thinker made them up themselves? Maybe you would accept this "crap" if it came out in HuffPo or Media Matters though...right? Ya' gotta get a little smarter before blurting, Dave, makes you look foolish. "It takes a true idiot" to completely miss the statement that....

"The CBO estimates that the deficit will rise by $7.3 trillion over the next decade - a trillion more than the CBO's last estimate."

#38 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Printing money has nothing to do with national debt MSGT two different issues.

#39 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-09-01 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm all for a guaranteed income. We have an economy that leaves 4 in 5 households behind. That can't last forever; eventually there will be riots.

Speaking of riots, here's a fact which highlights just how much some households are being left behind. "The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data." www.nytimes.com

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Why, oh why do so many feel something should have something just handed to them because they exist?"

It's what they've been conditioned to "feel." See "Great Society," "War on Poverty" and many other government programs.

#41 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Turns out not everybody holds those truths to be self-evident.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Great Society war on Poverty etc. were all half ass attempts to correct the problem of the spread between production and consumption. Social Credit is the only economic system that directly address that spread. The fact that we borrow money to make up the difference means every increasing debt which can never be paid back.

Printing the money and giving it directly to the people would reduce the deficit, and reduce the spread between production and consumption. In that situation both business owners and the people would win.

God forbid that anyone support a policy that doesn't hurt either the poor or the evil corporations though. Someone must suffer or what is the fun in politics!

#44 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-09-01 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data."

Thank you Lyndon Johnson, thank you, Great Society. Moynihan described the results in his famous study many years ago. This "Great Society" of Johnson's destroyed the black family.

"The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," was written by Moynihan when he was an assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Labor. In the report, Moynihan listed a series of ills he argued had helped cause poverty in black America.

Moynihan often reeled off the dire statistics:

"About a quarter of Negro families are headed by women. The divorce rate is about 2 1/2 times what it is [compared with whites]," Moynihan said. "The number of fatherless children keeps growing. And all these things keep getting worse, not better, over recent years."

What is it now, about 75% of black babies born to single mothers? Another failed "liberal" program. Why can't we ever admit these failures and do something that might have a better chance of success? We have more people in poverty now than existed at the start of the "War on Poverty" and we have created a whole class of society totally dependent on welfare and government handouts that keeps growing.

#45 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Explain why it's LBJ's fault that black marriages have a higher divorce rate and higher single parent rate.

As best I can tell, you're just scolding black people for their mistakes. Am I missing something?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

We have more people in poverty now than existed at the start of the "War on Poverty" and we have created a whole class of society totally dependent on welfare and government handouts that keeps growing.
#45 | Posted by jestgettinalong

What alternative did you expect, when, as I've apt to point out, "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households." www.cia.gov

The Great Society and War on Poverty didn't create an economy that only rewards the top one in five households.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"About a quarter of Negro families are headed by women. The divorce rate is about 2 1/2 times what it is [compared with whites]," Moynihan said. "The number of fatherless children keeps growing. And all these things keep getting worse, not better, over recent years."

So. Free abortions, free birth control? You point this out, what did you think might be done about it? Should we pay women not to have kids, the same way we pay them to have kids?

Again, it just seems like you're scolding people, but have no solutions to offer. You're all stick, no carrot. It's been a century since Skinner boxes revealed that those solutions are only marginally effective, and they're certainly incompatible with a free society.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Why can't we ever admit these failures and do something that might have a better chance of success?
#45 | Posted by jestgettinalong

What might that be? You guys never get around to saying what that is. All we know is you want to scrap the existing system. If you were being honest you'd come out and admit that you don't want to replace it with anything.

Nothing is stopping you from supporting solutions you do favor on a charitable or philanthropic basis. If you have success stories, let's hear them. It sure seems like all you have is disdain for the poor for being poor.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Give them money?

Dumb idea.

Instead give them honest work in a new CCC and WPA and watch the nation start to return to normal.

#50 | Posted by Tor at 2014-09-01 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

snoofy,

Your claim that the bailout was necessary to save the economy is certainly the "official" reason. But, there was no need to give the fraudsters a get out of jail free card. There was no reason to provide the bailout money unconditionally. A more reasonable approach, which would protect the interest of taxpayers that were involuntarily on the hook, would have been to trade Bank stock for the bailout money and place a representative on the Bank board whose job would be to look out for taxpayer interests. For example, there was absolutely no reason to permit bonuses to be paid out to the very people that created the toxic assets, but that is exactly what happened. Its the biggest rip-off in the history of mankind. No Dictator or Communist has come close to size of this rip-off, and they got away with it.

