OK heres the deal

[mnbasketball]

Right now we are in hard times and we are spending a lot of money trying to get things back to a manageable level where people have a chance to live a normal life.

The big question to me is what is the most important thing that needs to be done and how should we move towards that goal.

Fighting over little things or should we be putting our total sight on putting America back to work. Should we start doing things that will focus the private sector to create jobs by working on things we all understand that we need at this very moment. Good roads, new bridges, new electrical grids, new power plants.

Sure it is going to take public money, everything we do for the country cost public money, from running the govt to oversight, to building infrastructure to having a military.

Do people really believe that refraining from doing things as a govt because of it's cost is a bad thing, and who would do these things if not the govt .
Should we privatize the military and then think they will act in the peoples best interest? We all need roads and bridges, but should we go back to charging people a toll? The electrical system needs improvement, but if that cost is just added onto the cost of energy it most likely would force many business and citizens to not be able to afford what it would cost. Do we need to privatize the schools and turn the students over to local companies to determine what they are taught or forced to learn?

What is more important right NOW? what would you do?

 

[Big Fitz]

Massively reduce government spending on all levels, stop printing money, buying up private debt and protecting corporate and personal failure so the economy can recover.

[/thread]

 

[mnbasketball]

That is your answer to creating jobs? How long is this going to take? Do you think the govt should be in charge of proving the things we need as a society or should we just leave it up to private industry to say there is a need and they spend their money on it?
How would this work?

What would you cut? and what would be the outcome of these cuts on the population in the short term?

 

[Immanuel]

What would I do?

I would work to becoming fiscally responsible. That means increasing taxes and decreasing unnecessary spending. I would tighten my belt and try to make the hard choices.

My personal belief is that the first responsibility of government is to protect the citizens of the nation. Included in that is assisting the poor and needy with the basic necessities of life and to get back to work. I would not cut out the social programs that work to this goal, but I would cut out the waste associated with those programs. I would cut the defense budget to a point where we can still more than adequately defend ourselves, yet I would not continue spending for things we want just because they are cool to have. I would consolidate bases and other things as well. I would stop foreign aid immediately. When we can sustain our own, then I would pick up the foreign aid again. On top of that, I would review each and every project currently going on. If it was not absolutely necessary to the goals of this nation, I would eliminate funding immediately. Meaning no more funding for museums, the arts or whatever pork is still in the budget until further notice.

That is where I would start. I realize there are some who would bitch and moan about some of those items, but we are on the verge of a major crisis. We have to tighten our belt and become fiscally responsible or our children's children won't have Uncle Sam to take care of them.

Immie

PS I suppose that is why I will never be elected to any political office. /shrug

 

[Big Fitz]

That is your answer to creating jobs? How long is this going to take? Do you think the govt should be in charge of proving the things we need as a society or should we just leave it up to private industry to say there is a need and they spend their money on it?
How would this work?

What would you cut? and what would be the outcome of these cuts on the population in the short term?

When last tried in 1920, it took 12 months to turn the economy from a bust to a boom. They slashed 50% of all government spending under the Harding/Coolidge administration. Created a boom that lasted till the flaws in the stock market were found a decade later. Fixed all the economic damage done under Wilson in 24 months.

 

[Big Fitz]

What would I do?

I would work to becoming fiscally responsible. That means increasing taxes and decreasing unnecessary spending. I would tighten my belt and try to make the hard choices.

My personal belief is that the first responsibility of government is to protect the citizens of the nation. Included in that is assisting the poor and needy with the basic necessities of life and to get back to work. I would not cut out the social programs that work to this goal, but I would cut out the waste associated with those programs. I would cut the defense budget to a point where we can still more than adequately defend ourselves, yet I would not continue spending for things we want just because they are cool to have. I would consolidate bases and other things as well. I would stop foreign aid immediately. When we can sustain our own, then I would pick up the foreign aid again. On top of that, I would review each and every project currently going on. If it was not absolutely necessary to the goals of this nation, I would eliminate funding immediately. Meaning no more funding for museums, the arts or whatever pork is still in the budget until further notice.

That is where I would start. I realize there are some who would bitch and moan about some of those items, but we are on the verge of a major crisis. We have to tighten our belt and become fiscally responsible or our children's children won't have Uncle Sam to take care of them.

Immie

PS I suppose that is why I will never be elected to any political office. /shrug

If there isn't an enumerated power, it needs to go.

Social Security
All health plans
Every cabinet department created after 1951 and most of their associated agencies including most of the Dept of the Interior and Dept of Education.

Let the states worry about those things as they see fit. THAT is at least constitutional.

 

[Jackson]

I would ask persons that have very comfortable retir3ements to forgo social security payments. If people could pay for Medicare or just carry insurance in their twilight years, do not use Mediicare.

WE HAVE TO GET TO THE POINT THE JOBS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE THAT CAN WORK. aND EXPECT PEOPLE WHO ARE YOUNG AND ABLE TO DO SO. LIMIT WELFARE TO ABLE BOdIED PEOPLE TO TWO YEars , then you are on your own.


Unions would have to leave the scene for at least a while. People don't need to be paying dues and wages shouldn't be bargained by strikes and unions. There was a time when unions had a place in the workforce, but this is not the time. We have Osha and other organizations to see that workplaces are safe for employees and others that employment is fair.

Campaign finance has to be looked at again so big business cannot rule the elections.

Illegal immigration has to be taken seriously for it usurps the resources that are meant for citizens. These people have to be deported and foreign aid stopped.

 

[Immanuel]

What would I do?

I would work to becoming fiscally responsible. That means increasing taxes and decreasing unnecessary spending. I would tighten my belt and try to make the hard choices.

My personal belief is that the first responsibility of government is to protect the citizens of the nation. Included in that is assisting the poor and needy with the basic necessities of life and to get back to work. I would not cut out the social programs that work to this goal, but I would cut out the waste associated with those programs. I would cut the defense budget to a point where we can still more than adequately defend ourselves, yet I would not continue spending for things we want just because they are cool to have. I would consolidate bases and other things as well. I would stop foreign aid immediately. When we can sustain our own, then I would pick up the foreign aid again. On top of that, I would review each and every project currently going on. If it was not absolutely necessary to the goals of this nation, I would eliminate funding immediately. Meaning no more funding for museums, the arts or whatever pork is still in the budget until further notice.

That is where I would start. I realize there are some who would bitch and moan about some of those items, but we are on the verge of a major crisis. We have to tighten our belt and become fiscally responsible or our children's children won't have Uncle Sam to take care of them.

Immie

PS I suppose that is why I will never be elected to any political office. /shrug

If there isn't an enumerated power, it needs to go.

Social Security
All health plans
Every cabinet department created after 1951 and most of their associated agencies including most of the Dept of the Interior and Dept of Education.

Let the states worry about those things as they see fit. THAT is at least constitutional.

That is where you and I disagree especially in times like this.

If we did as you said, we would be abandoning those in need at a time when they need us the most after we, the government, put many of them in the condition they are in today.

Maybe (and I agree they should) social issues SHOULD be the realm of the states, but if that is the case, the states have dropped the ball for 235 years and let the federal government take care of it. Now, for the federal government to simply drop all social programs in the laps of already financially strapped states would be an economic nightmare.

Immie

 

[Avatar4321]

That is your answer to creating jobs? How long is this going to take? Do you think the govt should be in charge of proving the things we need as a society or should we just leave it up to private industry to say there is a need and they spend their money on it?
How would this work?

What would you cut? and what would be the outcome of these cuts on the population in the short term?

Government isn't the solution to our problems. It is the problem.

 

[Avatar4321]

What would I do?

I would work to becoming fiscally responsible. That means increasing taxes and decreasing unnecessary spending. I would tighten my belt and try to make the hard choices.

My personal belief is that the first responsibility of government is to protect the citizens of the nation. Included in that is assisting the poor and needy with the basic necessities of life and to get back to work. I would not cut out the social programs that work to this goal, but I would cut out the waste associated with those programs. I would cut the defense budget to a point where we can still more than adequately defend ourselves, yet I would not continue spending for things we want just because they are cool to have. I would consolidate bases and other things as well. I would stop foreign aid immediately. When we can sustain our own, then I would pick up the foreign aid again. On top of that, I would review each and every project currently going on. If it was not absolutely necessary to the goals of this nation, I would eliminate funding immediately. Meaning no more funding for museums, the arts or whatever pork is still in the budget until further notice.

That is where I would start. I realize there are some who would bitch and moan about some of those items, but we are on the verge of a major crisis. We have to tighten our belt and become fiscally responsible or our children's children won't have Uncle Sam to take care of them.

Immie

PS I suppose that is why I will never be elected to any political office. /shrug

If there isn't an enumerated power, it needs to go.

Social Security
All health plans
Every cabinet department created after 1951 and most of their associated agencies including most of the Dept of the Interior and Dept of Education.

Let the states worry about those things as they see fit. THAT is at least constitutional.

That is where you and I disagree especially in times like this.

If we did as you said, we would be abandoning those in need at a time when they need us the most after we, the government, put many of them in the condition they are in today.

Maybe (and I agree they should) social issues SHOULD be the realm of the states, but if that is the case, the states have dropped the ball for 235 years and let the federal government take care of it. Now, for the federal government to simply drop all social programs in the laps of already financially strapped states would be an economic nightmare.

Immie

Or we could just drop all social programs and let individuals, churches, and charities pick up the slack, as well they should.

 

[Immanuel]

If there isn't an enumerated power, it needs to go.

Social Security
All health plans
Every cabinet department created after 1951 and most of their associated agencies including most of the Dept of the Interior and Dept of Education.

Let the states worry about those things as they see fit. THAT is at least constitutional.

That is where you and I disagree especially in times like this.

If we did as you said, we would be abandoning those in need at a time when they need us the most after we, the government, put many of them in the condition they are in today.

Maybe (and I agree they should) social issues SHOULD be the realm of the states, but if that is the case, the states have dropped the ball for 235 years and let the federal government take care of it. Now, for the federal government to simply drop all social programs in the laps of already financially strapped states would be an economic nightmare.

Immie

Or we could just drop all social programs and let individuals, churches, and charities pick up the slack, as well they should.

It would be wonderful if they could and would. Unfortunately, the church is suffering in these times as well. Small churches are facing the economic crisis as well. I suspect we could all turn to the Mega-churches for hand outs... I doubt that would do us any good at all. Can you imagine what Pat Robertson would say if we went to him for help? How about Joel Olsteen? Sorry, I do not have much faith in these gentlemen.

Immie

 

[WillowTree]

Want to put government money to good use? Hire several million of the unemployed to build a very very large wall across the southern border, then hire another several million to dig a large moat and then hire several million more to rid florida of Alligators. Now we're talking man.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Right now we are in hard times and we are spending a lot of money trying to get things back to a manageable level where people have a chance to live a normal life.

The big question to me is what is the most important thing that needs to be done and how should we move towards that goal.

Fighting over little things or should we be putting our total sight on putting America back to work. Should we start doing things that will focus the private sector to create jobs by working on things we all understand that we need at this very moment. Good roads, new bridges, new electrical grids, new power plants.

Sure it is going to take public money, everything we do for the country cost public money, from running the govt to oversight, to building infrastructure to having a military.

Do people really believe that refraining from doing things as a govt because of it's cost is a bad thing, and who would do these things if not the govt .
Should we privatize the military and then think they will act in the peoples best interest? We all need roads and bridges, but should we go back to charging people a toll? The electrical system needs improvement, but if that cost is just added onto the cost of energy it most likely would force many business and citizens to not be able to afford what it would cost. Do we need to privatize the schools and turn the students over to local companies to determine what they are taught or forced to learn?

What is more important right NOW? what would you do?

We're not spending money... we're printing money and monetizing debt. As for the rest... we need to get back to basics. Cradle to grave insurance is what is killing us... i.e., 35% of the American population (122,500,000) people on some sort of public assistance?

Undoable.

 

[Big Fitz]

Maybe (and I agree they should) social issues SHOULD be the realm of the states, but if that is the case, the states have dropped the ball for 235 years and let the federal government take care of it.

One state's failure is not then the responsibility of the other 49 to bail them out. Therefore, no, the fed should never be involved. If you don't like your state's plans, move to one where you can find what you like. That's the beauty of the American system as originally designed.

Social issues ARE the realm of the states, not the feds. And even then, it's better left to localities and better still, private charities.

It would be wonderful if they could and would. Unfortunately, the church is suffering in these times as well. Small churches are facing the economic crisis as well. I suspect we could all turn to the Mega-churches for hand outs... I doubt that would do us any good at all. Can you imagine what Pat Robertson would say if we went to him for help? How about Joel Olsteen? Sorry, I do not have much faith in these gentlemen.

Churches are suffering because the economy is suffering. The only area not 'suffering' is the government and that's only because they're doped out on printed money. They'll crash soon enough and really be hurting.

The good news is that the public sector unions are now being broken, and since they often account for the majority of the increased costs on state budgets in some form or another, it's the first step towards getting spending under control before the states must resort to shutdowns. The wreck is coming. It's up to us to elect politicians who will slam on the breaks before we hit the wall going full speed. THEN we all must pick up the pieces together.

It is our failure to take care of these problems long ago when we should have that have brought us to this. The only shadenfreude benefit I get from this is the people responsible for this (the Me generation) get to see everything they created crumble to dust with them.

 

[VaYank5150]

That is your answer to creating jobs? How long is this going to take? Do you think the govt should be in charge of proving the things we need as a society or should we just leave it up to private industry to say there is a need and they spend their money on it?
How would this work?

What would you cut? and what would be the outcome of these cuts on the population in the short term?

Government isn't the solution to our problems. It is the problem.

Hey Boehner, "Where's the jobs"??

 

[Immanuel]

Maybe (and I agree they should) social issues SHOULD be the realm of the states, but if that is the case, the states have dropped the ball for 235 years and let the federal government take care of it.

One state's failure is not then the responsibility of the other 49 to bail them out. Therefore, no, the fed should never be involved. If you don't like your state's plans, move to one where you can find what you like. That's the beauty of the American system as originally designed.

Social issues ARE the realm of the states, not the feds. And even then, it's better left to localities and better still, private charities.

It would be wonderful if they could and would. Unfortunately, the church is suffering in these times as well. Small churches are facing the economic crisis as well. I suspect we could all turn to the Mega-churches for hand outs... I doubt that would do us any good at all. Can you imagine what Pat Robertson would say if we went to him for help? How about Joel Olsteen? Sorry, I do not have much faith in these gentlemen.

Churches are suffering because the economy is suffering. The only area not 'suffering' is the government and that's only because they're doped out on printed money. They'll crash soon enough and really be hurting.

The good news is that the public sector unions are now being broken, and since they often account for the majority of the increased costs on state budgets in some form or another, it's the first step towards getting spending under control before the states must resort to shutdowns. The wreck is coming. It's up to us to elect politicians who will slam on the breaks before we hit the wall going full speed. THEN we all must pick up the pieces together.

It is our failure to take care of these problems long ago when we should have that have brought us to this. The only shadenfreude benefit I get from this is the people responsible for this (the Me generation) get to see everything they created crumble to dust with them.

Well, the way that I see it is that most states are struggling at the moment and those that are not are surviving off of federal government handouts. When you end those handouts and drop social programs in the laps of the states, all 50 (um, yes, President Obama there are only 50) states will be in very deep hot water.

So, I don't believe your solution is a viable solution at that. Wish it was, but, I simply don't believe it is.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, the way that I see it is that most states are struggling at the moment and those that are not are surviving off of federal government handouts.

That means they're all broke, and going down at various speeds into default. What happens when a state defaults? Well we know what happened to Argentina in the 1980's after the junta collapsed. The Weimar republic, and there are dozens of other examples too. Everyone suffered, and often strongmen came to power that did even more horrible things that required decades to escape from.

