Third Party & Independents Archives

David,
Why I know better than to get into a debate of reform with you, I do believe that that the Republicans are in trouble if they keep demanding on the policies of a Trickledown Economy. No, why I may not agree with President Elect Obamas’ Trickle-Up Economic Theory I do see it as the responsible thing to do as an Adult and Parent. Thus, the one reform needed in Washington in my opinion does not come from the Halls of Congress, but from the Freewill of “We the People” taking what we know to be Right and True Regardless to the Halls of Congress. Even if that Reform means changing the Political Landscape of the House of Representatives.

For why I know that with an 86% re-elect this year does not speak good of the movement of VOIDNOW.org, I do believe that by All Americans accepting and holding Their Local, State, and Federal Elected Officials accountable for embracing the Idea of Their Children building a Better World in 2010 that “We the People” may be able to lead Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders toward the Promise Land of the Future.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 9, 2009 01:57 PM

Henry, actually, this was a banner election for Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, or VOID. True, VOID seeks to increase the numbers of voters who will hold their OWN representatives accountable on election for bad or poor government. Last Nov.’s election saw more incumbents lose reelection bids than 2006.

The fact that these incumbents targeted were primarily Republican, has more to do with voter perception as to which Party was responsible for the bad governance, but, still, it was an election that saw growth in incumbents unseated.

It is up to the American people to demand their representatives govern better for the nation, not just their state or local district, and boot them out if they fail. Without the health of the nation, no State or local district will fare well, for very long.

VOID grew significantly this last election cycle in memberships and sticker sales and support over the 2006 cycle, its first. Our Vote Out Incumbents window and bumper stickers are visible on vehicles in a large number of states.

We look forward to 2010 when we can say our stickers are visible in every state of the union, and 2012 when we can say our stickers are visible in every major metropolitan area of the country.

Voters are, in increasing numbers, realizing the common sense of voting out their incumbents when government disappoints or fails them. For when government disappoints or fails them, every representative can be said to have failed either in effectiveness of persuasion, competence, or being on the wrong side of issues voters demand action on.

The Congress is a collective representative body. As such, to change the direction of Congress requires a Change of Party at the very least. But, when both parties fail, only a radical house cleaning that removes ever greater numbers of incumbents will suffice in forcing the newly elected Congresspersons to make the changes needed.

We shall see in 2 years, if changing parties was sufficient. If not, VOID’s common sense will be embraced by even larger numbers of voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2009 02:50 PM

David R. Remer asked: Can you suggest or think of other political reforms that would improve government oversight, accountability, transparency, and efficient responsible use of citizen’s tax dollars?

Yes.

Stop these abuses now.

Pass a BALANCED BUDGET Amendment, since more than 34 (i.e. 2/3 of 50 states) have requested it (i.e. all 50 states have submitted 673+ amendments, yet Congress violates their oath by ignoring the Constitution).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2009 03:03 PM

Education too is key to sovling the problem.
Voters merely need to choose how they want it.
The smart way, or the hard way.

Voters are culpable too.
Government will never be responsible and accountable until enough voters are too.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2009 03:08 PM

d.a.n, I hope you mean a balanced budget amendment with exceptions for war, national emergency, or recession. Otherwise, a balanced budget amendment would be biting off our nose to spite our American face.

Better than a balanced budget amendment would be a law that allows deficit spending under those circumstances above and mandates paying off those deficits within 5 years of the end of the crisis, plus 10% per year for paying down any preceding debt if it exists.

Of course, you would have to watch out for elected officials who sought perpetual war to provide perpetual deficit spending, but, with this law, they would be pretty easy to spot and remove from office.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2009 03:28 PM

The actions of lobbyist when they interact with our elected representatives needs to be reformed. Free speech zones for lobbyist similar to those set up for protesters would allow for the representative to go to the lobbyist for information instead of the lobbyist bothering the representative.

There are way to many lobbyist in DC the number should be limited. Individual corporations should be banned from having lobbyist. The chamber of commerce could lobby for all business interest as a group.

Lobbyist should follow the same laws that foreign governments are required to follow when giving anything to an elected representative of the American people.

Foreign countries and corporations should not be allowed to lobby representatives of the American people.

We have added another level of laws and quasi governmental organizations via trade agreements. We need to ensure that only our elected representatives enact laws for the people of this country not trade negotiators in the executive branch. This should probably be an amendment to the constitution.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2009 03:51 PM

David,
Why I am not sure about how to say it I do believe that President Elect Obama and Congress understand the problems facing America. And why I reserve my opinion on the Democratic and Republican Pundits (especially on TV)ability to adapt to the level of Public Discord needed to make the reforms necessary to address all the Issues and Questions of Government and Society in the 21st Century. I do see Hope in knowing that My Fellow Americans are starting to learn that as Americans “We the People” are only limited by Our Political Freewill.

j2t2,
Nice idea, but one I do believe goes against the Principles and Standards established by the Founding Fathers of America. Yet, knowing that certain citizens and lobbyists from time to time will have or show undo influence I am forced to ask the advice of folks like David Remer to explain how Their Loyal Opposition has the same Rights to blow their argument out of the water.

No, just as some in the Republican Party cried “Drill Baby Drill” before the election the best defense “We the People” have is to EDUCATE our Democratic and Republican Elected Officials on how foolish their stance is by offering a better alternative to the issue.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 9, 2009 04:59 PM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, I hope you mean a balanced budget amendment with exceptions for war, national emergency, or recession. Otherwise, a balanced budget amendment would be biting off our nose to spite our American face.

