The Observation Deck

Thread being moved to global discussion, later this Sunday.

Watch for it there.


peace

Aaron Milenski wrote:It is simply not possible to balance the budget, cut spending, fight two wars, raise interest rates, and lower the unemployment rate in this economy.

I've had a few days to think and here's what I've come up with. Just my opinions...

War:
I believe you can put an end to both wars if you do one simple thing: take the (figurative) handcuffs off our soldiers. Let them fight to win. Don't bring up Navy Seals on charges for punching the "most wanted terrorists in Iraq". The troops in our military shouldn't have to worry about what our government is going to do to them for following orders.

And, if our government can't do that, bring them home.

Economics:
Part 1: Fix the tax code. Famed economist Arthur Laffer has stated that a 11.5% tax on business net sales and a 11.5% tax on personal unadjusted income, plus maintaining federal sin taxes, would pay for what we do now. With cuts, there would be a surplus, which would allow us to start paying off our debt (or, you could lower the tax rate).

Part 2: Scale back government. Using the data available at http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes, let's see what we've got.
$46.686 billion for the Department of Education. Give the power over education back to the states.
$42.721 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Again, give this power back to the states.
$12.127 billion for the IRS. If you go to a true flat tax like I mentioned above, the IRS is unnecessary.

Those are the really big ones. I'm sure there's more, but there's so much to pick from.
Farm subsidies. Grow on all the land. There's people starving in Africa we could be feeding!
Amtrak.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
National Endowment for the Arts.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Office of Governmental Ethics. I don't think this office is doing its job, so everyone should be fired.
One word: Pork.

Part 3: Fix Social Security. Social Security was never intended as a "retirement account" as it is used now. The age of 65 was in place at a time when life expectancy was less than that. The government expected people to be dead and never be able to collect or they expected it to help the widows, since women have longer average life spans.
Social Security qualification age should fluxuate with the national average life expectancy.
If its not done soon, one of two things will happen. 1. Social Security goes completely broken. 2. The government will have to raise taxes on everyone to keep it going.

Part 4: Reduce regulation. Bring back a freer market.
If the car companies want to sell a truck so massive that it gets 5mpg AND IT SELLS, let them!
If a company wants to build a nuclear power plant, oil derrick or wind turbine, it shouldn't take 20+ years just to get the permits.
Regulation stifles creativity and innovation.
Instead, let the free market make the decisions as to what will work and what will not.
For example, India's Tata Nano car will sell for $2500 in India. To refit it to make it compliant to US regulations will raise the price to $8000. That car wouldn't even be attempted in the US.

Let's also not forget that with the ability to succeed also comes the ability to fail. The government needs to stop propping up failure (see Amtrak, Fannie and Freddie mentioned above).

Unemployment:
I believe if you fix the economics as mentioned above, the jobs will come be created on their own. Freedom to innovate encourages growth.
Reduced taxes would leave more money in the pockets of the businesses. Its not going to sit there, they're going to use it to grow, which means more people employed.
I might even go so far as to suggest, believe it or not, a reduction in the minimum wage. Why? If I, as a business owner, have $100 to spend on salaries, and the minimum wage is $5, I can hire 100/5 (20) people. If the minimum wage is $4, I can hire 100/4 (25) people.

Interest Rates:
Setting aside my issues with the Fed, if you fix the economy and growth begins again, interest rates can be allowed to rise. Not enough to stifle the growth, but doing nothing will cause problems as well.

Roy, it wasn't a depression in 1920.

And since you seem so fond of Hoovernomics and the roaring 20s, want to take a guess where that type of situation led us? Hint...its pretty close to the economic situation we're in today, but worse.

Why is it that ideologues always pick and choose which pieces of truth and history to put forth in order to try and prove their point? It's just like evangelical conservatives and the Bible.

there is never a shortage of folks that need to be killed, Roy.
if that is not the case, there was no point in trying to replace Saddam Hussein.

Viet Nam is a good case in point. We totally kicked the shit out of Viet Nam! Millions dead, bombs and napalm and agent orange. but there was never a shortage of people who needed to be killed.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Roy, it wasn't a depression in 1920.

It wasn't? What was it? It some respects it was a deeper drop than the Great Depression. It didn't last because of how it was reacted to.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:And since you seem so fond of Hoovernomics and the roaring 20s, want to take a guess where that type of situation led us? Hint...its pretty close to the economic situation we're in today, but worse.

I'm not talking about Hoover. Hoover screwed a lot of stuff up. He supported Roosevelt's Bull Moose (Progressive) Party in 1912.

Look at Coolidge instead.

If you're willing to set aside any prejudice against the production company/personnel...




But, if not, I can find other sources for you.

OR

Correct me. Tell me how I'm wrong.
I'm still waiting for your explanation on the Nazi party as well.

spending kind of had to ramp up for world war one, Roy. A fifty percent spending cut afterwards was not a very big deal. It was the automobile and radio and greater fiat currency that gave us the roaring 20s.

historically, the U.S. has had greater "growth" under two paradigms:
1. isolationism and protectionism.

2. higher progressive income taxes.

analogies or metaphors about cannibalism are very romantic and engaging. but historically the U.S. had greater "growth" under protectionism and under progressive income taxation.

ryan costa wrote:spending kind of had to ramp up for world war one, Roy. A fifty percent spending cut afterwards was not a very big deal. It was the automobile and radio and greater fiat currency that gave us the roaring 20s.

The automobile did have a tremendous influence on the roaring 20s, correct.
It was low personal taxes that kept money in the pockets of the average man that allowed so many people to own automobiles.
It was low corporate taxes that allowed car companies to spend their money on growth, creating more automobiles and employing more people. I'm sure the laissez-faire attitude towards business didn't hurt.

ryan costa wrote:historically the U.S. had greater "growth" under protectionism and under progressive income taxation.

Is that government growth or private growth?

car companies are taxed on profits. keeping people employed is revenue corporations are not taxed on(with the exception of payroll taxes, which are intrinsically tied to employee earnings) corporate and progressive income taxes have not been tied to a decrease in economic growth or a decrease in employment. follow the graphs. greater GDP growth during eras of higher progressive income taxes and higher corporate income taxes.

follow the graphs: regressive income taxes have been rising for the last 50 years as progressive income taxes have fallen and GDP growth rates have fallen as Trade has risen as personal savings rates have fallen.

The laffer curve was an enticement - along with Reagan's pro-fiat policies - for rampant stock speculation and leveraged buyout mania: the 1980s bullmarket. we did not become more industrialized in the 1980 despite this increase in "capitalization". :we became increasingly de-industrialized. banking, bond issuing, credit, etc is a form of fiat currency. Laffer himself has admitted in some places that his Laffer-Curve is not a continuous function, even hypothetically.

Sin taxes are a great idea. the biggest narcotics in America are Caffeine and television. to the extent that television is the idiot-box and the boob-tube, the internet is television squared.

The I.T. revolution has been a near complete Wash in comparison to the automobile revolution: during the first decades of the Automobile revolution, nearly all the hardware was built domestically.