Heh Heh... you said "Package"

impeach Obama, get rid of Barney Frank

and make Tom Daschle pay his taxes

there are different, more radical answers out there, not just makeovers of the existing system like this bailout thing. to mention just one: a few months ago american people had the opportunity to choose the Ron Paul approach to getting the US from this financial disaster, but I guess in the long election frenzy media neglected to point out what's really happening with american economy and went back to covering the fake political discourse of the stereo-party. and the people fell for it again. so, politically such ideas are still impossible, it would seem. you certainly can't expect some concrete change coming from Obama's administration, that should be clear to anyone now. i hope. trying to put the patient out for a while and do a radical surgery, rather than this woodoo-style practice of patching up the zombie that is America with more fictitious money (btw: I love it how sift's spell checker won't allow for not using capital A in america), is not a popular move for any ambitious politician these days. it's much more fun to blame it on the non-existent clash of civilizations, global warming, oil dependence, the Chinese, the Russians, the terrorists=Arabs, etc. meanwhile, a few very smart and greedy people are stealing away what's left in your coffers (not unlike Russia or any former socialist country in the 90's), all payed by the american people - the two most abused words in any american political debate. Obama (btw: spell checker doesn't recognise Obama as a valid input) should have more balls and act more Putin-like: throw those responsible for this mess in jail and seize all their assets. i'm sorry, Barack, but calling their behaviour shameful on tv and then not do anything about it, just makes you a whiny pussy instead of an inspiring leader, people hungry for change project and see in you.

bikini car wash! WOOOOOOOOH!

Ron Paul...


But seriously, I don't have enough knowledge about the subject to make a valid suggestion, but from what I can see, the country is indebted over both ears, so making more money is not a solution. Diluting the dollar is a bad thing, because every single user of the dollar is poorer for it. How did it come this far?

I think it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and if I were to make some suggestions it would be to let the companies that cannot perform under their own weight, crash. It's Thatcher all over again. We need a cold cynical approach to this, and a lot of people are going to be hurt bad, but that's the legacy of the last many years.

These suggestions are more about the nations debts. The Economy is a weird esoteric, unfathomable term that is just being trumped up. When you talk about the nation's economy you have to be specific about it: who's economy? If we are only talking about the nation as an entity, then it is fairly clear what needs to happen. Spending must be cut and/or income must be increased.

The nation must stop spending money on something, so that the deficit can be removed or shrunk at least. Tax cuts are out of the question, because this would only put the country further in debt. It's not about getting people to spend money, that's the broken windows argument that jwray's blogged about earlier. It's about letting the country grab cash, in a sense, so that it can get back on track.

• Enact a balanced-budget amendment
• End both the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan
• Close almost all US military bases outside of this country
• Cut-off financing the Israeli military forces
• Repeal all federal drug laws
• Slash the defense budget by half
• Kill Bush's tax-cuts
• A supermajority requirement to cut corporate tax rates
• End the tax-exemptions of all churches and religious centers
• Enact a gradated tax code, poorer pay less, rich pay most.
• Enact a real inheritance tax on any amount over $100,000.00
• End all subsidies to corporate farms
• Add $0.50 sales tax per gallon of gasoline. Use 1/2 to subsidize urban transit projects
• Enact tough and bold legislation to charge proper fees for use of US broadcast airwaves



I'm not the smartest economist around, and I haven't even graduated high school, but all this shit seems simple to me.

kulpims -- you're clearly madder than I am, but I too am astoundingly underwhelmed by what I'm seeing from Obama and team in this whole process of trying to address our economic issues. That's why I was tossing the question to the field, in the hopes of hearing some radical, but insightful ideas. Do you have one?

gwiz665 -- I'm worried about our debt levels too, but I don't think that's our "economic issue" right now. The problem is that our GDP is now shrinking, the economy is shedding jobs, and investors are too afraid to invest. If we don't turn that around, the problem won't be paying off our debt, but finding a way to feed people.

volumptuous -- I love that laundry list of issues, and I think that's a great set of ideas for fixing our "fairness gap" in this country. However, I think balancing budgets by cutting spending and raising taxes would just exacerbate our current problems.

