TC created a new account?

Cut down on tax breaks for corporations with incomes greater than 100,000 net. Cut military spending.

Or just Disolve the federal government and default on the current debt. Let individual states balance their own budgets and pay for their own costs

Tax capital gains at the marginal rate.

Tax breaks for mustaches would stimulate the economy, paying for themselves a thousandfold - http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gop-lawmaker-proposes-tax-breaks-mustaches

the economic model is kind of a scam for those who don't know. it's like a pyramid scheme. there is not enough credit to pay off all outstanding debts since the federal reserve lends money at interest to the reserve banks. if we assume the government will bail out the banks whenever bankruptcy is imminent, then the debt will continue to rise, it's not debatable, it's just math.

Ray, Buy a history book. The largest deficits as a percentage of GDP in the modern US occurred under FDR and LBJ.
Massive spending with huge deficits that created no growth.
Reagan cut taxes and created growth and won the Cold War.
Deficits aren't all equal.
Now I'll wait for the endless stream of totally fiction posts from Puthead and Santa Claus trying to convince the world that up is down and hot is cold.
The poor idiots.

Cut out all government interference in medical care, education, and agriculture.
Where do you see the most massive increase in cost? Where government subsidies do nothing but inflate prices- Health care costs, tuition, food.

Next!

Oh god, not more anti-federal reserve crazies. The federal reserve doesn't *want* to lend out money. It is called the lender of last resort for a reason. Additionally, all the money the Fed collects is given to the U.S. Federal Government as a budget surplus, which it then promptly spends on other programs. If you knew anything about the workings of the financial system, then you would know that the federal reserve is not an issue. 99% of loans in this country aren't affected by the federal reserve. Most are made in the inter-bank loaning system, or made to bond-holders. You can't expect a bank to get money for free do you? Then they'd just keep borrowing and borrowing without ever having to worry about paying an interest back.

Anti-federal reserve? I'm not anti-federal reserve, look at Iceland: the only country in the world where the (ex)-PM is being tried for neglegance relating to the financial meltdown.

The difference, in part, is a matter of scale. Iceland ~300,000 people, find it much easier to bring their PM to justice than USA ~300,000,000 people. And i'm willing to be that the thousand-fold scale difference is essential in the difference in justice.

So when i say disband the federal government, i mean to suggest that state governments with local knowledge will make better decisions. And local populations will better hold them to account.

That was @ bolshoi, Orathaic, not you

it's not a matter of being for or against the federal reserve, i'm just stating a fact that if there is a policy of bailing out banks whenever they can't pay their bills, then the debt will increase. that's stating a fact. you really need to think about it. if the federal reserve is keeping interest from the loans it's making, where will that interest money come from? think about it! everytime new money is created it is created as a loan at interest. it's hard to explain it because you don't understand, but there isn't enough money to pay outstanding obligations. the only way to not increase the debt would be if the federal reserve lent at NEGATIVE interest until the outstanding debts worked their way down to the amount of money in circulation.

sorry, it is getting hard to keep track of all you crazy people who haven't muted Boi yet...

what about an analogy? i make a casino, i call it bolshoi's magical fun-times casino. in order to play in my casino you need bolshoi bucks. but i won't just trade dollars for bolshoi bucks, all you can do is borrow bolshoi bucks. take one bolshoi buck now and in a year pay me back 2 bolshoi bucks. i lend out thousands of bolshoi bucks to my patrons, about half of them won in the casino and paid my back the 2 bolshoi bucks they owed, but what about the other half? they can't pay me back! so it's austerity time for those assholes. how dare they break our contract. sure, there weren't enough bolshoi bucks created to pay back all the debts, but i feel like austeritizing some patrons!

you can assume for the sake of analogy that bolshoi's magical fun-times casino only has one game, rock-paper-scissors, and it's only played between patrons, not against the house.

Bolshoi, I'm really not the ignorant one here. With my classes this semester especially, I've gained a very good understanding on how our financial system works. Are you aware that, despite all of this "reduction in the money supply" that the supply of dollars has doubled since the recession? It's set to triple (from 2008 levels) in 2 years I think. And again, I will point out that loans to banks (discount window) is the *Least important* and *least used* of all of the Fed's options. Also, you're ignoring all the money that the Fed lent out in the bailouts that won't be returned.

Let me give you an analogy.
There is this casino on an island. Nobody comes or goes from the island (no planes, boats, trade, etc). The casino lends out bolshoi bucks, at interest, to players. The ones who don't have enough to pay back the loan have to fork over even more of their money, be it credit, checking, etc. This is where you end your scenario. The casino is taking more money than it pays out. However, keep going forward in time. At the end of the month, the casino uses its surplus of bolshoi bucks to pay off the electricity bills, maintenance costs, and salaries. In the end, the casino pays out in expenses almost all of its profit from the loans and casino operations, leaving a little left over to reward its creditors and debts.

What I'm trying to say is money doesn't simply disappear when it gets paid back to the Fed. Additionally, the problems you are putting forth are essentially the problems of loaning money at interest, which is absurd.

haha, you are showing YOUR ignorance because the money DOES just disappear when it's paid back to the fed.

it depends on whether or not you have a private central bank. in most countries the central bank is publicly owned, so the money completely vanishes. sorry. but in america it's a private central bank where either the money is spent into the economy or not, at the discretion of the bank's shareholders.

Cut all subsidies, shutter the departments of education, HUD, energy, commerce, and interior. Abolish the TSA. Cut all agricultural and corporate subsidies, which means cutting out a major part of the department of agriculture as well. Initiate a massive decrease in global military spending, both by cutting the insanely bloated military budget and closing down expensive, unnecessary overseas U.S. bases. Also, end foreign aid and do not intervene in foreign conflicts abroad. Return all other spending to 2006 levels. Overall, ensure that these cuts add up to about 1 trillion dollars in one year. Block grant Medicaid, while offering individuals the option to drop out of medicare and social security, in preparation for privatization of those systems.

but the principle will ALWAYS vanish. in fact it all vanishes, but this "private central bank" scam pretends the interest continues to exist in order to pay god knows how much money to its shareholders.

