My plan to fix the economy, overnight

[Variable]

Ok.  So I know there are a lot of people on this board who have a whole broad spectrum of political beliefs and opinions.  But lets just assume for a min that some magic wand cant be waved and a revolution wont come.  Lets just assume that we are stuck with this watered down democracy and capitalism for the time being.  That being said, I have a plan to fix the economy over night.

So I was sitting at work one day.  Thinking about how fucking stupid everyone is and how much better the world would be if they just let me run everything.  Then all of the sudden it hit me.  I could totally fix this economic shit hole the US is in.

We all know money is fake right?  Its fiat, its nothing.  Its just paper that is only worth what we say its worth.  It is backed by nothing and requires nothing but paper to make.  So its nothing to create and destroy.  Most of it only exist on computers.  Just credit that is given out by banks.  So why not just quit the smoke and mirrors and fix this dam thing already?  What is the economy except a way to judge how much spending and production is going in in a country?  If Banks lose the ability to loan, then people lose the ability to buy, and companies lose the ability to produce and pay their employees.  Then the people lose the ability to pay back loans, and the banks go even further in the hole.  Its a vicious cycle.  But its kind of silly to keep the cycle going seeing as how we have a system in place to control the currency ( the federal reserve ).  In the end we all owe our debt to banks because if we were able to pay a company for a producet straight up, we would owe nothing.  So when we can't afford something, we get a loan from a bank.  So in the end, most of us are in debt to banks, or in no debt at all.

So lets say that Person X, person Y, and person Z, represent the entire privatized debt of the US citizens.  Person X owes Bank of America $10,000.00. Person Y owes $30,000.00 to Citi bank.  Person Z owes $5,000.00 to Wells Fargo.  And I'm the president.  I'm going to go stroll over the the Federal Reserve and chat with the Chairman.  I say "Ben, we got a problem, and we are going to fix it now"  Ben says "ok"  So Ben and I say, " Person X, you no longer owe anything to Bank of America.  Its gone.  Poof, all your debt is gone and you are now debt free."  Now on the other hand I say to Bank of America " YOU are now credited the $10,000.00 Person X owed you. "  and we do the same exact thing with persons Y and Z and their banks. 

So now , overnight, no one in America has any debt at all.  But the banks have a HUGE amount of money to loan.  Its as if no one ever defaulted at all.  Now the banks have the ability to loan again, the people have the ability to buy again, so the corporations have the means to produce again and pay their employees, and now the people have the ability to pay back their loans.  And thus the economy is happy again. 

Yes I realize I left the owed interest out.  I realize that I left the mass inflation out if this interest is payed out all at the same time.  And I realize I simplified a couple things.  But I say, 1. fuck your interest.  2.  If you must have the interest, then the inflation was going to happen anyways when the loans were payed back.  So oh well.  and 3.  The economy really is that simple.  No one wants to admit it because they think people will just totally get pissed off and lose their faith in the economy ( um, as if that hasn't already happened?) and then also the sham would be up, and those in power would most likely be forced out of it when the people demanded the control of their country and currency again.  But hey, I'm all for it.

Trey Gregory, President 2032.  Thanks for your vote.

discuss

[tarkil]

Without even talking about the economics stuff in there :

It's fucking unfair : why would people who lived above their means and were assholes buying useless stuff they could not afford, and probably didn't need, be thanked and and absolved by government ? While on the other hand people who didn't live above their means and tried to have a sane lifestyle get nothing ?

It's very different from your usual way of thinking... I'll think about why it cannot work on the economics side later hopefully.
But a first thing that would come to mind is that by playing with value of money like that, USA would be considered as not reliable partners anymore because they play with money in a way that should not be done. Pretty much the same kind of phenomenon as when Kim Jong Il make a nuclear test : he appears as a fucking maniac on the world scene (not that that was not done....), and gets fucked in the arsehole as a consequence....

Anyway, I'll try to be more rigorous later when I have more time

[lostpilot]

a) it could be highly unfair
b) people (government) will never null the debt

[Nailec]

i wouldnt vote for any solution that keeps the financial system running as it is right now.

less free market (anyone who doesnt see that the free market is the major problem must be blind imho), more control by politics.

if alls debts in the whole world would just magically disappear, people would go on with the same habbits and sometimes you have to cast your spell again. the earth itself has ti pay the bill sometimes.

