What do you think the government should do to fix the economy?

Recent news on the economic recovery isn't positive, and there have been a number of suggestions as to how the government could help get the economy going again.

What would you suggest Washington do to fix the economy?

  1. groups:
    Culture,   Opinion,   Current Cultural Issues,   US Corporatocracy,   6 more
  2. tags:
    Economy Economics Capitalism economy crisis 1 more
  3.     
    |

107 comments // What do you think the government should do to fix the economy?

  • jfairow46
    • 0
      jfairow46  
    • I am not optimistic that Government can fix the economy. As long as progressives continue to take the wheels off the cart by caving to conservitive pressure. This nation was built on diversity and discourse. Until 2001 negotiation and compromise were the driving forces in congress. Since then, the only direction I have seen from the right side of the aisle is "It's my way or no way!!" Progressives have abandoned the principle as well by NOT negotiating but conceeding. less than 2% of the people of this nation have decided that 98% don't deserve any of what they have worked their entire adult life to build. It is time for the majority of people begin to participate and realize that destroying the country will not make the country better. We need to remember that the very well to do 2% are not the only part of our economy. We, the 98% deserve to reap the American Dream. We cannot continue to take away basic rights and necessities from the middle class, low income and seniors just to support those who make more money than they can possibly spend. Infrastructure investments and tax responsibility will take us a long way and help put the wheels back on our cart.

    • 11 months ago
  • ethelfreda
    • 0
      ethelfreda  
    • Fix tax loopholes, and do it right. Increase tax rate on the top 2% of the population. Don't subsidize farmers for not farming or business for taking jobs out of the country. On the contrary, businesses that take jobs out of the country should be heavily fined. Financial institutions should be more tightly regulated and pay tax on ALL of their assets. Charge an across the board federal tax on internet transactions.

    • 11 months ago
  • TDK729
    • 0
      TDK729  
    • For starters fix all the tax loopholes that allow big business to pay little or nothing in taxes. Also increase the tax rate on the rich. Decrease the defense budget and redirect that money to green jobs working on better solar and wind options to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. Also work towards better electric car options. Give incentives to businesses that keep jobs in America versus sending jobs overseas.

    • 11 months ago
  • Pinmason
    • 0
      Pinmason  
    • One more thing...
      The US Population in 1960 hovered at two hundred million and the physcial and financial infrastructure could barely accomodate that population then. With the current population at three hundred and seven million, the infrastructures are unable to keep up with demand for those services. We need to find a way to reduce our population...without wars!!...Planned Parenthood without abortion would be a step in the right direction. In order to have a balanced budget, we must have a balanced population...not just in the US, but around the globe as well.

    • 11 months ago
  • Pinmason
    • 0
      Pinmason  
    • With sixty-five million mortgages at stake, I have an idea to help put a nuclear shot in the arm for the economy.
      With the Attorney General in Arizona releasing documents in Court that demonstrates clearly that Bank of America can't provide the documentation needed to show a vested interest on properties foreclosed on and the FHA and HUD investigators saying they are considering filing their own charges against Bank of Amercia and the Shadow Banking Community to get those billions in mips checks returned. Those returned checks might cover the billions in fines the President is considering against the banks.
      In addition, with the disclosure in the New York Attorney Generals investigations suggesting that the banks placed sixty-five million unsecuritized mortgages on the stock market with investors. Yes Shadow Banking Community...with deregulation and failing to securitize the mortgages (Countrywide never sent the required proper documentation to MERS or Bank of America or the Shadow Banking Community to securitize those mortgages). In light of the 2008 Meltdown and be unsecuritized, those burning embers of the sixty-five million unsecuritized mortgages floating above the mess on Wall Street sent a clear message. The Exchange wants to sell those worthless pieces of paper back to the banks at fifty percent off. Fifty percent of nothing is still nothing.
      How can we fix the economy with this mess...Simple. No bailout for the banks...get the taxpayers money back for all the FHA and HUD and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac the billions in mips checks issued to the shadow banking community.
      With no vested interest in all those sixty-five million mortgages, tell the homeowners the truth...they own those homes free and clear and with that clearing up between $1500.00 and $3000.00 dollars a month for all those families incomes that are being held for ransom by the MERS mortgages. In my opinion, the bank should be on the hook for all the MBS mortgages involved in that debacle too, but that's another story...so let's see...how much money did we just pump back into the economy...for simplicity I'll just use the lower number of $1500.00 and you can do the math. 1500 times sixty-five million mortgage payments a month. I could afford to make a donation to the DNC or that other party...I'm sure a few conservative homes are also involved.
      No more bailing out the shadow bankers with illegal Mers and Mips mortgages and foreclosures payments and no bailout this time. We can start the banking system over with players that will gladly except banking and financial regulation. No more using mortgages as investment tools.
      As a result, the influx into the economy would help to lower the need for food stamps and unemployment insurance checks and the number of unemployed would have some relief and the large number of people unemployed would not have as drastic effect on the economy. Grandma and Grandpa could almost pay for every day medical needs reducing the burden of drug costs on our senior citizens and if not them then their sons and daughters that may be able to help out.
      The government budget would also be effected directly by getting rid of Mips insurance which for the taxpayer and the homeowner pays for directly. Reducing my case a mininmum of $108.00 off my monthly from the mortgage check.
      I'm sure you wouldn't need to look too far to save in other areas as far as the budget is concerned. Some people might call this a pipe dream while others would consider it the saving grace for the economy.

    • 11 months ago
  • EJF
    • 0
      EJF  
    • We all know what would fix the problems. Tax the rich as they were taxed before Raegan and get the Congress off the dole of lobbyists. Impeach and or inprison all the white collar thieves that are taking our country down. We have worked our butts off to fatten the fat cats. We should all be rich and receiving dividends on the innovations created by the people funded research, yet we just pay through the nose to enjoy any of them.

    • 11 months ago
  • RustytheWonderDog
    • 0
      RustytheWonderDog  
    • 1. Review our trade policies is a start - Americans are at the wrong end of the inport export tarriffs....ours are too low..theirs are too high...stifles exports
      2. Pass a simple construction stimulus bill that everyone can understand... name the top 100 bridges that need fixing ; the top 25 flood control/ levee & water projects & the top 100 road projects that need fixing.. Ameircans can understand where the money is going. .
      3. A new super fund for nuclear clean up might be in order with that new report out on nuclear waste.
      It is the idle construction industry that is 2% of the unemployment.

    • 11 months ago
  • richardparks
    • 0
      richardparks  
    • I really don't know because it is complicated. There are so many people out there that just dictates. Government can't just decide and imply without considering the rest.

    • 11 months ago
  • remanns
  • leftylilly
  • remanns
  • jkstebb
    • 0
      jkstebb  
    • Instead of bailing out the financial system from the top down, why not take actions that alleviate the individual debt crisis from the bottom up? WIth a high unemployment rate, people are watching their debt skyrocket through non-payment charges, then overage charges, etc. They are helpless to do anything about it while nothing - either material or service - is being bought to support the jobs that currently need the so-called "consumer confidence" to spur job growth. Then if they do find work, they'll have to deal with these useless charges - if they don't have to pay the court-ordered judgment against them already, instead of being able to spend as consumers to truly rebuild the economy.

    • 11 months ago
  • tommic
    • +1
      tommic  
    • The United States should do exactly what we did after WWII when our debt to GDP ratio was 128%. We increased income taxes borrowed more money and undertook the greatest infrastructure projects that saw the most dynamic economy the U.S. has enjoyed in the last 100 years. From 1947 to 1961 growth was an every year occurence. Along with the largest growth of the middle class. Cutting taxes and spending in the face of our economic situation is a fools errand. It will never work, the only thing coming is greater deficits with tax cuts and spending cuts.

    • 11 months ago
  • JonVaage
    • 0
      JonVaage  
    • tommic:

      You're only half right. We don't have the absolute certainty that a huge investment in infrastructure will give our country the kind of returns it did after WWII. There were no real viable industrialized nations to compete with us then so the international market was ours for the taking so mass investment in infrastructure was almost a no-risk bet. Now it's not the case, although I do agree that some targeted investments in infrastructure are wise, but a blank check to local pet projects just for the sake of employing people might not be the best approach. I do agree with you on raising taxes on the rich (especially capital gains taxes...sorry speculators). I think a much more simplified tax code, immigration reform, and serious education reform are also going to help. The Republican way of supporting the economy is to encourage the boom-bust cycle of speculative bubbles, which disproportionately favor the rich over time.

