What policies could possibly improve our economy?

[Derach]

Quote by: grandpa He's probably seeing more signs of it then. Grandpa h.

Reminds me of a quote:

"A recession is when you're out of work ... a depression is when I'm out of work"

[grandpa]

Quote by: Derach Reminds me of a quote: "A recession is when you're out of work ... a depression is when I'm out of work"

That about sums it up. I've never heard that one before. I'll have to keep it in mind.

Grandpa h.

[ironeagle]

Easy truth there are thousands of easy little things we can do to better the economy, the politicians won't do them just because those things do not include more revenue for the federal or state government. They do nothing which does not bring them in revenue. Socialism and liberalism are destroying this great country hands down.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ironeagle Easy truth there are thousands of easy little things we can do to better the economy, the politicians won't do them just because those things do not include more revenue for the federal or state government. They do nothing which does not bring them in revenue.

Many people wonder, "why can't I choose where my money gets spent, rather than have the government take my money by force of law, spending it on some
nutjob politician's favorite bit of pork?" (That's an *almost* direct quote from a poster in Google Groups I was just reading). However, as we both agreed upon in another thread, virtually every expense is within state government territory. Not only that, but tax-cuts aren't really a bold new plan. It might translate into people just buying more stupid things. If we are to rejuvenate our national economy, we probably need a national plan of some kind. The problem is, we can hardly do that without engaging in some variation of Market Stalinism. In other words, we're in a dilly of a pickle.

Grandpa h.

[ironeagle]

I don't agree that every expense is in the territory of the state in fact there is a limited scope of things the constitution allows our taxes to be spent on, and most of what our states and federal govern,ent use our taxes for are not within that scope. I don't really care to be the one to choose what the taxes are spent on I think professionals would know better, if they are remaining in the scope of their limits, which they are not.

The real issue is that the government can easily make our businesses florish and empower the individual with the right to make home based businesses out of their skills without the rediculous corporate-like limitations which prevent them, but doing so doesn't bring in a targeted revenue for the states. For instance (I use cosmetology a lot becuase i am one and it effects me directly) a cosmetologist has to pay for a license every two years, they have to pay for a salon license every two years if they have a salon, they also have to pay for contniued education every year these taxes as I see them cost money and it brings in considerable revenue for the state. I have known many in my field who can't get their licenses because their pay is so low they can't afford the costs of con ed, can't afford their relicense fees, and can't afford a salon. There is no good reason why a skilled person can't invite a client to come to their home or go to a client's home and do hair for money. There is one state i believe it;s allowed and those people make a ton of money from it. I'd like to have thta opportunity here in Iowa. It makes way more sense, but no we are obsessed with people have restrictions, and rediculous licenses, and permits for things they don't need permits for, and for people having corporate style businesses just to be allowed to practice their skills. I keep my service costs down because I don't pay for a salon, and I don't care anymore what the state of Iowa says, we are loosing all our jobs and the salons refuse to pay fair wages, I am going to use my skills without their permission t omake money for me and my kids, because there is no reason they should stop me in the first place.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ironeagle I don't agree that every expense is in the territory of the state in fact there is a limited scope of things the constitution allows our taxes to be spent on, and most of what our states and federal govern,ent use our taxes for are not within that scope.

I don't think that's it. The state, as a broad concept, encapsulates the entire territory of the United States. Every expense falls under its umbrella in some way, as money is a legal means of exchange that is virtually mandatory in day-to-day affairs. If you don't have money you'll probably end up rotting in the streets. So it's "limited scope" is quite limited. And the Constitution allows huge sums of money to be spent. And I wouldn't say all spending adheres to any strict constitutional limits. A great deal of public spending is unconstitutional. Consider, for example, the War on Drugs. That's been a very expensive endeavor, and I don't think such efforts are supported at all by the Constitution (unless I'm missing something).

Quote by: ironeagle I don't really care to be the one to choose what the taxes are spent on I think professionals would know better, if they are remaining in the scope of their limits, which they are not.

If I am to be given money, I should be the one to choose where it is spent. Otherwise, why give me the money in the first place? But this does reveal something about our system; the way money is intended to be used. It's often argued that money is neutral. That sounds nice, but spending is actually not neutral. It is intended as a means of influence and control. When you give people enough money (and therefore more power), they are not likely to know their limits. They'll want more and more of it, and they'll want others to pay the costs, be they monetary or something else. And those who "rise to the top" will codify their control if possible, and teach us to not question it lest we become "extremists" or "traitors" of some kind.