[Fireal1222]

i can fix the economy overnight.


its this simple. u legalize marijuana.. take all the cops who were on drug tasks forces. and put them on street patrol. and get the people who really should be put behind bars off the streets.

then with whatever revenue starts getting generated. we hire more city workers. who will simply go from block to block. and help clean up our neighborhoods.

[Variable]

Before I address any responses directly, I just want to say a couple things.

I never claimed that this would permanently fix the economy forever.  This is simply a means to pull us out of the current hole.  In no way would it prevent us from spending our way right back into it.  It would simply set the clock back to zero and start over while we had the endless debates over regulation vs non regulation or a whole new monetary system.

I also could give two shits about fairness.  Is it fair that some people lived within their means and did nothing wrong while others got into massive debt and just declared bankruptcy?  No, but it happened.  Is it fair that like it or not, we are all connected in the same global economy?  So that even those who do right get fucked by those who do wrong?  No, but its reality.  So is it reality that what is bad for some is bad for all?  Yes.  Is it reality that what is good for most is good for all?  Yes.  If you get spending and production back, its good for everyone.  This plan will bring spending and production for an all time high.  Is nation wide prosperity good for everyone?  Yes.  Fuck fairness, lets get our economy back.  Everyone who did the right thing can tell their grand kids all about it while they are cuddled up in cashmere blankets in from of the 16 fire places in their mansion thanks to my economic leadership.

I also realize how bad this would piss off the rest of the world, and the financial elite in America who have gained their power from having others in debt to them.  But who really cares?  Its we the people, not we the few with money + the massive global corporations who signed on to NAFTA and the WTO.  Its long due time that we get out of NAFTA and the WTO anyways.  The USA has more than enough capability to create a self contained infrastructure and produce massive amounts of products.  Do you really think that Mexico would stick to their guns about being pissed off at us if we planned on opening up massive amounts of industrial plants to mass produce products to sell to the rest of the world?  And do you really think the rest of the world would count us out if we could offer better products for a better price, just out of principal for what we did to our money?  No.  In fact there is a really good chance that they would follow our lead and do the same dam thing.  We are talking GLOBAL prosperity and production.  I don't really see the down side.

I also see the very likely chance that people would suddenly wake up and realize how fake money is.  That money was only created because it was the only way to force humans to mass produce even though they didn't want to.  But that is already a reality.  So who cares if the mass of people suddenly see it?  Maybe then we can actually get REAL debates going on about how to move forward from our horrible monetary system instead of hearing politicians debate about gay marriage and abortion.  Please god let the world wake up to how fickle and fake our monetary systems are and make a change.  Please.

Without even talking about the economics stuff in there :

It's fucking unfair : why would people who lived above their means and were assholes buying useless stuff they could not afford, and probably didn't need, be thanked and and absolved by government ? While on the other hand people who didn't live above their means and tried to have a sane lifestyle get nothing ?

It's very different from your usual way of thinking... I'll think about why it cannot work on the economics side later hopefully.
But a first thing that would come to mind is that by playing with value of money like that, USA would be considered as not reliable partners anymore because they play with money in a way that should not be done. Pretty much the same kind of phenomenon as when Kim Jong Il make a nuclear test : he appears as a fucking maniac on the world scene (not that that was not done....), and gets fucked in the arsehole as a consequence....