Yes, for war, but only if Congress has declared war, which it has not, has it?

The exceptions should be something like Article V, requiring two-thirds of the states to allow the federal budget to be exceeded.

However, I personally think it is too late now.
We don’t have the extraordinary discipline it would require to unwind so much debt (federal and non-federal debt).
Therefore, a majority of non-federal debt will default.
And federal debt will most likely default via hyperinflation and a run on the falling U.S. Dollar.

• __ U.S. Dollar vs Swiss Franc (CHF) Exchange Rate __


• 4.9 |———————————————


• 4.6 |o-o—————————————-


• 4.3 |——o————————————-


• 4.0 |———o———————————-


• 3.7 |————o——————————-


• 3.4 |—————o—————————-


• 3.1 |——————o—-o——————-


• 2.8 |———————o—-o—————-


• 1.5 |——————————o————-


• 1.2 |———————————o—-o—o


• 0.9 |————————————o—-o-


• 0.6 |———————————————


• 0.3 |———————————————


• 0.0 |(1968)———-(1988)————(2008) YEAR

Even though Switzerland has a 40-to-1 fractional banking, they don’t create excessive amounts of new money.

(02) And the Singapore Dollar (SGD):

• __ U.S. Dollar vs Singapore Dollar (SGD) Exchange Rate __


• 3.7 |———————————————


• 3.4 |o-o—————————————-


• 3.1 |——o————————————-


• 2.8 |———-o—-o—————————


• 1.5 |———————-o—-o—-o——-o


• 1.2 |—————————————o—-


• 0.9 |———————————————


• 0.6 |———————————————


• 0.3 |———————————————


• 0.0 |(1968)———-(1988)————(2008) YEAR

(03) And the Japanese Yen (JPY):

• __ U.S. Dollar vs Japanese Yen (JPY) Exchange Rate __


• 390 |———————————————


• 360 |o-o-o————————————-


• 330 |———-o———————————


• 300 |———————————————


• 270 |————-o——————————


• 240 |—————-o—————————


• 210 |——————-o————————


• 180 |————————o——————-


• 150 |——————————o————-


• 130 |————————————o—o-o


• 100 |(1968)———-(1988)————(2008) YEAR

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2009 05:23 PM

“Nice idea, but one I do believe goes against the Principles and Standards established by the Founding Fathers of America.”

Henry if protesters can be held to free speech zones away from where they are protesting without a violation of free speech, peaceful assembly and redress of grievances rights then certainly the same can be done to lobbyist. The founding fathers didn’t set up different classes of people with special privileges nor did they guarantee the multinational corporations personhood which would allow these entities the same rights as we the people.

Perhaps an alternative to the lobbyist problem would be to allow lobbyist to meet with elected officials by group based upon their interest in the issue at hand. The interested lobbyist could meet groups of elected officials in an open door meeting to put forth the information they feel is relevant to the issue to all interested representatives in lieu of secret meetings. This kind of public meeting would serve to make the process transparent and on the record.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2009 05:44 PM

j2t2, transparency is the key you hit on.

A simple law that required ALL discussions between representatives and lobbyist organizations be conducted in a public venue open to the media or video/audio recorded with copies available on request for 3 years, would get rid of a vast amount of the corruption of our governmental process by wealthy special interests. Much of what they now legally request from representatives they would never want the public to be aware of. Hence, such requests would not be made under this new law.

Thank you. That is, as far as I know, a very unique and original approach to lobbyist reform.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2009 06:24 PM

d.a.n said: “However, I personally think it is too late now.
We don’t have the extraordinary discipline it would require to unwind so much debt (federal and non-federal debt).”

I am glad a majority don’t think on this issue as you do. Because if they did, it would be pointless to try do anything constructive about it. Fortunately, for that small chance that there is a way out of this, most people believe in it and therefore can potentially act accordingly. Like Obama and growing numbers of Congress persons are going to do.

If life teaches us anything as young people, it is that what once was impossible, becomes reality, all the time for people. A five year old a doctor? Impossible. But, that 5 year old a doctor by the age of 22, not impossible at all, as there actually is such a case. He was my professor in college and had received his first of 3 doctorates by the age of 22.

To say something can’t happen exempts one from even trying or contributing to making it happen. It is just too easy an out from my perspective. We have an enormous challenge before us, and the best perspective is to accept that it will take an enormous effort to meet that challenge. If there is such a thing as an American spirit, that is surely a big part of it.

Electing a Black President in 2008 was surely an impossibility by most people’s thinking before Obama came on the scene. Then the impossible became reality, because enough people increasingly believed it was possible.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2009 06:34 PM

David, There isn’t anything wrong with believing that Congress is unlikely to turn over a new leaf. Belief in the most probable outcome is important to planning for the future.

If an economic meltdown still occurs (as I think it will), it won’t be because people like me weren’t waving the warning flags, and trying to promote fiscal sanity.

Anyway, the belief that growing the debt-bubble larger will be the last straw, and Congress will continue to not only allow things to get worse, but will make them worse, is merely being realistic (in my opinion). Especially since 86.9% of incumbents were re-elected.

What has Congress done to make anyone believe they are suddenly going to stop being FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt? There are already signs of trouble in Congress. Several incumbents in Congress appear as though they are going to continue the status quo. Voters should have ousted them. Now the voters are stuck with them, and voters are going to pay for it (literally). Congress is unlikely to be responsible and accountable until enough voters do too, and finally hold Congress accountable, by NOT repeatedly rewarding them with re-election.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2009 10:00 PM

A few suggestions, several from Joel Hirschhorn’s book, “Delusional Democracy”.

