Its easy for people point fingers and blama Obama and/or Bush for our economic failures. But its more than just who's President. Our economic problems are much deeper than that.

1. Get rid of the Federal Reserve. There is no reason for a private bank to set the Federal Interest rates to any level it please's at a certain time.

2. We need to change our entire economic system. This credit based society we currently have is lunacy. First it raise's the demand which drives up prices due to inflation. Look at home prices since the mid 90's for example. We must have a save first mentality. There is no reason for a kid to get a college education and be 50k(being conservative here) in debt before he/she even enters the workforce. And in our current economic times he/she may not even find a job in the field he/she wants. We as a society completely live outside of our means. I'm not advocating police going door to door to look at personal belongings. But there is no reason for a family of 4 to own 4 computers and 4 cell phones while your family debt continues to grow. Stop spending money you don't have.

If we have a safe first mentality. Then programs such as Social Security aren't needed. We'd have the people looking at IRA's first.

Other programs need to go, even if we think they are good. The American taxpayer cannot survive paying more taxes. And we we don't get rid of these programs the country will go bankrupt. Printing excess money, Taxation, and Inflation only helps out a little bit. Look at it this way, if our Government got rid of every Department and Programs it runs and keeps Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, our country will still be trillions of dollars in debt.

Whats good in Montana may not be good in Utah so to speak. If the people of Utah want a state run health care system, let Utah run it.


3. The next time the NYSE is ready to collapse. Let it. Stop saving the too big to fails at the taxpayer expense. In the 40-50 year long term a correction is much needed. Yes we'd have a 4-5 year Depression, if not longer. But if we keep saving the Market, when it finally crash's its going to be deeper and harsher than the original correction intended. A Depression might get us out of this debt first society we currently have.

4. Its time to bring all of our troops home. Our country cannot afford to keep its empire running abroad. We need to shut down the basis in Germany, Japan and everywhere inbetween.

Basic analysis, more State Power and less Federal influence on issues like education and healthcare. Stop spending money we don't have(citizens and government alike). Bringing the troops home.

Another side note: 46 States are currently bankrupt or about to be bankrupt. I don't care what any Bloomberg, CNBC, or Fox Business Analsyst tells me. I hate how they lie and say we're in recovery mode. Our economy is in worse shape than they are leading on, and needs a complete overhaul or we will be a 3rd Wold Country. Its apparent neither political party wants to attack the real problem at hand and they'd rather blame the other side of the aisle. Its a dirty shame.

(07-13-2010 05:57 PM)animus Wrote:  1. Get rid of the Federal Reserve. There is no reason for a private bank to set the Federal Interest rates to any level it please's at a certain time.

I don't think the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished per say, but I do think it needs a massive overhaul and more transparency. I'm not well verse enough in economic policy; however, to give an informed opinion on the exact reforms necessary.

(07-13-2010 05:57 PM)animus Wrote:  2. We need to change our entire economic system. This credit based society we currently have is lunacy. First it raise's the demand which drives up prices due to inflation. Look at home prices since the mid 90's for example. We must have a save first mentality. There is no reason for a kid to get a college education and be 50k(being conservative here) in debt before he/she even enters the workforce. And in our current economic times he/she may not even find a job in the field he/she wants. We as a society completely live outside of our means. I'm not advocating police going door to door to look at personal belongings. But there is no reason for a family of 4 to own 4 computers and 4 cell phones while your family debt continues to grow. Stop spending money you don't have.

Agree.

(07-13-2010 05:57 PM)animus Wrote:  If we have a safe first mentality. Then programs such as Social Security aren't needed. We'd have the people looking at IRA's first.

Disagree, mainly because very low income earners won't be able to save enough over the course of a lifetime for retirement. Social security needs to stay in place as a way to ensure that the poorest among our society can retire without falling into poverty. In other words, it needs to stay true to its roots as being a social insurance program. What it does not need to become is a welfare system for middle class individuals who have a spend first mentality.

(07-13-2010 05:57 PM)animus Wrote:  Other programs need to go, even if we think they are good. The American taxpayer cannot survive paying more taxes.

Disagree, mainly because Americans have survived (and thrived) under higher tax systems. From 1940 to 1970, the top tax bracket ranged from 70% to 94%.

(07-13-2010 05:57 PM)animus Wrote:  And we we don't get rid of these programs the country will go bankrupt. Printing excess money, Taxation, and Inflation only helps out a little bit. Look at it this way, if our Government got rid of every Department and Programs it runs and keeps Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, our country will still be trillions of dollars in debt.