Anyway, I'll try to be more rigorous later when I have more time

anyways.  I pretty much already addressed all of this.  I love you brother, but you aren't going to find a way that this could not work.  Sure we all know this would never , ever happen.  But its simply a means for me to express how corrupt and abrasive our current political leaders are.  Obama is in no way a great president because he could fix this over night, but he won't because he ( and everyone else in the government ) lacks the fortitude to make a radical change.  But good luck trying to figure out how this wont work.  Because is 100% would.  And what should piss off Tmothy Geithner the most, is that I thought of this in about 5 seconds over a sip of a blue Rockstar. 

a) it could be highly unfair
b) people (government) will never null the debt

Your second statement is right.  Unless we start giving a shit as a people and pay attention to the people we elect into our government.  If congressmen and senators felt that they were in danger of not being re elected if they did not act on the voice of the people, they would act in the voice of the people instead of their own interest.  But no one really pays attention to local elections.  So the same turds keep getting elected even though they suck at life.  Then everyone blames republicans.  Way to pass the buck America. 

i wouldnt vote for any solution that keeps the financial system running as it is right now.

less free market (anyone who doesnt see that the free market is the major problem must be blind imho), more control by politics.

if alls debts in the whole world would just magically disappear, people would go on with the same habbits and sometimes you have to cast your spell again. the earth itself has ti pay the bill sometimes.

I would love to open a discussion about a new and better monetary system.  I agree that right now ours in no good.  But I have to say that I don't believe in any ways shape or form do we have a true free market economy.  Nor have we ever.  So you really can't blame this on the free market, because the free market has never existed. 

and brother, the bills would never be due.  Because the bill collectors would never come.  Because money is fake.  It takes no human labor to make money anymore.  Therefore it is nothing to make or destroy. No human labor = no bills.  But people would start to wonder why they were working their asses for for paper after a short while.

i can fix the economy overnight.


its this simple. u legalize marijuana.. take all the cops who were on drug tasks forces. and put them on street patrol. and get the people who really should be put behind bars off the streets.

then with whatever revenue starts getting generated. we hire more city workers. who will simply go from block to block. and help clean up our neighborhoods.

While I am all for legalizing marijuana.  Lets be real.  It would help the economy.  But in now way would it actually fix it.  We would create what?  A few Billion dollar industry over night that could be taxed at like 30%?  We would save a few billion on the DEA and other law enforcement going after this shit.  Also a low billion in stopping locking up and chasing after pot dealers and smugglers.  Our economy is WAY bigger than that.   The last bailout was a trillion if I'm not mistaken?  and it didn't make a dent in the economy.  The new federal budget is over a trillion too.  Legalizing marijuana would help, but in no way fix the economy. 

That being said.  President H.F. Gregory III would totally work tirelessly towards legalizing marijuana.  "Its not a war on drugs, its a war on personal freedom, don't forget that"

Gregory 2032.  Thanks for voting for the people. 

[Nailec]

I would love to open a discussion about a new and better monetary system.  I agree that right now ours in no good.  But I have to say that I don't believe in any ways shape or form do we have a true free market economy.  Nor have we ever.  So you really can't blame this on the free market, because the free market has never existed.

ok the problem i actually meant is probablly that capitalistic ideology has spread into way too much aspects of society. everything is being opened to the "free" market (of course and thank god its not absolutely free). examples would be the culturual society, the education system, military and security affairs, even most media is dependent from investors who have certain interests, making your communication unfree to big extends. i dont know but we in germany have two big public tv stations. the whole rest is privat.

problem is: where to get the money to give all those important social structures back to the politics

[Variable]

Because only private investors have special interest?  Politicians don't have special interest?

[Nailec]

yes they have. but they are public persons and should not get caught. public sphere can create pressure on them that is not possible on private investors.

see Gerhard Schörder who now works for Gazprom. he couldnt have done that when he was our Chancellor

[Jerry_Curls]

Thought this was kind of on topic...

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=3004

On record so far on http://www.thomas.gov/

Title: To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/26/2009) Cosponsors (208)
Latest Major Action: 2/26/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

Here's 3 related (WORKING) links for easy access:

DEMOCRATIC List of Shame
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/95533

REPUBLICAN List of Shame
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/92621

S 604: F R Sunshine Act of 2009. Companion bill to HR1207
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/92815

HR 1207 Co-Sponsors (as of 6/11/2009)

Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 2/26/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] - 2/26/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] - 2/26/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 2/26/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 2/26/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 2/26/2009
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 2/26/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 3/5/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 3/6/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/6/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 3/6/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 3/6/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/6/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/9/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/11/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 3/11/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/16/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 3/16/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 3/17/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 3/17/2009
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 3/18/2009
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 3/19/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 3/19/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 3/19/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 3/19/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] - 3/19/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 3/19/2009
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 3/23/2009
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] - 3/23/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 3/23/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 3/24/2009
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] - 3/24/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/26/2009
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 3/26/2009
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] - 3/30/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 3/30/2009
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 3/30/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 3/31/2009
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 4/1/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 4/2/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 4/21/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 4/21/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 4/21/2009
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 4/21/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 4/21/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 4/21/2009
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 4/21/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] - 4/21/2009
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] - 4/21/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/21/2009
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] - 4/22/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 4/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 4/22/2009
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] - 4/22/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 4/22/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 4/22/2009
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 4/22/2009
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 4/22/2009
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] - 4/23/2009
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 4/23/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 4/23/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 4/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 4/23/2009
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 4/28/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 4/28/2009
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 4/28/2009
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 4/28/2009
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 4/28/2009
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 4/28/2009
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 4/28/2009
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 4/28/2009
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 4/28/2009
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 4/28/2009
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 4/28/2009
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] - 4/28/2009
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 4/29/2009
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 4/29/2009
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 4/29/2009
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 4/29/2009
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 4/29/2009
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 4/29/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/29/2009
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 4/29/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 4/29/2009
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] - 4/30/2009
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 4/30/2009
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 4/30/2009
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] - 5/4/2009
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 5/4/2009
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 5/4/2009
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 5/4/2009
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 5/4/2009
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] - 5/4/2009
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] - 5/4/2009
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 5/4/2009
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 5/4/2009
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 5/4/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 5/4/2009
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 5/4/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/6/2009
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] - 5/6/2009
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 5/6/2009
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 5/6/2009
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 5/6/2009
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 5/6/2009
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] - 5/6/2009
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] - 5/6/2009
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] - 5/6/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] - 5/6/2009
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 5/7/2009
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 5/7/2009
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 5/7/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 5/7/2009
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 5/7/2009
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] - 5/7/2009
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 5/11/2009
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 5/11/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 5/11/2009
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 5/11/2009
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 5/11/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 5/11/2009
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 5/12/2009
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 5/12/2009
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] - 5/12/2009
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 5/12/2009
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 5/12/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] - 5/12/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 5/12/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 5/13/2009
Rep Minnick, Walter [ID-1] - 5/13/2009
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] - 5/13/2009
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 5/13/2009
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] - 5/13/2009
Rep Perriello, Thomas S.P. [VA-5] - 5/13/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 5/14/2009
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] - 5/14/2009
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 5/14/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 5/20/2009
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 5/20/2009
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] - 5/20/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 5/20/2009
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] - 5/20/2009
Rep Schauer, Mark H. [MI-7] - 5/20/2009
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] - 5/20/2009
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 5/21/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 5/21/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 5/21/2009
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] - 5/21/2009
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/2/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 6/2/2009
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 6/2/2009
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL-10] - 6/3/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 6/3/2009
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 6/3/2009
Rep Halvorson, Deborah L. [IL-11] - 6/3/2009
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 6/4/2009
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 6/4/2009
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 6/4/2009
Rep Kratovil, Frank, Jr. [MD-1] - 6/4/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 6/9/2009
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 6/9/2009
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] - 6/9/2009
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 6/9/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/9/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] - 6/9/2009
Rep Childers, Travis [MS-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 6/9/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 6/10/2009
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 6/10/2009
Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] - 6/10/2009
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 6/10/2009
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 6/10/2009
Rep Lee, Christopher J. [NY-26] - 6/10/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 6/10/2009
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 6/10/2009

[Variable]

I would love to open a discussion about a new and better monetary system.  I agree that right now ours in no good.  But I have to say that I don't believe in any ways shape or form do we have a true free market economy.  Nor have we ever.  So you really can't blame this on the free market, because the free market has never existed.

ok the problem i actually meant is probablly that capitalistic ideology has spread into way too much aspects of society. everything is being opened to the "free" market (of course and thank god its not absolutely free). examples would be the culturual society, the education system, military and security affairs, even most media is dependent from investors who have certain interests, making your communication unfree to big extends. i dont know but we in germany have two big public tv stations. the whole rest is privat.

problem is: where to get the money to give all those important social structures back to the politics

Ok, so I just re read you post like 6 times.  It doesnt even make sense. 

