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.
Yes, China is a huge problem. The biggest problem is that they don't play on an even playing field. They float their currency. They ignore Copywrite laws and patents. You can find just about any product produced in the U.S. in China, except it has be reverse engineered without any royalty payments to the U.S. companies. We invent and they copy.
Why are WE on the losing end? We import more from them than we export to them. (They are letting us have stuff without paying for it.)If we produced more and exported more there wouldn't be such a trade deficit but that isn't their problem it is OUR problem created by so called "free- trade" agreements that destroyed manufacturing here.
We need to change the ratio between debt and income. We don’t have enough income to service the debt we have. We need more savings. With more savings comes less consumption and more production, balanced trade. We need cash to spend. Printing money and giving it to everyone to spend will tend to drive employment. The government has outgrown its tax base, so we need a bigger tax base or a smaller government or both.
So upping the minimum wage to $30/hr
Starting a national savings program in banks not the stock market.
Taxing the payment of debts.
And giving people money to spend.
Those four things will get the economy growing sustainable.
What theory of economics is this from???????? It doesn't sound at all feasible to me. You can't pay workers more money unless your profits are sufficient to do so. You can't HIRE workers unless you have enough customer demand for your product where the revenue from the extra purchases of product are more than enough to cover the wages of the worker. YOU CAN'T PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE like you are suggesting.
Printing money would also reduce the inflated value of the dollar making imported goods more expensive. No need to break trade agreements, just level the field. If football were played the way our trade is, the field would be slanted one way and the sides would never switch.
HUH? I think you mean printing money devalues the dollar because the more dollars there are in the money supply, the higher the costs of good and services are inflated to keep up with the expanded money supply. The way to STOP prices from rising and stop our dollar from losing purchasing power is to STOP printing money.
Let the market control the value of their currency and prices would drop and the Chinese could start spending. Unlike Americans the Chinese have jobs and are working and have savings. They'd stop selling to us in an instant since all they are getting paid back in are next to worthless dollars.
Let the market control it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
If we produced more and exported more there wouldn't be such a trade deficit but that isn't their problem it is OUR problem created by so called "free- trade" agreements that destroyed manufacturing here.
Don't let the market control it.
It won't matter how it happens as long as wealth transfers from the west to the east.
lealize drugs (I know big issue) but if someone is going to do them be it legal or illegal. why no tax it and use it to build better schools and fix our roads that are falling apart.
it would end the war on drugs which means people in prison for 3-5 for bit of pot don't cost tax payers 70K a year to keep in prison.
have wage huge reduction for govronment officals why should a state senator make 300,000 a year for a 60-70 a year job and cut the perks no private planes but rather they fly commerical in coach. If they want a ticket to first class they pay out their money.
have a penalty on american corporations that choose to outsource. so it will cost them the same to create jobs here or if the go overseas.
no bailouts for banks and giant corporations if chrysler goes under then they go under. If anyone owned a small business you would not be treated like american airlines and get bailouts and tax cuts you would just lose your business..
also govronment officals running for office should not be allowed to take money from lobbyists and have a 5 year ban on working in the private sector. have a limit on private donations say a max $1000 per person.
you watch how the people running change to represent the average american right now both sides of the govronment are the same because the wealthy own the govronment by having so much influence that all are backed and hand picked by corporations that no matter who gets elected they will always have some influence in their decsion making
What you neglect is that Obama had no input in the 2009 budget. Yet, you assign him blame for the $1.3 trillion deficit left him by Bush. That's remarkably unfair.
On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. You can't possibly blame Obama for that -- he wasn't even President then.
It also isn't "more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history."
Eric cantor made the same false claim and you are parroting that false claim. PolitiFacts has it here:
Nobody should still be buying the excuse that Obama inherited the national debt so therefore he should remain blameless. That would only be the case if he made efforts to REVERSE the deficit by stopping spending and shrinking government with a view to lowering the deficit. He HAS NOT DONE THAT OR EVEN ATTEMPTED TO. Rather than talking about spending he still talks about the government "investing' which is the same thing! When the government spends or invests money it does not have it INCREASES THE NATIONAL DEBT!
i know that's the talking point but that's not what happened. Government didn't force lending institutions to do anything against their will. These institutions were making lots of money doing the wrong thing.
The fallacy in your reply is that the government 'forced' banks to make bad loans. The profit motive and perverse incentives made the financial institutions make bad loans. Under the age-old system, a bank would make prudent loans because they intended upon holding those loans for a long time and they wanted to assure that the borrower had the means to repay the loan.
Not quite. The government FORCED lending institutions to give loans to poor credit risks (CRA), BUT they got away with it because Fannie and Freddie bought, securitized, and resold the loans with an implied government guarantee.
The Fannie Mae Foundation proudly trumpeted lending to those with undocumentable credit worthiness in a 2000 publication:
Quote:
"Underwriting Standards
Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs. When necessary—in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for example—Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs."
No crap. The main venue for them to transfer them to other people on the market was through the GSEs. The GSEs gave them legitamcy because they're owned by the federal government and the federal government would never let them go under.
You manage to mention steps 1 and 2 but missed 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
Yes government tinkering again led to a disastrous result. Imagine that...
Exactly.
Limit the federal government's actions and powers to only those mandated by the US Constitution. That means welfare and social spending programs are OUT. As it is, the federal government is encouraging and enabling the exponential and unsustainable growth of the dependent class. Do I need to post the Census data showing the birth rate of those receiving public assistance is 3 times that of everyone else, again?
What you neglect is that Obama had no input in the 2009 budget.
WHAT?!?
Was Obama or was he not a Democrat US Senator? You know... the DEMOCRATS who had majorities in both the House and the Senate and are responsible for the 2009 budget.
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.
