What would you do to stimulate the economy?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2010 11:39 PM GMT
    So the President has resorted to another measly 50 billion reasons for non-blue collar workers to hate him. (it's a little unfair since Bush passed multiple 80+ billion dollar bills to spend, yes, IN and FOR Iraq with little or no opposition)

    So what would you do to stimulate the economy?

    And before everybody says tax cuts or building infrastructure stimulus programs--let's imagine that they are banned from your lexicon. You have to imagine something else.

    I'll start with 3 ideas:

    1. Start another war that we can actually win in a short amount of time. (since everybody is so enamored of the idea that the Bush wars were a stimulus on the economy)
    2. Spend money to train workers who can actually be hired (because a lot of high school graduates can't read/write/do math, as we all know)
    3. Remittances: subsidize US workers to go into foreign countries to earn their living so they can pay it back with taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2010 11:49 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidSo the President has resorted to another measly 50 billion reasons for non-blue collar workers to hate him. (it's a little unfair since Bush passed multiple 80+ billion dollar bills to spend, yes, IN and FOR Iraq with little or no opposition)

    So what would you do to stimulate the economy?

    And before everybody says tax cuts or building infrastructure stimulus programs--let's imagine that they are banned from your lexicon. You have to imagine something else.

    I'll start with 2 ideas:

    1. Start another war that we can actually win in a short amount of time.
    2. Spend money to train workers who can actually be hired (because a lot of high school graduates can't read/write/do math, as we all know)


    Keep the Bush Tax Cuts or better yet lower them, so Businesses can put people back to work. Reduce the Deficit by cutting government costs across the board.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2010 11:49 PM GMT
    OK, let's shut down Medicare for 2 years, nay, just 6 months. You've essentially killed the majority of the health care sector which is probably one of the few growing sectors in this economy. Kudos to you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2010 11:49 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 saidSo the President has resorted to another measly 50 billion reasons for non-blue collar workers to hate him. (it's a little unfair since Bush passed multiple 80+ billion dollar bills to spend, yes, IN and FOR Iraq with little or no opposition)

    So what would you do to stimulate the economy?

    And before everybody says tax cuts or building infrastructure stimulus programs--let's imagine that they are banned from your lexicon. You have to imagine something else.

    I'll start with 2 ideas:

    1. Start another war that we can actually win in a short amount of time.
    2. Spend money to train workers who can actually be hired (because a lot of high school graduates can't read/write/do math, as we all know)


    I disagree with both your suggestions.

    What the President and Congress could do is suspend the payroll tax for 2 years. Social Security and Medicare are broke anyway, so it really doesn't matter that there are no alleged payroll taxes paying for them. Both of those Ponzi schemes are paid for by borrowed money from the Chinese anyway.

    In addition, the President and Congress should cut government spending by 15% across the board (that includes the military). This will send a strong signal that Washington is no longer doing business (borrowing) as usual.





    I concur. We should definitely make significant cuts to the military.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2010 11:54 PM GMT
    But people in VA don't like it when we try to cut the military:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38632261/The political backlash was swift and fierce from lawmakers fearful that jobs would be lost in their districts.

    Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, said in a hastily called news conference that eliminating Norfolk's Joint Forces Command would deal a devastating blow to the state at a time of runaway federal spending on lower priorities.

    Likewise, Republican Rep. J. Randy Forbes called the decision "further evidence of this administration allowing its budget for social change" and the "piecemeal auctioning off of the greatest military the world has ever known."


    It's interesting that while MSNBC quotes the Republicans, FOXNews quotes all Democrats. Bias much?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2010 11:56 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidBut people in VA don't like it when we try to cut the military:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38632261/The political backlash was swift and fierce from lawmakers fearful that jobs would be lost in their districts.

    Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, said in a hastily called news conference that eliminating Norfolk's Joint Forces Command would deal a devastating blow to the state at a time of runaway federal spending on lower priorities.

    Likewise, Republican Rep. J. Randy Forbes called the decision "further evidence of this administration allowing its budget for social change" and the "piecemeal auctioning off of the greatest military the world has ever known."


    It's interesting that while MSNBC quotes the Republicans, FOXNews quotes all Democrats. Bias much?


