Possible ideas to bring the economy back?

Actually, it's but impossible to pay the National Debt now: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-now-mathematically-impossible-to-pay-off-the-u-s-national-debt

These 'ludicrous' ideas were preached by the Founders, for over a hundred years up until 1913, America had at best barely flirted with, and for the most part outright rejected a federal bank, wanting a NATIONAL bank.

Even Hitler and NS Germany decried the notion of perpetually creating debt-owned monies that go directly to the Banks and not to the people.

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
-Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-Henry Ford

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."
-Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932

Keep in mind, at the time of the Great Depression, stocks weren't as speculated as they are now. We didn't have the social media dynamics or the global connection with banks.

If Europe and the West and its citizens engaged in war against the Banking Cartel, We should be putting that effort, more so now than ever before.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson

It's not libertarian, hell, it's not even politically rooted. It's the basis of our freaking survival as a country, and at large the world.

The world is laced with this debt, and we need to get rid of it.

You just comitted three of the logical fallacies:

1. Appeal to authority - Just because the founding fathers say something, it's not necessarily true or good. Case in point: slavery.
2. Bandwagon - You're trying to prove the importance of removing the central bank by giving the perception of how widespread the belief is.

You made no true argument as why central banking is bad or does damage.

In this instance I actually happen to agree with you: central banking, in the hands of the bourgeois without any oversight or control from the people is bad and has damaged nations.

However I won't make the case for *that* argument.

Why?

Because to justify your creed - massive cutback on public spending, dismantling the welfare state, abolishing progressive taxing that makes it possible - you've cited an argument that has no whatsoever relation to your claims.

-How would a flat-tax prevent abuses by Wall-Street and the FED? How would it return power to the people?
-How would dismantling the social net benefit the people or return power to them?
-How would in essence neutering the government make the people stronger in face of big capital?

You didn't answer these fundamental questions, you just ask us to accept your proposal on blind faith.

Tax the Rich in a way that will force them to take the money they make and invest back into their aspects of the company that exists in the US.

Tariff manufactured goods that America would be prepared to make. Subsidize new businesses

Raise the Minimum wage to meet with the rising costs of living and automatically go up or down each year with such.

Break up the monopolies that have choked the growth of jobs and small businesses.

Do not offer bankruptcy to pay debts to banks and investors to companies that had stable profit but decided to grow too quickly or took other measures to run it into the dirt or dismantle. And never pay bonuses to those in charge that forced any company into failure. And in such bankruptcies, Companies should pay promises(pensions)to its employees first, then banks and investors.

Remove any campaign funding and PAC's, have set amounts given for a campaign and that is the limit spent. This is to control the influences that Big Businesses have on Politics, to keep the Politicians representing the people, not just the rich or corporations that support them during election.

The middle class drives the economy, and the middle class has been dying with unions and industry jobs. The rich do not make jobs, the need for jobs in the US makes jobs. The world has become global and companies have zero loyalty because it doesn't profit them. If its forced upon them it will change, nothing else will make it so. Lower taxes only makes them pocket more, lower minimum wages only makes them pay us less and less regulations only makes for unsafe or unfair working environments. Do not think for a moment that they will cut us a fair deal if the taxes are less. The money needs to be forced to be spent on America and its workers or it won't and things will continue to degrade.

*Sigh*, the classic Liberal argument, as if their arguments(ANY of them were legitimate. Republican rule has barely existed in the span of the last several presidencies. Or at the very least, Republicans did not enact legislation such as the New Deal, Medicaid, Medicare, NAFTA and now, let us see the fruits of the result of Obamacare)

When President Ford had the presidency, we had a debt of a trillion. Now, it's
16 trillion. Even if the two wars had committed a good portion of our money to foreign aid and foreign countries, Obama is no different in this regard.

And so, taking the wars out of the equation, we can see Liberal Theory has been at the helm of the past several administrations, Keynesian Economics at the forefront.

Looking not only at our country, but modern day Communist China and the millions of women butchered in failed economic policies, Soviet Russia, and so forth and former soviet client states which are all mostly bankrupt.

This history is the result of Liberal Philosophy, whether it expands from the "Far Left" to "Moderate" Leftism. And so now, I redirect your question:

What has Liberal philosophy, at any point in its history done any good for ANY country? We can even look at Japan, caught in Liberalism since the end of the Second War and they're actually pretty used to an inflated economy!

The Liberal argument has been "Well,Medicaid and Medicare and other social benefits have helped hundreds of thousands of people." In short, Liberalism cannot point to any fruits of its own labor, instead it can only say the fruits we currently have aren't dried up yet.

It is true that it's helped thousands of people, yet Liberalism has dried up the fruits of the labor we have left, via the massive loss of manufacturing jobs and the destruction of the private sector and thereby the spending of the American Citizenry.

The treasury is so bankrupt that these programs are billions of dollars in the red, and become millions to hundred of thousand of dollars more bankrupt by the second.
When/if those programs falter, you can no longer say that they're helping hundreds of thousands of people.

I started off, by proving the epic failure that has been and will always continue to be Liberal Philosophy. Now I'll directly counter your argument that I 'appeal' to authority. Far from it, it's not that the Founding Fathers themselves are authorities. But the philosophy they've espoused, the philosophy that led a revolutionary war, that made a strong dollar out of the Continental Dollar Crisis
and that unified a passionate group of believers against the world's strongest empire at the time(Britain) is a philosophy that unlike yours, is actually worth following.

You see, the country before the Liberal Revolution was such a country that we could promote healthy births, families of maybe 2-3, even more children. Perhaps, there were some economic difficulties, but Liberalism hasn't done anything to address these difficulties but instead, the Liberal philosophy has destroyed our home grown population and now, we're mostly an immigrant country.

Those families inspired the need for more, inspired the need for American Technology, American Workers and pride in the American Man. A major part in the American Recovery will be to revive the necessity of the American family, and by extension that means the former Caucasian-majority. Our forefathers grew this country, we laid the groundwork for its development and with proper immigration we became that much more of a unified country.

Now we're a divided country, expecting every little person to come together in a perfect borg hive. And what of the majority and leadership? There is none to speak of.

This is Liberalism, Multiculturalism, etc in a nutshell. And to say it hasn't worked is being very kind, it's been a failure of epic proportions and the only ones who can't see that are the Liberals(drunks) themselves.

I never once endorsed the idea of returning to slavery. If we're talking fallacies, this is Ad Hominem. Specifically, stating a false argument that the opposition didn't give. But let's set the record straight anyway.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

The Founders opposed slavery on a philosophical level, but the need to maintain the greater union of the U.S.(remember,the U.S. Economy wasn't strong, the army needed to be vastly paid and then there was the French to repay) was imperative.

Self-Determinism governed all of Europe. I know, the idea of Self-Determinism is unheard of to Liberal Philosophy, so I'll give you a link on that philosophy as well:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-determinism

This philosophy is not only international, but national and personal. People have the right to make their own decisions, to befriend those who they choose to befriend. I'm sure, we at least agree there.

The problem with Multiculturalism, with the borg hive is that you try-oh-so-too hard. Tolerance is not the same thing as a choice, you've dirtied the word 'respect' in the same fashion. Look at the country today, do you see any unity?

Europe? Hell, there's a public revolution against multiculturalism in Europe. Mind you, some of that is to be expected given Europe's national history but to use Liberal adage: "It's the 21st century" and yet Europe still rejects multiculturalism.

Are the Europeans close-minded? No, they've just made their own choice that they'd rather not mingle, at least with that section of the world. It's the same thing with 'Cyberbullying', 'hate crimes' and a bunch of other liberal nonsense.

Those definitions have made Britain one of the most notorious police states in the world where they don't have access to guns. Tolerance has only spawned more hatred, less dialogue and ironically less of a connection.

If we want people to truly connect and understand each other, they will only be able to do so of their own accord and judgment. I concur with the philosophy epoused by Thomas Jefferson, only I'll put it in my own words to 'fit the times'.

Unlike Liberalism, I acknowledge we can't put everyone in a borg hive and expect it to work. No, I acknowledge that it's been a major failure for all to witness and the only reason we haven't rejected it, is because of the pronounced fear/propaganda that we'd "go back" and or, having absolutely no idea of where to go next.

That's because and the Founders themselves believed that Policy cannot govern. How can you make an individual, living his own life to live it to one's own whim? You couldn't, unless you want to be among the despots of history.

My solution is simple: We have all national born Americans declare their love for this country and their devotion to it. And we ask for a consensus among the American brethren for whom among them is the most compatible. How can we so structure our society as to have the best chance for true unity and compatibility?

We'll go even so far as the tiniest towns and the most disrupt of ghettos. Oh, and to assure you, we'll likely be cleaning up filth, a lot of filth. This filth expands all races and all creeds. But eventually, one America shall remain from the clean up. Eventually the idea of ghettos won't even exist.

To restore a country's economy, we first need to restore the mental capacities of the people. Self-Determinism, the strength of a country's most devoted men and women and children.

This old Anglo-Saxon law will once again rule the American Continent, and when it does, I foresee us having similar success to the late-18th, mid-19th centuries.






As you mentioned, I cited others who explained clearly why it's bad and has done damage: They charge the currency at interest, they have control over the money supply and its not nationally creditable, either via gold or silver, or a national dollar.

