TheLastIndependent
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,545
- Reaction score
- 466
- Location
- North Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
As your screen name would indicate, you have proposed a remedy that could have come directly from the Communist manifesto.
If we enact protectionism China would suffer and bring all jobs back China would be begging back to us.
Well, we need to do that just to keep them from destroying the monetary system (although with something like $500 trillion of derivatives floating around out there, as I read recently in an article on the LIBOR scandal, I suspect it is too far gone already).[...] 8.)Nationalize the banking industry
We will never know as long as we keep up this great policy that "helps American jobs" so well which is known as "free trade"
Hmmm, I'm liking the sound of that. After all, those are public resources, and I'm unsure why Exxon-Mobil should be allowed to use them to become the richest corporation on the planet (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and Conoco-Phillips have a combine gross revenue of $1 trillion annually). Private exploration, okay, I can see that, but it seems like the public is not the proper bang for its natural resource buck.Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabiaor A balanced budget amendment
We have two choices:
1. Enact tariffs against items imported from China.
2. Modify our environmental and labor laws so they are similar to those in China.
Any economist with half a brain could immediately tell you that option 2 is the right decision.
Competition makes cheap Chinese products that break the first time you use them.Competition makes things better. Competition in the marketplace increases the value of products and the range of products available.
Your system implemented in the 50's would result in our country today driving Edsels designed by folks using slide rules.
With all due respect, have you read the Communist Manifesto?
Busted! I have not. I should have related it directly to centrally controlled states that strangle creativity and allow the drive and ambition of the population to languish.
Competition makes cheap Chinese products that break the first time you use them.
Competition makes your job go overseas to someone who will do it for 50 cents an hour while they live in squalor (no electricity, no sewer, no indoor plumbing).
Competition makes it cheaper to hire an illegal alien to mow your lawn than the kid next door. In fact, competition makes the illegal aliens come here in the first place.
That probably would've been better :lol:
In all seriousness, it does not propose many of the core components of Communism, it merely suggests the reasons. It's actually really interesting to read and makes a lot of sense (even though Communism could never work)
That is the problem with Paradise. It's not a place designed for us.
Competition makes cheap Chinese products that break the first time you use them.
A national sales tax is a) regressive (disproportionately hurts the lower incomes), and b) detrimental to GDP.I would support the Tea Party a lot more if they pushed for a constitutional amendment for replacing the income tax with a national retail sales tax and giving the POTUS the line item veto as opposed to their drive for a balanced budget amendment.
What do you think are the best ways to eliminate the deficit?
If you want to work for 30 or 40 percent less pay, why not move to China? They don't have any unions over there, nor any EPA, nor any OSHA, I'm sure you'd just love it :mrgreen:Sorry you don't like what's going on in China. Why do you liberal Democrats refuse to compete with the Chinese? We could keep jobs in America if the blue collar workers would accept 30 to 40 percent pay cuts.
I would support the Tea Party a lot more if they pushed for a constitutional amendment for replacing the income tax with a national retail sales tax and giving the POTUS the line item veto as opposed to their drive for a balanced budget amendment.
What do you think are the best ways to eliminate the deficit?
I didn't say competition was bad. I was pointing out that it has warts and should not be accorded God-like status, as conservatives are wont to do.No. Competition makes a man run a mile in less the 4 minutes. It creates and/or brings to prominence a guy like Michael Phelps. It displaces a car like the Plymouth Fury III in favor of the Honda Accord.
Without competition, the consumer is provided with a tunnel visioned result of a closed system. With Competition, the consumer is provided with the cooperative result of the best and the brightest vying to be the best.
Competition is what has given us Microsoft and Apple, Ford and Toyota and Letterman and Leno.
Competition is results where talent, work, inspiration and drive meet to address need.
Sorry you don't like what's going on in China. Why do you liberal Democrats refuse to compete with the Chinese? We could keep jobs in America if the blue collar workers would accept 30 to 40 percent pay cuts.
A national sales tax is a) regressive (disproportionately hurts the lower incomes), and b) detrimental to GDP.
A line item veto is counterintuitive with respect to the Constitution (i.e., it crosses the separation of powers line).