1.  I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that "cultural society" has been opened to the free market. 

2.  The Department Of Education in America is a program ran by the Federal government.  Not the free market.  It is also a fact that ever since education was federalized in the US, the quality of education has plummeted to embarrassingly low levels.  Education does not need more government.  It needs to be handled at a county or city level and base around parental direction and involvement.  Parents want what's best for their kids, not politicians trying to fudge numbers on aptitude test to get re-elected. 

3.  The DOD is also a federal program.  Although I agree that the private contracting in the DOD is sucking America dry.  DOD contracts ( say to buy new body armor or weapons ) are great for the Economy, but sometimes hurt the actual military.  We don't always get the best gear for the best price.  Sometimes we get the gear that best hooks up the General and his buddies retirement accounts.  That being said, if I were president, the DOD would have its own research and development programs for everything it needed.  It would design and invent the best gear possible for the troops, then give out the contract to produce the DOD designed product to private countries.  That way we would always get the best gear.  But US tax dollars would still be re invested into US companies.

4.  Security affairs?  That is a broad statement.  But lets just use the Department of Homeland Security as an example.  If I was president, it would be completely abolished.  Probably along with the NSA too.  So I guess that takes care of that.

Gregory 2032.  Congratulations on voting for you.

[Nailec]

I would love to open a discussion about a new and better monetary system.  I agree that right now ours in no good.  But I have to say that I don't believe in any ways shape or form do we have a true free market economy.  Nor have we ever.  So you really can't blame this on the free market, because the free market has never existed.

ok the problem i actually meant is probablly that capitalistic ideology has spread into way too much aspects of society. everything is being opened to the "free" market (of course and thank god its not absolutely free). examples would be the culturual society, the education system, military and security affairs, even most media is dependent from investors who have certain interests, making your communication unfree to big extends. i dont know but we in germany have two big public tv stations. the whole rest is privat.

problem is: where to get the money to give all those important social structures back to the politics

Ok, so I just re read you post like 6 times.  It doesnt even make sense. 

1.  I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that "cultural society" has been opened to the free market. 

2.  The Department Of Education in America is a program ran by the Federal government.  Not the free market.  It is also a fact that ever since education was federalized in the US, the quality of education has plummeted to embarrassingly low levels.  Education does not need more government.  It needs to be handled at a county or city level and base around parental direction and involvement.  Parents want what's best for their kids, not politicians trying to fudge numbers on aptitude test to get re-elected. 

3.  The DOD is also a federal program.  Although I agree that the private contracting in the DOD is sucking America dry.  DOD contracts ( say to buy new body armor or weapons ) are great for the Economy, but sometimes hurt the actual military.  We don't always get the best gear for the best price.  Sometimes we get the gear that best hooks up the General and his buddies retirement accounts.  That being said, if I were president, the DOD would have its own research and development programs for everything it needed.  It would design and invent the best gear possible for the troops, then give out the contract to produce the DOD designed product to private countries.  That way we would always get the best gear.  But US tax dollars would still be re invested into US companies.

4.  Security affairs?  That is a broad statement.  But lets just use the Department of Homeland Security as an example.  If I was president, it would be completely abolished.  Probably along with the NSA too.  So I guess that takes care of that.

Gregory 2032.  Congratulations on voting for you.

1.) your daily cultural life.
the typical theatre for example has often enough to fight with financial problems just because it hasnt enough paying visitors. thus, if the government doesnt want to pay anymore, it becomes dependent from private investors.

2.) the education gets more and more adapted to the market on which everyone will end.  education gets standardized and simplified in order to make everyone functional for the free market. the subject has no space for its individual education.
studying (at least in germany) even costs money now while it was available for everyone some years ago. these days most students have to work or get a credit. think about that (!!!)