#51 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-01 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#51 absolutely but this is a separate issue from preventing a collapse.

I would have bailed out the banks by bailing out anyone with an affected mortgage and letting it trickle up. Let the people decide if they want to stay in their house; and only if they make payments do they keep getting monthly bailouts. Most people would have opted to stay at the free money trough, which would in turn have made most of the banks whole.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

The purpose of the Fed is to profit from and maximize US taxpayer/government debt, and support the NY bankers who own them. That's why the income tax Amendment was created just as underhandedly and subversively as the Fed itself.

Why would they give the money they print, and will subsequently collect interest on, to average serfs? Too many Americans are naive to think that the Fed is a benevolent arm of government.

#53 | Posted by Robson at 2014-09-01 11:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just promise them they'll save $2,500 a year. It's like a bribe you don't have to pay and it works on half of the population.

#54 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-09-02 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

When an article appears in Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece of the policy-setting Council on Foreign Relations, recommending that the Federal Reserve do a money drop directly on the 99%, you know the central bank must be down to its last bullet.

The economy continues to teeter on the edge of deflation. The Fed needs to pump up the money supply and stimulate demand in some other way. All else having failed, it is reduced to trying what money reformers have been advocating for decades, get money into the pockets of the people who actually spend it on goods and services.

It's well past time, then, for U.S. policymakers -- as well as their counterparts in other developed countries, to consider a version of Friedman's helicopter drops. In the short term, such cash transfers could jump-start the economy. Over the long term, they could reduce dependence on the banking system for growth and reverse the trend of rising inequality. The transfers wouldn't cause damaging inflation, and few doubt that they would work. The only real question is why no government has tried them.

The main reason governments have not tried this approach is the widespread belief that it will trigger hyperinflation. Only when demand is saturated and productivity is at full capacity, will consumer prices be driven up. The difference between actual output and potential output, is currently estimated at about $1 trillion annually. That means the money supply could be increased by at least $1 trillion without driving up prices.

Fully 76% of Americans now live paycheck to paycheck. When they get money, they spend it. They don't trade in forms of investment. Assume a $1 trillion dividend issued in the form of debit cards that could be used only for goods and services. A back-of-the-envelope estimate is that if $1 trillion were shared by all US adults making under $35,000 annually, they could each get about $600 per month. If the total dividend were $2 trillion, they could get $1,200 per month. And in either case it could, at least in theory, all come back in taxes to the government without any net increase in the money supply.

Other ways to get money back into the Treasury so that there is no net increase in the money supply include closing tax loopholes, taxing the $21 trillion or more hidden in offshore tax havens, raising tax rates on the rich to levels like those seen in the boom years after World War II, and setting up a system of public banks that would return the interest on loans to the government.

One reason for handing the job to the Fed is Congress has been eviscerated by a political system that keeps legislators in open battle, deadlocked in inaction. It's probable that they don't actually have the legal right to do anything like this. Their authority is this: who's going to stop them? No one wants to take on responsibility for this mess themselves.

Creditor and debtor are in a symbiotic relationship. Like parasites and cancers, compound interest grows exponentially, doubling and doubling again until the host is consumed; and we are now at the end stage of that cycle. To keep the host alive, the creditors must restock their food source. Dropping money on Main Street is thus not only the Fed's last bullet but is a critical play for keeping the game going. (Ellen Brown)

#55 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-02 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really getting sick of people still trying to hand out money to people just because of how they live. This new-age discrimination is getting waaaaay out of control. I work a 9-5 every day. I wake up by an alarm every day so I can get dressed and work hard to earn a paycheck. I come from a almost middle class household; my first few jobs were $4.25 an hour. I now have a job making a lot of money because I kept working those minimum wage jobs and got better at them. Then I took on debt to go to school. Kept my mouth shut (as much as a kid in his 20s can) and kept working. I've worked jobs I hated for years just for the experience. I never had kids because I never thought I was financially ready for them. I had caps for debt that I would not go over no matter how bad the emergency or want. I have enough money now to get a loan for $4k a month for a home, yet I live in a townhome I bought on a short sale for $60k and I'm about to sell that for a home that I'm buying for $100k. Now, in my late 30s, I get to work in the new car I just bought and some people actually have made snide comments as if all of a sudden I make so much money I can afford these things. I only have a little nest egg because I spend my money on goods and services. If something big happens in my life, it could impact my finances in a major way and I would be forced to lose things. But, because I make more than what 80% of the people make, I'm a devil according to people like these authors.