Here's my radical, and hopefully insightful solution:

Immediately begin a program, modeled after the moon landings, to convert us to non-fossil fuels by 2020. We will spend multiple trillions of government money, funding research, and building infrastructure to suit the goal. We will invite foreign investment and foreign talent to assist, but we will maintain the patents on all technology developed.

This would leave us a world leader in the next great new wave of energy production, and leave us with not only a renewed industrial sector, but also a renewed educational and research infrastructure.

Fuck this nibbling around the edges with a sub-trillion dollar plan that doesn't have a central unifying theme.

We should consider a WWII level government program to pull us out of this, only this time we'll leave the war part out.

I'd start by shooting all democrats and republicans in the face. Then, with the smart people who were left alive, we'd rebuild with a sound money system that did everything opposite from our current fiat system. And we all lived happily ever after. The end.

^I'm not invited to your utopia?

1. enact a dynamic flat tax which changes annually and is calculated as rate = (federal budget / national income). when the budget goes up, taxes go up...immediately. when the budget goes down, taxes go down...immediately. no more tax deductions, no more IRS, no more arguments over tax cuts, no more "deficits" or "surpluses". no more sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. etc. etc.

2. Withdraw from all 742 military bases, and all occupied countries and illegal wars, saving $600 billion a year. write a check to all American's for $2,000 along with an apology.

3. take the $1.5 trillion spent on healthcare every year and write a $5,000 check to every American to use in purchasing a private healthcare plan. So the average husband and wife would get $10,000 a year to spend on healthcare for their family.

4. invoke civil and criminal suits against those parties responsible for the housing bubble, and the latest bailout, reclaim the $900 billion bailout and write a check to every American for $3,000. include a list of names of those indicted in the letter, along with an apology for failing to catch them sooner.

5. restore this country to a rule of law. Demonstrate this commitment by hanging a 100 foot replica of the Declaration of Independence in front of the white house, and mailing a letter-sized copy to every American. Publicly indict the congressmen, senators, public officials, police officers, and government employees who have failed to uphold their oath to the constitution. Give them 100 hours of community service at the local homeless shelter as a warning.

6. Issue a public statement on national television that this country was built with hard work and personal responsibility...not governmental assistance. Our commitment from freedom is what differentiates us from the other nations of the world, and we will strive to lead by example, not by force. There will be no governmental bailouts, no public works projects, no illegal wars. The government is here to protect you and your family, and provide you the freedom to succeed in whatever endeavors you choose.

If I give this a *quality all our problems will be solved.

Awarding NetRunner with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by kronosposeidon.

Assume you are the unitary executive of the US, and don't need to worry about Congress, the Constitution, the Geneva conventions, or deficit caps (i.e. pretend you're Bush, only smarter).

I would publicly execute the bankers convicted of fraud, nothing special, just a bag and bullet to the head. Their assets would be seized and given to charities to pass out to the needy. Government would be drastically reduced. No more welfare state. I believe people would step up and help their fellow man when government is not used as an excuse not to help. No more social engineering through legislation, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, if you're hurting yourself don't expect the government to bail you out. Anytime the military is needed war must be declared by the congress. In fact no more standing army except for nuke guardians. Any invasion of the US would not last long, almost everyone should be armed. Balanced budgets, hard money, no more fractional reserve banking. Now that the power is back in the people's hands, it will be written into the constitution in lawyer speak so there will be no misunderstanding and no loopholes, no more power grabs by Presidents and no more fucking with the currency no matter how well intentioned. Then I'll return to plowing my fields.

Without getting into specifics . . .

1. end all present and future aggressive wars
2. legalize all drugs
3. tax all drugs
4. phase out fossil fuels by lifting the ban on new nuclear power plants
5. support development of electric cars to move us to a nuclear (power generation) / electric (power use) system

It's a nice start, but I'm probably 100 years ahead of my time (besides number one, which will continue forever).