When you end those handouts and drop social programs in the laps of the states, all 50 (um, yes, President Obama there are only 50) states will be in very deep hot water.

That is why they will end. The question is, would you rather see a 20% cut, 50% or shutdown? All these options are there, but there is no 'keep it the same or increase their spending' option.

If you increase taxes, you get a one year bump to revenues then a collapse till it's repealed because people and businesses flee the state leaving those who cannot flee stuck in poverty creating an economic wasteland.

Just like the home budget. You can't print money. You can have only so many income streams. You can declare bankruptcy but the consequences are dire. You can let your debtors repossess your goods and property or sell it off to pay debt.

At some point, you must decide what spending must end. Those trips to Disney or Vegas... done. The private schools for the kids, done. Public school for them. Buying fillet Mignon and lobster, arugula and quinoa? Try hamburger and tuna, beans and rice. Turn off the lights, turn down the HVAC, walk to work, drop the extra activities... everything.

This is the point we are at. The end of spending as we know it. Here's your new normal. Life's a bitch, work hard and let's get through this helping each other without government money.

The error is in thinking this can be avoided.

 

[mnbasketball]

does anyone think that 1920 is the same as we have now as far as what is expected from our govt? And your saying just cut and everything will be fine?

Timeline of the Great Depression

I would say things like over 50% of the population living in poverty, and the top 1% owned as much as 40% of the wealth, and as we find out that much of the stock market gain was bogus and ended up leading to almost 20 years of crisis and people living with mid20% unemployment for years.

But it was a way different time back then and most of the cuts were from a war economy.

I'm not sure that I want to go back to a time where we had 23% unemployed as a normal, that stocks would drop 75% of their value, and over 50% of the population is in poverty and of course those at the top became richer.

1945
Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower. Deficit spending has resulted in a national debt 123 percent the size of the GDP. By contrast, in 1994, the $4.7 trillion national debt will be only 70 percent of the GDP!
The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will experience the greatest economic boom it had ever known until that time.

imagine this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government modelled after Mussolini's regime in Italy. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, the way that I see it is that most states are struggling at the moment and those that are not are surviving off of federal government handouts.

That means they're all broke, and going down at various speeds into default. What happens when a state defaults? Well we know what happened to Argentina in the 1980's after the junta collapsed. The Weimar republic, and there are dozens of other examples too. Everyone suffered, and often strongmen came to power that did even more horrible things that required decades to escape from.

When you end those handouts and drop social programs in the laps of the states, all 50 (um, yes, President Obama there are only 50) states will be in very deep hot water.

That is why they will end. The question is, would you rather see a 20% cut, 50% or shutdown? All these options are there, but there is no 'keep it the same or increase their spending' option.

If you increase taxes, you get a one year bump to revenues then a collapse till it's repealed because people and businesses flee the state leaving those who cannot flee stuck in poverty creating an economic wasteland.

Just like the home budget. You can't print money. You can have only so many income streams. You can declare bankruptcy but the consequences are dire. You can let your debtors repossess your goods and property or sell it off to pay debt.

At some point, you must decide what spending must end. Those trips to Disney or Vegas... done. The private schools for the kids, done. Public school for them. Buying fillet Mignon and lobster, arugula and quinoa? Try hamburger and tuna, beans and rice. Turn off the lights, turn down the HVAC, walk to work, drop the extra activities... everything.

This is the point we are at. The end of spending as we know it. Here's your new normal. Life's a bitch, work hard and let's get through this helping each other without government money.

The error is in thinking this can be avoided.

Um, that is what I was saying, we have to cut spending.

The difference between you and me is what spending. You say, all social spending. I said we HAVE to become fiscally responsible. To me that does not mean cutting all spending as you have suggested. I happen to disagree with you about the social spending to a point because of my belief that the main function of government is to protect its citizens. Protecting them is not making them starve as they have been doing in Ethiopia and other places around the globe.

Immie

 

[Midnight Marauder]

we are spending a lot of money

You have correctly identified the problem. Congratulations. Except you should have said, "WASTING alot of money we have BORROWED trying to promote "social justice" that's not constitutional."

Stupid fuck.