What the authors are doing is trying to make me even more of a demon because I suffered young and kept trying. Why would I not be considered for the same amount of money as everyone else? Why am I being punished by people like these authors and being considered an exclusion from the suggestion? It really has become true in this country that if you work hard you *may* reap the rewards later...but if you don't work at all then you *will* reap the rewards from the government and Liberals. Your discrimination has gone way passed the tipping point.

#56 | Posted by humtake at 2014-09-02 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Instead give them honest work in a new CCC and WPA and watch the nation start to return to normal.

#50 | Posted by Tor

I've generally agreed with you on this concept, especially as an alternative to further extensions of unemployment benefits.

The blow-back that you'll get to this idea will be from contractors who will lose work that they otherwise would have done for far larger profits.

#57 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-09-02 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Idiots

#58 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-09-02 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can make a great case the government shouldn't be giving money to anyone (person or company).

But, if the government is going to give money to one or the other under the guise of stimulating the economy, then it makes much more sense to give the money to people - particularly low income people. They will spend it and the money will trickle back up through the system.

#59 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-02 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Janet Yellen, chair of the US central bank, the Federal Reserve (Fed), and its entire Board of Governors, were joined by the heads of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi; the Bank of Japan (BoJ), Haruhiko Kuroda; and the deputy governor of the Bank of England (BoE), Ben Broadbent met in Jackson Hole last week.

This year's meeting was particularly important, as the Federal Reserve continues winding down its more than US$4 trillion Quantitative Easing (QE) bond buying program that was launched in 2009, and, even more importantly, as debates intensify within the Fed itself over when and how to raise interest rates after holding them near zero levels after more than five years.

QE has created asset bubbles in the US stock, corporate junk bond, leveraged loans, etc without stimulating real investment in the USA economy. All the public spin about QE, that it is about reducing unemployment, creating jobs, stimulating recovery of the housing sector, etc., is ‘ideological cover' for QE's real objective: banker-investor balance sheet subsidization and bailout. The Fed and other central banks filled the hole in the private banks' balance sheets by issuing QE and zero rates. This will end, but not likely until after the November election.

The central bankers' hole deepened, while the bankers and investors' hole was filled. It's all been a shell game. One hole debt and losses filled by digging another. The net outcome for the central banks of the AEs together may be that financial bubbles and instability will continue to grow, while real economic activity will in net terms continue to slow. (Jack Rasmus)

#60 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-02 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Humtake,

Clearly you have not read Social Credit which is what I am talking about and what this concept is based on.

Social Credit will not pick winners and losers it is equal to everyone. It is the realization that you can not have a successful economy when you have a spread between production and consumption.

The spread is inherent in our economic system and we have known for a long time that new money must be created to keep it going. Currently the only way new money is created to cover the spread is debt so it is unsustainable eventually you exceed the capacity to take on debt which stalls the creation of money. We are rapidly approaching that point.

A social credit system gives us the means to get new money into circulation without debt. Using the 40 billion a month the fed is giving to banks under QE that would come to 126 for every man woman and child. Notice I said every that means you get 126 no matter if you make 10k a year or 10k a month. If you use the 1 trillion from nutcase it would be 264 a month. Once again I specify everyone. This is a way to get money into circulation not to pick winners and losers.

Read up about social credit a bit before you think it is some other way for the poor to stick their hand in your pocket and remember that the Fed is already giving away 40 Billion a month to banks in terms of QE this is just QE for the people instead of the banks.

#61 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-09-02 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

QE, long declared to be $85 billion a month ($1 trillion per year), free money for criminal Banks, it was going to be officially reduced to $65 billion a month but was actually increased to $117 billion per month by laundering the money through Belgium.

www.secretsofthefed.com

#62 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-03 02:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort