obama's $52 cash a month...or a lump sum...which do you prefer?

[iwhohavenothing]

????? lumpsum. i think alot of struggling american families would rather have a nicepay out now...rather than getting small increments every wk-2 wks.

 

[damnitzvin]

huh?

 

[snakeyes17]

I really don't know anything about it but I think most would prefer a lumpsum, yet a $/month is better in the sense you won't have people spending thelumpsum all at once.

 

[jaypesoz]

I'd rather get one big lump rather than small increments. word to Rihanna's pre-grammy pic

 

[MPLS612]

Lump sum.It's my money and I wanna use it NOW.

 

[s dubl]

lump sum>monthly payments.

 

[mateen cleaves]

what are you talking about?

 

[iwhohavenothing]

^ true...thats the flipside of it.

 

[addictedtofreshkicks]

I prefer that he gets out of office and lets somebody who actually knows what they're doing take over.

That's what I prefer.

 

[pianoman52]

the whole purpose of a payout like this is for money to keep moving (i.e. - to spend it). the last time bush gave out free money, people did not really spendit. instead, they saved it. therefore, the economy did not benefit at all. so in terms of having money MOVE, sending out a lump sum of $$$ failed horribly tohelp the economy. i think it's better to have monthly payments so people are less inclined to save it.

 

[s dubl]

Originally Posted by pianoman52

the whole purpose of a payout like this is for money to keep moving (i.e. - to spend it). the last time bush gave out free money, people did not really spend it. instead, they saved it. therefore, the economy did not benefit at all. so in terms of having money MOVE, sending out a lump sum of $$$ failed horribly to help the economy. i think it's better to have monthly payments so people are less inclined to save it.

shooot....I spent it before I even got it.

 

[renkxedik]

Originally Posted by pianoman52

the whole purpose of a payout like this is for money to keep moving (i.e. - to spend it). the last time bush gave out free money, people did not really spend it. instead, they saved it. therefore, the economy did not benefit at all. so in terms of having money MOVE, sending out a lump sum of $$$ failed horribly to help the economy. i think it's better to have monthly payments so people are less inclined to save it.

they spent it on existent debt, instead of buying new stuff

 

[elnino4530]

Originally Posted by AddictedToFreshKicks

I prefer that he gets out of office and lets somebody who actually knows what they're doing take over.

That's what I prefer.

 

[addictedtofreshkicks]

Originally Posted by eLNiNo4530

Originally Posted by AddictedToFreshKicks

I prefer that he gets out of office and lets somebody who actually knows what they're doing take over.

That's what I prefer.

Before you stoneface me, actually have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks

 

[weezyfeezy]

Originally Posted by AddictedToFreshKicks

I prefer that he gets out of office and lets somebody who actually knows what they're doing take over.

That's what I prefer.

+1

 

[nelly28]

que?

 

[elnino4530]

Originally Posted by AddictedToFreshKicks

Originally Posted by eLNiNo4530

Originally Posted by AddictedToFreshKicks

I prefer that he gets out of office and lets somebody who actually knows what they're doing take over.

That's what I prefer.

Before you stoneface me, actually have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks

Don't even get me started. Thanks

 

[los benjaminz]

what is $52 dollars gonna help for anything?
my cell phone bill is more than that
plz

all this tax cut and bills and crap
never help anyone all talk

 

[rsdplaya]

Originally Posted by AME416


Lump sum.It's my money and I wanna use it NOW.

that commercial cracks me up.

 

[daytona 5000]

doesn't matter we are still screwed.

 

[lesfamilia]

I would rather have the lump sum, for the same reason I ask for the cash payout option everytime I buy a lottery ticket. Trust me, that money would getspent...

 

[biggie62]

I wish he had some better economic advisers. Because he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of how economics work, and unfortunately neither do his advisers.

 

[bboy1827]

Man people who are outside of the hot seat always seem to know what should be done. I have my opinions but if something makes senese to me I let it happen, ifI think it will work regardless of my personal beliefs. Obama has been president for less then a month and already more positive change has happened to theeconomy than all four of bushes last term. Give it time, man rome wasn't built in a day and an economy can't be changed in a month. Making the pointthe problem is global republicanism, smaller countries aren't going to be able to pay back western banks, most of eastern Europe is already broke. Letobama do what he can I'm pretty sure his team of economic advisors know more about the economy then you do friends, that is the beauty of republicandemocracy...the smartes people are usually chosen by the people we chose.

 

[deepinthajeep]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I wish he had some better economic advisers. Because he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of how economics work, and unfortunately neither do his advisers.

These Nters kill me w/ this.

He then attended Dartmouth College, graduating with an A.B. in government and Asian studies in 1983.[sup][7][/sup] He earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1985.[sup][7][/sup][sup][8][/sup] He has studied Chinese[sup][7][/sup] and Japanese.[sup][9][/sup]


In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department.[sup][14][/sup] He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003) at the International Monetary Fund.[sup][8][/sup]
In October 2003, he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.


He doesn't know anything about how Economics work? You sure about that?

 

[i just got lucky]

Originally Posted by s dubl

Originally Posted by pianoman52

the whole purpose of a payout like this is for money to keep moving (i.e. - to spend it). the last time bush gave out free money, people did not really spend it. instead, they saved it. therefore, the economy did not benefit at all. so in terms of having money MOVE, sending out a lump sum of $$$ failed horribly to help the economy. i think it's better to have monthly payments so people are less inclined to save it.

shooot....I spent it before I even got it.

same here...the money was gone weeks before I even got it.