Thread: How do we help the economy?

ok guys, how about a thread about an issue? The economic big picture.

You can bring up what the candidate's positions are but I want to hear some ideal policies that people think that we should all follow.


This is a post I just posted in another thread about how Americans need to actually do things more efficently and waste less to try and help the economy.

The fair tax would also help in making people buy less shit that they don't need. There would be no tax to go to college or to use public transportation (when right now that tax is the income tax), but a tax on a new car.

People should obviously change their habits, but there needs to be some new policies that will support that, as well as a president that would tell us to sacrifice for the good of the country.


I have to say that this issue is the main reason why I don't like Obama when he could of been alright.

He is promising tax cuts for the middle class, increased spending and putting all of the extra taxes on the rich. He is also allowing the defecit to grow.

We need to forget the idea that we can have everything and need to cut wasteful spending and actually spend on things that we need, such as education, infrastructure and energy research.

We also can't just give the tax burdon to a few sellect people, just let the Bush tax cuts expire but increase taxes on everyone except the poor to pay for the programs that we need and ballance the budget. While a progressive tax is better then a flat tax, it still harm the economy more and that isn't what we need now.

These next many, many years are going to suck and we should sacrifice some of our standard of living now to get the country on track for the future, so it will only suck for many years.

Well I have one idea that might be good for saving money within our system as I think spending is terrible in this country.

Release non-violent drug offenders from prison and into less expensive and more helpful programs that can get them back or able to be productive members of society. As it stands, many states run the risk of going bankrupt within their prison funding due to over crowding prisons.

Earlier this year it was reported that 1 in 100 people are in jail. The combined population of both Alaska and Wyoming are less than that of non-violent drug offenders currently in jail. Over the last 25 years we have built 40% of our current prisons in this country.

Yes this is an echo of the drug war that has been ongoing in this country for sometime and yes I understand what I'm asking when I say that non-violent drug offenders should be released into programs. This isn't a matter of being soft on crime, this isn't a matter of being soft on drugs, this is a matter of economics and real rehabilitation for non-violent drug users who aren't interested in hurting anyone.

If you believe that a non-violent drug offender will immediately begin to suck off the teat of welfare as soon as released, think about how much tax money is already going their way being housed next to the most violent of violent criminals in the country.

Pull your weight, everybody pull your weight. Work and pay your fair share of taxes. Don't waste your money on stupid crap. Don't send your money out of the country and BUY AMERICAN.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

ok guys, how about a thread about an issue? The economic big picture.

You can bring up what the candidate's positions are but I want to hear some ideal policies that people think that we should all follow.


This is a post I just posted in another thread about how Americans need to actually do things more efficently and waste less to try and help the economy.

The fair tax would also help in making people buy less shit that they don't need. There would be no tax to go to college or to use public transportation (when right now that tax is the income tax), but a tax on a new car.
Fair tax my ass, there is nothing fair about taxation, I think the word you are looking for is more equitable. One could tax every cent of the middle class all the way to 100% and still not generate enough capital to pay all the government owes. Why not tax the rich more, if you are going to tax people's income? They can most afford to pay.
People should obviously change their habits, but there needs to be some new policies that will support that, as well as a president that would tell us to sacrifice for the good of the country.
The last president that tried that approch was Carter. Most people do not even know what would be good for the country.

I have to say that this issue is the main reason why I don't like Obama when he could of been alright.

He is promising tax cuts for the middle class, increased spending and putting all of the extra taxes on the rich. He is also allowing the defecit to grow.
The deficit is so large at this point that there is no concievable way to get a hold on spending without defaulting on the national debt.
We need to forget the idea that we can have everything and need to cut wasteful spending and actually spend on things that we need, such as education, infrastructure and energy research.
How do you propose we do that with an economy in decline and massive amounts of debt.
We also can't just give the tax burdon to a few sellect people, just let the Bush tax cuts expire but increase taxes on everyone except the poor to pay for the programs that we need and ballance the budget. While a progressive tax is better then a flat tax, it still harm the economy more and that isn't what we need now.
So let me get this right. You want to increase taxes on a populace of which incomes are in decline and is shrinking as we speak and would let the richest people keep their tax cuts. Sure, sounds FAIR to me. NOT!
These next many, many years are going to suck and we should sacrifice some of our standard of living now to get the country on track for the future, so it will only suck for many years.

