Tell me...What would YOU do about this economic mess?

The Govt always has money. The United States of America can not run out of it's own made up currency. And no, our Govt also represents the sovereignty of our nation, in the fact that they "create" money by issuing debt.

Free trade helps the United States. What we need is innovators, we need people employed, and we need to provide competition to the corporations that are shipping jobs overseas by making more advanced and better products here. Cutting off free-trade is a sure fire sign to destroy the country.

Let's let the economists make the decisions that understand how the economy works. Put people to work, spend money, and let's get the engine going again.

 

You just don't get it. Seriously, I amazed at this post. Now for the rest reading WITH brains, do you see now why war/revolution is the ONLY option?

This is what he is pushing:
1) Keep listening to those who have gotten us into this mess. Trust them. PUKE

2) What we need is more innovation, of course, to be shipped overseas as soon as the product is ready to manufacture. PUKE

3) That government issued debt is a good thing for our country. PUKE

What's next, if Americans would just work for 12 dollars a day the jobs would come home? I seriously can't believe people who think like you are allowed to live in our nation. It is time for blood, like a river.

 

I know it is scary the things I say America. But you all know deep down you are getting played, and what I say is the truth. The people doing this to you are banking on the fact you will never see war as an answer. That is their trump card. I'm sure our forefathers weren't fighting the British for fun. It had to be done. You must man up. Not just for the sake of our nation, but every nation that these parasites now control, for when the world sees the American people make a move, all will go for the jugular of the globalist regime in their respective nations. It must be done.

 

And the Dumbocrats solution is to increase taxes..yeah..that will get people to spend more...

 

So they will pay 99% of the taxes instead of just 90%??

 

Protectionism in a global economy has been proven to be disastrous; why do people in an information age still preach this nonsense?

The fact that trade protection hurts the economy of the country that imposes it is one of the oldest but still most startling insights economics has to offer. The idea dates back to the origin of economic science itself.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Protectionism.html

 

solution is simple

1. raise taxes
2. ration healthcare
3. short term fiscal stimulus

all problems averted

the thing that's so maddening is that that solution is so simple, and yet there are so many people who oppose doing the right thing out of ignorance. And not only that, but they're all convinced that they're right, and they're not willing to compromise one iota. I think we are beginning to see the disadvantages of democracy. In order for a democracy to work well, the people have to not be stupid. And unfortunately, many Americans are stupid, and stubbornly so. It's a recipe for disaster--and disaster is exactly what we have.

 

Public Works projects and a Government that spends money it doesn’t have has been proven to be disastrous; why do people in an information age still preach this nonsense?

Why Government Spending Does Not End Recessions

Moving forward, the important question is why government spending fails to end recessions. Spending-stimulus advocates claim that Congress can "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. This raises the obvious question: From where does the government acquire the money it pumps into the economy? Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.[7]

Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If it funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing purchasing power (while decreasing incentives to produce income and output). If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If they borrow the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally raising net imports, leaving total demand and output unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...imulate-Economic-Growth-Answering-the-Critics

 

Please. The countries doing good in the current climate. China, India, and never hear any woes from South Korea. All 3 the nations who get to play the global game and still practice protectionism. You all are so full of (*)(*)(*)(*) it's coming out your ears. And of course, your 401ks.

 

I would legalize recreational drugs, prostitution, and gambling at all federal and state levels. This would quickly increase jobs, and with it, government revenue.

I would subsidize start-up companies and do something similar to the HIRE act, although much more aggressive.

I would pardon anyone in jail for drug related offenses.

I would end our wars, bring all of our troops home, and cut discretionary spending for the military down to $200 billion.

I would fix our tax system to be progressive instead of regressive. All income should be treated equally.

I would also assemble a team of economists to create a recommendation for what we can further do to jumpstart the economy. We are in a mess right now, and I think it justifies additional government spending in a targeted manner.

 

Please, by all means, bring the people trained to fight home to a jobless nation. That is exactly the jump start we truly need.

 

They'd still be in the military and getting paid, they just wouldn't be risking their lives and costing so much money.

