Is it you Will Worm?
The Disappearing Recovery
- Thread starter Trident1
- Start date
Is it you Will Worm?
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I am so glad you asked, 'Mega. I've given this a lot of thought.
I appreciate your comments but I would ask you to consider the possibility that perhaps the electorate has become "lazy and ignorant" as you say because they don't see a significant difference in either right or left, that government is irretrievable broken, that they are unable to effect any legitimate change simply by exercising their voting rights, that the non-stop rancor between left and right has left them dazed and desensitized, that no one really gives a shit about them anyway....is any of this possible, ya think??
I propose a republican form of government with a strong executive branch just like we have now....with some significant constitutional alterations to make sure we don't get fooled again (stole that from Roger Daltrey
). Here are a few of the things that I propose:- The US Senate would be dissolved. A unicameral legislative body (the House) would be responsible for the proposition and passage of all legislation. Bills would become law when signed into same by the President.
- The term of office for the office of the President would be extended to 6 years and would be limited to a single consecutive term. Likewise, members of the House would serve single 4-year terms with no option to serve consecutive terms.
- PACs and lobbyists would be outlawed. Any elected official caught consorting with or taking money from any PACs or lobbyists would be dismissed from office and possibly prosecuted.
- Special perks and privileges (and associated costs) for government officials not directly contributory to the ability to perform their jobs would be eliminated.
- Single campaign contributions would be limited to a maximum of $500 and total campaign funds allowed to accrue by any single candidate would be limited to some agreed-upon figure and would not be allowed to exceed that figure.
- Organized and publicly or privately funded political parties would be outlawed. A candidate running for office would need to gain election based on his own singular efforts and merits combined with the resources of his own election campaign organization. This does not mean that an individual could not identify his political beliefs as being "republican", "democrat" or "socialist" etc in philosophical terms but there would be no nominating process that would automatically place the candidate on the ballot nor any funded party machine to package and sell the candidate to the people like he was a box of cereal. A radical but badly needed step IMO.
- The Electoral College system of electing the President would be done away with. Candidates for the office would need to obtain a petition with a minimum number (maybe 500,000 or 1 million?? :dunno
of signatures in order to be placed on the national ballot. Votes would be tabulated and winners determined by popular vote in a series of runoffs until a majority candidate emerged.- US Supreme Court justices would no longer serve lifetime terms (a 6 year term to match that of the president seems appropriate) and would need to be elected to office rather than being appointed. Unlike other elected officials in the House and the Presidency, Supreme Court justices could serve multiple terms.
- The "2/3rds majority" requirement for approval, confirmation or passage of anything would be done away with. Presidential vetoes could be overridden with a 3/5ths majority in the House.
- The president would be allowed the power of line-item veto to prevent "pork barrel" legislation from taking place.
- A constitutional amendment would be instituted requiring a balanced federal budget. If there isn't sufficient funding for a proposed bill, it would immediately be shelved until funds became available. No more deficit spending would be permitted.
- A flat-rate income tax of somewhere between 15%-20% (depending upon what the deficit was...at least 20%-30% of all tax revenue would be earmarked for deficit reduction until we reached the break-even point) would be instituted across the board regardless of income. No more deductions, no more loopholes, no more corporate tax dodges. Everybody pays an equal percentage without exception. The IRS would be done away with and existing law enforcement agencies would assume responsibility for any attempts to evade taxes.
- All internet sales would be taxed by a either a national sales tax or appropriate state or local sales taxes. Currently, billions of dollars of lost tax revenues are being realized due to "no sales tax" loopholes on interstate internet sales.
- All churches, synagogues, temples and mosques would lose their tax-exempt status and would pay their fair share of taxes just like everyone else. If you make money, you pay taxes....plain and simple.
- All exemptions from anti-trust laws would be immediately rescinded.
- A 90-day amnesty on all illegal immigrants would be declared. During that time, any and all persons inside the borders of the USA who are here illegally would have to opportunity to obtain citizenship, receive a social security number and would be required to pay taxes just like everyone else. Those who choose not to would be arrested and deported.
- Any business that employs illegal aliens would immediately have their business license permanently revoked and would be required to pay a huge fine or face jail time.
- Any persons who are not prevented from working by either physical or other legitimate limitations who are drawing money from the government (AKA welfare) would be required to perform some sort of public service in order to continue receiving such aid.
- All drugs would be legalized, regulated and taxed. All persons currently serving jail sentences for possession of drugs would be immediately pardoned and released. The DEA would be disbanded and the so-called "war on drugs" would be replaced with a government-subsidized education campaign to teach people about the ramifications of drug and alcohol abuse.