Just one thing. Ask people to pax a NORMAL rate of taxes. All of them! Rich, Poor and coörperations.

^^ Just another one in the line of idiots who saw something like Money as Debt and actually thought it put forward an argument. This is usually accompanied by the belief that the velocity of money goes to 0 in perpetuity since the central bank is a money sink whose only utility is in hoarding money without actually spending on anything. The idea that all the debt in America could be repaid with one 100 USD bill is completely alien to them, no need to discuss anything goldfinger, they periodically appear around here.

this is why i'm losing faith in this forum. i understand if there is some ignorance about many issues. but the fact that there is never even one sane person here who knows the truth and is willing to speak up. instead it's just ignorance and followers.

Bolshoi, you clearly don't understand how the Federal Reserve or the discount window functions. At least read the Wikipedia page before arguing that this is "debt" of any measurable amount.

i really don't understand you people. i suppose it's true, everybody does just follow. they hear global warming is driven by co2 and a central bank that always loans at positive interest will not inevitably lead to economic problems, and they buy it. people are stupid. i'm done. i don't even care. stay ignorant all of you.

rayNimagi hit the nail on the head.

Personally, I think the best things that can be done are to tackle the big things. Namely, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, and other entitlements. I think the basic idea that you are entitled to *anything* is wrong. You are not entitled to anything beyond your constitutional rights. Our country is in deep shit because of the clusterfuck that the public and private sectors create when they are mixed like they are right now. We either need to fully embrace freedom or fully embrace socialism. Not this on-the-fence shit.

I am against defense cuts because our economy is already struggling, and you lose a lot of jobs if you cut defense spending. Not only will the number of servicemen get smaller, but it takes a lot of civilian workers to build an aircraft carrier or design a new fighter jet. Those people go straight to the unemployment office if you cut defense spending. I understand the argument that the military-industrial complex is evil and corrupt, but the fact is that there are a lot of hardworking, honest people that are employed by defense contractors.

In this world, we need to maintain our large, advanced military. Cuts in defense spending are almost always followed by an attack. We cut defense spending in the 1930s, and the Japanese sucker-punched us. We cut defense spending in the 1990s, and al-Qaeda sucker-punched us. Is anyone else seeing a trend here?

bolshi -- the sane people have long since left the discussion, because we get villified by the philosophical idiots in the forum. For example, if I suggest that we LOWER TAXES....the immediate response is that I hate poor people, want to eat your baby, and think all women are sluts. In fact, if I suggest that we lower business taxes, what i am saying is that I understand the concept of DYNAMIC scoring of a budget...i.e. if corporations (you know...the entities that pay ALL of our wages...) paid less taxes, they might: 1. Give me a raise (or not give me a pay cut); 2. Might hire more workers; 3. Might invest in: a. technology upgrades; b. research; c. expansion....etc etc etc. You know....the idea behind LIBERAL policies of "stimulus" is that we will tax people heavily, and then redistribute that money to *government selected* companies who will hire people to do work. In Michigan, we had that idiotic MORON Jennifer Granholm as Governor that....despite ZERO market demand...though government money should be spent on (seriously...no joke) wind mill factories....in Michigan...er....NOT the windiest of states...And so we taxes the hell out of REAL producers and gave incentives to a Never-Was industry....


....which produced no jobs....

But *IF* I were to post these thoughts on here, i would be villified by idiots liek Putin and Santa, etc....because I think reality is more important than philosophical ideology.

It's really quite pathetic. either the smart people that play Diplomacy are a bunch of idealistic fools....or are modern eduation system is a COMPLETE failure.


Oh...wait...I'm in technical staffing....and if I can't offer an H1B Visa....i can't find a good candidate.


You tell me the answer to my dilemma...

Gunfighter, that makes no sense.
The Defence industry is not producing useful output. I can hardly see guns and warships being very beneficial to the economy. The American armed forces are designed to be capable of fighting 2 overseas wars simultaneously - why would America want to fight 2 wars at the same time, when it isn't militarily threatened? Diplomacy players are taught not to fight more than 1 war at once. I suppose the generals need to play Dip more.

Gobbledydook -- If you don't understand the relationship between **peace** -- which is derived from having enough guns to make all the two-bit dicks in the world NOT start wars -- and economic prosperity (and economics are a GLOBAL concept these days)....then you need to just shut the hell up and go back to school.

You, apparently, are too stupid to grasp where Americas economy derives it's true strength, which, like it or not, comes from leveraging markets all across the globe.

Do you like cheap products? Whether it is tee-shirts or iphones, we get cheap products in the US because of global markets (because the fucking unions in the US have killed a large swath of manufacturing)...

So...choose your poison, moron: A military that keeps relative peace around the globe? Or give up a large percentage of the cheap shit you buy at Wal-Mart when global markets shut down due to economic/government/military instability.

You opinionated, idealistic assholes need to open up your eyes JUST ONCE....

The idea that a large american military supports peace and stability around the globe, therefore allowing global markets to function, is a complete joke. If anything the enormous American military, intelligence apparatus, and Defense Department create more conflict and instability around the globe by enabling coups, intervening in other countries' affairs (i.e. supporting dictators), and invading foreign countries. For example, the current fiasco with Iran is having a significant impact on the oil market. Free trade can easily exist without the American Empire, but the military-industrial complex is so entrenched in contemporary times that war profiteering seems like it's going to continue for quite awhile.