$9,718.49 per US Taxpayer would've been a better solution, in my opinion.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0901/gallery.money_summit/index.html

Americans have been living beyond their means for years now. The let's cut taxes and everything will be peachy approach will simply not work, it will only continue to create further debt in a already debt ridden society. Just because you get an extra 10,000 dollars will not alleviate the long term problems the economy is facing. The government is far too large but the political incentive to reduce it is simply not there. Too much legislation has created too many public offices that serve no purpose, and too much of government work is already being privatized out with no real solid oversight. These are some of the steps I would take before probably being assassinated because it would rattle too many people in comfortable positions.

- Eliminate the following: Department of Health, Department of Education, Drug Enforcement Agency and the SEC. DOH and DOE statistical bodies can be rolled into the Census office for information gathering. The DEA needs to be dissolved, parts not dealing with drug enforcement rolled into the FBI. The SEC should be reformed entirely and given higher powers and responsibilities, its failure to catch the Madoff scandal is simply unforgivable.

- Slash Pentagon spending, the US spends almost 4 to 5 times as much as the nearest highest spender on defense. America has the best cold war era military force that is trying to fight guerrilla wars while constantly changing its attack profile from standard engagement to network centric warfare to COIN. Enough military readjustments on the taxpayers bill.

- Working with the infrastructure survey create open bid contracts to rebuild and improve America's basic infrastructure. Eliminate the made in USA clause which is basically protectionist scheme. Infrastructure is the most vital component in the economy, years of tax cuts meant you are living on shit built back in the 50s.

- Eliminate American protectionist schemes for agriculture. This is lunacy and only helps large agriculture firms while US consumers lose out, welcome to the globalization bitches. Africa makes cheaper bananas and mangos anyway.

- Make all private sector lobbying illegal. All lobbying should be citizen empowered only with no private interests. Currently any private firm can buy lobbying pressure to roll in laws that are only beneficial for it's own interests. This is waste and imbalance.

- Legalize drugs and tax them. This a mute point, there too much waste in capturing marijuana smokers and filling the jails with them, while culturally we all watch Weeds on HBO. There is an untapped revenue source here.

- Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, close down every single US military post. Needless waste on a needless war that cost too many American lives. Withdrawal must be countered with a monument to all those killed needlessly, a formal apology by the President for straining the nation.

- Create a viable social health care system while allowing private care to flourish as an alternative choice. The health of labor is the wealth of the economy, everyone should have access to affordable health care that doesn't ruin your finical portfolio if you get a heart attack. We can afford to spend trillions to build bombs, we can afford to spend trillions making sure every American is able to stay healthy.

- Incorporate legal immigration and legalize everyone in the US, firms need cheap labour, all those kids in the OC will not do the cheap labor jobs that people who immigrate will. Removing barriers will allow more people to contribute to the economy. Tax them accordingly.

- Form a WWII style incentive towards improving American education and finding alternative viable fuel sources.

- End all SOCIAL based legislation that deal with marriage and gay rights, this is not a sector the government should have any say in.

- Introduce progressive tax structures that scale to abnormal income increases, foster the creation of the middle class. End lax inheritances taxation. End favorable tax heavens for corporations. End corporate tax write offs. This is necessary to balance out the economy unfortunately.

[redacted]

>> ^blankfist:
I'd start by shooting all democrats and republicans in the face. Then, with the smart people who were left alive, we'd rebuild with a sound money system that did everything opposite from our current fiat system. And we all lived happily ever after. The end.

Can we still have a bikini car wash?

^Hell, I've already ordered a leopard spotted bikini for me, so I hope so..

>> ^NetRunner
volumptuous -- I love that laundry list of issues, and I think that's a great set of ideas for fixing our "fairness gap" in this country. However, I think balancing budgets by cutting spending and raising taxes would just exacerbate our current problems.



But your ideas had no spending cuts whatsoever, and massive investment of tax dollars. Where does this money come from? I'm already paying over %30 of my income, and it's infuriating. There's no possibility I'm about to either sign on to be taxed even higher rates, or have the next generation take it in the ass for us to get rid of potholes. The money for all this shit has to come from somewhere, and this is why I'm most upset about Obama's crap stimulus bill.

If we did three or four of the things I laid out, then we can use that money to pay for infrastructure projects and new technologies.