- Likewise, prostitution and gambling would be made legal and any and all laws that attempt to legislate morality would be repealed.
- A mandate would be issued that 65% of our energy demands be obtained from non-fossil fuel sources by 2020 and that 90% be obtained by 2030. A "NASA"-style government project would be instituted to achieve this by granting significant subsidies to business enterprises dedicated to that end.
- All monetary aid to foreign nations would be discontinued until or unless homelessness and hunger is no longer an issue in the USA.
- The President would not be allowed to commit US military forces to combat without prior approval of Congress under any circumstances short of a direct attack upon either the nation or any territories of the USA proper.
- Capital punishment would be outlawed and any and all inmates currently condemned to death sentences would immediately have their sentences commuted to life in prison without parole.
- Universal health care would be made available to all American citizens.
Of course, I realize that some of these ideas would need refinement and adjustment as dictated by events and/or fiscal issues as they unfold and some of them may be long-term projects but I think that serious consideration of attainment of all of these ideas would be a good start to a new government. You may disagree. :dunno::wtf:
I'm more than willing to listen to alternatives but to maintain the status quo and blame a lazy and stupid electorate is not going to bring answers but rather will almost certainly guarantee more division, gridlock and government inaction.
Like I thought....'dent apparently wants to make refute mean what he wants it to mean like everything else....
Facetious
Moderated
Re: The Disappearing Recovery
Well, there's 6500 new renters there
Hey that's it.... I have to invest my money with Sam Zell, one of the largest real estate entrepreneurs in the world... the f-en guy must be makin a killin for himself!
complete article
Well, there's 6500 new renters there
Hey that's it.... I have to invest my money with Sam Zell, one of the largest real estate entrepreneurs in the world... the f-en guy must be makin a killin for himself!
Re: The Disappearing Recovery
complete article
Well, there's 6500 new renters there
Hey that's it.... I have to invest my money with Sam Zell, one of the largest real estate entrepreneurs in the world... the f-en guy must be makin a killin for himself!
Are they -12.7K total workers since '01 or a net -300? Or does this just mean they are down some number of regular employees but will return some gain in contractors? Like the guy laid off on Friday as a regular employee but returns Monday as a contractor?
You know what I'm saying right?:o
busenbust
^^^^
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/92143/the-republican-theory-our-current-economic-woes
^^v. short article -- and interesting reader comments:
^^v. short article -- and interesting reader comments:
busenbust
^^^^
Wow,check out this graphic. In 2000, the United States had $3.4 trillion in debt held by the public. Based on policies in place at the time, the Congressional Budget Office projected in 2001 that the country could pay off its debt by the year 2008 and by 2011 have a $2.3 trillion surplus. We could've had a budget surplus by now
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/from-surplus-to-debt/2011/04/30/AFrYNfNF_graphic.html
nice graphic find Ice :thumbsup: -- look at the cost of Tarp ! fuck me ! nice casino chips there for the Goldman Sachs' of the world !
That is one spin...here's another; Businesses are doing what they normally do...make do until demand makes them hire. Stands to reason demand is low since u/e is relatively high. Certainly not a linear circumstance but it makes more sense than some business sitting around worrying about policy while business they could be earning fritters away...
I know the GOPer spin-point has to try and blame government since it's theoretically headed by a Demo now. Nonsense.
Businesses hire for one reason...it ain't because they have a tax break, it ain't because they are nice guys and want to give a guy a job, it's not to help the economy or any of that babble...
BUSINESS HIRE TO CAPITALIZE ON THEIR PERCEPTION OF MEETING AN UNMET DEMAND.
The average business (owner, corp) isn't sitting around putting their profit potential on hold fretting what may or may not happen in Washington. If you believe that I hope the justification is you've also smoked a cargo container full of weed.
As if the individual person sits around worrying about what's going to happen in Washington with the tax code before they make purchases, invest, etc....
Meg/Chip you stand for Bizarro World economics aka Socialist......proven disasters. Had you taken any of my father's Eco classes you surely would've failed.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
That's OK. So in what range do you think GDP will come in for Q3? And how do you arrive at that (lower) range? What are the contributing variables you're looking at, I mean?
In the article I posted the author said this:
"The U.S.'s projected long-term welfare costs, including the new health-care law, are the justification the Obama economists give for pushing spending to 25% or more of GDP. The tax increase the president is fairly shrieking for this week isn't for the August debt limit. It's for the next 25 years."
I asked my father about this since he's an economist. 25% of GDP is far too high. To have steady growth >3% the percent of GDP should be <18%.