A national holiday for voting.
Mandate voter participation.
None of the Above option on ballots.
MANDATE PAPER BALLOTS>
voting machines with paper records for audit trail. allocate machines smartly, no long lines.
Impartial election administrators.
Uniform and inclusive voter registration standards
Accurate and transparent voting poll purges.
Uniform standards for counting provisional ballots.
Fair and uniform voter ID rules
Penalization of vote suppression
Felons who have completed their sentences can vote
Streamline absentee ballot, including use of Internet.

The major problem with out political system is the influence of money. You can get into ethics and campaign finance and donations amounts. But, that isn’t necessary and would never be effective. What is needed is government reform to include repeal of two current laws; Money is Free Speech and Corporate Personhood. Then reorganize the FEC to receive and distribute taxpayer donations. Any donations bypassing the FEC are illegal and political parties with members providing oversight of elected officials from their respective parties would take care of any required enforcement. That would take care of the influence of money in politics. Lobbyist could still lobby, but if anything of value changes hands some party members can take action, even on a perceived wrong and get the elected official rejected from his party. Now, I like that! Reform government and KEEP IT THAT WAY!

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 9, 2009 10:05 PM

Perceived wrong. That’s exactly what the Illinois legislature is using to impeach Blago. Why not let political parties in on the game as well?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 9, 2009 10:10 PM

J2t2,
Why I cannot tell you the difference let me encourage you to look up what some of the Charlatans and Vagabonds of Society attempted to do in the Mid 1800’s. Thus, why the Members of Congress and their Staff have in place the means to handle lobbyists I suppose in the name of Free Speech Americas’ Democratic and Republican Elected Officials are kind of bound to listen to those citizens with the money to do things in society that may be considered stupid in a different way than a citizen looking at their Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders for funds to do what is right.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 9, 2009 10:33 PM

David R. Remer wrote: I am glad a majority don’t think on this issue as you do. Because if they did, it would be pointless to try do anything constructive about it.

Or, perhaps if enough voters believed as I do, this entire mess could have been avoided a long time ago? After all, one didn’t have to be clairvoyant to see this mess coming. I saw it coming for years. Yet many wearing rose-colored glasses scoffed at it.

In NOV-2006, I wrote this.

It turns out, the recession officially started in DEC-2007. However, based on falling GDP in inflation-adjusted dollars (2005 and 1950 dollars), the recession started in JAN-2007.

About AUG-2008, I wrote this.

Then, several months later, the federal government finally admits there is a recession since DEC-2007.

The point is, rampant greed is out of control and Congress and the Federal Reserve don’t know what they are doing. I don’t think creating trillions of more money out of thin air will work, when the debt-bubble is already about to burst. And most voters still don’t get it. It’s going to get a LOT worse. Especially if the currency is debauched, which will make everything worse.

We will see. This is one time when I truly hope I’m wrong. However, the math doesn’t merely look bad, it looks ridiculous. The nation is swimming in debt. The next 18 months are going to be brutal. Unemployment is now reported to be 7.0% (but is really about 13%). Like a string of dominoes, all of our problems that have been growing in number and severity have reached a tipping point. What happens now can mitigate damages, or make things much worse. What good will Social Security, pensions, savings, and wages be when the Dollar is worthless?

Again, I think the trillions being borrowed and created out of thin air will cause enough inflation to motivate foreigners to start spending their hoarded $11 Trillion in U.S. Dollars, and since we don’t make much of anything anymore, the liquidation of assets will continue (as evidenced by the rise in foreign owned assets in the U.S.:

$24T |———————————————

$22T |——————————————-o

$20T |——————————————o-

$18T |—————————————-o—

$16T |—————————————o—-

$14T |————————————-o——

$12T |————————————o——-

$10T |———————————o———-

$08T |——————————o————-

$06T |————————o——————-

$04T |————-o——————————

$02T |o——————————————-

$00T |(1987)————(1997)————(2007) YEAR

I’m sticking to that belief until someone can explain how so much new money and borrowing can occur without causing excessive inflation which can trigger hyperinflation. Especially with so much foreign owned U.S. Dollars, the current liquidation of U.S. Assets for the last 20 years, the perpetuation of numerous abuses for decades, 86.9% of Congress was rewarded with re-election and their 10th raise in 12 years, and it would take centuries (at only 4.0% interest) to pay down half the nation-wide debt. The problem isn’t only federal debt, but nation wide debt. And if we created the amount of money needed to service that debt, it would most certainly create inflation.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2009 10:34 PM

One-Purpose-Per-BILL

Other solutions …

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2009 11:37 PM

DR
While changeing election law we might want to mandate a system where partisan officials are NOT in charge of counting votes. International observers are shocked to find out that is the usual circumstance.
I would like to see a direct penalty for not voting. Australia fines non-voters and is a vibrant democracy. Perhaps a tax surcharge balanced by a credit when proof of voting is submitted. The funds ,less the reimbursment to counties to provide the proofs could be put to good use. Non-voters would not be happy. So what.They should have voted.