But to think that saving trillions of dollars such as my plan is proposing, wouldn't generate jobs and keep vastly more cash in taxpayers pockets, is kinda weird.


And, I'm pretty much ignoring everything imStellar wrote. I don't even know where to being with people like that, so I think it's best left alone.

99% tax on every dollar earned over $30 million.

Stipulate that military contractors must also serve some kind of peace-time function, ranging from infrastructure maintenance to technology development.

Funnel 80% of the money that we now spend on warfare into some kind of useful endeavor: healthcare, education, alternative energy development.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

Arrest and prosecute the entire Bush administration.

Oh, and make all the Libertarians build and live in their own re-education camps so they can show us all how right they are.

the plan I proposed above takes recent events, and explores the alternative.

1. do we prosecute those responsible for the criminal acts (fraud, etc.) which led to this economic turmoil?
currently: no. there are no persons currently indicted
alternate plan: yes. indict every last one of them, take their money, and throw them in jail

2. if we "have" to give 2 trillion to someone, who should we bailout?
currently: the people who caused the mess. the banks, CEOs, and business leaders who caused this mess can be trusted to correct it.
alternate plan: the people who were affected by this mess. the taxpayers were criminally wronged, and should be repaid for the losses they incurred.

3. should we strive towards a smaller federal budget in the future?
currently: no. there are no plans to decrease the budget in the future, nor any motivation to do so.
alternate plan: yes. cut excess programs and provide political motivation (dynamic taxation) for a smaller budget.

4. should we engage in deficit spending?
currently: yes. we are currently spending trillions more than we take in.
alternate plan: no. stop it at once and make it impossible in the future via a dynamic tax rate.

maybe you have a different "means" but i don't believe there's a single person here who is answering those questions differently than me.

I agree with farhad: "Americans have been living beyond their means for years now." We will need to go back to a standard of spending from saving instead of credit. This not only relates to us as US Citizens, but also our representative government which should cease its spending from money it doesn't have, and instead spend what meager bits it should be allowed.

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
We must make our election between economy and liberty
or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as
that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in
our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and
our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...
[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our
miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence
by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks
of our fellow-sufferers...
And this is the tendency of all human governments.
A departure from principle in one instance becomes a
precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society
is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...
And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt.
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and
oppression."
--Thomas Jefferson

Going through and stiking out what I disagree with, it seems we only disagree on one thing: the means in which to change taxation. We both agree it should be changed, and we both agree we want smaller government and less spending. I only happen to favor a dynamic tax rate because 1. it ends the IRS 2. it massively simplifies taxation 3. it makes deficit spending impossible 4. it provides strong political motivation for smaller budgets (voters get to watch their tax rates rise *instantly* if the budget grows). Of the reasons I favor the dynamic tax rate, it appears you would agree with most of them.

When speaking of the gas tax, I too, think it should be taxed but not as a sales tax, as "emission compensation" because when burned, it creates pollution which affects others.

>> ^volumptuous:
• Enact a balanced-budget amendment
• End both the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan
• Close almost all US military bases outside of this country
• Cut-off financing the Israeli military forces
• Repeal all federal drug laws
• Slash the defense budget by half
• Kill Bush's tax-cuts
• A supermajority requirement to cut corporate tax rates
• End the tax-exemptions of all churches and religious centers
• Enact a gradated tax code, poorer pay less, rich pay most.
• Enact a real inheritance tax on any amount over $100,000.00
• End all subsidies to corporate farms
• Add $0.50 sales tax per gallon of gasoline. Use 1/2 to subsidize urban transit projects
• Enact tough and bold legislation to charge proper fees for use of US broadcast airwaves

I'm not the smartest economist around, and I haven't even graduated high school, but all this shit seems simple to me.

I went through and struck out the statements I disagree with. Looks like we agree on about 99% of it.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Americans have been living beyond their means for years now. The let's cut taxes and everything will be peachy approach will simply not work, it will only continue to create further debt in a already debt ridden society. Just because you get an extra 10,000 dollars will not alleviate the long term problems the economy is facing. The government is far too large but the political incentive to reduce it is simply not there. Too much legislation has created too many public offices that serve no purpose, and too much of government work is already being privatized out with no real solid oversight. These are some of the steps I would take before probably being assassinated because it would rattle too many people in comfortable positions.
- Eliminate the following: Department of Health, Department of Education, Drug Enforcement Agency and the SEC. DOH and DOE statistical bodies can be rolled into the Census office for information gathering. The DEA needs to be dissolved, parts not dealing with drug enforcement rolled into the FBI. The SEC should be reformed entirely and given higher powers and responsibilities, its failure to catch the Madoff scandal is simply unforgivable.
- Slash Pentagon spending, the US spends almost 4 to 5 times as much as the nearest highest spender on defense. America has the best cold war era military force that is trying to fight guerrilla wars while constantly changing its attack profile from standard engagement to network centric warfare to COIN. Enough military readjustments on the taxpayers bill.
- Working with the infrastructure survey create open bid contracts to rebuild and improve America's basic infrastructure. Eliminate the made in USA clause which is basically protectionist scheme. Infrastructure is the most vital component in the economy, years of tax cuts meant you are living on shit built back in the 50s.
- Eliminate American protectionist schemes for agriculture. This is lunacy and only helps large agriculture firms while US consumers lose out, welcome to the globalization bitches. Africa makes cheaper bananas and mangos anyway.
- Make all private sector lobbying illegal. All lobbying should be citizen empowered only with no private interests. Currently any private firm can buy lobbying pressure to roll in laws that are only beneficial for it's own interests. This is waste and imbalance.
- Legalize drugs and tax them. This a mute point, there too much waste in capturing marijuana smokers and filling the jails with them, while culturally we all watch Weeds on HBO. There is an untapped revenue source here.
- Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, close down every single US military post. Needless waste on a needless war that cost too many American lives. Withdrawal must be countered with a monument to all those killed needlessly, a formal apology by the President for straining the nation.
- Create a viable social health care system while allowing private care to flourish as an alternative choice. The health of labor is the wealth of the economy, everyone should have access to affordable health care that doesn't ruin your finical portfolio if you get a heart attack. We can afford to spend trillions to build bombs, we can afford to spend trillions making sure every American is able to stay healthy.
- Incorporate legal immigration and legalize everyone in the US, firms need cheap labour, all those kids in the OC will not do the cheap labor jobs that people who immigrate will. Removing barriers will allow more people to contribute to the economy. Tax them accordingly.
- Form a WWII style incentive towards improving American education and finding alternative viable fuel sources.
- End all SOCIAL based legislation that deal with marriage and gay rights, this is not a sector the government should have any say in.
- Introduce progressive tax structures that scale to abnormal income increases, foster the creation of the middle class. End lax inheritances taxation. End favorable tax heavens for corporations. End corporate tax write offs. This is necessary to balance out the economy unfortunately.

Again, striking out only what I disagree with. Our views are quite similar, and I don't think you would be terribly upset if we *didn't* tax drugs

>> ^nibiyabi:
Without getting into specifics . . .
1. end all present and future aggressive wars
2. legalize all drugs
3. tax all drugs
4. phase out fossil fuels by lifting the ban on new nuclear power plants
5. support development of electric cars to move us to a nuclear (power generation) / electric (power use) system
It's a nice start, but I'm probably 100 years ahead of my time (besides number one, which will continue forever).

When I posted my solution, which was basically threefold:

1. Reduce spending by $1 trillion
2. Prosecute criminals
3. Rather than send $4 trillion to unknown/dubious sources, send it straight to the families who know how to spend it best. Which is going to better improve the economic situation for you personally, $20,000 in your pocket or $2 billion in the pocket of some CEO? Who is going to spend it on your best interests, you or the CEO? If its better for you, why wouldn't it not be better for most people? If everyone is better off, why would we give it to the CEOs instead of the people?

I'm not saying I agree with a bailout (i don't think we should bail anyone out) but if you ARE going to give money to someone, why not give money to the millions of starving homeless jobless people directly rather than a small group of billionaires?

Stellar

There's very simple problems I have with your/Ron Paul's approach to everything.


1• Not everyone is a health insurance expert. Leaving it up to families or undereducated individuals to figure out the infinitely complex system that is health insurance, find the best deal possible, etc. Is completely irrational. Besides, your idea of giving a family $10k for insurance when the average is $12k, is obviously off the mark. But, you probably don't give a shit.

Do you know how many people in this country would have no idea how to even begin any of this? If you think it would work, you're out of your mind.


2• Not everyone is a savings&investment expert. Sure, Ron Paul is a monetary guru, but the vast majority of the people in this country can hardly get above simple multiplication tables. Your/Ron Paul's answer to this is generally; "well that's not MY fault". But guess what? We live in a society that helps eachother. We've set up this system called SOCIAL SECURITY, that actually %100 works, just as long as the fuckers in Washington keep their fucking greedy hands out of it.

To expect people to wisely be able to navigate the infinitely complex system that is stocks/savings/etc is a fucking joke.


3• Infrastructure and Public Works
You.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding.Me

Without "public works" we wouldn't have this little thing called the interwebs where you get all your awesome Austrian Economics video clips from. We wouldn't have NASA. We wouldn't have sequenced the genome. We wouldn't have developed AIDS prevention methods, and a myriad of other things that you actually value, but for some reason think that just some joe-schmoe could've invented in his garage if only he wasn't paying for some "welfare queen" or whatever.



There are millions of us who love NASA, love the NEA, love PBS, love C-Span, love the CDC, and there's plenty more.

'n stuff

short term, and briefly, still think this is the way to go, but also know why it's unlikely.

the 'hidden tax' of inflation is that whoever gets the new money first, gets more out of that money. the moment they spend it, every other dollar in circulation is worth that much less.
that's why multinational banks, huge insurance brokers, etc, always get the money first. they know why to demand it, while the average citizen doesn't.

bear in mind, i don't actually know dick about economics. it generally makes me sick, which is why i'm just cynical enough about it, to know a few of the ways you're all getting screwed.

I think maybe I should have been more specific with what "our economic issues" are. There's a lot here about addressing our national debt, or deficit spending. That's not the issue.

The issue is that our economy is crashing. Companies' sales numbers drop, they lay off people, fewer people have money to buy stuff, and companies sales numbers drop more, leading to more layoffs...and around and around it goes.

Add to that the credit freeze, that's preventing even people with good credit, or proven business models, from getting loans to make large purchases or expand their businesses. Mostly this is because the banks themselves are in financial limbo because 90% of their balance sheet is tied up in assets that no one can accurately value anymore.

So, the deficit and national debt aren't our main issue. It's something to keep an eye on, but right now it's not a big enough to make our creditors stop lending to us. There's a danger that they might do that if it gets too high, but "too high" is a lot higher than we are now.

Also, since so many people are having their hours cut and getting laid off, and businesses are losing money instead of making it, the government is raking in a lot less money, running up our debt.

Conservatives with an ideological agenda say "Great, government was too big anyways, so cut everything in sight!"

Economists with an ideological agenda say "The market will fix itself, don't try to do anything except maybe cut taxes".

Economists who see the world as I do say "Spend a lot now to restart the economy, then once it's growing pay down the debt by raising taxes and cutting spending".

I don't know who's right, but I know that conservative politicians don't know anything about anything, those economists who say the market will fix itself base their entire school on the premise that people are expert investors with complete and accurate information about the market (which seems more than a little far fetched to me), and the last group tries to model things with the assumption that people won't always act "rationally" with their money, and that the level of information people have is varied, etc.

So, given that, here are my feelings on some of the specifics that people have put forward:

1. Cut military spending. I would normally agree to this wholeheartedly. When the recovery is underway, I think this is one of the places we should cut spending first, but not right now. I don't want more layoffs due to spending cuts right now.

2. Legalize drugs, regulate drugs, and tax drugs. Wholehearted agreement. Part of what was done to try to pull out of the Great Depression was to repeal prohibition, because prohibition was killing state budgets. Let's end our modern-day prohibition, and reap the benefits of both legal business opportunities, and the tax revenue it generates. We should do this immediately.