If that were to happen I would suspect it would be because your pops would have spent all of his time trying to teach a perspective rather than a set of laws or principles.
You obviously learned 'well'.
Re: Your father being an economist, I had dinner with a few friends years ago and one of the people in the group was a scout for the NBA Knicks. He theorized at the time based on his knowledge of the game Tracy McGrady would have a more successful NBA career than Kobe Bryant. Both players were in the infant stages of their NBA careers. Of course I had to be the one to pit my novice level experience against his and disagree.:o
Moral?
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
(bold emphasis is mine).
Link is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-18-poll-politicians-approval_n.htm
Listen to the Dalai Lama. He makes total sense. Patriotism before partisanship! No one should be a party loyalist before being an American and I think there's way too much of that going on here. People rejoicing over Obama's failures? Blaming the republicans for everything that's wrong? Puleeeez!. We're standing on the precipice, folks. Time to stop the bickering. Way past time.
If I were Obama, I'd use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling
He taught Monetary Theory. He's also well versed on Socialist/Communist economies. Needless to say he knows that Obama's/Democrat/Keynesian vision is disaster.
Theoretically, you know what they say about those who can't do right?
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I appreciate all of that. But it doesn't really address my question about Q3 or Q4 GDP. The last economist consensus I read on Bloomberg had the range I mentioned (3.0-3.4%), and that does not seem unreasonable to me.
As well, be aware that government spending is just one component of GDP. As other components contribute more or less, the govt. spending contribution changes. It is not static. And... AND, if you slash government spending, and the other components don't pick up by at least that amount, you'd actually see a lower GDP reading.
Using the common expenditure methodology:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports).
25% (spending as a percentage of GDP) is historically high. But the 25% is because the government spent money during the Great Recession, while other GDP components made smaller contributions than has been typical. The reason that people say 18% is a more acceptable number is based on the same rule of thumb logic (which doesn't make it invalid) that says the full employment rate/Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment is thought (by many) to be somewhere between 4-5.5%. In other words, these are economic assumptions, not laws written in stone. But yes, an unusually high government spending contribution to GDP COULD have the longer term affect of crowding out private investment, which could then negatively affect consumption (the most important component)... and that would be self-defeating.
Anyway, I was just curious about your thoughts on Q3/Q4 GDP, and why you thought the range should be lower. If talking/guessing about some longer time horizon, I'm of the opinion that "in the long run, we're all dead anyway."
I appreciate all of that. But it doesn't really address my question about Q3 or Q4 GDP. The last economist consensus I read on Bloomberg had the range I mentioned (3.0-3.4%), and that does not seem unreasonable to me.
As well, be aware that government spending is just one component of GDP. As other components contribute more or less, the govt. spending contribution changes. It is not static. And... AND, if you slash government spending, and the other components don't pick up by at least that amount, you'd actually see a lower GDP reading.
Using the common expenditure methodology:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports).
25% (spending as a percentage of GDP) is historically high. But the 25% is because the government spent money during the Great Recession, while other GDP components made smaller contributions than has been typical. The reason that people say 18% is a more acceptable number is based on the same rule of thumb logic (which doesn't make it invalid) that says the full employment rate/Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment is thought (by many) to be somewhere between 4-5.5%. In other words, these are economic assumptions, not laws written in stone. But yes, an unusually high government spending contribution to GDP COULD have the longer term affect of crowding out private investment, which could then negatively affect consumption (the most important component)... and that would be self-defeating.
Anyway, I was just curious about your thoughts on Q3/Q4 GDP, and why you thought the range should be lower. If talking/guessing about some longer time horizon, I'm of the opinion that "in the long run, we're all dead anyway."
Good summary and thinking. I have no argument, I just feel like posting a few thoughts.
We certainly don't want to see it at 38.9% of GDP. It is not just about crowding out private investors, it isn't wealth creation. This is why you see the trend of high % of spending and tax burden, a lower per capita GDP.
During Reagan's administration a dangerous trend started. During Clinton's administration, it was the only one since then to hold down the fort regarding spending and debt. Bush (43) wasted opportunity. Out of all of the president's since Carter, Bush (43) gets an F in my book.
I think Obama made some tough calls and needed much of the spending. I'm hoping he actually has a plan to begin to reduce the debt and isn't just playing politics as usual with the budget. If not, he is probably going to walk away from his time in the White House having been president during the accumulation of about 43% of the debt.
Even John Keynes at some point wrote FDR to stop government spending.
You're right...we're all dead in the end.
They post 14K messages to Freeones? :rofl2: :2 cents:
Similar threads