3,4.) you should have noticed that i am talking on an abstract level so i dont mean the USA in specefic but generel developments.
i just head about private military companies that can get hired and work as securitiy or whatever in Iraq or Afghanistan.


another german example would be the railroad company (Deutsche Bahn) that plans to seek for private investors making our travelling dependend from those investors. some train routes may be closed down completely just because they dont give enough money.

while i agree that often enough a privatization goes along with modernization or just an overall better quality, i think in the cases mentioned above the politic /government should guarantee certain attainments (that have to be discussed). thaat is where taxes come in.


during the financial crises a huge amount of those taxes were needed to rescue our banking system while their original purpose was to serve anyone in the nation.
conclusio: financial system has to be monitored and controlled by politics to a greater extend.

thank you

[alvarezbassist17]

Nailec, I think the central theme that you're missing is that in a completely free market, the power is entirely in the hands of the people.  If someone doesn't like anything about a product, whether it doesn't suit their needs or the ethics of the company they're buying from disagree with theirs, the power lies in their hands to go find a better product.  Thus the producer of the product loses money, investors, and so on, because they are supposed to be able to fail: that's progress.  The management of a company, high or low, is dependent on their sales or whatever to stay employed, much much moreso than a candidate is dependent on votes.  But, even if the intentions are completely honest, adding too much government regulation and intervention inevitably ends in undue advantages for companies deemed "needed" by the government. 

Take what's going on with General Motors right now.  i could really type about this for hours, but the bottom line is, General Motors fucked all their shit up.  They've been trying desperately to keep up with everyone else ever since foreign (read: Japanese) cars came in and starting taking over the market.  This happened because the Japanese made BETTER PRODUCTS, and besides banning the sale and purchase of foreign cars, there's nothing a regulatory system could do to prevent this.  If GM hadn't stuck so vehemently to its antiquated business model and actually put out something the people wanted, they could have easily become competitive again.  It was also horrifically mismanaged, so it should have failed, but thanks to the lovely gov't, they get to keep blowing all of our money in addition to theirs.

My point with all of that was, if you're talking about anything economically related, the regulatory parts are NEVER as strong as the consumer.  The government can swing things, as they've been doing for years, but the wealth/swing of the collective people is wayyy larger than that of the government.  So, if you really want things to be their most fair, you have to give the people the power, information and choice to decide where their money goes.  Sure, there's gonna be injustices here and there, but if the people are informed about them and really care about them, that company will lose its investors and will have to either go bankrupt or make a large change.  I can guarantee 110% that an economy based on this would be infinitely more prosperous, and thus the people as well.

Free market propaganda be damned!

trey, you lookin for a VP?

[Variable]

I SOOOO am

[Nailec]

Nailec, I think the central theme that you're missing is that in a completely free market, the power is entirely in the hands of the people.  If someone doesn't like anything about a product, whether it doesn't suit their needs or the ethics of the company they're buying from disagree with theirs, the power lies in their hands to go find a better product.  Thus the producer of the product loses money, investors, and so on, because they are supposed to be able to fail: that's progress.  The management of a company, high or low, is dependent on their sales or whatever to stay employed, much much moreso than a candidate is dependent on votes.  But, even if the intentions are completely honest, adding too much government regulation and intervention inevitably ends in undue advantages for companies deemed "needed" by the government. 

Take what's going on with General Motors right now.  i could really type about this for hours, but the bottom line is, General Motors fucked all their shit up.  They've been trying desperately to keep up with everyone else ever since foreign (read: Japanese) cars came in and starting taking over the market.  This happened because the Japanese made BETTER PRODUCTS, and besides banning the sale and purchase of foreign cars, there's nothing a regulatory system could do to prevent this.  If GM hadn't stuck so vehemently to its antiquated business model and actually put out something the people wanted, they could have easily become competitive again.  It was also horrifically mismanaged, so it should have failed, but thanks to the lovely gov't, they get to keep blowing all of our money in addition to theirs.

My point with all of that was, if you're talking about anything economically related, the regulatory parts are NEVER as strong as the consumer.  The government can swing things, as they've been doing for years, but the wealth/swing of the collective people is wayyy larger than that of the government.  So, if you really want things to be their most fair, you have to give the people the power, information and choice to decide where their money goes.  Sure, there's gonna be injustices here and there, but if the people are informed about them and really care about them, that company will lose its investors and will have to either go bankrupt or make a large change.  I can guarantee 110% that an economy based on this would be infinitely more prosperous, and thus the people as well.