DAN
Dr saying a balanced budget law would be like biting off our nose to spite our face is to mild. A closer anology would be blowing our brains out. A massive spending program by the only instituion capable of it is the only way the country and world will not sink into a long and deep depression. Regretably,without a great deal of deficit spending there is little hope at all the that the economy will ever rebound enough to address past debt. The normal rules do not apply. For example: You often speak of a bloated federal government. In more benign times serious reform and cutbacks would be in order because the labor market could absorb laid off federal employees. If we were to dramatically cut the federal workforce now it would furthur drag down the economy by adding to the ranks of the unemployed and decreasing consumer spending and confidence. What is usually a good idea is counter-productive during this period. The danger now is not spending enough for long enough. To do that is comparable to not taking the full dose of antibiotics. The malady comes back with a vengeance.

Posted by: bills at January 10, 2009 06:59 AM

bills wrote: Dr saying a balanced budget law would be like biting off our nose to spite our face is to mild. A closer anology would be blowing our brains out. A massive spending program by the only instituion capable of it is the only way the country and world will not sink into a long and deep depression.

That’s your opinion. I disagree, because exploding the debt-bubble will be worse, leading to hyperinflation, which will be much worse.

bills wrote: Regretably,without a great deal of deficit spending there is little hope at all the that the economy will ever rebound enough to address past debt.

Like the past 52 consecutive years of deficit spending? That’s really working well, isn’t it?

bills wrote: . The normal rules do not apply.

Nonsense. The idea that fiscal sanity doesn’t apply is insanity.

bills wrote: For example: You often speak of a bloated federal government.

That bloat should be eliminated. Making excuses to keep it will help fuel more fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

bills wrote: In more benign times serious reform and cutbacks would be in order because the labor market could absorb laid off federal employees.

So we should perpetuate waste?

bills wrote: If we were to dramatically cut the federal workforce now it would furthur drag down the economy by adding to the ranks of the unemployed and decreasing consumer spending and confidence.

Not if that money was shifted to spending to make the U.S. energy independent, and more productive. What’s wrong with that? Why support a lot of dead weight instead? Why perpetuate the status quo, waste, and bloat?

bills wrote: What is usually a good idea is counter-productive during this period.

Nonsense. What is needed is fiscal sanity. Unfortunately, too many believe as you do. And there will be a painful price for it. When hyperinflation sets in, you can kiss your Social Security, Medicare, retirement, savings, and wages good-bye, and you’ll need a truck-load of U.S. dollars to buy a slice of bread. Have you ever amortized the debt to see how ridiculous it is, and how many centuries it would take to merely pay down a third of the Principal? Do you know how much debt is too much debt? Can you tell us where the money will come from for all of this spending when that money does not yet exist?

I find it interesting how so many have bought into Helicopter Ben’s theory that we can air-drop trillions of dollars without consequences. And how well has that worked out so far? Will it stop an economic melt-down, or make it worse, by creating more inflation, which could trigger hyperinflation, when $11+ Trillion foreign owned U.S. Dollars come rushing back to buy up assets in the U.S. (a liquidation which started decades ago; see chart above)?

bills wrote: The danger now is not spending enough for long enough.

Prove it. I’ve yet to see any nation so deep in debt somehow spend its way to prosperity. The typical result, as evidenced by many nations over the past 150 years.

bills wrote: To do that is comparable to not taking the full dose of antibiotics. The malady comes back with a vengeance.

That’s no proof.

Do the math.
Amortize $10.7 Trillion at only 4.0%.

Amortize $67 Trillion of nation-wide debt at only 4.0%.

Amortize both at ONLY 1.0% interest.

The debt is untenable, and growing it bigger can only be accomplished by creating new money out of thin air. It’s that simple, and that new money will create inflation, as sure as the sun rises in the east. And since the U.S. Dollar is the reserve currency, many people hold U.S. Dollars world-wide. However, the U.S. Dollar has been already been plummeting sharply for a decade. How is creating trillions more Dollars out of thin air NOT going to create more inflation. All of the talk about deflation is a myth. There currently is NO deflation. We have positive inflation, and have had positive inflation for 52 consecutive years, and it is finally catching up to us. That’s why a 1950 U.S. Dollar is now worth only about 10 cents.

Also, the federal government and Federal Reserve are lying about inflation, GDP, unemployment, and the debt. The total federal debt is more than $10.7 Trillion. There are NO Social Security surpluses (only worthless I.O.U.s). The M3 Money Supply grew from $135 Billion in 1950 to $10.15 Trillion in 2005 (an increase of 7520%), which has created incessant and economically destabilizying inflation for 52 consecutive years. The weatlh disparity gap has grown drastically since year 1976 (never worse since the Great Depression).

bills, Where’s your proof that more spending is the solution? This is not like the Great Depression, when the existing debt was small.
The National Debt grew for a decade from 1931 to 1941, but the debt was still MUCH smaller (less than 42% of GDP) as a percentage of GDP than today):

• YEAR _______ National Debt _____ Increase per year


• 6/30/1941 ; $48,961,443,535. ; $5,993,912,498


• 6/29/1940 ; $42,967,531,037. ; $2,527,998,627


• 6/30/1939 ; $40,439,532,411. ; $3,274,792,096


• 6/30/1938 ; $37,164,740,315. ; $740,126,583


• 6/30/1937 ; $36,424,613,732. ; $2,646,070,239


• 6/30/1936 ; $33,778,543,493. ; $5,077,650,869


• 6/29/1935 ; $28,700,892,624. ; $1,647,751,210


• 6/30/1934 ; $27,053,141,414. ; $4,514,468,854


• 6/30/1933 ; $22,538,672,560. ; $3,051,670,116


• 6/30/1932 ; $19,487,002,444. ; $2,685,720,952


• 6/30/1931 ; $16,801,281,491. ; $615,971,660 (3.7% increase)


• 6/30/1930 ; $16,185,309,831. ; -$745,778,653 (4.6% decrease)


• 6/29/1929 ; $16,931,088,484. ; -$673,204,717 (4.0% decrease)


• 6/30/1928 ; $17,604,293,201. ; -$907,613,730


• 6/30/1927 ; $18,511,906,931. ; -$1,131,309,383


• 6/30/1926 ; $19,643,216,315. ; -$872,977,573


• 6/30/1925 ; $20,516,193,887. ; -$734,619,102


• 6/30/1924 ; $21,250,812,989. ; -$1,098,894,375


• 6/30/1923 ; $22,349,707,365. ; -$613,674,343


• 6/30/1922 ; $22,963,381,708. ; -$1,014,068,844


• 6/30/1921 ; $23,977,450,552. ; -$1,975,005,854


• 7/01/1920 ; $25,952,456,406. ; -$1,438,513,707

Also, GDP was flat or rising during the Great Depression (One-Simple-Idea.com/NationalDebtAndGDPAdjustedForInflation2005and1950Dollars.gif):

• ________ $NATIONAL DEBT ____ GDP (NOMINAL) __ $NATIONAL DEBT_ GDP ____________ $NATIONAL DEBT _____ GDP


• DATE ___ (NOMINAL) _________________________ in 1950 dollars ___ in 1950 dollars____ in 2005 dollars _______ in 2005 dollars ____ %GDP


• 06/30/1941 $48,961,443,536 _ $126,700,000,000 _ $83,217,146,963 _ $215,345,213,678 _ $645,083,758,817 _ $1,669,315,819,548 __ 39%


• 06/29/1940 $42,967,531,038 _ $101,400,000,000 _ $73,759,910,608 _ $174,067,598,371 _ $571,773,031,421 _ $1,349,339,466,007 __ 42%


• 06/29/1935 $28,700,892,625 __ $73,300,000,000 _ $51,112,403,447 _ $130,537,374,628 _ $396,213,791,764 _ $1,011,901,313,183 __ 39%


• 06/30/1930 $16,185,309,831 __ $91,200,000,000 _ $22,559,556,882 _ $127,117,219,818 _ $174,877,465,547 ___ $985,388,912,786 __ 18%


• 06/30/1925 $20,516,193,888 __ $90,600,000,000 _ $28,664,062,456 _ $126,581,181,321 _ $222,198,451,006 ___ $981,233,642,612 __ 23%


• 07/01/1920 $25,952,456,406 __ $88,400,000,000 _ $35,837,237,566 _ $122,069,824,575 _ $277,803,562,825 ___ $946,262,448,893 __ 29%

Maybe you can convince me to consider your opinion, if you can answer a few simple questions:

• [01] Why won’t creating trillions of dollars not create hyperinflation (which will make things worse)?


• [02] Since when in U.S. History has the GDP fallen so sharply?


• [03] How many centuries would it take to pay down 33% of the $23 Tirllion of total fedarl debt, even IF we ever possessed the discipline to do so?


• [04] How many centuries would it take to pay down 33% of the $67 Trillion nation-wide debt, IF we even possessed the discipline to do so?


• [05] What is the likelihood of change when 86.9% of incunbents in Congress were recently rewarded with re-election, who just gave themselves their 10th raise in 12 years?


• [06] Where will all of these trillions of dollars in new spending come from when that money does not yet exist?


• [07] How much total federal debt is untenable?


• [08] How much non-federal debt is untenable?


• [09] How much total nation-wide debt is untenable?


• [10] Where will the money come from to replace the $12.7 Trillion borrowed from Social Security?


• [11] What do you think will happen when inflation motivates foreigners to spend their U.S. Dollars when the U.S. nanufacturing base has been deteriorated for decades (i.e. there are more jobs in government than all manufacturing jobs in the U.S.) ? See the chart above that already demonstrates a mass liquidation in progress (over $20 Trillion of assets in the U.S. are foreign nowed).


• [12] How do you know what real inflation is, when the federal government lies about it? Do you really believe DEC-2008 inflation is only 1.07% ? If so, I’ve got some beach-front property FOR-SALE in Arizona that you may be interested in?


• [13] How do you know what real GDP is? The federal government also lies about that too. Only recently did they finally admit a recession started in DEC-2007. However, GDP has actually been negative since JAN-2007 (based on inflation adjusted 2006 and 1950Dollars).


• [14] How do you know what real unemployment is? They federal government now reports unemployment to be 7.2% (DEC-2008), but it is really over 13%.


• [15] What makes anyone believe another inflation-fueled bubble will solve anything? Is there even another bubble possible, with so much nation-wide debt?