The future is going to be tough as hell for a lot of people and they will be FORCED to sacrifice their standard of living and you are asking for even more sacrifice while playing this help the rich card? Look give up your ideas on economics cause you clearly do not understand what you are proposing.

Originally Posted by anonnymous

The future is going to be tough as hell for a lot of people and they will be FORCED to sacrifice their standard of living and you are asking for even more sacrifice while playing this help the rich card? Look give up your ideas on economics cause you clearly do not understand what you are proposing.

Helping the rich card??? I support the fairtaxs so it will tax everyone on how much they buy, instead of how much they save. That doesn't have to do with focusing on the rich. We coud also save money by getting rid of medicare and medicaid. If a state wants those things, then they can still have it.

I said that I supported getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and then paying for other programs with a tax on mostly everyone so it won't leave the rich out. But that would only be if we didn't have the Fairtax of course.


What don't I understand? If you have any specifics then tell me instead of an ambiguous statement.

No one said that it would be easy, whats your idea? DEFAULT ON THE NATIONAL DEBT?!? So... we should just continue what we are doing now and harm the dollar even more.

Originally Posted by Zaragrunudgeyon

Don't send your money out of the country and BUY AMERICAN.

Wish I could Zarglebargle, but with the sellout of American industry, I'm forced to buy at a lower wholesale price in able to compete.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Helping the rich card??? I support the fairtaxs so it will tax everyone on how much they buy, instead of how much they save. That doesn't have to do with focusing on the rich. We coud also save money by getting rid of medicare and medicaid. If a state wants those things, then they can still have it.
Not only do you want to increase taxes but you would propose dening people who can least afford it medical coverage. You idea of if a state wants it thet can have it is just plain ludicrous. What happens if a state does not have a population large enough to pay for their peoples medical needs or a state that is so large as to not be able fund such programs. I think to deny people much needed medical care based solely on ability to pay is not indicative of what the constitution means when it says to promote the general welfare.
I said that I supported getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and then paying for other programs with a tax on mostly everyone so it won't leave the rich out. But that would only be if we didn't have the Fairtax of course.
This is what you said just let the Bush tax cuts expire My idea of getting rid of the tax cuts is rolling back the rate to where it was before the tax cuts. As for you FAIR tax, what keeps the rich from buying large ticket items from overseas or Mexico therby avoiding the FAIR tax?
What don't I understand? If you have any specifics then tell me instead of an ambiguous statement.
I think the part you left out of my previous statement is what you do not understand, to begin with. You simply do not understand no matter how much you cut spending and raise taxes there will not be enough revenue to cover existing debt obligations, which is fixing to increase at an astronomical rate Monday.

No one said that it would be easy, whats your idea? DEFAULT ON THE NATIONAL DEBT?!? So... we should just continue what we are doing now and harm the dollar even more.

The dollar is a piece of trash and you are fixing to get a reality check real soon. We need to understand that our debt obligations are already so astronomical that any idea of paying it of would make us all slaves to the plutocracy that created the debt and are the ones how would benefit the most from even more debt. You explain to me what is so wrong about a nation going bankrupt. Its either that or shackel our selves and generations to come with a life of drudgery with no apparent reward for our labors.

Originally Posted by anonnymous

The dollar is a piece of trash and you are fixing to get a reality check real soon. We need to understand that our debt obligations are already so astronomical that any idea of paying it of would make us all slaves to the plutocracy that created the debt and are the ones how would benefit the most from even more debt. You explain to me what is so wrong about a nation going bankrupt. Its either that or shackel our selves and generations to come with a life of drudgery with no apparent reward for our labors.

If we actually decided to default on the national debt it would COMPLETELY destroy all of the savings that people have and we would just have to forget borrowing money from anyother country for a very long time. Also, because of the large amounts of dollars in circulation around the world it would send shockwaves all around the globe, and that is not what the world needs with these current problems. I am sure other countries would get incredibly angry if we made their dollars worthless.

It is much better if we pay off the national debt or even grow out of it.

The dollar is weak, and if you think our problems with a weak dollar are bad, then you aren't thinking about what would happen if we defaulted on our debt.