The only tenable solution is to cut spending and increase taxes. A solution that relied only on spending cuts would dismantle some bedrock parts of modern American society and would lower our standard of living considerably. A solution that relied only on taxes would muzzle economic growth. To cover the costs of future spending — the retirement of the baby boomers and everything else — federal taxes would have to rise by almost 50 percent.

The answer, therefore, must be somewhere in the middle. The federal government has quite a bit of fat that can be cut (i.e. DoD budget, government benefits, etc). Plus, one has to remember that tax increases are not inherently bad. For example, the 1950s and 1960s saw the largest growth in the American economy and the top marginal tax rate was 90%. Taxes rose sharply in the first half of the 20th century, starting from just a few percentage points of the G.D.P., and the country still prospered.

(07-13-2010 05:57 PM)animus Wrote:  3. The next time the NYSE is ready to collapse. Let it. Stop saving the too big to fails at the taxpayer expense. In the 40-50 year long term a correction is much needed. Yes we'd have a 4-5 year Depression, if not longer. But if we keep saving the Market, when it finally crash's its going to be deeper and harsher than the original correction intended. A Depression might get us out of this debt first society we currently have.

Disagree mainly because allowing banks to fail will only further hurt the economy as it tries to recover and because it does not address the root cause of the problem (i.e. the existence of too big to fail banks). My main issue with the stimulus fund was not that it happened (as much as I didn't like it) but that distribution of funds came with no strings attached (i.e. how banks had to utilize money, mandatory salary cuts, etc) and it did nothing to address the problem of having banks that could crash the economy by themselves.

(07-13-2010 05:57 PM)animus Wrote:  4. Its time to bring all of our troops home. Our country cannot afford to keep its empire running abroad. We need to shut down the basis in Germany, Japan and everywhere inbetween.

Total defense spending requested for FY 2011 was $895 billion which account for roughly half of the entire world’s defense spending. The $895 billion request includes $548.9 billion for the Department of Defense Budget and $159 billion in contingency funds to support initiatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In my opinion, the United States should begin transitioning from an offensive military to a defensive military and should aim reduce defense spending in a step-wise fashion over the next four years to a more sustainable $350-400 billion per year. My proposal for budget reduction would be as follows:

2012 – Pull all operations out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This will reduce defense spending by roughly $159 billion and bring total spending down to roughly $736 billion

2013 – Begin massive three year overseas installation realignment and closing. The US currently operates over 800 overseas installations. These installations represent a massive multibillion dollar waste of tax payer money. Installations/operations located in the following stable countries would be closed first and troops/equipment relocated to current US bases. Bases to be closed in 2013 would include those in Canada, Cuba, Antigua, Aruba, Peru, United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Czech Republic, Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo, Hungary, Romania, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Australia, Inodensia, Saint Helena, etc. Additionally, I would begin reducing equipment and research expenditures to trim the defense budget.

2014 – Continued closure of bases. Bases in less stables countries would be closed next including operation centers in Bahrain, Egypt, Japan, Kenya, Singapore, etc. Additionally, I would begin reducing equipment and research expenditures to trim the defense budget.

2015 – Finish base closure. Bases in the least stable countries would be closed last including bases in South Korea, Djibouti, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Columbia, Ecudaor, etc. Additionally, I would begin reducing equipment and research expenditures to trim the defense budget.

I'd say the reason why the country thrived with higher tax rates in the 40's-60's is because the American people was actually manufacturing and contructing. Somewhere between the 70's and now we lost most of our industry from TV developement to the steel industry. In today's current state we aren't working in those industry's. To get there we must lower taxes to get small business and industry up and running again and then go back to those tax rates you was talking about.

As for the Banks, since we didn't allow them to fail we will not solve the problem of our debt based society period. We're simply putting a band aid on the problem. And you don't put a band aid on a problem when you need a tourniquet. Allowing those "too big to fails" fail would've allowed healthier banks take over. All putting more money into the sytem do is allow the big banks to recover while the little man still was struggling. We're not going to fully recover. We're just going to continue this roller coaster ride we've been on the past 20-30 years of some growth and then more job loss. The only way for this country for a complete recovery is a real correction. Hate to say it because those years of massive unemployment rates are going to hurt the everyday citizen. I don't want my brothers and cousins unemployed and i'm sure you don't either.

If we didn't have this debt based society, like I said in my first post, prices of everyday goods would be cheaper. If everyday goods are cheaper, then the poorer people would have more money in their pockets to spend money they actually have, or save for a better retirement. To get there we have to have the poorest 1/3 of the country working in factories and construction.

One agency the government could reduce considerably on the payroll is the IRS. Get rid of the arbitrary nature of taxation, and institute a pay as you go national sales tax. No tax on the income, and a little extra on the sales tax. That could save the government a couple of billion, and eliminate the need for the taxpayer to get an account every year filling out IRS forms to figure out what you owe...

I agree Bit, I agree... Completely forgot about that one in my lil rant.

As for the Fed Reserve, tranparency is an understatement. There has never been an audit of the Fed Reserve.... NEVER. Anyone see a problem with this. And its sad during a Congressional Meeting, a member of Congress asked Ben BerPOS where did the money go? and Ben BerPOS responded I don't know. Trillions of Dollars lost... REALLY. I could show video's upon video's on youtube on this subject here. But its too hard to judge what is a Conspiracy Theory and what isn't. Alot of this sh1t going on makes it seem like some of those loonies are on to something.

It's been going on since the nation was founded, animus. Corruption is our true national pastime...

Definitely... There will be curruption no matter what... The more power the regular people have and the less power the gvt has, the better. And i'm not talking anarchy.

The funny thing about everything is if the GVT told people to be more fiscally responsible. Modern Liberals spend with a higher tax base and Modern Conservatives spend with a lower tax base. At least the Liberals spend money and have some money to back it up. And if anyone says Bush was fiscally conservative really needs to look at his track record. He was a Conservative Republican by name only. Neither political party offer the solutions to the economic problems. The Democrats offer the wrong solutions while the Republicans poke fun at the Democrats idea's w/out having solutions of their own.

Gerald Celente hits the nail on the head. Doesn't offer up solutions though.

(07-13-2010 08:35 PM)animus Wrote:  The more power the regular people have and the less power the gvt has, the better.

That really isn't a true premise. Sudan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Guinea, etc are all examples of countries where the government has little power compared to the general populace. I highly doubt anyone would want to live there.

But let's consider our own government for a minute. Why do people automatically assume that smaller government = better scenario? For example, let's say we axe the FBI, EPA, FDA, etc. Who really benefits from those cuts? It won't be citizens as all of those gov agencies were put in place to protect citizens/consumers. Most (not all) gov agencies exist for a reason and we, the people, are beneficiaries.

I think there are ultimately two major flaws with our current government. The first is the rise of hard-line party ideology and the promotion of politicians who believe that government can't function. Our system of government is predicated on the notion that politicians will be open to political discourse and are willing compromise for the good of the people. When you have politicians who refuse to compromise on anything, our system of government can't work effectively.

In addition, when people elect politicians to office who promote the idea that government can't function, is it any real surprise when government does not work well? Those politicians have a lot to gain from ensuring that the political process does not work (i.e. they can say that they were right and that their views have been vindicated).

This is one reason why I think it is easy for conservatives to "prove" why government doesn't work. Making government work is a laborious effort - it takes compromise, effort, dedication, and a willingness to sacrifice political capital. However, making government not work is relatively easy. All a party has to do is make the political process as muddled and partisan as possible. Refuse to compromise on anything, threaten to filibuster every proposal sent to them, drag out appointments as much as possible, etc. Essentially, you are fulfilling your own prophesy (I will do my best to make government not work therefore proving my point that government doesn't work).

(07-14-2010 05:55 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(07-13-2010 08:35 PM)animus Wrote:  The more power the regular people have and the less power the gvt has, the better.

That really isn't a true premise. Sudan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Guinea, etc are all examples of countries where the government has little power compared to the general populace. I highly doubt anyone would want to live there.

But let's consider our own government for a minute. Why do people automatically assume that smaller government = better scenario? For example, let's say we axe the FBI, EPA, FDA, etc. Who really benefits from those cuts? It won't be citizens as all of those gov agencies were put in place to protect citizens/consumers. Most (not all) gov agencies exist for a reason and we, the people, are beneficiaries.

What i'm saying is the states taking over the majority of those operations. Can't get rid of the FBI because of crimes crossing state lines.

(07-13-2010 08:35 PM)animus Wrote:  The more power the regular people have and the less power the gvt has, the better.

That would depend on whether the regular people were a some mindless mob, or a group of individuals who considered all consequences carefully before making decisions...

Don't you agree?

(07-14-2010 06:05 PM)animus Wrote:  What i'm saying is the states taking over the majority of those operations. Can't get rid of the FBI because of crimes crossing state lines.

Let's say Kentucky relaxes its laws on disposal of nuclear waste and allows nuclear plants to discharge waste into the Ohio river. The people of Louisiana don't particularly like nuclear waste in their drinking water so they have their state pass strict disposal laws. Unfortunately, all the crap from Kentucky flows downstream to them. Who regulates (can't say the EPA...they don't exist).

Let's say that Ohio wants to build more power plants. To encourage development, they remove all environmental laws regulating emissions of soot, CO2, mercury, etc. Pittsburg lies downwind of these new power plants and begins to be inundated with pollution and hazardous materials. The people of Pittsburgh are pissed as their state laws prohibit such excessive pollution. Who regulates (remember, no EPA or clean air act)

A huge pharmco company in your home state has a new drug out on the market. This company employees thousands of people and is a major part of your state's economy. However they don't like your state's food and drug laws regarding testing and safety and threaten to move to a different state unless they receive exemptions. Do you take a major hit to your economy or protect your citizens?

Your state has a lot of mining going on in it. However, one of the poorer states neighboring your state drastically reduces safety requirements to ensure that mining companies move to it. There is no DoL so no one is there to set a minimum regulation standard for safety (OSHA).

Arizona decides that the Grand Canyon, while a national treasure, would be a great place for a McMansion neighborhood and paves under all of the natural beauty. Despite protests from the other 49 states, there is no one to stop the destruction.

The reason you gave for not getting rid of the FBI (crime crosses state lines), is the exact same reason why we need many of the Federal programs we have. Pollution does respect man-made boundaries. National labor laws protect workers from harmful labor policies on a national scale. The National Park service protects natural beauty of this country for every American, regardless of state.

(07-14-2010 06:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-13-2010 08:35 PM)animus Wrote:  The more power the regular people have and the less power the gvt has, the better.

That would depend on whether the regular people were a some mindless mob, or a group of individuals who considered all consequences carefully before making decisions...

Don't you agree?

Definately agree.

What i'm saying is that the politicians are supposed to work for us. If the voters want you(Representive) to vote for a specific bill then you should vote for it. If the voters want you to vote against that bill, then you shouldn't vote for it. Too many politicians vote simply their party lines and thats where the corruption is. We need to hold these people more accountable for not voting for the will of the people. I'm not really saying that we should police each other with AK's and hold lynchings on politicians. I also wished the FED GVT worked for the States instead of the other way around.

(07-14-2010 06:31 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(07-14-2010 06:05 PM)animus Wrote:  What i'm saying is the states taking over the majority of those operations. Can't get rid of the FBI because of crimes crossing state lines.

Let's say Kentucky relaxes its laws on disposal of nuclear waste and allows nuclear plants to discharge waste into the Ohio river. The people of Louisiana don't particularly like nuclear waste in their drinking water so they have their state pass strict disposal laws. Unfortunately, all the crap from Kentucky flows downstream to them. Who regulates (can't say the EPA...they don't exist).

Let's say that Ohio wants to build more power plants. To encourage development, they remove all environmental laws regulating emissions of soot, CO2, mercury, etc. Pittsburg lies downwind of these new power plants and begins to be inundated with pollution and hazardous materials. The people of Pittsburgh are pissed as their state laws prohibit such excessive pollution. Who regulates (remember, no EPA or clean air act)

A huge pharmco company in your home state has a new drug out on the market. This company employees thousands of people and is a major part of your state's economy. However they don't like your state's food and drug laws regarding testing and safety and threaten to move to a different state unless they receive exemptions. Do you take a major hit to your economy or protect your citizens?

Your state has a lot of mining going on in it. However, one of the poorer states neighboring your state drastically reduces safety requirements to ensure that mining companies move to it. There is no DoL so no one is there to set a minimum regulation standard for safety (OSHA).

Arizona decides that the Grand Canyon, while a national treasure, would be a great place for a McMansion neighborhood and paves under all of the natural beauty. Despite protests from the other 49 states, there is no one to stop the destruction.

The reason you gave for not getting rid of the FBI (crime crosses state lines), is the exact same reason why we need many of the Federal programs we have. Pollution does respect man-made boundaries. National labor laws protect workers from harmful labor policies on a national scale. The National Park service protects natural beauty of this country for every American, regardless of state.

I simply used FBI as an example. Products that cross state lines must be regulated by the FED Governemt. Which is the primary purpose of having a Central Government. So Yes I agree with everything you said here, with the exception of the pharmco scenerio.

