Easy way to reduce trillions in deficit

Post Reply New Topic

Undo the bailouts: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... print=true

No tax increases needed, no reductions in social policies either.

End the FED, sounds good to me. Lets reduce everything else too.

Cut up Fat Cat wife's credit cards, the W(b)anker's & wife's need to cut there cloth like the rest of us.

Consider the market impacts.

How many people hold their money at the retail banks that would be collapse in those circumstances?
How many of those deposits are uninsured/uninsurable deposits?
How many pension funds hold shares in those financial institutions?
What investment position does the Social Security fund have in those financial institutions?
How much economic activity do those institutions directly create each day?
How much economic activity exists because those institutions are in a position to underwrite those activities?

Consider the volume of transactions processed at a a single Walmart using the credit cards issued only by those instutions. Now multiply that number by the number Walmarts, and Walgreens and Kmarts and Safeways and Targets across the country.

The entire United States consumer economy (and a great deal of its investment economy) functions only because the banks are in place to provide liquidity.

When that liquidity disappears, consumer spending stops.

When consumer spending stops, retailers lay off staff, or close.
When consumer spending stops, retailers stop ordering new product.
When retailers stop ordering new product, manufacturers stop production.
When manufacturer's stop production, they lay off workers.

The loss of the banking sector would have triggered nothing less than another Great Depression. In the 1907 Panic such a result was averted because a small number of private individuals remonetarized the banking sector. There is no JP Morgan alive to do so again.

Government stepped in with bailouts because the economic devastation that would have been visited upon the United States and the US Government's tax revenue would have been catastrophic had they failed to do so. Even Alan Greenspan (odious little thrall to Ayn Rand that he is) recognized that there was no alternative. The marketplace had been left to its own devices and had been given the regulatory leeway to allow one sector to sow the seeds of the entire marketplace's destruction.

1)Cut all welfare,MEdicare,Medicaid,Social Security

2)privatize all schools,the NASA,the FDA etc etc(all except the military,police and courts)...a dollar in the private sectors is always a better investment than a dollar in the public

3)deregulate,deregulate,deregulate

4)a flat 5% tax,or a fair 2% tax+VAT

5)VOTE RON PAUL 2012

budget fixed

Tough to undo what's already done, but Ryan's budget plan does end the Fed's authority to do any more of this in the future.

To which I say, GREAT! If the economy, society, and government all collapse at once, that means one thing: REVOLUTION! Bring it on! Sweep away the old, and bring in anarchy! Blow up the banks, burn their deposits, smash the system to bits. Destroy ALL wealth. Return to a preindustrial existence.

Bring on the warlords and feudalism!! !

Are we being a Luddite and an Equalizer today? How silly you are!

Well, better they should die and decrease the surplus population.



So long as you are prepared to feed the profit requirements of private capital participation, there is an interesting debate to be had here.

At the end of the day, however, you will pay one way or another--either as a consumer or as a taxpayer. All those services that the private sector will be providing instead of the public sector--you will pay for each and every one of them, because the private sector is going to spread those costs across the consumer base.

The price of a loaf of bread will rise in direct proportion to the extra input costs that your scheme will impose on the private sector.



Well, since that worked so well in the banking sector, let's extend it to all. If you think corporate america is a kleptocracy now, just imagine what it will be without even the minimal restraints imposed upon it today.



Flat taxes are excessively regressive without tax policy exemptions. Put in a reasonable basic personal exemption (say the first $25,000 of income) and there's a starting point.

If you zero rate groceries, residential housing, insurance, education and medical/dental goods and services, then consumption tax is certainly the way to go.



Well, if by fixed you mean neutered, then certainly.

The more I hear from dyed-in-the-wool libertarians, the more that I am convinced that it is the politics of the intellectually lazy and the naive.

Not one extreme libertarian that I have ever talked to has contemplated the market impacts of their ideology, and neither have any of them contemplated the erosion of accountability that their ideology creates. Every one of them is in thrall to an ideology that says nothing more complex than, "markets can do no wrong." (When, in fact, we are still living with the consequences of a demonstration of how unregulated markets can do enormous harm.)

I have no objection to an argument for smaller government. Government should be no larger than it needs to be to accomplish its public policy objectives. But those who wish for the fiscal destruction of government should be careful what they wish for.

That plan to privatise and deregulate and so forth is like taking a shotgun to the economy and pulling the trigger.

More like over regulating is like shooting a shotty and expecting to be able to predict where each pellet lands.

Enforcing the law and trying to prevent predators from overrunning the land is too difficult... we might as well just give up. I say let Charles Manson out of prison!

Problem is liberals try to create laws simply to criminalize people they don't like, they don't come up with common sense regulations. Businesses don't mind some regulations, there does need to be ground rules, they do mind when it so much red tape they have to hire lawyers just to run their business.

Making regulations just to make regulations is counterproductive and just makes life harder for those that do their best to follow the rules, unethical individuals that just don't care will ignore the regulations and probably pay off politicians so there are loopholes and they can simply ignore the rules.

Like to stop paying it out but to still keeping taking money from people's paychecks?

Please check out the story I posted about the recent conviction of Lee Farkas, the majority owner of what had been one of the nation's largest mortgage companies, on all 14 counts in a $3 billion fraud trial. Deregulation only benefits the criminals.