How would you fix US Economy?

[ElasticNinja]

I do like the idea of sending Congressmen home in stocks. I wonder if we could implement a system where if you are defeated in an election you are sent home in stocks to be publicly humiliated for your poor performance. Choose to retire before your constituents are sick of you and you can go home in peace.

So if a politician does something that is right, but the majority of their constituents are shitty, ignorant people, they should be punished?

 

[A.Nonymous]

So if a politician does something that is right, but the majority of their constituents are shitty, ignorant people, they should be punished?

Yes. Their job is to represent their constituents, not be mommy to them.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Yes. Their job is to represent their constituents, not be mommy to them.

Right.

So politician gets elected. He becomes part of a new government after the incumbent one fails to get seats. There is an economic crisis. Politician supports tough measures to get the state back on track, but does so fairly. Taxes are raised and spending cut, and wage increases are not given due to the crisis. Next election he loses his seat for supporting these measures, despite doing his best to ensure fairness.
Does he deserved to be pilloried because his constituents don't understand the shit that the last government got them into?

 

[PH8AL]

Right.

So politician gets elected. He becomes part of a new government after the incumbent one fails to get seats. There is an economic crisis. Politician supports tough measures to get the state back on track, but does so fairly. Taxes are raised and spending cut, and wage increases are not given due to the crisis. Next election he loses his seat for supporting these measures, despite doing his best to ensure fairness.
Does he deserved to be pilloried because his constituents don't understand the shit that the last government got them into?

Mix it any way you want with what ever circle jerk argument you want.

A congressman's job is to follow exactly the wishes of his constituents who voted for him to represent them in congress. Represent THEM, not his own beliefs and right or wrong does not come into it. They are chosen to do a very specific job.

You are preaching Liberal Socialism that we have for over 2 centuries dismissed as not being how we want to rule ourselves.

This ties in perfectly with my point from an other thread. Our politics are our business, the rest of the world can feel free to remove their noses from it at any time.

Sooner would be much preferable to later.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Right.

So politician gets elected. He becomes part of a new government after the incumbent one fails to get seats. There is an economic crisis. Politician supports tough measures to get the state back on track, but does so fairly. Taxes are raised and spending cut, and wage increases are not given due to the crisis. Next election he loses his seat for supporting these measures, despite doing his best to ensure fairness.
Does he deserved to be pilloried because his constituents don't understand the shit that the last government got them into?

In short, yes. He didn't do his job. His job is to represent his constituents, not play mommy to them and give them what he thinks is best. The constituents are supposed to get what they want. If they are spoiled children, then they are spoiled children. He is 1 of 535 people. He doesn't have a lot of influence overall. His job is to represent.

Perfect example happened here locally a few years ago. A proposal was up before the county commission to raise the local sales tax in order to fund a downtown arena. The populace, by and large, opposed this idea. They didn't want a downtown arena. They didn't want eminent domain seizing land downtown. They didn't buy that the area would be "re-vitalized" by an arena. They didn't think the arena would be profitable long term and would end up being a vacant eyesore. The commission disagreed and voted in favor of the tax increase and building the arena. A year later the election came around and 2 of the 6 councilmen were up for election. They both lost their jobs. Two years later, the next two that were up for election lost their jobs as well. By the time the last two came up for election I think one of them got voted out and the other didn't as people had kind of cooled down by then. Now, the arena has been built and finished and has been in operation for about two years or so. While it hasn't had the effect of re-vitalizing the downtown area it has attracted some big name acts and has been making a profit it's first two years in operation. So far, the commission has proved to be right. Whether they will be long term remains to be seen. Doesn't change the fact that 4 people lost their jobs because the voters disapproved of their actions. They failed to represent their constituents and their constituents fired them.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You are preaching Liberal Socialism that we have for over 2 centuries dismissed as not being how we want to rule ourselves.

I am?
Prove it.

 

[PH8AL]

I am?
Prove it.

Preaching. You are in a thread about the American Economy that was meant to be silly and start in a serious debate in reply to what was a silly sarcastic bit of wit. You were answered with a pretty uniform answer by 2 Americans that are often on opposite sides of every debate and you still proceeded to tell us we are in fact wrong.

Liberal Socialist the point you were preaching was full of LS talking points like fairness and how we have it wrong with a Representative Democracy.

Now put in context with several prior LS talking point posts you have made I perceive your point coming from that perspective.

I could go pick through many many many posts of yours to make a stronger case but I just don't feel like wasting my time with it and am going to leave and ignore what was a fun silly thread about a troubling topic that in fact is no one else's damn business but our own.

Good Day.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Yes, let us not make comments on any country, but our own.

 

[ElasticNinja]

How to create the model economy: lessons from global winners | Jeffrey Sachs | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

[quadracer25]

In short, yes. He didn't do his job. His job is to represent his constituents, not play mommy to them and give them what he thinks is best. The constituents are supposed to get what they want. If they are spoiled children, then they are spoiled children. He is 1 of 535 people. He doesn't have a lot of influence overall. His job is to represent.

Perfect example happened here locally a few years ago. A proposal was up before the county commission to raise the local sales tax in order to fund a downtown arena. The populace, by and large, opposed this idea. They didn't want a downtown arena. They didn't want eminent domain seizing land downtown. They didn't buy that the area would be "re-vitalized" by an arena. They didn't think the arena would be profitable long term and would end up being a vacant eyesore. The commission disagreed and voted in favor of the tax increase and building the arena. A year later the election came around and 2 of the 6 councilmen were up for election. They both lost their jobs. Two years later, the next two that were up for election lost their jobs as well. By the time the last two came up for election I think one of them got voted out and the other didn't as people had kind of cooled down by then. Now, the arena has been built and finished and has been in operation for about two years or so. While it hasn't had the effect of re-vitalizing the downtown area it has attracted some big name acts and has been making a profit it's first two years in operation. So far, the commission has proved to be right. Whether they will be long term remains to be seen. Doesn't change the fact that 4 people lost their jobs because the voters disapproved of their actions. They failed to represent their constituents and their constituents fired them.

Do you by chance live in a larger city in Kansas?

 

[quadracer25]

Definitely agree on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, we need a progressive tax model that would call for those with the highest personal income to be paying the largest share of taxes.

I'd also severely slash the military-industrial complex and pump large amounts of that money into education funding. No idea how Republicans can call themselves a party that cares about the future of our country when they consistently try to slash education spending and teachers' wages.

I am currently taking an ag policy class which has been very eye opening, yet fairly interesting. As with a lot of politics you have to wonder what is factual and what is B.S however the Dr teaching it is a very old man and leads me to believe he has seen quite a bit when it comes to policy making and the impacts the economy has on it and vis-versa all the while being as objective as humanly possible. Although we are learning just the fundamentals, from my understanding gathered from this class and a macro class I have had. It leads me to believe that military spending has the biggest "trickle down effect" for the economy where as social programs seem to yield less. Also interesting fact Ag budgets have been cut roughly 5 fold over the past 5ish years. Where as other budgets haven't seen near the effect, if any. I also believe that for any country to survive that country's agriculture needs to have full suport(understanding) from the government and its consumers. However, if farmers can survive on farm payments being cut that much over the years why haven't other area's budgets seen the same cuts? This is something that could be used to balance the budget.

Also there was a proposal made by a man whose last name started with an S and then another guy whose last name was bowle who had a proposal for obama on how to balance the budget and he was too foolish to see it for what it was. This proposal was not only shot down by the democrats but the republicans as well. This leads me to what our biggest problem is. For our government to function and serve the people to its fullest extent politicians need to learn the definition of compromise. Without it we will get no where as we have seen in the recent years.