It's fraud, legalized paper money. To say I made no true argument is false, something I disagree about in the college ranks: Citing an argument, isn't alone to explain one's reasoning.

I disagree, it takes a reasonable degree of common sense, comprehension, etc to properly cite an argument. If it didn't, people would just cite anything to any particular situation.





This is another attack on not the basis of the argument, but the structure. I made no open correlation between the monetary policy of the Fed and national economic policy. But nevertheless, I shall answer the questions as posed.

-A Flat-tax would make taxes in America more simplified, easier, fair. No more class warfare, no more political points to be scored. Its ironic that people think of the Democrats as the "people" party, and they proclaim Republicans as obstructionists. The political and social power is on the side of the democrats, if they wanted to, they could easily implement this and they could evade the fiscal cliff.

But they don't, why? Their political power as an organization is far more important than the well-being of millions of Americans across state, party, racial and ethical lines. So much for being the People's party. Because of the open fairness of a flat-tax, the rich can no longer pawn off the "poor" in this country. Actually, no, my more radical goal is to eliminate the very idea of poverty altogether.

And the Flat Tax is just the start. We'll eventually have a reality where all earned income of the citizens will belong to them and the Federal Government will simply have to make means of money just like everyone else.

-The Social Net will dismantle itself: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It costs(slightly) more than the wars/defense that we've constantly propped up with billions of dollars. Tell me, do you think that just by magically 'rewriting the code', we will somehow reduce billions in expenses?

Or how about the untold millions on food stamps? Even an organization site like USdebt is saying plainly: The goberment is lying, who would've thunk?

More telling,is the lowering of our credit rating.(And I'm not even particularly fond of credit agencies, as politically-vested bastards who can destroy a country at the push of a button).

Given that fact, we need to prepare for a prosperous economy, which means as few people as dependent on the government as possible. These dependencies are not rights to the people, because to access them, the people have to be disabled, out of work and in other words: Poor

If it were REALLY an assistance, they wouldn't be taking the money at all. An economic saying that I learned was "Rather than give people a fish, I'd rather teach people how to fish"

I wanna teach this country how to fish again, and if it means less government "handouts" than so be it.

-Whoever said anything about neutering the Government? I believe in Fascism, which means I believe in a degree of Government regulation. But there's a difference between a bureaucracy and a government. What I propose is the latter(government), what we have is the former(a bureaucracy)

This same, highly inefficient bureaucracy not only isn't capable of protecting the American Homeland but its also paid for and brought by big capital. So quite to the contrary of your opinion that the bureaucracy protects the homeland, you're actually FOR the big finance, who wouldn't want to see a national government inside of America.....ever...

A Government that Governs, while allowing the people to exercise responsibility, self-choice and economic individuality shall prevail over a 'government' of stagnation, of dependency and a big capitalistic government.

A Liberal form of government has betrayed the American People, and now it's time for Liberalism itself to come to grips with its own political reality of its failures not only in America but worldwide.

Lustful, you've completely flown off the handle, driven off the rails and wrote pages and pages of drivel that had nothing to do with my original post.

I never brought up the liberal/conservative divide, neither did I quote leftist dogma...you brought up all that bullshit. What I claimed was that you didn't make a coherent argument, but instead were arguing that since the Founding Fathers thought something, it must be true: this is a text book case of appeal to authority.

Then you tried to expose how wrong I am, putting words and arguments into my mouth all the time... this tactic is called straw-man, another logical fallacy.

I could go on, but in the greater discussion your failings as an orator are irrelevant.

The important thing is you still haven't made *any* coherent argument, you still haven't provided any proof why your ideas - flat tax, deregulation, etc. - would work.

The only shred of evidence in your post was the debt-clock: which is a red herring, as the national debt is *not* a product of excessive spending.

You mean to tell me you ignored that entire post, then went on a diatribe of your own? And you expect me to take you seriously?

I specifically linked my statements to the Founders, and I did make the argument about why my ideas would be good. Whether you agree with the argument or not is irrelevant.
.

However, just to prove your stupidity, I will cite the evidence you require. First, I want to prove you wrong about my proposals. Cite ONE thing that states, de-regulation?

Lowering the value of stocks? Putting money back in the hands of the people? I'm crucifying and restricting the Wall Street-Washington connection. You couldn't have been more wrong about my policies, but then, reading isn't your strong suit it would appear.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1017/042.html

Here's Forbes, an internationally-respected magazine on businesses and success, and generally they know much more than I do. Yet, this particular author came to the same conclusion I did.