3. Tax cuts, or write checks to all taxpayers. Moderate agreement. Most people would save this money -- I know I would. Only the people at the lowest end of the income spectrum would spend this immediately, and that's what we need right now. So, give a small ($500-$1,000) rebate check again, focused mostly on the low to lower-middle income brackets. Including people who only pay payroll taxes and sales taxes (or as Republicans say it "people who don't pay taxes"). This is in Obama's stimulus plan already.

4. Investigate the crimes committed, and prosecute the offenders, and possibly execute them. Totally agree, though this won't directly help stimulate the economy, I think it might do a lot to restore confidence if we publicly executed the people who're using TARP funds to pay out big bonuses to the top level management of bailed out firms (John Thain, I'm looking at you). Failing that, these asshats should at least be getting fired -- so far there has been slim amounts of turnover at the executive level of these banks, which sure as hell doesn't make me feel very confident that they know WTF is going on, or have any sense that they're responsible for it..

5. Genocide. Not really going to help the economy much, and it's unethical too. Go take a ride in your blimp, eat some corn-based snakes, and chill. At least turn us into Soylent Green and sell it to the Naderites.

6. Reform healthcare. Agree, though I vehemently disagree with the idea of "reform" meaning that we eliminate government spending on it. I'd rather aim for single payer healthcare, or at least vastly overhaul the regulatory body for health insurance so there's better profit incentives in helping people, and less murder by spreadsheet. Cutting Medicare and Medicaid seems like a senseless attack on the poor and elderly, if it's the only change made. Why not go after the VA too? Afraid they'd fight back?

7. End farm subsidies. I'm undecided on this one. Probably a good idea, but I'm not sure it'd stimulate the economy in the short or long term, just reshape it.

Really, my litmus test for ideas boils down to this:

If it creates jobs, do it
If it would result in layoffs, don't do it
If it leaves behind something of lasting use, that's gravy
If it just rearranges things to be more "fair" (which means different things to different ideologies), let it go for the moment

Hence my moon mission to clean up the Earth. It'll create jobs, and leave behind something of lasting value, so our kids can screw it up in their own unique and innovative ways.

I think that any "fix" to our economy that doesn't address the gross disparity in wealth that is common in America is doomed to failure.

As I see it, all of the problems begin when we allow too few people to own and control too much of our wealth and too many of our resources.

Almost all of the layoffs that we're seeing today can be translated into the few people at the top of the pyramid hoarding all of the salaries and wages that would otherwise have been distributed throughout the organization.

Economic gluttony is a criminal act.

Through what physical mechanism does the government create jobs?

It can create specific jobs, for sure, by channeling resources from one area to another. For example, the government can create construction jobs by taxing/borrowing $1 trillion and using it to build roads.

However, if giving out $1 trillion can create 1000 jobs, wouldn't taking back $1 trillion destroy 1000 jobs? Or, to word it differently, wouldn't taking back $1 trillion prevent 1000 jobs from being created? How can it be said to work one way, but not the other?

If the money is taxed, then there is no net increase in jobs because the resources were merely diverted. If spending can create jobs, then whether the government spends the money or consumers do is irrelevant. Spending (demand) creates jobs (supply) regardless of the source of spending. Saving and spending are likewise equivalent--whether you spent $10,000 on a new car, or save $10,000 in a bank is irrelevant. Your $10,000 in a bank would've ended up as a car loan to another person who didn't have the money buy it directly. In fact, as a result of compound interest, saving money actually puts far more money into the economy because it creates wealth on top of the principle.

If the money is borrowed or created out of thin air, it is true there is a short-term increase in jobs. However, if this money is ever to be paid back (i.e. taxed) then those jobs will all be lost in the future. In fact, the number of jobs lost will be much greater than the number of jobs created because of the interest paid on the money borrowed.

Thus, the government can only destroy jobs by spending money. Government spending is only a short term mask to the problem--one we have been applying for the last 90 years. Perhaps we are finally seeing the long-term effects?

>> ^imstellar28:
Through what physical mechanism does the government create jobs?