As far as letting the bush cuts expire sure it COULD be a good idea. However, have you thought of the consequences? Our bonds would drop from where they are now to the BB level(third world country status). I think that it would be a wake up call and create the push needed to flush our government of some corruption, but at what price? how long will it take to recover? What does that do for people who have investments in U.S bonds for retirement? I do think this situation may happen as we have yet to have the 2012 ag bill passed which from my understanding defaults back to the 1938 farm bill which would mean for all 2013 crops the gov. would be subsidizing a shit load of money to farmers. Like 11$ wheat(8.30ish now) 12$corn, 21$ soybeans. Tell me how that is good for our debt. This just goes to show how in the shitter our gov. is that they can't make a clear decision that will save money instead they will just let it ride causing more debt. I was also informed that there is over 5 trillion just floating around in money that our gov. leaves uninvested, along with 2trillion over seas that is never going to be brought back because of the taxation it would carry over with it. Why not let that money come back over with no tax and let it be spent. As far as how can republicans call themselves a party who cares about the people the same could be said about democrats. Neither of them seem to make decisions that are best for the people unless its good for their wallet as well.


These are just my views/opinions that I have gathered from the slight education I have on the matter. I'm not saying these are right, just how I see things.

 

[kevincott]

Fix the economy?

- Bring ALL of our troops home and shore up our borders. Stay out of foreign wars and instead lend 'moral' support. Our military budget and soldiers off-time spending needs to be done at home.

- Not a DIME in foreign aid, anytime a country has problems send a get-well card.

- Deport EVERY illegal alien with printed instructions on how to come back legally. Remember that illegal working status is a FELONY in many nations.

- Close the UN on our soil and encourage another nation to take up the bill. Why spend so much $ on foreign dignataries that hate us?

- Keep our noses on or own issues and if any nation/group(terrorists) attack us hold them liable and wipe them off the map.

edit: - any nation that has unfair trade policies (China I am looking at you) adjust our laws to even the playing field.


.
In short, American dollars for Americans!

 

[ElasticNinja]

I am currently taking an ag policy class which has been very eye opening, yet fairly interesting. As with a lot of politics you have to wonder what is factual and what is B.S however the Dr teaching it is a very old man and leads me to believe he has seen quite a bit when it comes to policy making and the impacts the economy has on it and vis-versa all the while being as objective as humanly possible. Although we are learning just the fundamentals, from my understanding gathered from this class and a macro class I have had. It leads me to believe that military spending has the biggest "trickle down effect" for the economy where as social programs seem to yield less. Also interesting fact Ag budgets have been cut roughly 5 fold over the past 5ish years. Where as other budgets haven't seen near the effect, if any. I also believe that for any country to survive that country's agriculture needs to have full suport(understanding) from the government and its consumers. However, if farmers can survive on farm payments being cut that much over the years why haven't other area's budgets seen the same cuts? This is something that could be used to balance the budget.

I doubt subsidies have been cut by that much. That said, agricultural subsidies need to come down, although I would agree they are necessary. They should be focused on sustainability and environmental protection, and production should not be more than is needed.

As far as letting the bush cuts expire sure it COULD be a good idea. However, have you thought of the consequences? Our bonds would drop from where they are now to the BB level(third world country status). I think that it would be a wake up call and create the push needed to flush our government of some corruption, but at what price? how long will it take to recover? What does that do for people who have investments in U.S bonds for retirement? I do think this situation may happen as we have yet to have the 2012 ag bill passed which from my understanding defaults back to the 1938 farm bill which would mean for all 2013 crops the gov. would be subsidizing a shit load of money to farmers. Like 11$ wheat(8.30ish now) 12$corn, 21$ soybeans. Tell me how that is good for our debt. This just goes to show how in the shitter our gov. is that they can't make a clear decision that will save money instead they will just let it ride causing more debt. I was also informed that there is over 5 trillion just floating around in money that our gov. leaves uninvested, along with 2trillion over seas that is never going to be brought back because of the taxation it would carry over with it. Why not let that money come back over with no tax and let it be spent. As far as how can republicans call themselves a party who cares about the people the same could be said about democrats. Neither of them seem to make decisions that are best for the people unless its good for their wallet as well.

How would increasing tax revenue worsen your credit rating? That's ridiculous, as these tax cuts have little economic benefits, and ending them would help reduce the deficit. The US government not being able to borrow at negative interest rates would be interesting, its very unfair that the US can borrow cheaper than France.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Fix the economy?

