In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1964
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
a 21 year old William & Mary economics major offers simplified fix to US woes.
51/49 rule :
51% of America is made up working citizens from min.wage and up
49% is made of politicians,the uber rich, & the welfare nation
the young man suggests cutting all foreign-aid for a 3 year period, divide those funds among the housholds of "the 51%"which would talley 1.8m per houshold.
- the "51%" must at that point retire from their jobs & pay off any bad home-debt.
- Social Security would then only be awarded to those that were previously retired & cease to exist beyond that.
and the beauty is the 3rd of his 3 point plan...
-welfare & Govt handouts would end immediately as 44% of the 49% which make up the welfare state can take jobs left open by the departure of the "51%".
adding a cliff note; he said, "but what would the politicians campaign about every 4 years ?"
Interesting theory but would these 49%ers be qualified to fill positions that were left by retired doctors, lawyers, etc? Life would prolly become hell for the 51%ers if they ever got sick or needed legal representation after they retired.
The basis of his theory was cut off foreign aid. You could come up with multiple ideas if that much money came available. Not to hijack your thread but I'd like to see an in depth study on the perceived consequences of cutting foreign aid, even temporarily.
most of the welfare state is unqualified to work normal jobs
foreigners would be forced to do without (tax dollars) instead of US tax payers (who earned it).
for as long as it took.
they would get "FREE" job training .
or option B - they could grow & hunt what they eat and drink rain water while watching Obama's border envasion take "their jobs" if they prefer.
This post was edited by Crimson_Ghost 13 months ago
I understand that. I'm saying that foreign aid $ spent in the US would be huge. What are the perceived consequences of cutting the $ flow to other countries? We obviously need the $ here so I'm trying to figure out what the advantage would be to continue giving our $ away vs disadvantage to the US for keeping that money within our own borders.
lawyers & doctors could fend for themselves as the 49%ers would quickly learn to do.
Kid would offer more help to the economy if he'd change his field of study to something not so useless
You really want the 49% running our country? We would have the worst workforce in the world. And why would private companies want to give up their top talent for trash.
The funny thing is that the 21 year old is part of the 49%. Bum.
Except politicians AND the welfare state can not work most respectable jobs. I wouldnt hire a politician for any job. They are yuppy, lazy, conceited and generally incompetent. They'd show up late, leave early, accomplish little and expect a raise.
The other folks would whine that they are asked to work and that they cant go to Kroger and use all their foodstamps to buy super high sugar content stuff like Mountain Dew so they can rush home and careen towards dialysis.
This post was edited by fsufsu 13 months ago
The math is wrong too.
Foreign aid is about 1% of the 3.8 trillion budget. So unless he is including military operations...
38 billion paid out to 51% of Americans = $230.00 a person.
That aint going to help much.
Is there a link to this "study"?
When we start trusting a 21 year old to solve our economic problems we should just give up and merge with Canada and hope for the best. That kid annoys me.
Obama and his flock have are healthcare merging as we speak. what's next ?
Eliminating a competent military and relying on "talks" to keep us safe.
We will also immediately apologize to any country we've ever offended or voiced opinions to
the actual # is closer to $50 billion/year (link below), but that still only brings it up to just under $950/person for the whole 3 year period.
(Reuters) - The U.S. State Department and foreign aid budget escaped devastating cuts in a fiscal 2012 spending plan that Congress has approved.Aid in war zones helped boost the overall amount the United
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. The math is wrong, the underlying assumptions are wrong, and it's simply nonsensical and infeasible. If this is the type of Econ major William & Mary is turning out, they need to start cracking down on their classes.
i know this is a joke and just for thought, but cutting foreign aid could actually end up costing us more in the long run.
There is a reason why Econ is widely included in universities' Liberal Arts departments and not Science. While based heavily in math, ultimately, economics is more of a philosphy type of major. In other words, crazy ideas like this come out all the time and some fools fall for it.
This is what I was getting at earlier. You say it would hurt in the long run but I'm curious what the cons would be. I'm not disagreeing with you but would like to see an analysis on pros vs cons.
If there is one thing that the left and right general population can agree on is that everyone thinks the US gives away too much money to other countries.
Here are just 3 examples.
This is not just in government aid, but also in the private sector as well as I think one of the things that many don't realize is how much businesses do independently from government aid as well, along with a lot of people in the medical profession donating their time for free, even when the government may be providing the tangible items.
1) disease control. The US spends a lot of money and this is beginning to be supplemented by China as well in stopping the spread of disease. We have had very few outbreaks or epidemics in the past 100 years and much of that is due to this funding. If disease spreads in Asia or Africa or anywhere else, with today's international travel, any widespread epidemic would eventually make it to the US and would result in major $$ on the backend. To help prevent that, we try to stop these things from spreading and getting out of control.
2) immigration control. I admit that I am one that doesn't think this issue is as major of a problem currently as some make it out to be. Yes, in some parts of the country it is worse than others, but I think most of it is just pomp and cirsumstance that politicians parade in front of their constituency to gain favor from those that are sensitive to the topic. If we were to cut foreign aid that is used to help educate and train others in foreign countries to learn a trade so that they can help support themselves and their families, there will be even more people coming to the US illegally and the "problem" as some see it today, will actually become a major issue to deal with. This one gets difficult at the private sector though and is where politics becomes very hypocritical. Private industries (not just American) were actually once encouraged to expand to foreign countries as a way to lessen the burden on the government so that people in these areas would have more opportunities to afford them a life instead of having to come to the US, Canada, or other European countries for work. Well, then people took that as sending too many jobs overseas or to Latin/South America, so companies began to get punished with financial penalties for a certain % of their goods that are being sold in the US being manufactured in a foreign country. That is why you see all of the European and Asian car manufactures opening so many plants in the US. They don't have to pay the penalty because, in some cases, 100% of the manufacturing of the goods is done in the US. Of course, that doesn't mean that the huge profits that the companies make stay here or that the executive level managers are actual Americans either (in some cases I am sure they are though). Then, when you add the cost of shipping items here with the rising gas prices internationally, it is starting to become more profitable for these companies to bring their manufacturing back to the US. This example has a lot of positives and negatives on both side of the argument, but in the long run, it will result in more people attempting to immigrate illegally to the US.
3) research programs involving farming. This is an area that is considered foreign aid, but it absolutely benficial to the US as well. We spend a large amount of money researching and developing new farming techniques in other areas of the world so that they are able to produce more sustainable items to help make feeding the masses cheaper. This actually helps in disease prevention as well as a healthy diet is good for the immune system as well. These techniques that are being funded through foreign aid in a lot of instances have helped lead to improvements in farming domestically as well.
NOTE: There is also that little thing called terrorism, which we know costs a ton of dollars to fight. There is something to the thought process of if you are helping so many people and they are aware of where that relief is coming from, you can make more firends than enemies. Personally, I don't think it is was a coincidence at all that when the Soviet Union went under and we were no longer seen as the "good guys" which also coincided with a reduction in foreign aid in the 90's that we started seeing more terrorist activities.
I admit though that is not even close to the solution of terrorism, but it is one of the thoughts behind Globalism.
This post was edited by BetterOff 13 months ago
I agree with a bunch of posters above, give jobs to the welfare state? Basically everything would come to a screeching halt.
You can't train a turd.
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
most everything is made elsewhere already.
i was watching a den of Lions on TV just the other day & i noticed that the pack didnt bother to share their kill with the lame.
he's assuming they would be able to manage all that money to live off of. half the idiots would go out and buy million dollar homes or Ferraris
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports