Could one billionaire like Oprah or Warren Buffett rescue the US economy?

Bill Gates, the richest man alive, is said to have over $90.000.000.000. The total U.S. national debt is so far at 55.620.080.000.000. More or less 1000 times more than what Bill Gates has.

In fact, when I started typing this, the nationat debt was 55.620.080.000.000 but in the time it has took me to write this, it has gone up another 7.5 million.

I can’t see any one person saving us from this problem. we can’t even understand properly the scale of the problem because humans can’t really understand numbers this big.

In closing…. I said the national debt had gone up 7.5 million in the time it has taken me to type this, but just checking again, adding this line has pushed it up to 8.5 million. we are literaly talking millions and millions a minute of debt.

Source

Sure they can, having billions of dollars just sitting in a bank isn’t helping the economy grow one bit. If they gave ¼th of the money they OBVIOUSLY don’t need to less fortunate people in the US, it would stimulate the economy in a tremendous way. Think about it, if someone gave you $10k to put strictly towards your debts, rent, or utilities until it runs out… you would have all kinds of money freed up to get ahead in life. No, they can’t pay off the national debt, but I’ll be damned if the billionaires of the world couldn’t pull together and give a little to stimulate the hell out of America. It’s just not in their best financial interests to do so (you think someone who saves up that kind of money is a generous person? I call BS!).

@torchingigloos The way I see it, stimlating the economy only pays the debt, if someone takes the extra tax money and pays the debt.

55.620.100.000.000… there is now 20.000.000 more debt than when this question was asked.

I shouldn’t have said, “rescue the economy.” I wish I had said “help the people survive.”

The debt and the us economy are 2 different things. The US has owed trillions of dollars for as long as I can remember, but the US economy (local prices, spending etc.) is based more on the people spending money on goods/services thus, stimulating the economy. When all of us are broke, that doesn’t happen and the gov has an excuse to take out more loans to pay for their $1000 boxes of paper.

The only way any one really rich person can help our economy would be for them to back a Presidential candidate and a few Senator and Congressmen/women who will champion policies that would offer businesses the incentives to begin to invest, spend and hire more workers again.

btw ¼th of Bill Gates fortune would give 2,250,000 people $10k (if my math was correct). Add that factor up amongst America’s top 20 wealthy and look at the numbers. I rest my case.

@torchingigloos My apologies, we actually agree that the economy and debt are two different things. I was conflating the OP’s question and what @poisonedantidote said.

This question was asked 30 minutes ago, total debt is now 55.620.180.000.000, that is one hundred million dollars (100.000.000) more debt than when the question was asked, or two hundred million an hour (200.000.000), or four billion (4.000.000.000) a day.

@JLeslie note: I have zero idea how the economy works btw. I just know how to look things up online and say “we are all screwed.”

@poisonedantidote

If something isn’t done to reign in runaway government spending, indeed “we are all screwed,” especially the generation to which my grandchildren belong. : ((

@poisonedantidote Part of the debt growing is the interest on the debt. I’m sure you know that, just pointing it out, because people think it is all additional spending, and it isn’t. Like when I had a mortgage for $150k, but I really owed $300k to pay off the loan over time. Any reduction in debt, is bigger than people realize.

Could they….or…..should they. nothing is learned without sacrifice….

@torchingigloos First of all, giving people money does nothing. It would be squandered in a lot of cases. Second, if it were to happen, the IRS would take about half of it and squander that. Third, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is doing more good with his fortune than the government ever could.

Bill Gates and a few others have already stated that they are giving away the vast majority of their wealth. Just not to the people directly or the Government.

@missingbite Bill Gates is also in favor of taxing him, and other superwealthy people more.

@JLeslie I’m sure he is. Ask him what he believes is appropriate. I bet it’s nowhere near the 50 to 60% that the wealthy in NY seem to pay. (Total taxes) If he really believed the government could run social programs as well as his charity, don’t you think he would just donate more to the government? Everyone has that option, but I don’t know of any who do. I could be wrong.

@missingbite There is good and bad with private and public charitites and programs.

@JLeslie You are correct again. My point is that Bill Gates obviously believes his money is better spent through his foundation. If he believed the government could do better, I don’t see why he doesn’t just give it to them.

BTW, I’m pretty sure that he has stated publicly that Microsoft could not have succeeded as it did if he had tried to open for business in todays environment. I’ll look for the link on that.

@missingbite For me the point is both are important, they are not mutually exclusive. The government does not always have its eye on a specific need that might be out there, or politics might get in the way of the government moving forward on a specific concern. Education is a big deal to the Gates, and they spend their money where they see fit. My guess is they are also out to show that money can change things in that realm; maybe it will lead to people not able to deny a concentration on education makes a difference. And, their focus on world health, and eradicating certain diseases is a wonderful cause, and helps everyone.

But, things like social security, medical care, bridges, water systems, and public education in the entire United States is not something the Gates’ can fix on their own. It will take a cultural shift. Too many people are private school oriented, which is intertwined with politics, and feel people at the bottom are a waste to spend any money on. Many people are too narrow in focus to care about world health. Or, don’t understand government funding does a tremendous amount of research in the medical sciences.

Also, we are lucky the Gates’ want to give away their money. They could easly have kept it all and passed it on to their children, or built their own church like at least one famous person I can think of. Actually, I can think of two sort of. Their right, I am not complaining or judging, just making a statement. I guess if we get lucky, the more liberal minded will be among the superwealthy, and try to tavkles these sort of things. I know some stats fly arpund abour Republicans giving more, it would be interesting to know what they are giving to?

I was wondering just the other day if small pox was eradicated because governements vaccinated everyone? Or, how that actually played out? I don’t know the answer.

@JLeslie I agree with you. I don’t think the Gates’ can turn around a government. What we need are the rework of most of the social programs that the US is involved in. I know we need a welfare system, but ours is broke. We need bridges, water systems, and infrastructure. What we don’t need, IMHO, is the government thinking it can do better than the individuals. I believe that is where our government is headed.

Social Security is broke. Can’t make it. Won’t make it. If you know the history of the SS System you know it was designed to never be used the way it is being used today. Here is a quote from the Social Security website about the first person to receive monthly checks.

”Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.”

Small Pox vaccine was discovered almost by accident by Edward Jenner in 1796. The government didn’t have anything to do with that one, other than mandatory vaccination and it wasn’t until 1977 that it was considered eradicated by the WHO.

Education, is in terrible shape. I’m not sure what your stance is on education but I believe the Gates’ and the government is in line with charter schools. They seem to have much better results. A federal run school system, enacted by Carter in the late 70’s, has been a total failure. Education has gotten worse since it was enacted. Many will argue that it’s the federal government’s responsibility to regulate the schools. I disagree. It should be the states and local governments.

@missingbite I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I think all schools need to be held to some standards or maybe be more strict about it. It is a real shame in the areas I live at least when you can go say 5 miles to another city or what have you a get a nice school,and vice versa go another 5 miles the other way and no body wants their kid to go that school.

@missingbite I know the history behind the discovery and creation of the small pox vaccine. What I don’t know os how all of those vaccines were paid for?

Why do you say public education is federal? Public ed is still prmarily run at the local level. I saw a stat that approximately 9% of public fundng across the US is federal.

@CuriousLoner I totally understand. The parents need to be more involved and schools that don’t perform should be held accountable. This is where my answer to @JLeslie last question comes into play.

@JLeslie The Department of Education in theory is good. IMO what it does is regulate to a fault. I know the idea was equality for all students however what it has accomplished is exactly the opposite. It is a civil rights program. I’m sure you knew that. What I believe it has done is put federal “rights” laws that override the way states can run it’s schools. If I am incorrect about that please let me know.

I believe part of that would be things like zoning. I believe it also dumbs down our schools because it helps to play to the lowest common denominator. Again, if that in not correct, please let me know.

We are way off topic now. Sorry.

@missingbite I honestly don’t know enough about the current federal policies on education to make a specific comment on it. That was part of the reason I was asking you :). Currently where I live, outside of Memphis, there is a decision, or vote, being done for Memphis to give up their school charter to the county. Most people I know in Memphis want it to happen. Most people out in the county don’t. It is race related indirectly. What seems clear is there is no way any federal mandate right now is leveling the playing field as a whole. Or, if their are minimum regs, that is a good thing, because that would mean the Memphis school would probably be even worse. As a white girl out in te burbs I hear what is said behind closed doors, and most people don’t give a damn about giving the inner city kids education. They think it is a waste, and they are a waste. And, they resent paying for someone elses kids to go to school.

I think all children in the US should have the same basic schooling opportunities no matter where born. I am pretty sure the countries that are at the top in public education have a very significant federal influence over education. Most countries are probably smaller than ours, so it is not apples to apples, but it is interesting.

I don’t think they can completely rescue our economy, but I think if they donated most of their money to low-income families in America, they would definitely make a difference in the rate of people suffering from depression. But then the therapists and psychologists wouldn’t be happy. I think these people could also help more Americans get a better education. For example, donating money to schools in low-income neighborhoods, or offering scholarships and grants to people in NEED. Not just the ones who know how to write fancy essays.

Ah, who knows. Pondering this kind of stuff just makes my brain hurt :S

You may not agree with my answer, few people on Fluther do in the case of questions such as this, but here goes, anyway.

If Congress and the President were somehow given a gift of “real” non-counterfeit US dollars amounting to the trillions that we’re in debt, then they would promptly spend it, and probably an additional amount to (probably) double what was given and we’d be in even worse shape than before.

This is why I always argue against tax increases. It’s not that our government doesn’t ‘need’ the money; it certainly does. It’s the fact that when it receives ‘some’ money it spends ‘some multiple greater than one’ times that money. Every tax increase puts us further in debt.

@WasCy Waste in government is huge. Just this morning, I watched an FAA inspector leave his car running in 40 degree weather for an hour so it would stay warm. I actually thought he had forgotten it was running and went to tell him about it. His response when I asked if he knew it was running was…..I know. It’s tax dollars so he didn’t care.

@missingbite the familiar litany of “waste, fraud and abuse” is certainly a problem, and like the poor, it will be with us always. But that’s nothing compared to the targeted, directed and intended spending that has to be curtailed, and not only ‘seems to’ but does grow faster than new funding can be found.

But still, an hour? So it will ‘stay warm’. Sheesh.

@WasCy As much as I do think there is waste in government spending, and the budget needs to be cut down; I just wonder how you explain Clinton having a surplus? Higher taxes, economy was stronger I admit, and he didn’t allow spending without a specific plan for where the money was coming from. He didn’t spend more because he had it, he let it sit in the kitty. Thought we should have some rainy day money.

It’s partly because we had a ‘budget surplus’ that we ended up with massively larger debt, I think. Yes, I realize that everyone will want to jump on ‘the Bush tax cuts’ as a way to explain that. Government should be broke – permanently. Spending decisions should be somewhat agonizing, just as they are with most of us and our own household budgeting.

Whenever government has money in the kitty for a rainy day, it’s amazing how soon and for how long it can rain.

Aside from all of that, ‘balancing the budget’ doesn’t do much to pay off the debt. Debt was still accruing during the Clinton years, but everyone patted themselves on the back that “at least the budget is balanced.”

@WasCy Wait a second, I might be learning something new here. We still had debt? We were just “balanced?” is that right?

Maybe someone with access to the charts and graphs will know for sure, but I don’t think that the US Federal government has ever been debt free.

@wascy I am not counting programs for now, but I am thinking we didn’t owe other countries? This might need to be a separate question.

A billionaire could help indirectly… through leadership. Besides the money they have is most likely invested in bank or other means and is being used by the economy… the banks don’t just hold your money they invest it in loans; which help businesses and individuals to prosper.