- Bring ALL of our troops home and shore up our borders. Stay out of foreign wars and instead lend 'moral' support. Our military budget and soldiers off-time spending needs to be done at home.

A military seems awfully pointless if you don't use it where necessary.

- Not a DIME in foreign aid, anytime a country has problems send a get-well card.

So you'll give countries a fair price for their goods, and also hope that they are well behaved without any incentive.

- Close the UN on our soil and encourage another nation to take up the bill. Why spend so much $ on foreign dignataries that hate us?

Well as it happens, the US contributes far less to running the UN than Europe - despite hosting it. Point be moot.

Well, the intervention of Afghanistan did wipe said terrorists off the map.

In short, American dollars for Americans!

'Murrica

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

If you read your post, you are supporting my position. If one is given higher wages, progressive taxation, pay for hours worked and unions to negotiate same then employers would be forced to hire more workers. I probably did overstate numbers of exempt employees, as income needs to be above $23,660 to be classified as exempt, but haven't found hard numbers. Then again, lawsuits have increased.

More American workers sue employers for overtime pay

Workers' main grievance is that they had to put in more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay through various practices:

 

[kevincott]

@ElasticNinja Google of Cork City, IMF, EU shows you are from southern Ireland.


A military seems awfully pointless if you don't use it where necessary.
- NO American I have talked to wants our soldiers lives on the line or the expense, especially when other nations do little or nothing


So you'll give countries a fair price for their goods, and also hope that they are well behaved without any incentive.
- If your price isn't good enough we'll buy goods elsewhere or make them at home


Well as it happens, the US contributes far less to running the UN than Europe - despite hosting it. Point be moot.
- I am waiting on a reliable and unbiased source


Well, the intervention of Afghanistan did wipe said terrorists off the map.
- Only after we gave hundreds of billions to Pakistan, where Osama Bin Laden was hiding in plain sight. They still have not proffered an explanation as to why they took our money and had Bin Laden in their borders.


'Murrica
- insulting


I find it truly amazing how many foreign nationals seem to feel a sense of entitlement to American tax dollars and are insulting the USA in the process.

 

[ElasticNinja]

@ElasticNinja Google of Cork City, IMF, EU shows you are from southern Ireland

Yup, indeed.

NO American I have talked to wants our soldiers lives on the line or the expense, especially when other nations do little or nothing

Is that not soldiers' job?
I agree a lot of European nations have not done enough in Afghanistan (France, Germany, NL, Italy etc), but other countries have done more proportionally than the US (Denmark, the UK).

- If your price isn't good enough we'll buy goods elsewhere or make them at home

Of course but that doesnt address my point regarding exploitation of least developed countries...

- I am waiting on a reliable and unbiased source

http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/5400450.22964478.html

- Only after we gave hundreds of billions to Pakistan, where Osama Bin Laden was hiding in plain sight. They still have not proffered an explanation as to why they took our money and had Bin Laden in their borders.

hundreds of billions? That would be Israel.
The Pakistan situation is ridiculous I must say. Their military are absolute spanners, and the country is going down the tubes. Not forgetting that the bulk of Taliban fighters were Pakistani military approved Pakistanis.

- insulting


I find it truly amazing how many foreign nationals seem to feel a sense of entitlement to American tax dollars and are insulting the USA in the process.

What US tax dollars? Please show me the foreign aid I am meant to receive. Please, I could really use it!

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you owe us money for the foreign aid we give to make up for your country's stinginess.

 

[kevincott]

@ElasticNinja

Is that not soldiers' job?
I agree a lot of European nations have not done enough in Afghanistan (France, Germany, NL, Italy etc), but other countries have done more proportionally than the US (Denmark, the UK).
-Our soldiers job is to protect American citizens, not police the world. No one has spent more ($ and lives) helping other nations than the USA, period.


