Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why dont you list some of these imaginary regulations that were removed. I'll wait
The repeal Glass-Steagall is major reason that banks consolidated in the late 1990's and early 2000's. It is also removed restrictions from banks are far as leverage and that in large part encouraged banks and other financial institutions to take on riskier investments like mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps, which led to the financial crisis in 2008.
The repeal Glass-Steagall is major reason that banks consolidated in the late 1990's and early 2000's. It is also removed restrictions from banks are far as leverage and that in large part encouraged banks and other financial institutions to take on riskier investments like mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps, which led to the financial crisis in 2008.
the problem with the banking industry is the government guarantee of investment "success".
as long as the government is willing to backstop the banks with taxpayer funds, we absolutely need the repeal of the repeal of glass steagall. (that seems a little hard to follow, so i will just say that i agree with reinstatement of glass steagall, although it wouldn't have been necessary if the bad banks had been allowed to fail in the first place-like they should have).
the problem with the banking industry is the government guarantee of investment "success".
as long as the government is willing to backstop the banks with taxpayer funds, we absolutely need the repeal of the repeal of glass steagall. (that seems a little hard to follow, so i will just say that i agree with reinstatement of glass steagall, although it wouldn't have been necessary if the bad banks had been allowed to fail in the first place-like they should have).
I agree that banks should not be bailed with taxpayer money, which is why they have much higher capital requirements and much lower margin availability than before.
However, if the banks would have been allowed to fail the economy would be in much worse shape now than it is now. In essence we would be facing another depression.
most of the proposals go after the "other" category which doesn't have much and covers many services.
Want to reduce pensions of the people that worked for them?
Want to reduce SS for those that worked for that?
My suggestion is eliminate the Federal reserve and go after the 206B which is projected to increase to 562B by 2016
Cut the military to $450B
Close 600 of the foreign 800 bases we have.
clean up healthcare and eliminate duplication. There will be 1 healthcare for all the people... not one for the VA, one for the Congress, but 1 for the people. Get insurance out of it, as they are the cause to the rapid increase in prices.
close Homeland security and TSA let the airlines pay for their own security.
increase the retirement age to 70 for SS, eliminate early retirement
Welfare is to become - workfare, financial penalties will occur to people that increase their children - birth control will be provided in health care.
Spend on infrastructure
spend on renewable energy and getting us off foreign oil and oil in general
tax benefits issued to companies/people that create 500+ jobs
SBA to be expanded to increase the creation of small businesses
All new buildings will be required to be energy self sufficient
There is a plan that isn't knee jerk, and doesn't penalize the people, i don't even pick on the rich.
I am spending more than I am making, and am about to lose my car and my house because i have to pay for my credit cards, which were maxed out untill I told the bank to increase my limits so I could borrow more to pay what I owe..
Should I spend less money?
" Economy on the edge of collapse, do you really think it's a good idea to cut 2.5 trillion in spending?"
"Household Budget on the edge of collapse, do you really think it's a good idea to cut xxx in spending?"
The White House this week unveiled plans from 30 government agencies to cut the cost and paperwork needed to comply with federal regulations.
The plans are in response to President Barack Obama’s January directive to agencies to weed out outdated regulations and ensure that those on the books promote economic growth and job creation while protecting public health and welfare.
Cass R. Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory gatekeeper, says this first round of reforms will save hundreds of millions of dollars in annual compliance costs and tens of millions of hours in reporting burdens. The changes could ring up billions of dollars in savings for U.S. businesses in coming years, he adds.
Major themes in the plans are scaling back or eliminating government paperwork that businesses must fill out and switching from paper to electronic reporting.
For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan includes electronic online reporting for pesticide and commercial chemical makers to provide health and safety data that EPA requires. With this change, companies would no longer have to submit six paper copies of certain information under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Also, the Food & Drug Administration plans to look at revising regulations to allow electronic submission of clinical-study data for drug trials, postmarket reporting for drugs and biological products, and registration and listing of drugs and medical devices.
Meanwhile, the Departments of Commerce and State plan to lead a series of reforms to lower barriers to exports of U.S.-made products, Sunstein says. And an upcoming rule from the Occupational Safety & Health Administration will switch the U.S. to an international hazard communication system for chemicals used in the workplace. This single change will save businesses more than $500 million per year in regulatory costs, he says.
Jacob J. Lew, director of the White House Office of Management & Budget, says more reforms are coming. “This is not a one-time project. This is the beginning of what will become a new way of doing business. Every year, we’ll keep looking at the regulations that are on the books,†Lew says.
Roosevelt's New Deal focused predominantly on a program of providing work and stimulating the economy through public spending on projects, rather than on cash payment.
Spending has gone up 18,000% in just 50 years. That would have been a grand slam to any investor. I think that's right about where Buffet is over the same period.
The more we stimulate the less it seems to help. We have generations of perpetual welfare families. Getting a welfare check to them is what a job is to the rest of us. I live in LA and I've seen how the system is worked by these people. Some of them I called friends. Create work programs just like Roosevelt did. Why ignore history and the programs that work, instead opting for waste and unsustainable debt?
What happens when 50% of the population are living off the other 50%?
If you are in the top 10% you are getting richer. If you are bottom 50% you are getting poorer.
The United States Government does not determine economic policy. In this country economic policy is determine by the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations. For the past 30 years they have implemented a series of policy decisons from "Trickle Down Economics" to outsourcing that are primarily focused on one thing, EXPANDING THE WEALTH AND PROFITABILITY OF THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS.
Income growth over the last few decades has been enormously unbalanced, and this must be taken into account as the nation considers shifts in tax policy and develops a fiscal plan that strengthens the recovery and targets a sustainable deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and the start of the current recession in 2007, the pre-tax incomes of the upper 1% grew 214%, while the incomes of the middle-fifth and lowest-fifth grew, respectively, 25% and 4%. As the Chart shows, this extremely unbalanced growth implies that 38.7% of all of the income growth accrued to the upper 1% over the 1979-2007 period: a greater share than the 36.3% share received by the entire bottom 90% of the population.
Those in the top 10% of the income scale received 63.7% of all the income growth generated over the 1979-2007 period. In contrast, the bottom 20% of all earners saw such a small share of income growth – just 0.4% – that it barely shows up on the included pie chart.
Note: “Upper-middle fifth” (60-80%) refers to those in the income scale who make more than 60% of earners but less than the top fifth. “Lower-middle fifth” refers to those who fall in the lower 20-40% range of the income scale.
You'd think since the top income earners in this country have been exceedingly successful at expanding their share of the income pie while the bottom 50% has seen their incomes staganate are decline that they would be willing to chip in a little more of their gains. Keep in mind that taxation as a percentage of GDP is at near 50 year lows.
In fact, in terms of the economy as a whole, federal taxes are at their lowest level since 1950. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would account for 14.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2011.
That isn’t a one-year anomaly: Revenue was 14.9 percent of GDP in both 2009 and 2010. Compare that with a postwar average of about 18.5 percent of GDP, and an average of 18.2 percent during the administration of President Ronald Reagan.
You can cut $1.5 TRILLION of that with no effect on the economy.
Basically it comes down to this:
Do you want to dick-over 100+ Million Americans, or would you rather fire 500,000 government employees?
I think the needs of the many clearly outweigh the needs of the few, especially since the few do absolutely nothing, or worse, cause irreparable damage.
Give me the budget and I'll cut it. I'll do it for free, out of the goodness of my heart, and I'll cut out $1.5 TRILLION and it won't have any impact on the economy, because the parts I will cut are government spending on government, not government spending on the economy.
There's a difference you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
Want to reduce pensions of the people that worked for them? Want to reduce SS for those that worked for that?
No, I don't, but I can gut your budget without affecting the OAI/OASI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
My suggestion is eliminate the Federal reserve
And replace it with what, exactly? Another central bank under the control of a Congress who recklessly wasted your Social Security Trust Fund and how have bankrupted your economy and who don't even have the guts to make the necessary cuts, and instead slough off the responsibility on a Super Congress?
Oh, that's rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
Close 600 of the foreign 800 bases we have.
Then prepare to be Belarus.
Might as well set up the National House Match Commission and starting handing out housing assignments to people. "The Smith Family will share a 3-bedroom apartment with the Williams Family. The Baker Family will share a 4-bedroom house with the Walters and Jordan Family" etc etc
That is what it will be like in the US if you fail to bring your global geo-political strategy to fruition. If you have 6 adults in one household, you'll be damn lucky if 1 works and 2 of them work part-time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
Get insurance out of it, as they are the cause to the rapid increase in prices.
Insurance is not the cause. Your unrelenting insistence on "feeling good" instead of "getting well" is one of the causes. Your Hospital Carters that illegally collude and fix prices is the primary cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
increase the retirement age to 70 for SS, eliminate early retirement
Oh, talking out of both sides of your neck.
You just whined about cutting Social Security and pensions, and yet here you are proposing to cut Social Security and pensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
Spend on infrastructure
That is a losing end-game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
spend on renewable energy and getting us off foreign oil and oil in general
Can't do it. Cut foreign oil and you lose 10 Million jobs permanently and 5 Million people die within 5-7 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
The repeal Glass-Steagall is major reason that banks consolidated in the late 1990's and early 2000's
That was a mistake, but not as big a mistake as Carter's blunder allowing banks to offer financial services outside of the scope of banking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
Nobody is suggesting that fiscal deficits continue on a long term basis. What is being suggest is that NOW is not the best time to cut government spending when business investment and consumer spending the other two legs of the economy are not expanding the economy.
You can cut government spending without affecting the economy and failure to make any cuts is going to result in forced cuts, so the end result is the same. You can have your depression now or 3 years from now, but you're gonna have it and you can't prevent it.
At this point, the US has no ability to take any action to alleviate, um, "suffering." If you enter a major recession now and start sliding toward depression, there ain't gonna be any "99-weekers." They'll get their 13 weeks from the State, 13 weeks from the federal government (maybe) and that will be all.
And that will heavily stress Medicaid, HUD Section 8, WIC, the Food Stamp Program and others, because you either cut the budget to shift funding to those programs or you let people, um, "suffer."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
The liabilities you mention are unfunded FUTURE liabilities. If anything they point to the fact that cutting government spending by itself won't solve the governments fiscal problems. Tax increases are going to be necessary.
And a tax increase now would guarantee a recession with 90-120 days.
There's a major transformation underway. Americans just need to accept it and deal with it. Your life-style and standard of living have died.
Right now, people are still in Denial. You can tell that from the attitudes of people on this forum:
They can have my Blackberry and Cable Box when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
I mean seriously, look at the attitude of the Me, Myself and I Generation: "Pay my mortgage first? What? Are you kidding? What about my Blackberry? I'll just walk away from the mortgage."
Instead of cutting spending, there IS another option. Raise taxes. Significantly. Going back to pre-Reagan income tax levels -- even without cutting a dime in spending -- would go a long way to solve the debt crisis. Reverting to FDR income tax levels (top marginal tax rate of 79%), raising the capital gains tax and taxing luxury items at a higher rate -- even without cutting spending -- would balance the budget and allow us to start chipping away at the national debt. Cutting the military budget to $200B and closing foreign bases would free up revenue to use on projects here at home, like universal single-payer healthcare and economic stimulus infrastructure projects.
Instead of cutting spending, there IS another option. Raise taxes. Significantly. Going back to pre-Reagan income tax levels -- even without cutting a dime in spending -- would go a long way to solve the debt crisis. Reverting to FDR income tax levels (top marginal tax rate of 79%), raising the capital gains tax and taxing luxury items at a higher rate -- even without cutting spending -- would balance the budget and allow us to start chipping away at the national debt. Cutting the military budget to $200B and closing foreign bases would free up revenue to use on projects here at home, like universal single-payer healthcare and economic stimulus infrastructure projects.
And those taxing levels did wonders for the economy under FDR and Carter, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
