By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes I do, but seeing you imply that government rulling being part of it because it was voted doesn't make much of sense.

And this very "well made" study said that putting 2.9Tri USD per year would increase the economy by 2.5Tri USD, so it would increase less than expent, besides interest in debts and also that not all of that 2.5Tri will come back in taxes so it will just roll bigger and bigger on debts.

yes but the size of our economy also effects our global power. While I agree that going 400billion more into debt in 8 years isn't a great idea for US citizens, it does give our companies, people, government, more power. It's a growth of almost 14%. 23% of China's gdp. 

So yeah, there's a lot of things to think about, and surely I am no expert, but outpacing China by 23% for the cost of 400b doesn't seem like such a bad deal.

It's also important to note that the study says it's not the end all study, and there are multiple other ways to implement this, based on income etc.

Nope man.

The defict will INCREASE 2.9B/year to increase the economy by 2.5B several years later. Even if we considered that it happened at the same time, meaning put 2.9B in people pocket and increase the economy by 2.5B that would mean (let's say an average tax of 30% on this GDP growth) 800B in taxes and the like. So it would be an increase of 2.1B of debt+interest yearly. It is quite crazy.

As others said if government removed all public service and payouts, and only provided roads, law/judicial system and sovereign defense/police with all other costs being converted to this 1k/month per citizen handout for people earning less than say 3k/month. Meaning the government size and cost would be minimal and almost neglible it would at least be more reasonable (and probably mean less money expent than today).

But we know that people will say that it wouldn't be acceptable because who would care, educate, keep health, etc all these guys that would pick this money and use it in things that aren't education, health or food related.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."