Of course but that doesnt address my point regarding exploitation of least developed countries...
- You never made any exploitation point, "and also hope that they are well behaved without any incentive" points to buying their goods and giving handouts.


http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/5400450.22964478.html
- dead link http 404


hundreds of billions? That would be Israel.
The Pakistan situation is ridiculous I must say. Their military are absolute spanners, and the country is going down the tubes. Not forgetting that the bulk of Taliban fighters were Pakistani military approved Pakistanis.
- When Osama was killed it was all over world media that the USA has given Pakistan aid in the hudreds of billions, it caused much outrage here. Our supply routes were even closed and we stopped aid to Pakistan, for a time.

What US tax dollars? Please show me the foreign aid I am meant to receive. Please, I could really use it!
-I am not a citizen or taxpayer of Ireland, therefore if you posted to a thread about your economy I would never try to 'refute' your rage at Irish government spending. By refuting what I posted it shows you feel a sense of entitlement.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you owe us money for the foreign aid we give to make up for your country's stinginess.
-Is this not a sense of entitlement?

 

[OutofDate1980]

Just started reading this thread so sorry for reaching this far back but I have to ask where you got this sum for being exempt from overtime. If you are paid hourly it does not matter how much you make you are legally entitled to overtime pay. ...

That's a difference between an Exempt and NonExempt employee.

 

[quadracer25]

I doubt subsidies have been cut by that much. That said, agricultural subsidies need to come down, although I would agree they are necessary. They should be focused on sustainability and environmental protection, and production should not be more than is needed.



How would increasing tax revenue worsen your credit rating? That's ridiculous, as these tax cuts have little economic benefits, and ending them would help reduce the deficit. The US government not being able to borrow at negative interest rates would be interesting, its very unfair that the US can borrow cheaper than France.

I'm not seeing where i said increasing tax would have any effect on credit ratings? Subsidies were at 32 billion in 2001-02 i believe an this last year around 2.8(ish) 80% of that goes to things outside of what many think of agriculture, like food stamps. If farmers can handle it then others should be able to afford a similar cut. Just my opinion.

 

[MrDangerous]

My idea. Well lets see 12 continuous years of spending money we didn't have. Ok, lets not do that.

 

[Cold Steel]

Joining this a bit late, but here's my idea. Simple, yet effective. Pass three laws.

Law #1: Require a super-majority of both houses of congress to pass an increase in any federal tax. Any federal tax. That includes whatever costs are incurred by complying with federal regulations, since that just another form of tax.

Law #2: Set aside 5% of each years federal tax revenue to pay down the debt. No exceptions.

Law #3: If congress spends more in any given year than the remaining 95% of that years federal tax receipts, they don't get paid that year.

Before you even ask, no, I'm not crazy enough to think this will ever get anywhere. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? I know this is overly simplistic and it would be a real problem figuring out what gets cut to comply. But, it sure would fix the problem, don't ya think?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Law #2: Set aside 5% of each years federal tax revenue to pay down the debt. No exceptions.

Ah now, thats not really needed, and would be awfully arbitrary.

Law #3: If congress spends more in any given year than the remaining 95% of that years federal tax receipts, they don't get paid that year.

What happens it there is a recession and they have to spend more?

Before you even ask, no, I'm not crazy enough to think this will ever get anywhere. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? I know this is overly simplistic and it would be a real problem figuring out what gets cut to comply. But, it sure would fix the problem, don't ya think?

It might fix the problem now, but enforce cyclical economics, creating more problems down the line.

 

[Digital Controller]

+1 for Patrick :3

Aside from the picture, i agree with ElasticNinja, setting aside the 5% isn't really necessary to pay down the debt.

#3 Definitely could use some room for improvement, as in crisis things could go horribly wrong with it.

It might fix the problem now, but enforce cyclical economics, creating more problems down the line.

Could i please live and die by this line.

 

[A.Nonymous]

At this point I would welcome ANY plan to pay off the national debt. Haven't seen any proposed by either candidate. In fact the one thing they seem to agree on is that we need to spend more money we don't have. They disagree on how much to spend and what to spend it on, but they do agree that we need to spend more money.