    • 11 months ago
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  
    • JonVaage:

      I think you better go do some research. Pet Projects? Highway, Bridges (Minneapolis) Gas mains ( California) Exploding, Water & Sewage woefully out of date. Our electrical grid every last infrastructure segment I describe has been graded as failing or graded no better than D-. by civil engineers. Our failure to rebuilt, update and construct new infrastructure for the fututre will leave us non competitive with global players both industrialy and commercially. And the cost only go up with time, so pay now or pay much more later. Like I say you have a lot of research to do. Furthermore, a infrastructure spending bill reinvests in ourselves leaving tangible assets that are used daily as opposed to weapons spending which does not. It will also increase our income tax base for years with many of these projects expected to last 10-20 years

    • 11 months ago
  • JonVaage
    • 0
      JonVaage  
    • tommic:

      I'm aware of the essential need for proper maintenance of our infrastructure and don't disagree that it seriously needs investment to be globally competetive. I think it would be hard to admit that every project is a priority project though. I'm just saying that a wholesale investment won't have the same impact as it did after WWII. It will certainly help, but it's just not the same world now as it was then. It's only part of the solution. I just want to caution people from making over-simplified analogies with a very different world economy after WWII.

    • 11 months ago
  • RustytheWonderDog
    • 0
      RustytheWonderDog  
    • tommic:

      yep... remember Chenney said - deficit don't matter. :) Economic growth along with a fair progressive tax system - increases incomes - decrease poverty - decreases crime - increases the middle class..... good post tommic

    • 11 months ago
  • RustytheWonderDog
  • Mayeffie
    • 0
      Mayeffie  
    • Kill the war in the Middle East!!! Bring back the manufacturing that built this country. Any economy built on consumerism alone is just plain dumb.

    • 11 months ago
  • JonVaage
    • 0
      JonVaage  
    • Mayeffie:

      Agreed....We need to be much more productive....unfortunately technology (and globalization to an extent) has increased productivity so much that huge scores of people aren't needed to make all the stuff our society wanted. I'm sure there's a lot of valuable things people left without work can offer, but it's up to the rich (who benefited the most from technology and globalization) or government (if they can actually tax the rich) to allocate the resources to put people back to real productive work. Lay off the "kill the" this or that...we don't need that kind of language.

    • 11 months ago
  • CommanderOrion
  • Emil_VanLancker
    • +3
      Emil_VanLancker  
    • All members of House or Senate w/net worth over 2 million or to be determined be patriotic give all fed benefits back to govt. refuse a paycheck just maybe all
      after all how can govt. know the pain they inflict economically seeking only to help feed their greed for "the good life" Way to many Americans futures have
      been squandered in order to feed " bought and paid for politicians " whose
      spiel grows tedious in having experienced Bush economics. All the miss guided
      handling of so many issues from war on drugs to war in general we have shown intelligent use of force more effective then continued money dumps to fight wars and 60 misinformation campaign on evil Marijuana ........its all relevant fight Corporate power .....be honest.... if Corp could get a way to monopolize a
      plant like Marijuana it WOULD BE LEGAL so tired of all the lies on issues that
      need to be addressed ..........why do we pay you politicians grow-up

    • 11 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
    • +3
      letsliveinpeace  
    • First destroy the Bush tax cuts, and bring the rates back to 1980 and bring some money back to the treasury. Second destroy the complicated contracts for mortgages, specify how much will be paid back and no complicated fees, if they want to do mortgages, let them eat the cost or get out. Third reduce the spending on fancy defense programs like the F-35, bigger aircraft carriers, and exotic weapon systems, when we went to war in the past our troops proved to be the most effective weapon system, look at Omaha beach for example. Forth and finally ALL elections WILL be funded by the GOVERNMENT to eliminate the lobbies effect on ELECTIONS BY THE PEOPLE, PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE, not the Koch brothers. That should make a decent start on reform. Fifth and finally get MURDOCK out of the television business, and start a board of revue for truthfulness.

    • 12 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
  • TenGig
    • 0
      TenGig  
    • letsliveinpeace:

      Omaha beach, not exactly a good example for your case. 3000+ casualties on that beach alone, nearly 10,000 across all beaches, not to mention the 12,000 airmen lost in the months leading up to that in order to soften up the beaches. Our troops were effective, yes, but not efficient. Take out the human interest, and just the cost alone of training and housing a troop justifies more advanced machines be used instead. Not to mention the cost of providing life time care and assistance to all the wounded.

      Any time we can find ways to preserve the lives of our service members through advanced technology and weapons systems, we should be doing that. You are right, though, that there are a lot of wasteful pieces of crap being paid for simply to support the military industrial complex with no gain to taxpayers or the military.

    • 11 months ago
  • Nick19
    • +1
      Nick19  
    • Yes, we need a government that is more active in promoting the modernization of infrastructure and one that needs to increase taxes since we've done nothing but constant tax cuts for a while now. We also need a government that is willing to be bold enough to encourage a joint venture style economic development for green energy sources. This won't happen though since politicians are too enclosed to political self-preservation and greed that results from corporate dominance of government.

    • 12 months ago
  • JonVaage
    • 0
      JonVaage  
    • Nick19:

      How about congressional term limits, balanced budget laws, simplified tax code (still progressive income taxes) and a revamping of our education system...summer vacation still relevant in this modern age?

    • 11 months ago
  • JonVaage
  • maasanova
  • remanns
    • +1
      remanns  
    • G U I L L O T I N E .

      ( . . . .can you say " CLASS WAR NOW " ? )

      . . . .but by that, I refer to more of a "Grass Roots" government of the people, for the people . . . .

    • 12 months ago
  • 14_Crusaders
  • jvsooners1
  • remanns
  • 14_Crusaders
  • remanns
  • 14_Crusaders
  • 14_Crusaders
  • ninetyseven
    • +2
      ninetyseven  
    • What would you suggest Washington do to fix the economy?
      Thats easy...Stop giving away money to foreign countrys and put it into building
      OUR country.

    • 12 months ago
  • CnoirBlaque
    • +3
      CnoirBlaque  
    • Recind Bush Tax Cuts for all over $500,000.00/yr, recind subsidies to business & oil companies & get the hell out of Iraq/Afghanistan, Europe, Japan, South Pacific, etc, etc, etc...

    • 12 months ago
  • gooses12
  • dsta123
    • +2
      dsta123  
    • Identify needed infastructure repairs, replacements (bridges, roads etc) and then estimate the cost. Once the cost is establish, notify the Pentagon that effective immediately, their budget has been reduced by that amount. Yes, that might mean a rationalization of defense resources (eliminating troops from Germany, Japan, Korea as a start) and then the current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Next, eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans and immediately implement a 50% tax rate for persons with incomes over $2M/year.

      However, this may lead to very low unemployment and renewed prosperity for the middle class.

    • 12 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
    • +2
      letsliveinpeace  
    • dsta123:

      And Gates told NATO they are getting to be a drag. We will save a fortune if we told europe to pay your own defense costs. WE don't live there and the USSR is history. Let's bail on all the NATO bases we are in. Plus all that equipment coming home will mean the armed forces will have a surplus and won't need to overhaul everything coming back from Iraq and Afganistan. Net plus.

    • 12 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
  • totally_dilapidated
  • letsliveinpeace
  • greenmarble
    • +1
      greenmarble  
    • Eliminate pay for all elected officials (most are wealthier than we will ever be). Limit pay for any private sector employee to the amount paid the President and distribute the difference equally to all working Americans. Free education and healthcare for all. Eradicate the stock markets and all other symbols of American greed. Make fair trade mean just that. Force anyone considering a run for public office to pass an intelligence test. Remember, if everyone followed their passions in life, everything would get done and money would be irrelevant

    • 12 months ago
  • remanns
  • JonVaage
    • 0
      JonVaage  
    • greenmarble:

      eliminating pay for elected officials would effectively ensure that the only people who could feasibly afford to participate in government were the wealthy. How could someone who wasn't wealthy run for public office and do a good job if they were also trying to support a family, never-the-less themselves. I agree they shouldn't get a huge salary, but enough to support oneself is absolutely required.

    • 11 months ago
  • JonVaage
  • Jahvega
    • +3
      Jahvega  
    • 1) Remove lobbyist and corporate funds to politician campaigns by making all funding go into a central pot that all politicians equally receive. Make media free for politicians, so less money would be needed and have media give equal coverage to all.

      2) Stop the wars and bring the troops home to protect our borders from illegal drug smugglers. Cut down military spending being that it takes up over 60% of all federal tax revenue.

      3) legalize marijuana, this will free up prison space and save tax payers. This will also bring in billions in revenue.

      4) Socialize health care being that it would take up less then 20% of federal tax revenue, which is covered by the decrease in military spending. This will save the country from going bust over medical bills.

      5) Regulations Regulations and more regulations on all of wall street, big banks, insurance companies and real estates practices.

      6) Free up the media so that they can report on real news issues without being sued, plus remove the corporate controls so that big business wouldn't control our news media.

      7) Strengthen the unions against the greed of big businesses. But do not allow big businesses to become so big they can not fail.

      8) Get back all the bonus money that went to the top management positions and distribute the money down to the workers. When people have money they spend and a majority of spenders is better then a few.

      9) Make education affordable and stop college professors from being paid by lobby groups.

      10) Get off Oil as fast as possible and invest in renewable power. This will save the environment, create jobs and free our country from oil companies.

    • 12 months ago
  • progressivemainer
    • +4
      progressivemainer  
    • Regulate Wall Street. Fix the tax code so the rich actually do pay taxes, and pay a fair share. Institute campaign finance reform so the corporations can't buy the government -stop corporate welfare.

    • 12 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • Prijedor
  • remanns
  • progressivemainer
  • totally_dilapidated
  • samthesixth
  • jim_b
    • 0
      jim_b  
    • Obviously something other than giving tax breaks to rich people. It didn't work after 12 or so years of Bush tax cuts and and the falling jobs seem to be proving the republicans to be wrong.

    • 12 months ago
  • jim_b
    • +3
      jim_b  
    • 1) Raise taxes on everyone making over ($xxx,xxx.xx/year) for a fixed period of time (x years) with a clear and inviolate sunset provision that politicians cannot override. How much? 2) However much is necessary to square the debt and invest heavily in roads, bridges and electric grid type projects. 3) End all wars and defense projects that are not directly related to OUR defense, accountable by ballot to the people, not the Congress. 4) Make the Congress subject to all laws they have passed and move all congressional benefits into the civil service system with other government employees. Make every scrap of their correspondence and communications public information while on our dime (just as any US corporation treats its employees who use company communication assets.) And subject them to random drug and alcohol screening considering they have much greater potential to do harm than a bus driver or a commercial fishing boat captain. Shall I continue?

    • 12 months ago
  • Jahvega
  • progressivemainer
    • +1
      progressivemainer  
    • jim_b:

      Please, do. You're on my wavelength.

      I would also say the government needs to invest in research and development for renewable energy resources and energy conservation. That would create new industries and jobs. Climate change is upon us and we sit around on our hands, doing the same old same old. If we don't tackle climate change, we'll all be dead pretty soon and then it won't matter, will it?

    • 12 months ago
  • SpencerTreeGarden
  • kitteneater
  • ThinkingGent
    • +1
      ThinkingGent  
    • The real difference between before and after the mortgage bubble is confidence. When confidence fails, the key is to show unambiguous good results for a couple of good cycles and at that point, the People, having recognized the good results and realizing they are real, will regain confidence.

      One way to do this is to unilaterally stop the mortgage failures. When people see the failures are way down for a period of time, they will know things are getting better.

      You don't have to tear into this arcane instruments to do this, just let the troubled buyers come to the government. The home buyers certainly know where to pay their mortgages, and that is all we have to know to do this.

      It is not expensive to stop the mortgage failures a month at a time. What does it take? A monthly payment, and the mortgage will not fail for another month.

      Certainly the money it would take to do this for a few years would be much less than Trillions to bail out of big companies. Instead of bailing them out, just make sure they get their monthly mortgage payments and their cash flow will be as good as before the crash. Then Business would have no reason to keep any of the bail out money, and should return all of it to the government, period.

      You want to speed things up? There is a way. Anything extra on a mortgage payment goes straight to equity. So what? Well, the only way to make progress instead of treading water is to pay against equity....there is no other way.

      Did you know that regardless of the interest rate, if you make double payments on a house, less money goes to lender's profit than goes to equity? The would certainly be a fair punitive damage reward against the Fat Cat Crooks in favor of the hoodwinked (but admittedly careless) home buyers. And this could be made even more fair by requiring the home buyers to tighten their belt as much as possible to put whatever they can to the mortgage (and thus to their equity, giving them good reason to tighten their belts).

      The middle class have been like the lobsters in slowing boiling water for more than a hundred years by the tradition mortgage instruments. With these instruments, lenders get several times as much profit as the middle class home buyer gets in home equity. You want to know where the middle class is disappearing to? I just told you the answer.

      That is right, fixed rate mortgages are nothing but early versions of the abusive inventive financial instruments of today. That is to say the first few years of a loan, the buyer may make a couple hundred dollars of equity while the lender makes thousands upon thousands of dollars in interest profit.

      The correct path then becomes clear. Reverse these trends: The government should educate every person in the U.S. how compound interest really works, and should require loans be equitably structured. That means people can only afford smaller homes to start with, but that is more in line with what they can afford. AND the houses will be paid off quickly, in a few years, and the home owners can turn around and buy a larger house with a similar mortgage to their first, taking the equity from the first one as a starting point.

      With correctly instrumented mortgages, a buyer can buy about three houses for the price that traditionally instrumented mortgages would cost.

      Also the lenders are not out in the cold, they can still charge the same interest rates and make the same rate of profit, but they would have to earn it by working harder to loan the money. if money goes to equity from the start of loan as it certainly should, then the lenders will have to turn their money around and lend it again to continue to get their interest profit.

      Every one would be better off, and there would be less egregious profit and loss.

    • 12 months ago
  • jvsooners1
  • ThinkingGent
    • +1
      ThinkingGent  
    • jvsooners1:

      You are welcome! But you don't need to be a graduate in finance, have a MBA, or a mortgage company to understand what I wrote.

      This is all you need to get the message.

      1) How to balance a check book.
      2) How compound interest works.
      3) Enough understanding to get the drift of what the news has said about the financial crisis.
      4) Enough quiet time to carefully look over what I wrote, and the commitment to think it through and figure it out.

      Most people who are likely to do these things are also likely to know how to read, understand what they are signing, have some math, and have the ability and inclination to understand how a mortgage works. They will also be likely to get some education.

      As for everyone else. If you put them all in a room. Locked it, and made sure none would come out until they figured it out. Most would get out.

      Don't you think so? ;-)

      And yes, we need a lot more education of all types all around. Most of us who are not informed and educated end up that way as a matter of course, not as a matter of ability. The threshold for getting an education is too high for any number reasons of which some within our control and some out of control.

      It is to our shame that we don't fix that once and for all.

    • 12 months ago
  • gardentroll
  • UncommonCommoner
    • -1
      UncommonCommoner  
    • Get rid of the Dollar. Replace it with a stable currency, namely, raw fish. A Minnow is one credit, Mackerel are five, Flounder are twenties. They can be carried in purses or worn as jewelry. When you turn 65, the Republicans take all of your fish and give you a voucher for a fishing pole.

    • 12 months ago
  • jim_b
  • luluthebeast
    • +1
      luluthebeast  
    • Tax the rich. Pull our military back into our country and make it more specialized to deal with today's threats and make some big cuts in it. We can no longer afford to police the world. Not only stop the war on drugs, but legalize them. People are going to buy drugs no matter what, so we might as well clean it up, tax the heck out of it and put part of it into clean-up programs. All this stupid "WAR" has done is to fund ruthless drug cartels, much the same as prohibition gave money and power to the mafia.
      We need to put money into our own country; fixing the infrastructure, schools and health care system. Make government waste painful to those who waste. Jail would be nice. Medicare and SS will have to be adjusted at some point, just make sure the ones who really need it aren't the ones who get cut.

    • 12 months ago
  • jim_b
    • -1
      jim_b  
    • luluthebeast:

      Take 1 year of the War on Drugs' budget and the drug czar's salary, buy all the drugs possible and dump it on street corners across America with shovels and plastic bags. Determined addicts will self purge, experimenters will get over it ... dealers will get jobs.

    • 12 months ago
  • luluthebeast
  • totally_dilapidated
  • luluthebeast
    • -1
      luluthebeast  
    • totally_dilapidated:

      I'm afraid so. I've used my share of drugs, as have many people I've known and have fought through to have a happy life. As I mentioned, money from the legal sale of drugs should be set aside to help fund programs for people who want help themselves. The others should be left to their own weaknesses. It's a hard world with limited resources and those resources should be saved for those who need it the most. Let's say you have $100. Should that go to a drug addict who wants no help to get better or a starving child who has no way to get food. Many times the choice is that simple.

    • 12 months ago
  • jvsooners1
  • luluthebeast
    • +1
      luluthebeast  
    • jvsooners1:

      Say, what's the color of the sky on your world jv, you obviously have no idea what I or yourself is talking about. And why should I watch Fox News, the only "news" channel to admit in court that they lie about their stories. You sound very confused.

    • 12 months ago
  • EdHunt
    • +1
      EdHunt  
    • Eliminate the personhood of corporations. Invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and education in engineering, healthcare, energy efficiency. Return tax levels on the wealthy to the levels of the 1920s or 1950s which were high enough that investment was spurred in tax sheltered municipal bonds.

    • 12 months ago
  • oldhippie01
    • 0
      oldhippie01  
    • Return all Tax Rates to 1950 Levels. Close ALL Loop Holes. Tax ALL INCOME,( yes that includes "Capital Gains" at the same 1950 rate ). Then start a GREEN JOBS Program with the same urgency as the old "WPA" and "CCC" of the FDR era. Tell "Big Business" that they have a Choice, either invest in the program, or Buy their Energy from the Government, after we build it and Close the Coal and Gas fired Plants.

    • 12 months ago
  • traveler1952
  • LarryF
    • 0
      LarryF  
    • Forget the cuts and spend more on infrastructure, dump the upper end Bush tax cuts and pass Rep Jan Schakowsky's bill to add more upper end tax brackets. Shut down the unnecessary military bases in W&E Europe, Japan, South Korea (along with the senseless wars) and bring all those troops back to the U.S. so they can spend their paychecks here and we can stop spending to support them there. With a debt to income ratio near 1:1, the debt isn't the problem, revenue is the problem and revenue depends on economic activity which depends on consumers who need jobs.

    • 12 months ago
  • jvsooners1
  • L_I_Beral
    • -1
      L_I_Beral  
    • jvsooners1:

      That would be a good start. Calling a halt to "The War on Drugs" would help also. Getting the nomination of Elizabeth Warren as Consumer Protection Czar will help the less fortunate get screwed less by Big Bidness.
      Of course the easy answer would be to ship all right-wing puckerbutts to Kenya for a lesson in foreign affairs and diplomacy.

    • 12 months ago
  • jvsooners1
  • L_I_Beral
  • CalgarC
  • jvsooners1
  • CalgarC
  • totally_dilapidated
  • jvsooners1
  • keir
    • 0
      keir  
    • jvsooners1:

      Well...we did not keep that 60 votes in the senate very long, infact weeks really..Kennedy died and Scott Brown took over. Then there are the Blue Dods who are DINOs. Obama got us accomplishments that NO repub would ever allow. The healthcare bill for one..it had to pass with the help of Republicans, a deal had to be made. The repeal to DADT...the Cosumer Protectuion agency...no Repub cares about the cosumer enough to fight for this agency. Putting some regulation back on wall street, the stimulus kept us from diving head first in the black hole of economic depression, fixing va medicine, fighting for our military and their families, fighting for education,getting rid of that ban on embryonic stem cell research, fighting for gay rights in general,getting rid of the hateful rules on the Patriot act..like now you have to have a warrent to wire tap, no rendition to black holes, no torture, He did his best to close GITMO and to bring the people here for trial...but the repubs fought it and created chaos by lieing to the people about it...and not allowing the cost of closeing and moving the prisoners. A prison in Ill. was set to take the prisoners, they had a new prison and no prisoners, the repubs would not allow it. So what happened, the Dems blamed the Prez and voted Repub or did not vote. Its the repubs who hold the purse strings in the House.

      No this president is not repub...he is not far left...but he is liberal, just not crazy.

    • 12 months ago
  • st3742
    • 0
      st3742  
    • Get Keith Olbermann back on the air and give him unlimited time to reveal the nonsense and corruption in the Republican Party, the Tea Party,the wealthiest top 1% and their greed,and just let Keith tell all about how corrupt the CEOs on Wallstreet and many transntional corporations are.

      I am so delighted to learn of a specific date for Keith's return to the airwave.

    • 12 months ago
  • keir
    • -1
      keir  
    • If the Republicans would stay out of the way and let the president do what FDR did....create jobs. Jobs mean taxes...it means more into Social Security. Jobs programs..the Repubs cut the programs, which cuts jobs. Raise taxes on the Rich.

    • 12 months ago
  • samthesixth
  • keir
    • 0
      keir  
    • samthesixth:

      Sorry but you are wrong. When FDR came into the oval office the unemployment was at 25%...11000 banks had failed and people had been jumping out of windows. He created the WPA, the CCC and other programs and by 1937 unemployment was at 14%. The congress started hollering they wanted the programs to be cut...immediatly as soon as the programs were cut unemployment went to 19+% lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 per cent and production of durable goods fell even faster. In 1938 unemployment fell but not to pre 1929 numbers...what helped was the biggest government program ever...WW2.

      Employment in private sector factories regained the levels reached in 1929 and 1937, but did not exceed them until the onset of the war, and manufacturing employment leaped from 11 million in 1940 to just over 18 million in 1943. Productivity steadily increased, and output in 1942 was well above the levels of both 1929 and 1937.