Grandpa h.

[dixon]

Quote by: grandpa If I am to be given money, I should be the one to choose where it is spent. .

Much better for the collective to determine what are your "needs" and be alloted the resources necessary to fulfill those needs. That way your not saddled with the burden of trying to decide what to do with your money.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Derek Wolff I personally don't take much favor with either Obama's economic policy nor McCains. It doesn't seem like either would make a difference, if you believe one would please state your reasons for believing so. But this topic was created for third options. What are our third options?

Cut spending, pay off our debts and encourage both savings and living within one's means. In other words, let the credit-based consumerist economy die.

Obama himself admitted it: the stimulus bill really is a government spending bill. It really is all about the government spending more and more money and that this, somehow, is going to magically stimulate the economy. Here's what the messiah, the One, said:

"So then you get the argument, well, 'this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point," he said to laughter from House Democrats. Somehow dealing with "critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or falling schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees" is a necessary element of stimulating the economy(Key senator reports stimulus progress - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com).

What it sounds like to me is Obama and the Democrats in Congress are using the failing economy (that should be allowed to fail) as an excuse to enact spending on all of their pet issues.

So, here it is folks: Obama and his Democrat cronies in Congress really and truly believe that the solution to being in debt up to your eyeballs is to take on more debt.

[ironeagle]

Obviously not all the spending is constitutional which is my point. The states spend on things which they have no right to spend. I don't care how they spend it to certian degres if it is spent on constitutionaly authorized things. I am concerned for our ocuntry because i believe this spending on things not authorized is ecactly what really put us in this depression in the first place, and I don't believe spending more is going to fix the problem.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dixon Much better for the collective to determine what are your "needs" and be alloted the resources necessary to fulfill those needs. That way your not saddled with the burden of trying to decide what to do with your money.

Then why give individuals money to begin with?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ironeagle Obviously not all the spending is constitutional which is my point. The states spend on things which they have no right to spend.

A lot of this bad spending is because, as is well known, politicians will say one thing and do another. Consider the following:
"Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who
among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and
out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be
equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."
-- Ronald Reagan

That's very reasonable is it not? Yet Reagan proved to be all about big government, increased the general burden we must bear, and made us all pay a higher price.

Grandpa h.

[Plus Ultra]

an $819 billion package packed with spending projects, some of which struck even some fiscally conservative Democrats as not particularly stimulative. In the Senate, an even larger package was considered, although the deal struck Friday night pared it back some.

But conservatives don't find the proposed bill stimulating enough, just lots of spending for favourite Democrat constituencies (welfare recipients, the unemployed, uninsured with medical needs and students)

$650 million to help people without cable receive digital signals through their old-fashioned televisions or $1 billion to fix problems with the 2010 Census. Much of the new spending would be for victims of the recession, in the form of extending unemployment insurance through the end of the year and increasing benefits by $25 a week, free or subsidized health care, and increased food stamp payments. My Way News - Obama and Senate Republicans bicker over stimulus

Any notion Obama would usher in a new era of bipartisanism seems to be dissipating quickly.

“The whole point, Mr. President, is to enact tax cuts and spending measures that truly stimulate the economy,” McCain said. “There are billions and tens of billions of dollars in this bill which will have no effect within three, four, five or more years, or ever. Or ever.” “$50 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts —all of us are for the arts,” McCain said. “Tell me how that creates any significant number of jobs? After-school snack program is probably a good idea. Do we really want to spend $726 million on it?” McCain blasts Obama - Manu Raju - Politico.com

[Derach]

Why wouldn't they enact a partial bill immediately on tangible things that would immediately 'STIMULATE'? 800B+ is going 'all-in'. If it doesn't work, there isn't another 800B to try something else. Paulson changed his mind on spending the TARP money mid-stride. We don't have that luxury with this much more $$ on the line. SO ... Here's what I would propose.

Divide the Stimulus funds into 4 allotments to be dolled out every 6 months over the next two yrs. Start with a 250B package focused on immediate help in the form of the following:

Payroll tax cuts. Lower the cost of employing people. Also give tax credits to companies that increase employment in 2009.

A Mortgage package that would allow every mortgage holder in good standing to qualify for a re-finance of up to $200,000 at 4% for 25yrs. This would immediately free up tons of monthly money for the best consumers in the country.

New car tax credits and higher credits for cars meeting certain criteria like mpg and 'carbon footprint'.

I would do more ... But that would have an immediate impact on consumer confidence and spending in a targetted way that will put people back to work in manufacturing and retail ... right away. It would ensure next Christmas season won't be as bleak as this was ... and probably would have an impact to 2010 because by the end of 09 the tax credits will start having an effect.

[Raastee]

I know of only one public policy change that would save the economy: national 55 mph speed limit.
Results:
1. Fuel prices would drop
2. Less wreaks
3. Less legal claims
4. Less insurance claims
5. Less wear and tear on vehicles

Also, a 40 hour, 4 day work week for state and federal workers.

[dixon]

Quote by: grandpa That's very reasonable is it not? Yet Reagan proved to be all about big government, increased the general burden we must bear, and made us all pay a higher price. Grandpa h.

And then there is the real world where precisely the opposite took place.

[Osborn F Enready]

Raastee said: I know of only one public policy change that would save the economy: national 55 mph speed limit. Results: 1. Fuel prices would drop 2. Less wreaks 3. Less legal claims 4. Less insurance claims 5. Less wear and tear on vehicles Also, a 40 hour, 4 day work week for state and federal workers.

????

I don't think that makes sense at all, and the 55mph speed limit is simply not reasonable in many areas.

We don't need more regulation and more revenue increase from fines.

[Plus Ultra]

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the Banking Committee, chided Republicans for ignoring the outcome of the November election. "We had an election last year which had pretty decisive results in the White House, the Senate and the House. And it did say that public spending for improved infrastructure, to keep bridges from crumbling, to keep cops and firefighters working is a good thing," Frank said.

Right, this is the famous “I won” argument Obama used before; since he won the election whatever he wants ought to happen. But the US has 3 branches of government and Obama presides only over one, the Legislature is mostly –but not completely, controlled by Obama.

The Senate measure was pared back from more than $900 billion to entice a handful of necessary Republican votes in support of the legislation. The House bill passed without a single Republican vote in its favor, a rebuke to Obama's vow to take the debilitating partisan heat out of Washington politics.

Apparently the partisanship will remain, but I don’t think this is as much a product of Republican intransigence as it is the result of Democrats loading the stimulus bill with all sorts of favourite expenditures Republicans ideologically oppose (welfare, subsidized housing, uninsured medical coverage, abortions…) and other things not likely to have an immediate effect stimulating anything except indolence among beneficiaries.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said he expects Obama's stimulus package to pass the Senate, but he warned that it could damage the US economy in the future. A stark critic of Obama's approach to repairing the badly damaged economy, Cornyn said he believes passing the measure with minimal Republican support must be a major disappointment to Obama. He argued that the president's stimulus package is loaded with pet Democratic spending projects and is "just spending as far as the eye can see." Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., rejected Democratic criticism that his fellow Republicans were dragging out passage of the bill. "It'll pass this week, but we want some time to go through it, we want some time for the American people to be able to look at it," Ensign said. Free Email Account, 3GB Storage, Spam and Virus Protection at Mail.com

We are examining this stimulus bill right here and this is not something Democrats and Obama supporters want. They don’t appreciate critics of the new president highlighting the more ridiculous expenditures people like Pelosi demand and they certainly don’t appreciate the opposition to Obama’s argument he should get whatever he wants simply because he won.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dixon And then there is the real world where precisely the opposite took place.

Ronald Reagan - the Quintessential Politician
YouTube - Free Market Fantasies by Noam Chomsky 1/5

[Raastee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ???? I don't think that makes sense at all, and the 55mph speed limit is simply not reasonable in many areas. We don't need more regulation and more revenue increase from fines.

Really?
This may give us the buffer to recover.
Now, I did not consider the revenue aspect, but that to would help.


I know of only one public policy change that would save the economy: national 55 mph speed limit.
Results:
1. Fuel prices would drop
2. Less wreaks
3. Less legal claims
4. Less insurance claims
5. Less wear and tear on vehicles

Also, a 40 hour, 4 day work week for state and federal workers.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Plus Ultra Right, this is the famous “I won” argument Obama used before; since he won the election whatever he wants ought to happen. But the US has 3 branches of government and Obama presides only over one, the Legislature is mostly –but not completely, controlled by Obama.

Be prepared for a slowdown in the new administration's program of
"change". His economic plan has been little but a porky substance.
And, despite what he's now saying, it's hardly dangerous to be skeptical of Obama's, or anyone else's, economic policies. It's perfectly healthy and rational to express doubts and reservations.

Grandpa h.