• ______________ CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT _________________


• 7.3% |————————————————————————


• 7.2% |——————————————————————xxxx


• 7.1% |——————————————————————x—-


• 7.0% |——————————————————————x—-


• 6.9% |——————————————————————x—-


• 6.8% |————————————————————-xxxx—-


• 6.7% |————————————————————-x———


• 6.6% |———————————————————xxxx———


• 6.5% |—————————————————-xxxx————-


• 6.4% |—————————————————-x——————


• 6.3% |—————————————————-x——————


• 6.2% |—————————————————-x——————


• 6.1% |—————————————-xxxxxxxxx——————


• 6.0% |—————————————-x——————————


• 5.9% |—————————————-x——————————


• 5.8% |—————————————-x——————————


• 5.7% |———————————-xxxxx——————————


• 5.6% |———————————-x————————————


• 5.5% |———————-xxxxxxxxx————————————


• 5.4% |———————-x————————————————


• 5.3% |———————-x————————————————


• 5.2% |———————-x————————————————


• 5.1% |———-xxxxx—-x————————————————


• 5.0% |———-x—-xxxxx————————————————


• 4.9% |xxxx—-x————————————————————


• 4.8% |—-xxxxx————————————————————


• 4.7% |————————————————————————


• ___Jan_Feb_Mar_Apr_May_Jun_Jul_Aug_Sep_Oct_Nov_Dec (2008)

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2009 10:48 AM

The best reform for our current political system is referendum voting. It will increase voter awareness and possibly voter registration as well.
And, it will prevent elected officials from conduction policy that the voters disagree with and have no control over. We have a two party system. When both parties support policy that the people disagree with, the people have no recourse.

I also agree with many of Roy’s reform recommendations.

Bills, the bailouts might keep the rollercoaster ride going for a while longer but, borrowing the cost of the ride results in a bill which will have to be paid by future generations. It’s like going to the amusement park, enjoying the good times and charging the bill on the grandchildrens credit card.

Does it make us feel good when we can enjoy the good times and pass the pain of the bad times on to posterity?

Antibiotics don’t cure viral infections.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2009 12:50 PM

IMO, the weekend voting act will do little or nothing to encourage voting. Make voting day a national holiday with a paid day off work for all who vote. And, perhaps a 5 dollar gift certificate good at any restaurant for retirees and others who are unemployed.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2009 01:25 PM

jlw, you might want to study weekend social behavior in America as opposed to paid holiday behavior. You might find more voters on weekends as opposed to a paid election holiday.

The best of all would be weekend voting with holiday shift pay for one day for those whose jobs require they work on the election weekend, and whom return to work with proof they actually voted. Minimizes employer resistance, maximizes voting accessibility, and motivates workers also. Pragmatic solution all the way around.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2009 01:43 PM

Some of Joel’s recommendations don’t make sense.

“Mandate voter participation.”
This is absurd. Fine people, who probably have no business voting in the first place, for NOT voting? Ridiculous.

“None of the Above option on ballots.”
Only adds greater potential for problems deciphering ballots. Democracy is based on voting for the best or least worst candidate. None of the above votes only add to the cost and labor to conduct elections with absolutely NO impact on the election whatsoever.

“Impartial election administrators.”
Another absurd concept. There are no tests known in the psychological or sociological community that could be relied upon to determine who is impartial in an election, and who is not. Only encourages deception. Bad idea.

“Uniform and inclusive voter registration standards”

This is not a bad idea, but, a difficult one to employ Constitutionally. States rights! I am for the idea. But, would require an Amendment stipulating uniformity for federal elections. Enormous broo ha ha would ensue.

“Uniform standards for counting provisional ballots.” and
“Fair and uniform voter ID rules” and
Streamline absentee ballot, including use of Internet.
(see previous comment regarding States rights.)

I believe we need a national voting system conducted under federal rules and regulations and laws. But, the Constitutional amendment requirement is a huge mountain to climb to get these kinds of standardization reforms.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2009 01:56 PM

d.a.n, the vast majority of people who don’t believe their vote will make any difference, don’t vote. Most of those who would believe we cannot save the future from economic collapse would not exert effort to try to save it. Best to keep hope alive. The self-fulfilling prophecy works both ways, you know. Expect the worst, and increase the chances the worst will occur. Expect the best, and increase the chances something much better will result. Behavior follows expectation, to a very large degree.

One can be realistic about the imposing nature of the challenge without sacrificing all expectation that something can, should, and will be done about it. Optimistic expectation increases the potential of actually being able to meet the challenge, or, at the very least, make the result less onerous.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2009 02:04 PM

Let’s vote on April 15th. Yea, that sounds good, maybe more participation.

Posted by: Oldguy at January 10, 2009 05:31 PM

Will try to clear up an earlier post on voting suggestions. I posted some suggestions and alluded that several came from Joel’s book, Delusional Democracy.

Here are Joel’s top 3 out of 25 for revitalizing democracy:

Replace the Electoral College with the popular vote or at least proportional state systems.

Eliminate the number of senators from state Electoral College votes

Promote None of the Above options on ballots.

Here are all of his suggestions to promote citizen participation:

Make Election Day a national holiday.

Create a federal ballot initiative or national referendum process with ballot measures for congressional and presidential elections.

Expand state ballot initiative options by providing necessary enabling laws and reducing procedural requirements.

Implement same day registration everywhere

After making critically needed election reforms make voting compulsory.

Support regular required state constitutional conventions.

Restore voting rights to felons who have fulfilled their penalties

He cites 22 suggestions on how to stop corporate supremacy and corruption but my fingers are tired.

Agree states rights issues are involved but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t attempt to reach agreement on some issues.