      So samthesixth..you are wrong by the facts. FDR did create jobs, alot of them, but stopping the gov programs cut back on employmnet..since those programs were jobs. You can not cut what are jobs programs then scream because there are no jobs. You can not stop infrastructure programs like Christy did and then blame the president for the unemployment in your state. You can not get rid of public workers like school teachers and cops and cry because of the unemployment. WW2 was aGov program. You can not say that it was free market. The gov paid for it all. It revved up manufactureing, it revved up textiles, plastics, steel mills, name it it was being created all in a gov program. Did you think it was private companies that paid for this all themselves? It was all gov.

      I gave you facts..my grandfather and Mother lived throuygh the Great Depression..my gramps loved FDR...after all he was elected 4 times.

    • 12 months ago
  • samthesixth
  • keir
    • 0
      keir  
    • samthesixth:

      Of course I do not advocate more war...But when Christy stopped the tunnel, he put people out of work, and also wasted all the money that had already been spent. When Florida gov decided not to take the funds for rail, he did not put people to work that could have been done..instead new york took it. So now, New York not only will have jobs, but something that will improve their citizens lives long term.

      I can go to the capitol building here in Lousiana and every beautiful bit of it from the building itself, to the art, the scuptures and history dates from the Depression and a gov program...the buildred, the artists, all of it was Gov..and it is so beautiful. It put alot of poor Louisiana people to work.

      When Ike had a huge debt frow ww2..he built the High way system..he put people to work, lowered the debt and we have highways.

      Why is it that every president until Reagan left less debt...?
      FDR/Truman- debt start was 117.9 they handed over a debt of 93.1%

      it came down during Kennedy and Johnson from 55.2 to 46.9
      and Johnson from 46.9 to 38.6

      lets go to Reagan-first term he had 32.5 and at the end of his first term it was 43.8
      second term- from 43.8 to 53.1

      Nixon brought it down on the first term second it went up slightly...went up .02%

      Carter to start was 35.8 to 32.5

      then reagan
      Bush 1 53.1 to 66.1
      Clinton 66.1 to 65.4
      Clinton 65.4 to 56.4

      Bush 56.4 to 63.5
      Bush 63.5 to 83.4

      That is what Obama got...83.4 % debt/deficit.

      So the spenders lowered the debt...the tax cutters upped the debt.

      Its facts...its open for any one to check on. I was curious about who did what. Were Dems really so bad with the debt. No, in fact we are pretty good, even Kennedy and Johnson who had Viet Nam lowered the debt.

    • 12 months ago
  • keir
  • keir
    • 0
      keir  
    • samthesixth:

      Sam, all the huge tax cuts that have been going on...Bush cut taxes three times and he lost jobs. If are not making any money, and the average person's wages have gone no where for years, and everything else goes up...so who buys what is produced? You can not cut taxes and think that it is a miracle that will fix all things. It won't. We need revenue to pay for things...
      The repubs like to talk about the average family and what they do when things become tight... if you have a crisis..or you need to pay for your kids colledge you do not stop buying food..or stop paying your mortgage..you bring more money in..a second job. You do not tell your child, wow, we will have to keep you from your education.. you bring in more funds as well as cutting down on the unneccessary spending. But food and a roof over your head, medical care are not unneccessary spending.

      You create jobs by people spending...when the stimulus was still going strong we had good numbers...2.2 million jobs created. Now the numbers are going down..does gov create jobs..yes, in some cases, yes indeed.

      Oh and while I am ranting...if you have jobs, you have more money going into Social Security and Medicare...as dfar as changeing medicaid and it not hurting the elderly..what does the elderly rely on when there is a need for nursing home care? Its medicaid. Like someone said.. all those MAN CAVES will become Granma's room and how many women will have to stop working to take care of grandma?

    • 12 months ago
  • samthesixth
  • keir
    • 0
      keir  
    • samthesixth:

      It was the dems that was in congress and the senate that worked on the deficit...it was the Presidents budget that was passed in 1993 that got the savings..the Repubs did not take their seats until 1996. Now they helped pass the welfair reform..but not the budget.

      If the president gets the hard times when things go bad...then he should get the kudos when it goes good. But there are times when the Congress stops what is needed and that the president is working for... he should not be blamed if he gets stopped. The President is one leg to a three legged stool...all are needed, but no one can sit on the stool if only two legs are doing their jobs.

    • 12 months ago
1 - 100 of 107
sgwhites

top videos