Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
That happened in the last year of Bush's term, as a result of the bailouts, which should not have been done. If anything, the government/Federal Reserve should have been the credit source of last resort when other credit dried up, and then only to companies which were in financial position to repay the loan.
|
Yep Bush and the neo-cons spent 8 years writing checks they couldn't cover and it snow balled on them.
On the bail-outs- it always bothered me that when the guys from Wall St. showed up it was "Oh, really! That bad? Crap let me the check book, would like a hand job on your way out the door?" I don't remember any long hearings to even figure out why or how much they should be helped. It seemed like the Feds were willing to just take their word for it.
When the auto makers showed up it was "How the hell did you get here?" Well we're going have to stick a microscope up your ass first, ok?"
I was much more on board with trying to help keep the car makers up and running then bailing out Wall St. At least the automakers create something and I feel like the rust belt really can't take any more hits. The whole area has been hurting for years.
The more we become a nation that doesn't produce anything the larger the problem will get in my opinion. Really what do we make that the rest of the world wants? Seems like we're down to military gear and porn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
I'd cut military to what is reasonable for national defense. We don't need bases in places like Korea, Japan, Germany, etc to defend those countries. Let them defend themselves if a threat even exists. If we have bases in other countries that those countries are not substantially funding and which are not critical to US defense, then those bases should be closed.
|
Some of that is likely a good move. I don't know enough about it but I think a blanket "Let's close all these overseas bases and save money might come back and bite us in the ass. I mean what happens when NK goes and drops a nuke on SK? But I think we have bases in places we just don't need anymore.
I'd like to see us put an end to this silly war on drugs. It didn't work for booze and it's never going to work for drugs. The amount of money spent on this is crazy.
Of course both of these ideas are going to have "cause and effect." You close huge military bases and end the war on drugs... the people building and supplying these efforts as well as those actively engaged will be out of work. The unemployment rate is around 10%. Doing this with the slash of the pen and without a plan will most certainly add to that rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
I'd eliminate all government subsidies. Business succeed or fail on their own.
|
I'd like to see this happen. But again I don't think at this point you can just do it and be done with it. The effect of doing it without fore thought and planning could do more harm then good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
I'd look at shrinking the size of the government. We don't need a bunch of agencies duplicating each other's work, the latest example being the security agencies.
|
No kidding, just look at how much the the government has expanded on nation security. We have agencies that have no idea what other agencies are doing. It's really insane in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
I'd bring government salaries back in line with salaries in business. There was a news story recently about federal employee's salaries being some 60% higher than equivalent non-federal jobs.
|
You've been doing this for a while now... "I read... There was a story and I heard" It would really be nice if you backed these comment up with a link to a credible source.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd just like to see the data that supports your claim.
I worked in law enforcement for a long time (over 20 years) and I can tell you in that field the city guy makes less then the county guy and the state guy makes more then them and the Fed make the most (this is all "usually" I'm sure someone somewhere could find a anomaly to this statement.) But you really can't compare law enforcement to private work. But you can compare city to county, county to state and state to Fed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
I'd cut the welfare programs significantly. I've read several times now that cost of food stamps is higher than it's ever been and rising. Unless you have a disability and cannot work, there is no reason that I should be supporting you.
|
Again with the "I read." Read where?
Might be true, the unemployment rate is really up there. I've always been a fan of "workfare." Really? You can't find work?" "Ok, fine here's and job doing "x" You want support, you have to work for it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
Unemployment is limited to 6 months.
|
I don't know just throwing people off unemployment and telling them to fend for themselves might have some pretty negative effects on the economy. Not to mention it might put many families out in the streets. I like not to see more tent cities and soup lines.
I would not be opposed to something like the
The Civilian Conservation Corps tried again. "You don't have work? Can't find work? Here, here's a paint brush. There now you have a job and we get some maintenance work done on your public spaces and buildings."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
I'd send all of the illegal immigrants home.
|
And your plan for doing this? Any idea what this would cost? I think anyone who's looked at this issue seriously and honestly has come to the conclusion that "sending all the illegals home" is just not an honest option at this point. Recently people like Lindsey Graham
have proposed realistic solutions to this problem. Every time someone develops a workable, real plan to deal with this problem they get shouted down. Chants of "send them home!' will not solve this problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
I'd give the president the line item veto that's been asked for several times. That will help keep Congressional spending in check.
|
Concur, but there would need to be some way of oversight for even that. Giving one person too much power is usually bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
If they are not paying taxes that sure sounds like the definition of freeloading.
|
We just disagree. I again assert I believe most, by far, Americans are not freeloaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
For money which has already been taxed, the estate tax should be zero.
|
I disagree. If you did nothing more then being born into a wealthy family you can pony up a portion of your inheritance. Sure maybe you'll end up with a smaller jet or shorter yacht but you'll live.
I'd also put an end to all these off shore shill company that pay no US taxes. "Really? you're running a multi-billion dollar corporation that earns billions of dollars from the US and you run it all out of a PO box in Grand Cayman?" I call bull shit.