On the budget David, why make it so complicated? Let’s strive to do the right thing. Let’s run the budget on two year cycles. You are allowed to be in the red one year but must return to black the following year. war clause included, etc. Can’t be in the red two years in sequence.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 10, 2009 06:45 PM

DAN
That is not just my opinion. Please take time to Read some Keynes and more relevantly Krugman. Krugman just won a Nobel prize in economics. Nobel Laureates are not always right but they are not dummies. Fortunately the president elect is aware of the necessity to stimulate the economy by whatever means necessary. Again the danger lies in not doing enough for long enough. Obama needs support.
I agree that the federal government needs a drastic overhaul. There are programs that are no longer worthwhile and other areas that, like investments in energy independance, have not been funded as they should. That is also on BHO’s agenda. Doing so does not take away from the need for a large sustained stimulus.

DR
I gather we are in general accordance with BHO’s economic approach. There is a likely scenario that the Reps will at some point atempt to cripple it for political reasons and again try to assume the mantel of fical conservativism despite their track record of profligate spending. We must gard against that. Another dangerious tendancy is to apply business standards to proposed stimulus projects. For example lets take a bridge project(I like bridges). Its construction will immediately put lots of people to work. It potentialy will open up new areas of developement like the highway system did. It increases the infastucture wealth of a country. However its cost may take 50-100 years to amortize. For a business it would not make sense. For a nation it does.
” Half measures avail us nothing” _AA
Help gard against those that would cripple our recovery effort. Not an easy thing as most of the opposition, like DAN and jlw,have good intentions but just lack knowlege of Keynesian recession fundemental and dymamics.

Posted by: bills at January 10, 2009 09:44 PM

Bills, Kenesian principles might have more standing in the community if:

We weren’t dealing with a Congress and an administration with the lowest approval ratings on record.

Weren’t serving under two juxtaposed governments; one that has allowed the trashing of our Constitution and sovereignty, thrown oversight out the window. While the other has managed, in part with this recession to complete the breakdown of the US middle class and make cheap labor the focus of manufacturing economics, and subverted the US Supreme Court to international entities.

They weren’t bailing out financial institutions that have proved to be every bit as corrupt as Madoff.

Recognizing that Goldman Sacs was used to fund and setup Communist China as a world player. Ignoring all kinds of human dignities, environmental standards, etc.

Recognizing that the government has failed when they allow businesses to become too big to fail. I can’t recall an anti-trust action in the last 20 years.

Recognizing that this recession could easily have been averted by expending Keynesian funds of less than $2B to buy up the so-called toxic home loans .

Recognizing that most realize that Roosevelt prolonged and caused a deeper depression through his Keynesian philantrophy.

Recognizing that this so-called recession was brought about by the collusion of big business and dysfunctional government.

Recognizing that Tom Daschel and his wife have a major conflict of interest going forward with healthcare reform.

Etc, etc, etc.

I truly want to be included on the side of the unknowledged for this one. Winning the hearts and minds of the people is not easy when you import millions of illegal cheap labor workers into a country to compete with workers during the middle of a recession. But, who said it was?

Otherwise, we have the government/NAU we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 10, 2009 10:56 PM

Roy, such a simple minded, rule oriented approach to the budget and economy are just that, simple minded. Sells well to those without education in complex subjects like economics, but, completely unworkable both politically and economically.
Flexibility is absolutely essential in preventing peaks and troughs like we are experiencing.

Of course, flexibility must be accompanied by a dedication to fiscal discipline; absent ludicrous ideological approaches like Republican’s big gov’t spending with small gov’t taxation, or Dem’s big gov’t spending with even bigger gov’t taxation predicated on perpetual growth of GDP.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2009 11:50 PM

bills, first priority is roads, tunnels, and bridge maintenance, which precludes the need to build NEW replacement bridges. I don’t think there is a need for a lot of new road, tunnel, or bridge infrastructure where none already exists. Where population shifts have created wasteful congestion, expansion of existing infrastructure would be required.

The New infrastructure I hear Obama talking about is energy resource development and distribution infrastructure, broadband infrastructure, and urban food growing facilities grown by, marketed by, sold by, and sold to local urban residents, eliminating distribution costs and providing fresh food at a lower cost to urban centers. Things like these which will pay enormous dividends in stimulus in the short run via job creation and long run dividends through less dependency, lower long term costs, and overhead.

Of course, reforming the health care infrastructure is the most needed reform in order to protect against long term economic decline via health care inflation costs to tax payers. More physician’s assistants and RN control of routine procedures now handled by doctors at 5 times the price. Moving from for profit to non-profit health care delivery incentives, eliminating the profit shareholder middleman costs from Medicare/Medicaid costs over the boomer retirement decades.

These address the most costly challenges to our future economic sustainability, besides military and national security outlays. SS is not included here because SS can easily be made self-sufficient by converting it to an insurance plan instead of an entitlement plan, for everyone entering the work force in the last 15 years. And then increasing premiums modestly and extending the retirement age to 68 for men and 70 for women, which would be more in keeping with actuarial data on health and lifespan by gender.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 11, 2009 12:06 AM

d.a.n said: “Yes, for war, but only if Congress has declared war, which it has not, has it?”

Yep, great point. The founding fathers were wise to posit the power to elect war in the Congress, not the presidency. We should return to that wisdom which assures those who die in those wars are better represented in the decision to engage in war.

The President was wisely given the power to defend the United States against all threats foreign and domestic. But, that has come to mean, as you point out, the president having the power to direct the military into armed conflict, with or without war declaration, and even with, or without the people’s or Congress’ approval. Though, no president has exercised that new meaning, Dick Cheney has said the president has that power. We must redress that interpretation and return to the original intent of the founding father in this regard.

