CDZ Would a billionaire financed relief fund be the answer?

[MarathonMike]

In 2016 the total net worth of all US billionaires was about $2.4 trillion dollars. Let's say for the sake of argument that all of those billionaires agreed to create a $1 trillion dollar relief fund to provide each "struggling" US citizen a few hundred dollars a month. Should they or shouldn't they? Who or how would this fund be managed to insure that there is no waste, fraud or abuse of the fund? How would we define "struggling"? Would it cover only those working but saddled with large debt or would it include poor people with little debt but no income?

I recognize there are many people in the US under financial stress. I think a privately financed and managed relief fund should be created but I fear that the management of it would be a nightmare. The key component IMO would have to be the Federal government stays out of it completely. So could this work, or would it create more problems than it solves?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SMILE*****

 

[gallantwarrior]

Maybe not.
But, I would insist that each and every candidate for public office pay an amount equal to what they spend for their campaigns into a fund to help pay down government debt.

 

[Dick Foster]

In 2016 the total net worth of all US billionaires was about $2.4 trillion dollars. Let's say for the sake of argument that all of those billionaires agreed to create a $1 trillion dollar relief fund to provide each "struggling" US citizen a few hundred dollars a month. Should they or shouldn't they? Who or how would this fund be managed to insure that there is no waste, fraud or abuse of the fund? How would we define "struggling"? Would it cover only those working but saddled with large debt or would it include poor people with little debt but no income?

I recognize there are many people in the US under financial stress. I think a privately financed and managed relief fund should be created but I fear that the management of it would be a nightmare. The key component IMO would have to be the Federal government stays out of it completely. So could this work, or would it create more problems than it solves?

It doesn't matter who or how much money you shovel at deadbeats, at the end of the day they will have pissed it all away and they'll still be deadbeats and they'll still always be there.

 

[jwoodie]

LOL, a common criticism of the Gates Foundation is that it requires measurable results.

 

[Gdjjr]

The money allegedly belongs to whoever is in possession of what the gov't allows them to possess- so, from the get-go the gov't is already involved and in fact writes laws to help insure those evil rich guys get to stay evil, and rich-

IF they volunteered to put up some money for whatever it is their's (theoretically) to do with as they please- as they please being key. Coercion by whatever means is still forcing one to adhere/submit- and, if I'm not mistaken, several "billionaires" have made some sort of 'collective' philanthropic 'promise/agreement' Home - The Giving Pledge

 

[MarathonMike]

In 2016 the total net worth of all US billionaires was about $2.4 trillion dollars. Let's say for the sake of argument that all of those billionaires agreed to create a $1 trillion dollar relief fund to provide each "struggling" US citizen a few hundred dollars a month. Should they or shouldn't they? Who or how would this fund be managed to insure that there is no waste, fraud or abuse of the fund? How would we define "struggling"? Would it cover only those working but saddled with large debt or would it include poor people with little debt but no income?

I recognize there are many people in the US under financial stress. I think a privately financed and managed relief fund should be created but I fear that the management of it would be a nightmare. The key component IMO would have to be the Federal government stays out of it completely. So could this work, or would it create more problems than it solves?

It doesn't matter who or how much money you shovel at deadbeats, at the end of the day they will have pissed it all away and they'll still be deadbeats and they'll still always be there.

I agree there are a lot of people that fit the 'deadbeat' category. But my sense is there are a lot more people who are trying hard, but can't get over the hump of not enough income and too much outgo.

 

[Dick Foster]

In 2016 the total net worth of all US billionaires was about $2.4 trillion dollars. Let's say for the sake of argument that all of those billionaires agreed to create a $1 trillion dollar relief fund to provide each "struggling" US citizen a few hundred dollars a month. Should they or shouldn't they? Who or how would this fund be managed to insure that there is no waste, fraud or abuse of the fund? How would we define "struggling"? Would it cover only those working but saddled with large debt or would it include poor people with little debt but no income?

I recognize there are many people in the US under financial stress. I think a privately financed and managed relief fund should be created but I fear that the management of it would be a nightmare. The key component IMO would have to be the Federal government stays out of it completely. So could this work, or would it create more problems than it solves?

It doesn't matter who or how much money you shovel at deadbeats, at the end of the day they will have pissed it all away and they'll still be deadbeats and they'll still always be there.

I agree there are a lot of people that fit the 'deadbeat' category. But my sense is there are a lot more people who are trying hard, but can't get over the hump of not enough income and too much outgo.

And exactly how much real world, hands on experience do to you have dealing with the poor lost souls? My guess is none other than stepping around them on the sidewalk perhaps. Let's assume for a moment that you're sincere. How much money and how many checks have you written from your own resources to help them out? My guess is NONE!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There's quite a few people who barely understand mathematics and could not balance a check book at all. They need a lot of assistance and advice on simple things. Even cooking a meal that consists of more than hot dogs or hamburgers, with a bag of chips or mac & cheese and some fruit, is beyond their abilities. Some are special needs people and have a advocacy agency that attempts to assist them. Unfortunately there are a lot more people who do not receive that kind of assistance. However any way you cut it there will always be those who unless they have someone..... guiding them through life will fail no matter how much financial assistance is provided to them.

*****SMILE*****

 

[2aguy]

In 2016 the total net worth of all US billionaires was about $2.4 trillion dollars. Let's say for the sake of argument that all of those billionaires agreed to create a $1 trillion dollar relief fund to provide each "struggling" US citizen a few hundred dollars a month. Should they or shouldn't they? Who or how would this fund be managed to insure that there is no waste, fraud or abuse of the fund? How would we define "struggling"? Would it cover only those working but saddled with large debt or would it include poor people with little debt but no income?

I recognize there are many people in the US under financial stress. I think a privately financed and managed relief fund should be created but I fear that the management of it would be a nightmare. The key component IMO would have to be the Federal government stays out of it completely. So could this work, or would it create more problems than it solves?

No...they shouldn't...they should put the money into charities they want...but anything that big would be filled with exactly waste, fraud and abuse.......best to keep it small.

 

[task0778]

If I was a billionaire I'd rather spend my money on technical training programs to get more people to be employable. Train them to be welders or truck drivers, whatever unfilled jobs are out there with the most openings. You've no doubt heard the one about 'teach a man to fish and he eats today but give him a fishin' pole and he eats everyday'. I'd rather help them help themselves to be independent rather then looking for the next handout.

 

[MarathonMike]

In 2016 the total net worth of all US billionaires was about $2.4 trillion dollars. Let's say for the sake of argument that all of those billionaires agreed to create a $1 trillion dollar relief fund to provide each "struggling" US citizen a few hundred dollars a month. Should they or shouldn't they? Who or how would this fund be managed to insure that there is no waste, fraud or abuse of the fund? How would we define "struggling"? Would it cover only those working but saddled with large debt or would it include poor people with little debt but no income?

I recognize there are many people in the US under financial stress. I think a privately financed and managed relief fund should be created but I fear that the management of it would be a nightmare. The key component IMO would have to be the Federal government stays out of it completely. So could this work, or would it create more problems than it solves?

It doesn't matter who or how much money you shovel at deadbeats, at the end of the day they will have pissed it all away and they'll still be deadbeats and they'll still always be there.

I agree there are a lot of people that fit the 'deadbeat' category. But my sense is there are a lot more people who are trying hard, but can't get over the hump of not enough income and too much outgo.

And exactly how much real world, hands on experience do to you have dealing with the poor lost souls? My guess is none other than stepping around them on the sidewalk perhaps. Let's assume for a moment that you're sincere. How much money and how many checks have you written from your own resources to help them out? My guess is NONE!

Your guess is wrong. I don't just give my money, I give my time. I also have given clothes and care packages DIRECTLY to homeless people along with a few bucks. But that is irrelevant to the topic it just answers your question.

 

[sartre play]

NO.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SMILE*****

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In 2016 the total net worth of all US billionaires was about $2.4 trillion dollars. Let's say for the sake of argument that all of those billionaires agreed to create a $1 trillion dollar relief fund to provide each "struggling" US citizen a few hundred dollars a month. Should they or shouldn't they?

??? if they agreed they should. It's a free country. What you are really asking is, should they be forced to at the point of a libcommie gun. No. Govt spends $7 trillion a year on senseless welfare programs that only create more dependency not less. Another 1 trillion would only make things worst and contribute to the insane idea that welfare is a contribution whereas the great businesses they created are not.

 

[2aguy]

If I was a billionaire I'd rather spend my money on technical training programs to get more people to be employable. Train them to be welders or truck drivers, whatever unfilled jobs are out there with the most openings. You've no doubt heard the one about 'teach a man to fish and he eats today but give him a fishin' pole and he eats everyday'. I'd rather help them help themselves to be independent rather then looking for the next handout.

Yes....it goes something like this....

Teach a man to fish and he likely won't become a democrat....give him a government check and he will become a democrat for life....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...give him a government check and he will become a democrat for life....

Yes, Constitution should be changed so those people cant vote. Democracy means voting for the commonweal, not voting for stolen money transferred into your pocket at gunpoint!

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin