Balanced Economic Model?

How would you handle our $65T of debt (includes future obligations for Social Security, Medicare, etc.)?

 

I agree with you in theory however, think about this. We gave bankers billions in tax payers money to kick start lending again. What did they do with it, took trips, bought jets and paid themselves bonuses. So this is the guy we choose not to regulate???

How does a responsible CEO pay himself $18 Million bonus then ask the government for a bailout? Sounds to me like the company couldn't afford that bonus but he paid it to himself anyway.

If we could get rid of the greed at the top then we could do away with regulation and reduce the size of government but until then we must watch them guys...

 

Glad you notice the social security / medicaid obligations: This seems to be a repeated theme..... about programs which we are already being taxed on and promised services since the beginning of these obligations. Question is..... what about the recent bailouts and stimulus plans......... additional developement of government services and expansions of existant services ................and added debt? When will we realize that we don't grow the GDP without productions of goods..... products? Expansions of services is not sustainable as they neither produce goods...... and the government services which provide a (temporary) employment for a few.... can not be productive of enough revenue via government wage- taxes to self sustain itself! Can't anyone figure this out? The "stimulus" may provide relatively few government jobs... but negligible productive employment.... and with the high taxes which will be necessary to recoup.... just the interest on the ever increasing national debt.... there're be little left to (the average citizen) ones' income to buy more than necessary goods. If the Feds decide to print more money to cover the interest and to prevent 'default', the resulting "inflation" in prices will be more a reflection of the continued devaluation of our money..... and the value of our exchange of labor for it than the realistic representation of too much money chasing too few goods as possible in a free economy.

We should start facing reality and stop deluding ourselves: No matter what we might hope for..... No matter who we voted for..... No matter who we oppose or agree with....... Our attempt to delay the inevitable consequences of the follies committed by both government, business, and private sectors in our economy..... will eventually be faced.... and later will be worse than sooner..... later will prove greater hardship, tension, and extremes in governments' controls than sooner taking the medicine of default and recovery without extending the public debt any more than absolutely necessary: Existant obligations should be frozen, if not reduced.... as much as possible: Creation of new services placed on hold: Enforcement of restrictions which prevent or extend the development of industry and delay private productivity should be carefullly evaluated for their cost effectiveness vs damage control .... and reduced as much as possible: And government should promote private innovation by rewarding productivity and employment possibilities by reducing taxes on both businesses within our country and the workers.... and reduction of government to those services already obligated for the securing of our national defense and the programs already established and promised by previous committments to our citizens and veterans.... and those currently employed in our nation's defense.

This, I feel, represents a balance economy. It does not represent immediate relief for the current SNAFU..... but would allow for gradual acclimation by the populace and the government to the already inevitable consequences and allow for gradual recovery which is adaptable within the abilities and potentials of the private, business and public sectors..... less painful in the long run.

 

I just have a moment but I have to correct this bromide. This simply did not happen. None of these companies planned or paid for these things before the bailout monies were received. The infamous jet was ordered well before this. The bonus trips for salespeople were planned well in advance and paid for in advance. Now, if you want to argue whether salespeople should get bonuses, that's fine. But let's not keep repeating things that are simply not true.

Knowing the industry, I'll never concede this outright or at least prima facia. Banks have federal rules regarding the ink pens that loan docs can be signed with for crying out loud. This is a lack of regulation? Now, again, if we want to talk PROPER regulation and enforcement, fine. CORA could be an example of overregulation, for example.

 

And how do you propose we do this??????

 

But if you do this, you have to make arguments on real points, and then it becomes harder to defend your position.

You are asking too much, Tom.

 

TV and PL...LeBuick is not willing to listen to reason on this, nor is he willing to objectively look at the facts.

He's mad at the "evil rich people," and that is that.

In the previous thread, he had no answer for several of my questions:

• What do you think rich people do with their money?
• Why do you completely ignore the fact that if I put my money in a bank, that is economic activity???
• What's with the resentment of rich folks?
• How many poor people have ever given you (or anyone you know) a job?
• What's this "we" business on the poor stuff? Most of us wouldn't have lasted a month in the Great Depression, when real poor people abounded.

The answer to your dilemma,

Is Marxism. Good luck with that.


In my previous home (West Alabama), there were two "churches" (I use that term loosely) in the area that held twice-a-year seminars, entitled, "How to get the most out of your government check." They taught the attendees how to fill out paperwork to maximize welfare and entitlement benefits. They even told the participants the "code words" to use in order to get the most money. Some participants were even cautioned by one leader of a seminar to avoid working (!) as this would hurt one's benefit total.

There's greed in action. But I don't look around and make blanket statements about all poor folk and I don't offer sweeping overgeneralizations. That wouldn't be right.

Perhaps you should take that lesson to heart.

 

Cancel most of them.

 

Look... I say my company is in trouble. So much trouble that I need the government to give me money or my company will so. So I beg the government for money then continue with the trips and planes I ordered in advanced???? And you support this thinking???

I say it shows how lousy of managers these people are, while your company is sinking like a ship and pending financial disaster, you order a new jet, plan bonuses and trips to reward... the sinking of the ship??? You have got to be kidding trying to defend that mis-management (which is the reason they deserve such large salaries by the way).

While they were at it why didn't they give the common workers a huge bonus and increased salaries? Heck, buy all of them a new car while your at it??? Why just spend a million to remodel the CEO's restroom, why not gold plate the grass and pump Artesian water through all the drinking fountains???

 

That was my point, since we can't get rid of the greed at the top then we must regulate to at least try and keep them from stealing the entire country broke. I don't want to regulate them but they continue to prove regulation is necessary.

 

I have a brilliant idea: why not get the government out of subsidizing private business...like the Constitution originally intended?

Of course, here's the double standard that some will have: they'll be against government butting out...but then they'll be surprised when people don't spend the money the way they think they should (this ignores everything we know about what happens to people who get stuff without having to work for it).

So their plan: Have government stick their noses in my business, and then tell me how to run it, spend, operate, hire, etc. Good move...that combines the worst of both worlds.

Maybe if we're lucky, we can find Albania's or East Germany's constitution, and just change the title page. That'll save on printing costs.

 

I have nothing against the rich and I certainly don't call all of them evil. Unfortunately there were many on wallstreet that let greed and personal wealth guide their decisions over doing what was best for the company and its investors. This had a part to play in how we got in this mess and must be solved as we get out. We can't save the economy if we let them continue to bleed the money out the top as fast as we can put it in the bottom.

You a funny guy and are truly the one who won't listen to reason. I answered each one of these. I'm not saying rich people don't spend, I am saying the don't spend any MORE because of a tax cut. They also don't spend any less because of a tax increase. That is not resentment, it's just looking at the world realistically.

True the poor don't create jobs, but cutting taxes on the rich doesn't create jobs either and if it did create a job, that job would be overseas. Small Businesses are the ones who deserve the tax breaks because they are the ones who will create jobs in this country and will help American rebound.

 

Here is the problem, a corporation is not "MY BUSINESS". It is that thinking which is the problem. A corporation that is publicly traded belongs to the investors yet the CEO who is general Chairman of the Board is running it like it is his personal bank account. This amounts to poor 401K dividends and a market that is very unpredictable.

I would like to see the Board of Directors not be controlled by the CEO and paid primarily with company stocks. I think that simple change would encourage them to actually oversee the governance of the corporation since now they have a personal financial stake in the game.

 

Most small businessmen are not poor. There is a certain amount of wealth needed to start a business. So your "the rich don't need it" and your small business breaks are antithetical to one another.

Nor is it the government's.

Historical note: Government ownership of businesses has already been tried. Didn't work out too well.

 

It was ignorant to give it without attaching rules of responsibility for its use.

Not that it should have been given in the first place, or this last bill passed.

 

Small govt = small country

I propose scrapping the Constitution and reverting to the intent of the founding fathers - 50 sovereign states under a revised Articles of Confederation.