(07-14-2010 06:37 PM)animus Wrote:  

(07-14-2010 06:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-13-2010 08:35 PM)animus Wrote:  The more power the regular people have and the less power the gvt has, the better.

That would depend on whether the regular people were a some mindless mob, or a group of individuals who considered all consequences carefully before making decisions...

Don't you agree?

Definately agree.

What i'm saying is that the politicians are supposed to work for us.

The key words here; supposed to. One problem is that most of the people the government is supposed to be working for haven't a clue as to the main issues of the day. The only issues the people care about are the popular ones at the moment. Whatever the popular issue happens to be, the people are either for it or against it, depending on who they listen to. Most of the people the government is supposed to work for are total morons...

(07-13-2010 08:06 PM)animus Wrote:  As for the Fed Reserve, tranparency is an understatement. There has never been an audit of the Fed Reserve.... NEVER. Anyone see a problem with this. And its sad during a Congressional Meeting, a member of Congress asked Ben BerPOS where did the money go? and Ben BerPOS responded I don't know. Trillions of Dollars lost... REALLY. I could show video's upon video's on youtube on this subject here. But its too hard to judge what is a Conspiracy Theory and what isn't. Alot of this sh1t going on makes it seem like some of those loonies are on to something.

Trust me the last thing we want to do is abolish the Fed or eliminate its relative independence. For any economy to thrive you need an independent central bank. More transparency, definitely. A one-time audit, well I've come around to this as its necessary to get the transparency needed. As for Bernanke, you can deride him all you want, but the guy's a genius. If it weren't for him acting the way he wanted to in 2008 a lot more people would be on unemployment and we'd probably have Hoovervilles like it was 1930 all over again. His whole career as economist he's tried to figure out exactly what needed to be done by the Central Bank and by the Feds to have evaded the Great Depression. He was able to put his plan into action in 2008 and guess what it worked. Basically his theory which had made sense to me before that, when it happened and even still now is the Fed needed to flood the market with credit and the Federal Government had to bailout the financial industry. Credit markets are still not all that liquid. We weren't going to stave off a fairly deep, prolonged recession, but we weren't headed for the Great Depression redux either. In all honesty, I never once thought in all my years of studying economics we'd ever see a Zero Float for the Fed Funds Rate let alone see it continue this long. To summarize, the lynching mob mentality of many people towards the Fed is somewhat unwarranted.

Eliminating the independent central bank would result in a total politicization of monetary policy something we absolutely DO NOT want. You think things are bad now because of the secrecy, just wait until monetary policy is at the whim of Congressional infighting. Again I do agree more transparency into their inner workings is key and a one-time audit to get that sort of thing up and running is a necessity.

(07-14-2010 05:55 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  This is one reason why I think it is easy for conservatives to "prove" why government doesn't work. Making government work is a laborious effort - it takes compromise, effort, dedication, and a willingness to sacrifice political capital. However, making government not work is relatively easy. All a party has to do is make the political process as muddled and partisan as possible. Refuse to compromise on anything, threaten to filibuster every proposal sent to them, drag out appointments as much as possible, etc. Essentially, you are fulfilling your own prophesy (I will do my best to make government not work therefore proving my point that government doesn't work).

remember ronald wilson reagan's famous line, "the nine most feared words in the english language are, 'i'm from the government and i'm here to help'"? talk about self fulfilling prophecy. he gives that line, and instead of making government better, he makes it worse by hiring a bunch of idiot neophytes who know slightly more than i do about their job. it was also his economic policies which led to where we are today. reagan is a paean to the republican party but a peon to everyone else who had some sense.

manufacturing is the easiest way to spur on the economy. so why not write a new law stating that all manufacturing companies who employ x number of employees or operate y number of factories in the united states must list their official headquarters in the united states. any company found in violation will have all of their tax credits and federal subsidies revoked. and then at the same time impose duties on major manufactured goods imported into the country if a similar or same item is made in the united states. what that would do is encourage domestic manufacturing. if those multinational companies pull out, that leaves a vacuum for another enterprising american business to fill. and with the benefit of making stuff in america they get a built in price break compared to things from the foreign markets. and if those multinational companies comply, it would not only encourage domestic manufacturing but it would also bring in that tax revenue that is hidden in the cayman islands every year.

i'm no economist, but that's how i would perceive it playing out.

The biggest problem that I see with our form of government is that being good at governing isn't a requirement for those who serve us. The only requirement they have is being popular, and popularity doesn't need or require competence...