    Yes, well, republicans are certainly not saints. We either have to cut programs or raise taxes, there's no other alternative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:00 AM GMT
    Here's the article that suggests why we should train our workers since most of them lost their jobs due to their skills not matching the current market:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40195.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:09 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 saidOK, let's shut down Medicare for 2 years, nay, just 6 months. You've essentially killed the majority of the health care sector which is probably one of the few growing sectors in this economy. Kudos to you.


    Who suggested shutting down Medicare?



    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/medicare/financing.html
    Even if you figure that the HI fund can withstand just 2 years of continuous withdrawal without input from income taxes, the mere fact that you've cut allowable spending on Medicare Part A means that
    1. Hospitals will have less revenue and hire less people/use fewer resources, or
    2. Private insurances will have to pick up the tabs which means increases in premiums for individuals (an "indirect" tax on the elderly, if you will)

    Part B is funded differently (mostly from federal budget and premiums from enrollees), but even as we speak, doctors are limiting their Medicare patients, so if you pay them even less by cutting 15% of healthcare spending in the budget, you'll see doctors refusing to take Medicare en bloc.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:11 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    How about if a citizen desires "training" they take out a nice (now government run) student loan and get their own training without the rest of us having to pay for it?



    If they can't even get a mortgage since they don't have a job, why would you think they can pay for training loans?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:17 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said paid for by borrowed money from the Chinese anyway.



    Here's another idea:
    Give people contacts in China or anywhere overseas where they'll take workers (e.g. English teachers). Earn some money there so you can send it back home.

    It's only fair that we all become like the rest of the world with Remittance Man:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:21 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    RE: The suspension of the payroll tax for 2 years.... It's just suspending the collection of that tax, not tampering with the delivery of the services. How would the government pay for it? The way they are paying for most things these days: borrowing.


    What's going to prevent you (and the Republicans) to suspend it forever since you like tax cuts so much? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:26 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    It is extremely unfair that the government has promised people X amount of $ and benefits in Social Security and Medicare coverage when they knew all along that they wouldn't be able to pay for it.


    Well, it's only a Ponzi scheme if you make it to be (i.e. not fund it enough with taxes):

    wikipediaOne criticism of the analogy is that: Ponzi schemes and social security have similar structures but different transparencies; The true Ponzi scheme proffers a mythical source of revenue-generation,[122] while social security payments have always been openly underwritten by tax revenue.[123] This has permitted adjustments for sustainability —impossible in a Pyramid scheme.[124] because Social Security can be sustained by raising additional taxes or transferring resources from other budget expenditure items.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:33 AM GMT
    I was just trying to see into the future you proposed when you suspend income taxes for 2 years...people would love to reelect people that don't tax them but get the government to borrow more and more to pay for benefits. Public debt that doesn't affect the individual's pocket is always good for reelection.

    By the time they realize we can't do this forever, it'll be too late...Medicare and SS will be out of money, or foreign countries will stop buying our Treasuries.

    Public goods cannot be taken back once you create them, without sacrificing yourself to the electoral elephant/donkey.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:34 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Yep. Have you looked in the Social Security trust fund recently? If's full of I.O.U.'s


    And not plugging those holes with getting rid of tax cuts helps how?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:43 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    Suggestion #1 was a means of keeping more money in circulation in the private sector, which would have a stimuluative effect on the economy fairly quickly.

    Suggestion #2 is designed to send a signal that the Federal government is ending it's spending spree and is finally willing to address its borrowing binge.


    Suggestion #1: That assumes that people actually have enough jobs to pay taxes in the first place. And why won't they save more instead of spending it on the economy? (Saving rates have been rising the last few years, if you haven't noticed) Somewhat unfair to the close to 10% people without a job since they don't have the choice to spend or save the nonexistent money (i.e. uncollected tax since they don't work).

    USA-savings-rate.png

    Suggestion #2: By addressing the borrowing binge you mean: to stop taxing to pay for Medicare/SS (since these are exempt, as you want, from the cuts) but to borrow MORE to pay for them??icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 12:59 AM GMT
    That assumes a lot.
    And I think the rest of the world will rapidly dump their US dollars if they hear that there's more intention to just borrow their money without backing it up with basic taxes like the income tax.
    After all, the US economy is built on trust that the US dollar will not devalue overnight.
    A quote from this site:
    "The U.S. economy is a confidence trick based on everybody else's perception that the United States is centrally important for the world's security and that its economy is centrally important for the world economy. --Gwynne Dyer
    http://www.rense.com/general66/dollardevaluationordoomed.htm

    Correction: the dumping has already begun:
    http://www.infowars.com/dollar-devaluation-and-destruction-of-america-pick-up-steam/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 1:01 AM GMT
    But enough about your good ideas: what do you think of correcting the trade imbalance by sending workers overseas so taxes can be remitted?
    No excuse for those people who want to stay home.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 1:05 AM GMT
    SBa signal that the Federal government is putting its fiscal affairs in order?


