It seems as if the Stimulus package bill is an outlet for the government to throw money at the problem without really considering how it will really affect the normal and average American. Billions of dollars are budgeted from several sectors of our economy and industry with a faint hope that it will help develop spending by the people and create jobs. While this simplified description of this bill is somewhat elementary, I believe that it will have a profound adverse effect in the long run.

I believe that throwing money at the problem can be described as spending good money to chase after bad money. The problem lies within the people's capacity to spend money to stimulate the economy due to either lack of it or fear that the recent economic downturn will continue to spiral resulting in soup and bread lines in the near future.

In my humble opinion and my proposition is to give the money to the people. I believe the Stimulus bill should be created to drive earnings for people, not just in tax breaks but actual cash flow and give jobs and strengthen the financial integrity of this country. Here is my proposal:

Have the government match an individual's investment to a company that is a U.S. based company to a sum amount. Give the people an opportunity to invest in companies via stock, mutual funds, and other financial vehicles and the government will match this amount to a certain percentage or a dollar amount. If Mr. Smith has an incentive to invest $1k in a company (i.e. Citibank, GM, etc.) the government will match this contribution up to $1k, which is similar to a typical corporate 401k that currently exists in most U.S. companies. The idea is the same. 

This will give incentive for people to start investing in the market, which will help companies become financially stronger. In turn, create jobs when these companies get stronger and financially profitable, and the people will have cash flow to invest and spend as they see fit. 

It goes without saying that some parameters and guidelines will have to be applied. One of these would be the timeline where the money will have to stay vested before a person can sell their share. Another guideline will be the amount the government will contribute, both its minimum and maximum. We obviously do not want to have the uber wealthy to have the most advantage. Thus, creating a logical ratio would have to be applied. A brute example of this is that if a household annual income is less than $75k, the government would contribute 120%. If it is above $150k, the government would contribute 60%. The percentage will need to be considered. 

The last two considerations deal with time limitation of the vested amount prior to withdrawal and which companies to invest. I believe the companies that received bail out money ought to come first. Give the people an opportunity to own these companies for which their tax dollars were used to bail these companies out.

That's my 2 cents to this whole issue. New to the group and first blog ever.