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38065

Another such article outlining how a fair, flat-tax would end monopolies and allow everyone to play on a fair-level playing field.

http://thelibertyprofessor.com/tag/america-needs-a-flat-tax/

Becoming Self-Efficient is the goal, the idea is that the prosperity of the citizens is the prosperity of the country. A Government, is merely an institution, a relic.

Even Biglundi agrees with that, in his definition of what a regime is.

So, what exactly am I de-regulating?

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/11/08/the-social-safety-net-is-broken/

Our Safety Net is so broken, it's not even a net. And of the billions of dollars spent on such programs, how many of which actually go to the people? As someone whose been caught by the net, which is one of my reason for rebelling against it.

I can tell you from personal experience, that we hardly get anything compared to what we sent out.

If Reuters is not an acceptable source for some reason, how about this?


http://www.povertyinsights.org/2012/02/06/broken-social-safety-net-is-making-americans-sick/

Poverty is so devastating that to some, it's a major contributor to sickness.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/12/Time-to-Stop-Social-Safety-Net-Child-Abuse.aspx#page1

Child abuse, drugs, alcholics and broken families? Hey, I thought it was working.

A lower percentage of Americans may be classified as 'impoverished', but that doesn't mean the economy is good. No, it just means the people aren't dead-beat yet.

But they will be, as a system that costs billions to maintain continues to ask for billions that we don't have.

So once again, I'm not 'deregulating' anything. I propose to regulate this country from a crisis that self-serving spenders, psuedo-financial intellectuals, lobbyists, corporate greed has put us in.

We're spending, WAY too much. I know that our progressive media has failed our education system miserably, and as such your comprehension of the word 'de-regulation' may not be all your fault.

But keeping monies in the hands of the majority of the people, and governing the country in a manner to allow for the free market to flow is not de-regulating. I'm fixing the mess this retarded 'mindset' left behind.

Can you comprehend that?

Stepping in as a moderator.

Since it doesn't seem that the user LustfulAngel is interested in refuting points and is only jumping on practically anyone who enters the thread that doesn't share his opinion, I'm going to say that he's no longer allowed to post in this thread. All posts by this user will be removed from the thread here forth.

If the user in question would like to appeal this decision, he may submit a coherent and logical rebuttal to any of the users he has argued with in this thread to me as a PM, in order to prove he is willing to engage in actual debate rather than trying to steamroll everyone else with his opinion.

Thank you, have a nice day.

I never agreed to this. Just want to make that clear. I just defined Regime...that's it.

[color=#2e1a6b]I think we should look at an economy that is doing well in both the short run and the long run, and do our best to mimic it. I'd like to try to mimic Hong Kong's economy; I've never been there, but I've heard very good things about it. it's also the freeist economy in the world.

I have no idea what successful economy we're trying to mimic now

Bigger tariffs for importing goods, "Rewards" for companies with more then 85% of its production/designing in America, Less unemployment (even though some families will hurt it will make lazy people who rely on it to actually look, and a education system like japans.

[align=justify][color=green][font=verdana]Okay, I know that Tegumi has banned you from posting in this thread again (rightly so - I don't bother reading your posts as they're way too long and off-topic), but I think that this one point shows how misguided you truly are. I don't even think I need to explain myself on this point on how wrong you are.

But, on topic, no, I don't have any ideas to help improve the economy. The biggest thing is to restore the faith consumers have in companies/banks - with these large corporations repeatedly shown to avoid tax/fuck around with the economy, it's hardly convincing people to spend more or invest.

[color=#2e1a6b]
This is kinda unfair... Not only can lustful not respond, but you refuse to give the slightest explanation as to why he's wrong.

And no, I'm not saying I agree with everything he says... His long, seemingly irrelevant posts are bugging too

It's really not that hard to stabilize an economy .. the thing is, that you need to go to the people controlling the flow of things.

On the minimum wage thing, I could be wrong, but I always thought it was there to protect the worker, since it would force every business to pay employees earning hourly pay a set amount of money per hour, (salary earners aren't too affected, unless otherwise stated).

Taking away minimum wage will just open a floodgate that'll be near-impossible to close, since it would mean that businesses don't have to pay someone a certain amount of money by the hour, again, if they're getting hourly pay.

OT: I think we need to cut spending on a few things, but we all know that cutting the military's budget won't see a dime lost anytime soon.

[align=justify][color=green][font=verdana]Well, in all actuality, he did respond - only in PM. But, the main point is that, without a minimum wage, the companies are under no obligation to pay their workers anything decent - in this current economic situation, people would be forced to take extremely poor paying jobs due to necessity (something of which I am certain companies would happily exploit).


[align=justify][color=green][font=verdana]Yeah, you're not wrong - it is solely there to protect the worker.