    Not to the people who are actually loaning you money: Communist/nascent Capitalist China or Social Democratic Europe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 1:12 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 saidBut enough about your good ideas: what do you think of correcting the trade imbalance by sending workers overseas so taxes can be remitted?
    No excuse for those people who want to stay home.


    I would think that in order to produce a meaningful positive benefit, the number of people you would need to participate in such a scheme is not practical.


    What do you mean? Take Philippines, for example:
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KH11Ae01.html

    Country↓ Remittances 2006↓ Remittances 2007↓ Remittances* 2008↓ Remittances 2009↓
    India $26.9 billion $27 billion $45 billion $55.06 billion
    China $22.52 billion $25.7 billion $40.5 billion n.a.
    Philippines $12.7 billion $14.4 billion $16.4 billion $17.3 billion
    Mexico $25.6 billion $26.1 billion $25.1 billion $21.2 billion
    Poland $8.5 billion $12.5 billion $13.75 billion n.a.
    Bangladesh $ 5.5 billion 6.6 billion $9.0 billion $10.7 billion
    Pakistan $5.1 billion $6.0 billion $7.0 billion $8.7 billion
    Morocco $5.1 billion $5.7 billion $6.9 billion $8.0 billion[11]

    Send 1-2% of unemployed people to the rest of the world and you will have grown the US economy by at least that amount, if not more (if you go by the Philippines, 10% of their economy is from remittances sent back by just a little less than 5% of their population)

    Instead of outsourcing to foreign workers, why don't we send our workers overseas (where their money will stretch further since living standards are not as high)?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 07, 2010 2:59 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidSo the President has resorted to another measly 50 billion reasons for non-blue collar workers to hate him. (it's a little unfair since Bush passed multiple 80+ billion dollar bills to spend, yes, IN and FOR Iraq with little or no opposition)

    So what would you do to stimulate the economy?

    And before everybody says tax cuts or building infrastructure stimulus programs--let's imagine that they are banned from your lexicon. You have to imagine something else.

    I'll start with 3 ideas:

    1. Start another war that we can actually win in a short amount of time. (since everybody is so enamored of the idea that the Bush wars were a stimulus on the economy)
    2. Spend money to train workers who can actually be hired (because a lot of high school graduates can't read/write/do math, as we all know)
    3. Remittances: subsidize US workers to go into foreign countries to earn their living so they can pay it back with taxes.





    The $50 billion dollars is for building and repairing roads, bridges, and airport landing strips.
    What percentage of "non-blue collar workers" are involved in that kind of work ?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 07, 2010 3:08 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 saidBut enough about your good ideas: what do you think of correcting the trade imbalance by sending workers overseas so taxes can be remitted?
    No excuse for those people who want to stay home.


    I would think that in order to produce a meaningful positive benefit, the number of people you would need to participate in such a scheme is not practical.


    What do you mean? Take Philippines, for example:
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KH11Ae01.html

    Country↓ Remittances 2006↓ Remittances 2007↓ Remittances* 2008↓ Remittances 2009↓
    India $26.9 billion $27 billion $45 billion $55.06 billion
    China $22.52 billion $25.7 billion $40.5 billion n.a.
    Philippines $12.7 billion $14.4 billion $16.4 billion $17.3 billion
    Mexico $25.6 billion $26.1 billion $25.1 billion $21.2 billion
    Poland $8.5 billion $12.5 billion $13.75 billion n.a.
    Bangladesh $ 5.5 billion 6.6 billion $9.0 billion $10.7 billion
    Pakistan $5.1 billion $6.0 billion $7.0 billion $8.7 billion
    Morocco $5.1 billion $5.7 billion $6.9 billion $8.0 billion[11]

    Send 1-2% of unemployed people to the rest of the world and you will have grown the US economy by at least that amount, if not more (if you go by the Philippines, 10% of their economy is from remittances sent back by just a little less than 5% of their population)

    Instead of outsourcing to foreign workers, why don't we send our workers overseas (where their money will stretch further since living standards are not as high)?