We have reached, or are quickly reaching, an era when creating jobs is simply beside the point.

The point is to keep people fed, housed, healthy, educated, and productive.

In the past the best way to do that was by letting the private sector choose to enrich itself and, along the way, employ some people so that they could afford to pay for their own food, housing, health care, etc.

If there aren't enough jobs to keep people from starving in the streets, then it is up to the people, the government, to figure out how to model a system that best suits the needs of the many over the greed of the few.

>> ^imstellar28:


That is of course, the classic counter argument to what I (and everyone on the Hill) is proposing.

My view is that the picture you draw is too static. If the market is always better at providing prosperity, why are people losing jobs and having to spend less?

It's not crushing taxes levied to pay off the debt -- we've never really had anyone try to do that.

It's not crushing regulation stopping people from starting businesses, it's the bankers themselves cutting off investment capital because they're afraid they've already gambled and lost every penny they own.

Maybe it's because when the market is left to its own devices, it pushes empty ponzi schemes as the main engine of the economy, instead of the old-fashioned idea of actually producing goods and services that require work.

I'm not saying that incurring the debt is a good idea, I'm just saying that if we slash government "spending" to a level below our falling revenues, you'll only make the situation worse, and make revenues drop even further as the economy grinds to a halt.

I think we both agree that this whole thing will sort itself out, in the same way that we'd agree that life, in some form, would survive a nuclear war, the difference is, I want to fight the nuclear proliferation because I don't really want my survival skills tested that much, while you say "nukes for everybody!" because you have faith that the natural order of things will work out to the best possible result.

As for the thought that this is the result of 90 years of government meddling, I don't think there's evidence for that at all. Again, the issue isn't with our national debt or regulation, it's with what the private sector did when government "got out of the way".

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^imstellar28:

That is of course, the classic counter argument to what I (and everyone on the Hill) is proposing.
My view is that the picture you draw is too static. If the market is always better at providing prosperity, why are people losing jobs and having to spend less?
It's not crushing taxes levied to pay off the debt -- we've never really had anyone try to do that.
It's not crushing regulation stopping people from starting businesses, it's the bankers themselves cutting off investment capital because they're afraid they've already gambled and lost every penny they own.
Maybe it's because when the market is left to its own devices, it pushes empty ponzi schemes as the main engine of the economy, instead of the old-fashioned idea of actually producing goods and services that require work.
I'm not saying that incurring the debt is a good idea, I'm just saying that if we slash government "spending" to a level below our falling revenues, you'll only make the situation worse, and make revenues drop even further as the economy grinds to a halt.
I think we both agree that this whole thing will sort itself out, in the same way that we'd agree that life, in some form, would survive a nuclear war, the difference is, I want to fight the nuclear proliferation because I don't really want my survival skills tested that much, while you say "nukes for everybody!" because you have faith that the natural order of things will work out to the best possible result.
As for the thought that this is the result of 90 years of government meddling, I don't think there's evidence for that at all. Again, the issue isn't with our national debt or regulation, it's with what the private sector did when government "got out of the way".


I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier post, Imstellar's post is much closer to my line of thinking. I disagree with the Krugman/Summers/Geithner/Obama plan which is what you are advocating. My problem is I don't trust them. You seem to be hoping for a Cinncinnatus when history shows you always get a Caesar to some extent. I think things will get very bad no matter what we do. The Obama Administration's hope is to get the "economy going again." Obama's plan is skipping an important part of the process though. Savings and production need to be built back up again which will mean huge asset declines in the mean time. If this process is skipped (it will be largely) then we will have massive inflation. These bad investments need to be liquidated not propped up or we'll be stuck in this rut a lot longer than we would be otherwise. There will always be a buyer at the right price. The problem is that the banks are insolvent and instead of selling their deposits to smaller less politically connected and better capitalized banks they are threatening to take the whole system down. The government should let them fail but they won't because then JPM and GS won't be around to naked short gold to keep the dollar looking good for Obama's big spending plans. Well, I don't know how long they can keep that going we're 2 weeks in Obama's presidency and gold is skyrocketing. You want to know where that TARP money went? Covering short positions in gold.