The short answer to the question in your thread title is to get the economy back on track (revenues will increase as a result). However, there are other fundamental issues that need to be addressed regardless:
1. Gov't revenue as a percentage of GDP, currently horribly too low (about 15%), seems to be low historically (say, 20%) compared to other 'first world' countries. This needs to be looked at. Perhaps once state and local taxes are factored in, the resultant 'national' tax rate is more in line with other prosperous countries. I doubt it, but I haven't looked at combined figures.
2. Given a studious effort, government efficiency might be increased by roughly 10%, but this is pretty much peanuts ($350 billion). You could -- and should -- cut the defense budget in half and save more than that ($400 billion).
3. Entitlements, welfare, social security, it all is what it is. You can't cut it without damaging the economy, and you should not cut it regardless. Again, an increase in efficiencies might help, but it would be peanuts. You could do some workfare if it made you feel better, but it wouldn't impact expenditures to any great extent.
4. Gov't revenue needs to go way up, as noted in #1. I think the transaction tax on Wall Street should be implemented.... as it stands now, I can buy and sell a billion dollars of stock a day and not pay a dime in sales tax (actually I buy and sell a bit less than that, and not every day). Total annual dollar volume on the NYSE and NASDAQ combined is roughly $17 trillion... a 6% federal 'sales' tax on that would reap $1 trillion in annual revenue. That, plus halving the Defense budget, would pretty much balance the budget right there (although the defense cuts would have to be made delicately to avoid GDP impact).
5. Foreign aid and such is peanuts (what, $80 billion?). Plus, like most rich people, we generally have to buy our friends. Although all the war crap needs to stop immediately, as slashing the Defense budget (above) would require.
6. Something could be done to lessen the trade deficit (currently about $600 billion/yr), but you have to tread cautiously here to avoid pissing off countries that buy our stuff. A lot could be done to keep U.S. companies from outsourcing so much... that would probably erase the trade deficit right there while boosting domestic GDP and well as gov't revenues (more jobs).
7. Legalizing drugs, as others mentioned, would have positive impact throughout the economy -- new taxes, decreased spending on interdiction, decreased spending on incarceration, decrease in crime overall throughout the country). Not an economy-saver, but a great weight off the nation's shoulders. Such a common sense win-win that only a straightjacketed conservative could resist. However, I'm sure that all DP Libertarians are in favor of it . . . . . .
I didn't say competition was bad. I was pointing out that it has warts and should not be accorded God-like status, as conservatives are wont to do.
Crass capitalism gave us Microsoft -- Bill Gates stole MS-DOS from someone less financially inclined. And after tweaking it for 40-odd years, Windows still sucks and is worse than the original product (QDOS).
The Plymouth Fury III was available with the 426 Hemi V-8. I'll take one of those over a Honda Accord, and see you in my rear view mirror, thank you very much :mrgreen:
Reform entitlements to bring down spending.
Simplify the tax code and cut nominal rates to increase revenue.
, there needs to be drastic spending cuts.
Every time you tamper with something, you change it. The government imposed a luxury tax which included Yaught builders and the taught builders went out of business as the taught buyers got their boats from Canadian builders.
If I was elected President tomorrow, I would immediately reduce spending in all departments and programs to the levels they received in 2008. If the program or department didn't exist in 2008, it would cease to exist today.
I don't know where you live. Between the Fed income tax, the state income tax, the property tax and all of the sales and use taxes, I am well over 20% of my income.
"Entitlements, welfare and social security..." Entitlements and Welfare may be needed but are not on the same page as Social Security which is a social contract. Over the course of my career, i've probably paid in the equivalent of about a quarter million dollars. If I had been allowed to contribute this to a 401K type investment, I'd have about 2 or 3 million right now.
Whether it is as a nation or as an individual, the way to reduce debt is to reduce spending to less than income and pay off the debt with the excess. Loaves and fishes have nothing to do with it.
How to eliminate the deficit? well, Quit spending more money than we have in revenues.
How about pass a budget?
But first we have to get some people to quit pushing the assine concept that tax cuts increase the deficit. It's obviously untrue and anyone who says it is insincere or ignorant. The only way to make a deficit is to SPEND money. Until we can all decide on that part, it's a lost cause.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?