Free market propaganda be damned!

trey, you lookin for a VP?

so naiv that it hurts.  the power is not in the hands of people. its in the hand of those who posess the most, who are able to pay.

you transport capitalistic ideology: if a product or good or ware does not make money, its considered a bad product because it doesnt prevail on the market. so wheter something is good or bad, this is just dependent from sales in your argumentation.

your example has nothing to do with what i consider are fundamental needs of the society. having a car by the GM company is not as essential as health care, security, energy, free communication. people will have cars without GM because there is a huge market for it.

keep in mind that not everyone lives in a big city where there is nearly a market for everything. just imagine you live in the nowhere and u have a very rare disease. if everything would be in private hands, those investors would make calculations and ask themselves: "why should we bring electricity to that village, the cables and constructions would cost more than we ever get back from a 20-people-village. why having a police station or even one single policeman there? a crime happens once in every 5 years. and why should we build some expensive equipment just because that one inhabitant has this very rare and very expensive disease?"

its calculations like these that make me fear a market that is that free.

sure there is something called solidarity and communitarism is a concept known in america. but as long has capitalistic rationality prevails, i wouldnt put all my hopes in these things.

its the minorities that would suffer under a free market, those, who dont have the same interests as the majority and so dont find investors.


it i just a big myth that everyone will profit if some few are getting richer.

[alvarezbassist17]

Don't you fucking call me naive just because you disagree with me.  I personally think you're a fucking idiot for assuming that everything should be paid for by taxes when you also believe in choking off the source of these taxes.  Really, how the fuck do you think this is all going to be paid for?  And what the fuck gives the government the right to allocate my taxes to some bumfuck nowhere town to take care of someone that made the choice to live out there?  I understand compassion and everything, but it definitely gets to a point where you can't solve EVERYTHING, especially when you choke off private industry, the SOURCE OF ALL OF THESE TAXES that you want to dole out to people.

and tell me again the trickle-down effect isn't real, that companies just eat the extra taxes and expenses and don't raise prices on the consumer.

the GM example was just the most recent and fresh (not to mention egregious) way the government is fucking the people/market that i could think of.  but the part i was arguing for was the necessity for FAIR competition, that it's necessary for products and society to get better at the rate we've been experiencing this century and last.  Sure, CEOs and partners get paid more (sometimes a LOT more) than they deserve, but if  a company rightfully earned the money to pay his salary and the rest of the work force is paid their salaries, i don't see an ethical way to just take away their money.  and again, the trickle-down effect.  it's real.

another thing, in this day and age, companies don't become successful by fucking people over.  there is way too much transparency and communication nowadays for that to go on for a long period of time.

I SOOOO am

dude i'm totally there.  do you ever watch freedom watch with andrew napolitano?  really really really good shit, that show.

[Jizzlobber]

Whatever type of policy you would choose to execute , it would probably take a couple of years to have firmly in place.

[Variable]

No, actually with executive power and the support of the federal reserve this plan would work almost instantaneously upon completion.

See , the reason the bailouts are taking so long to work ( if they even will ) is because the consumers are not spending.  The banks might have a little bit of money to loan out at inflated interest rates.  But the consumers are still in debt, can't afford the interest, or just don't have enough faith in the economy to want to take out a loan and go into debt ( and rightly so ).  So how exactly do the talking heads in charge expect the bailouts to work?

My plan puts money in everybody hands.  The consumers would be debt free 100%,  the banks would have almost the entire treasury of the US to loan out, and the fed could leave interest rates alone so as not to artificially raise or lower them in order for the people to truly understand the loans they would be receiving and maybe have faith the spend again. 

You say years?  I say you're crazy.  If you were deep into debt and then suddenly over night had your home , cars, credit cards ect ect paid off, you're telling me that you wouldnt go ahead and spend again?  Even if people were cautious about their spending ( as they would be encouraged to be ) they would still go ahead and buy that new car they wanted, move out of the apartment into a new home, go on vacation , or spend money on whatever they felt they wanted or needed but couldn't afford before because of their debt.  It wouldn't take long for the people to start spending themselves broke again if you gave them the money.

Of course I realize how ridiculous this all sounds.  It would devalue the Dollar even worse than the fed has by printing as much money as they feel like.  But ask yourself , what is the difference between what I am suggesting, and what Bush, Obama, Paulson, and Geithner did or are doing?  They bailed out big businesses with money we didn't have.  They either borrowed it even though we are in massive debt already, or they just made it out of thin air even though the dollar is inflated to the point of almost having the inflation bubble burst and make the dollar worthless.  All for a plan that left everyone in the US in the same debt as before but allowed some banks and corporations a little bit more time to stay afloat and pay off interest rates or employee wages for another quarter despite loses.  Yeah, and you roll your eyes at me while these guys are regarded as esteemed elected officials and economic experts? 

Think about what tax rebates are.  They are practically a bailout that is hoping for a trickle up effect.  They give you a little bit of money and hope that you either pay off your debt with it, or buy something you need while helping a company pay off their debt.  But what really happens to the money?  It either goes into savings because reasonable people are scared to spend, it goes to a drug dealer and ends up going to mexican drug cartels because smart people realize its better to just stock up on pot while the dollar still has value and we are all going to need to get high when it doesn't, or it ends up going to foreign companies because your average person can see that most foreign products ( IE Toyota vs GM ) are superior to products manufactured in the US. ( possibly because their government doesn't promise to bail them out if they fail so they are forced to make a good product? That or the cheap labor that comes without unions and taxes proposed by democrats )

So see, my plan is like the bail outs or tax rebates.  But the only difference is that I am putting the money where it actually needs to go, and I'm making sure it gets spent in the proper way to actually create growth and spending. 

But Trey, wouldn't the people and the rest of the world look at the dollar as worthless if you did this?  Probably yes.  But thats why you disguise it.  You come up with some ruse about a "bad bank" Or "debt relocation" or a "working mans bailout" or " IRS Regulated Tax refuds" or whatever.  It doesnt really matter as long as people see their debt go away, and banks able to loan again.  Of course I would't actually make the tax payers pay for any of this, as they wouldn't have to with my plan as they have the other bailouts.  They would just think they were.  I would have the conservative watch dogs barking at me.  But all would be calm with the rapid recovery of the economy and then my implementations of a real economic plan to make sure this doesn't ever happen again.

I mean we could do all this.  Or we could cut income taxes to almost nothing, increasing the incomes of US citizens to almost + 30% over night.  We could allow bad business to fail so that smart and honest business could be allowed to rise up in a truly free market instead of being smothered by the government because some lobbyist convinced DC their special interest was too big to fail.  We could make transparency in the Federal Reserve and restructure the way out money is manipulated.  We could do a number of things that people are already talking about in here.  But I just figure that if the current government is going to do all these crazy bail outs, why not do them right?  Am I really this much smarter than Obama and Geithner?  Or is it that they had something else in mind besides the speedy recovery of the economy? 

[Nailec]

@alvarez: calling someones arguments naiv and calling someone an idiot is some difference in quality.

its not that i dont know that companies need a certain amount of freedom in order to be efficient at all.

but some of them shouldnt be only profit-orientated so that the basic needs of all people of a society are fullfilled (and i know its diffcult to tell what these basic needs are)

equality and solidarity are moral concepts based arguments, not based on feelings as compassion or charity.

i think its very rude to say
"And what the fuck gives the government the right to allocate my taxes to some bumfuck nowhere town to take care of someone that made the choice to live out there?"

this statement tells me, that the individuum is worth a shit for you. who are you tell someone where he or she should find his luck?
just imagine you get a very rare disease that has no cure. woudlnt you find it nice that research is done in order to find a cure for it? even though only 100 people would need that cure?


i do not vote for a total condemnation of personal property but for

"A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, health care, child care and related social services for all citizens." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#Ideology)


@ variable:
i would be honered to see you in the Chancellery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Chancellery) in 2032
i promise i will be able to speak englisch until then

[alvarezbassist17]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9JIwxhRfug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuEdJ0DAGc