 

Comments are in the quote.

 

When wars end, when geopolitics are no longer played, troops don't get paid for fun. I have so many friends who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan and think they are going to go career. LOL. They should have asked their fathers who were in Nam how well that works out.

 

As far as the dangers go, I have thought about this a lot and for a long time. My conclusion is that the harm caused by prohibition of drugs, prostitution, and gambling (well, not so much gambling), far outweighs the harm caused by having them legalized. Now, I believe in some regulation of prostitution, basically like what is done in Nevada. I also think that we should put something in place to minimize the harm from legalizing drugs, primarily with respect to limiting the spread of HIV and providing help for addicts.

But, I don't want to hijack this thread on side debates. That's simply what I would do.

 

We'll put aside the unfortunate circumstances that got us here. But here is the situation:

1) We have a debt so large that we cannot continue deficit financing on a large scale.

2) Radical cuts in spending will result in millions more government jobs being eliminated at a time when the private sector already cannot handle the excess, idle labor situation we have. 1.4 million government jobs have already been eliminated over the past year, which has made a weak unemployment situation worse.

3) Banks and businesses are individuals are sitting on trillions of dollars of unused capital because the demand is not there for their product and they are uncertain when that demand will come.

In this unfortunate situations, the only rational approach is to figure out how to 1) increase demand and 2) get that unused capital to work on #1).

Cutting taxes doesn't do much to enhance #1, particularly when the tax cuts mostly benefit those who are sitting on the unused capital to begin with. Plus it makes the deficit worse.

Cutting spending puts more people on unemployment, decreasing demand, the opposite thing we want to do.

Increasing spending increases demand, which is good, but makes the deficit worse. To avoid that, the only practical solution is to increase taxes that effectively comes from the trillions of idle cash that is sitting around.

 

In other words, put a couple million more on the unemployment rolls.

Great idea. That'll really boost the economy.

 

In other words, put millions more on the unemployment rolls.

That'll really give a boost to the economy.

 

In other words, put a couple more million people on the unemployment rolls.

That'll be a great boost to the economy.

Why wouldn't Dale increase his income?

 

Well, it depends on how you spend. If you spend in a deliberate and targeted manner to increase jobs and grow the economy (e.g. subsidizing startup companies) the short term will result in a deficit, but it will increase revenue for the long term, reducing future deficits and overall future debt.

But I agree anyway that we need more revenue now.

 

In other words, add a couple million more to the unemployment rolls.

That'll be a great boost to the economy.

 

Great, so now the thread gets closed as Iriemon can repeat the same thing 250 times? Tell us shill, what in this thread has got you so vested in removing it from people's eyes?

 

I agree with tax increases, but not considering any form of spending cuts is ignorant. We need to make intelligent spending cuts and reforms that improve the efficiency of the federal government, not gut it of its effcency. At the same time, we need to initiate long-term job creation policy. We also need to implement comprehensive tax reform, and an anti-poverty initiative that will set specific goals that lead to effective policy to ease people off of welfare and provide them with economic stablity and economic mobility. We need to explore new and innovative forms of taxation such as notional value derivatives transaction tax. We need to consolidate federal programs and agencies to make the bureaucracy more efficient and economical. We need to increase incentives for the private sector to invest in large-scale renewable energy projects. The last part of our economic plan should be a balanced budget amendment, which should only be enacted when we gain a budget surplus.

 

I see conservatives shill the same thing over and over -- cut lots of spending.

But I've yet to see one explain exactly how adding a couple million more people to the unemployment rolls is supposed to be good for the economy.

 

Didn't we already do that? Two and a half years ago I saw economist after economist come on TV and explain how the stimulus would revitalize the economy. They talked about mulitpliers of stimulus funds; a dollar of stimulus spent would garner you $1.50 of economic gain...

And yet the stimulus failed. So why did credentialed, degreed, economists, who work in this field get it wrong when I, (I've only had a year of economics in college) get it right?

Really, I'm asking the question because they should have been right and me wrong.

But how often are "experts" actually right when their ideas are actually applied to the real world? Not that often it seems...