If the welfare clause on the Constitution is just a general statement that doesn't relate to actual powers of congress.

For instance the Constitution says "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

From what you are saying, that would also mean that Congress is given the power to have any army for defence from this clause, but a few lines below that line it then says that the US can create an army and navy.

That is why the welfare clause doesn't mean anything, because then the "common defence" clause would be needed instead of the army and navy line.

Provide for the common welfare is also not very specific compared to the other powers of congress that are stated specifically.


However, if it is allowed is a different question if it should be allowed.

Well I suppose that since we are in a rescession we could keep those programs untill the economy recovers and people get jobs, or better jobs.
But I can't see why the states can't just have those programs.

Your statements about a state not being large enough for medicare or medicaid doesn't make sense because all of the states have at least hundreds of thousands of people. That is why I don't see any reason to not just give it to the states.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

If we actually decided to default on the national debt it would COMPLETELY destroy all of the savings that people have and we would just have to forget borrowing money from anyother country for a very long time. Also, because of the large amounts of dollars in circulation around the world it would send shockwaves all around the globe, and that is not what the world needs with these current problems. I am sure other countries would get incredibly angry if we made their dollars worthless.
I know that, but the point is that 2.3 trillion dollars of retirement savings has already been lost this year to include a 30% drop in 401k's. Also, at the rate this country is spending money we will run out of financiers pretty damn soon and we will be forced to capitulate.
It is much better if we pay off the national debt or even grow out of it.
That is the ideal but realisticly how long do you think this country would have work to pay off the 70 trillion debt or how much GDP it would take?
The dollar is weak, and if you think our problems with a weak dollar are bad, then you aren't thinking about what would happen if we defaulted on our debt.
If we fail just one month to sell 30 billion worth of securities we will have a world wide sell off of not only dollars but securities as well because we will not be able to make our interest payments on our debt and if the market started dumping securities we could not pay them off.

If the welfare clause on the Constitution is just a general statement that doesn't relate to actual powers of congress.
Crap!! Congress has the power to do whatever it wants within the boundries of the constitution and with the consent of the people.
For instance the Constitution says "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

From what you are saying, that would also mean that Congress is given the power to have any army for defence from this clause, but a few lines below that line it then says that the US can create an army and navy.

That is why the welfare clause doesn't mean anything, because then the "common defence" clause would be needed instead of the army and navy line.
Your point is pointless, providing for the comman defence would require an army and navy or whatever else the congress deems appropriate.
Provide for the common welfare is also not very specific compared to the other powers of congress that are stated specifically.
It is not very specific because generations change and what was needed in one generation might not be needed in the next?

However, if it is allowed is a different question if it should be allowed.

Well I suppose that since we are in a rescession we could keep those programs untill the economy recovers and people get jobs, or better jobs.
But I can't see why the states can't just have those programs.
Look, one of the reasons America has such a productive work force is because we have managed to maintain a healthy work force. It is in the best interest of America to ensure that we continue to have a healthy populace.
Your statements about a state not being large enough for medicare or medicaid doesn't make sense because all of the states have at least hundreds of thousands of people. That is why I don't see any reason to not just give it to the states.

No state, no matter its size, would be able to finance the medical costs associated with their populace.

Originally Posted by anonnymous

No state, no matter its size, would be able to finance the medical costs associated with their populace.

Our debt is at most 125% of our GDP wihch we had in the early 1950's. However, it was obviously at better circumstances because we were about to experience a boom and the world was too weak to not but our stuff. So if it was easily possible for us to get over that debt when times were good, it is at least possible to do it when times are bad.

Congress could even make medicare Constitutional by just passing an amendment, I am sure they could get a 2/3 majority.

Your statements about states not being able to fund their own medicare costs may not even be true, but if they are then don't you see that it means that the states are overspending, but just through the federal government.

The states are still paying for medicare and medicaid indirectly through federal taxes, so if they can't afford them on their own then that means that they currently can't afford them with federal taxes.

If anything, I have heard people say that state programs are more efficent then federal ones, so the states are even paying more then they should for medicare and medicaid anyway.

Since I was talking about the pure economics with medicare and medicaid, if someone can show how getting rid of the federal programs will do more harm then it will save money, then I would obviously support those programs. I am just completely sure that it isn't true.