    LOL.
    Apparently, you're ignorant of the facts that anyone working at blue collar jobs overseas, would be working in unsafe conditions, and at a small fraction of the rate of pay that they would receive here in the United States. It would amount to Americans agreeing to be slave laborers.
    And, are you expecting entire American families to temporarily relocate to some foreign country ?
    The countries to which you refer, don't have enough jobs for their own people, much less an influx of millions of Americans.
    You've got it completely backwards. People move to America, not the other way around.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 07, 2010 3:17 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 saidSo the President has resorted to another measly 50 billion reasons for non-blue collar workers to hate him. (it's a little unfair since Bush passed multiple 80+ billion dollar bills to spend, yes, IN and FOR Iraq with little or no opposition)

    So what would you do to stimulate the economy?

    And before everybody says tax cuts or building infrastructure stimulus programs--let's imagine that they are banned from your lexicon. You have to imagine something else.

    I'll start with 2 ideas:

    1. Start another war that we can actually win in a short amount of time.
    2. Spend money to train workers who can actually be hired (because a lot of high school graduates can't read/write/do math, as we all know)


    I disagree with both your suggestions.

    What the President and Congress could do is suspend the payroll tax for 2 years. Social Security and Medicare are broke anyway, so it really doesn't matter that there are no alleged payroll taxes paying for them. Both of those Ponzi schemes are paid for by borrowed money from the Chinese anyway.

    In addition, the President and Congress should cut government spending by 15% across the board (that includes the military). This will send a strong signal that Washington is no longer doing business (borrowing) as usual.







    A) SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ARE NOT BROKE, AND YOU KNOW IT. SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN SOLVENT FOR ABOUT 75 YEARS, AND THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THAT WILL CHANGE ANY TIME SOON. CUTTING OUT SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD FORCE IT TO COLLAPSE, WHICH WOULD BE THE ANSWER TO YOU REPUBLICANS' PRAYERS. BESIDES, A COUPLE EXTRA DOLLARS IN A WORKER'S PAYCHECK WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IN THEIR WELL BEING.

    B) AND, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR IDEA TO CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING, IF IT COULD BE CUT A HELL OF ALOT MORE THAN THE AMOUNT YOU SUGGESTED. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT NO CONGRESS (REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT) WILL EVER CUT SPENDING. AND, REPUBLICANS ARE SO WAR HAPPY THAT THEY WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR A CUT IN MILITARY SPENDING.

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 07, 2010 3:22 AM GMT
    CHRISMA said
    q1w2e3 saidSo the President has resorted to another measly 50 billion reasons for non-blue collar workers to hate him. (it's a little unfair since Bush passed multiple 80+ billion dollar bills to spend, yes, IN and FOR Iraq with little or no opposition)

    So what would you do to stimulate the economy?

    And before everybody says tax cuts or building infrastructure stimulus programs--let's imagine that they are banned from your lexicon. You have to imagine something else.

    I'll start with 2 ideas:

    1. Start another war that we can actually win in a short amount of time.
    2. Spend money to train workers who can actually be hired (because a lot of high school graduates can't read/write/do math, as we all know)


    Keep the Bush Tax Cuts or better yet lower them, so Businesses can put people back to work. Reduce the Deficit by cutting government costs across the board.





    How would keeping the Bush tax cuts put people back to work ? That would simply be doing the same thing our government is doing right now.

    President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already shoveled BILLIONS of dollars to big and small businesses. But, they aren't hiring.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 07, 2010 3:25 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 saidOK, let's shut down Medicare for 2 years, nay, just 6 months. You've essentially killed the majority of the health care sector which is probably one of the few growing sectors in this economy. Kudos to you.


    Who suggested shutting down Medicare?






    UH, YOU DID.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 07, 2010 3:30 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    southbeach1500 said paid for by borrowed money from the Chinese anyway.



    Here's another idea:
    Give people contacts in China or anywhere overseas where they'll take workers (e.g. English teachers). Earn some money there so you can send it back home.

    It's only fair that we all become like the rest of the world with Remittance Man:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances





    An American working in China, earning 50 cents an hour, couldn't afford to send anything back to his/her family in America.
    That scheme only works in reverse.