War, declared or not, is an incredibly expensive exercise anywhere overseas. Because it is tax payers who foot that bill, it is the tax payer’s individual representatives in the Congress who should exclusively have that power to wage war overseas, defense against attack excluded, of course, which should remain with the President. But, even a president’s decision to engage in war in defense of attack should be time-limited with automatic funding cut-off without Congressional extension of funds beyond that cut-off period of say 60 days. Ample time for Congress to deliberate on extending hostile action funding, even if we are first attacked.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 11, 2009 01:15 AM

Roy
Where FDR failed was in 1937 when he bowed to political pressure to abandon the Kenyesian programs and attempt to balance the budget too soon. Perhaps he saw WW2 on the horizon and understood that major war also amounts to a massive stimulus program. At any rate the real lesson is to provide as much stimulus as needed for as LONG as it is needed.

Posted by: bills at January 11, 2009 04:42 AM

Well, I thought my suggestion for a balanced budget was at least as proper and well founded as that proposed by my good buddy Jefferson. From wiki: “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.”
(Although Jefferson made a point of seeking a balanced budget during the early years of his administration, he seems to have later reversed himself in purchasing the Louisiana Territory. But note also that he made no exception for war, but rather saw the requirement of maintaining a balanced budget as a salutary deterrent.)
Except for a short period during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, since its inception the United States Government has always been in debt. During the second term of President Bill Clinton at the end of the twentieth century, the President and Congress managed to craft a budget surplus. This surplus was a ‘budgeted surplus’ only however as the outstanding national debt has increased every year since 1957.

A few others have called for a balanced budget over time. “Article V of the Constitution specifies that if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states petition Congress for a constitutional amendment on the same subject, then Congress must call a convention for proposing that amendment. Between April 29, 1975 and January 29, 1980, 34 petitions from 30 different state legislatures were submitted to Congress on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The participating states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Since 1980, two additional state legislatures have petitioned Congress for a convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment, bringing the total number of participating states to 32. If two additional state legislatures were to petition, then the required two-thirds majority of states would be reached (34 out of 50 states) and Congress would be required to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment. In December 2008, the Ohio legislature considered making Ohio the 33rd state to petition for a convention on the subject, but decided against it.”

I would have supported a $2B program to buy up the defaulted home loans earlier on, say Aug-Sep 08. That’s about the time that AIG and Goldman’s was stating that they were riding high, coming up roses, etc.
I don’t support throwing good money after bad. US debt is expected to reach 60% of GDP by 2010. Today’s Wash Post notes that Japan went Keynesian in the 90’s when debt reached 71% of GDP. That helped them to achieve 154% debt to GDP in 2002. Wowee! Maybe we can do as well.

Got no stomach for bailing out the likes of AIG or Goldman Sac’s. Here we have an insurance company reporting profits of more than 80%. That says the product is either useless because the risk to the company is nonexistent, or the insurer doesn’t intend to meet it’s obligations. Goldman Sac’s helped bring us NAFTA, the NAU and has done more to make China a major player, including sovereign funds investments, than any other financial institution. These crooks need bailouts like I need a hole in the head. And, even with the bailouts they are pushing to continue spewing millions in bonus pay to top end exec’s.

To determine why such corp’s are being bailed out you only need to look to the revolving door syndrome and the fact that we have the best government money can buy.

Well, I want nothing to do with the duopoly, the klepto-plutocracy. Reform of government is needed, and soon. Jefferson said if we go 20 years without a revolution we are doing a disservice to our country. Long overdue.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 11, 2009 01:55 PM

Roy, you completely miss the issue at hand. No one wanted to bail out the financial exec’s except GW Bush and former Goldman Exec Hank Paulson. Bailing them out, WAS NOT, I repeat, WAS NOT, the goal. Saving the economy from stalling and spiraling into collapse due to a near complete freeze of capital lending, was the goal.

The issue going forward then, is how do we prevent this from reoccurring, where the entire nation is dependent on dozen or so financial institutions who will, act in concert, motivated by greed, to create wealth for themselves which isn’t really there, running off with it, while leaving the unsuspecting who invested in them, or the tax payers, suffering the evaporation of funds when reconciling the books occurs?

To take prophylactic action such as this absolutely requires finding and placing the blame on all the players that brought this about, how they contributed to it, and putting in place measures to insure others may not repeat the actions of those who caused this. What is frighteningly discouraging is to hear politicians on both sides of the aisle, (complicit in allowing this to occur), repeatedly state to the public that fixing the blame does not solve our problem going forward. That, my friend, is akin to a murderer saying finding me guilty will not prevent my killing someone else. It is a bold faced lie to the public in the hopes they are stupid and shallow enough to buy it, allowing all responsible to skip away with tax payer and investor dollars, entirely free to enjoy their ill-gotten gains.

I absolutely insist that Obama’s attorney general NOT permit these offenses against the American tax payers to go unidentified, and where inappropriate, unpunished. That includes all the players responsible from the Bush Administration to the mortgage lenders. The people responsible have ripped the American tax payers off for trillions of dollars, and they need to be held accountable and removed from the positions they hold before they teach their methods to others and perpetrate another such scam of inventing wealth to justify walking away with money that should never have been there’s in the first place.

If the Obama administration wants this voter’s and consumer’s confidence to return, it will have take those responsible to the legal mat of accountability.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 11, 2009 05:13 PM

I remains to be seen if the infusion of $3.2 to $8.5 Trillion into banks and Wall Street accomplished anything but to buy a little more time while growing the problem larger and more painful later.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2009 07:03 PM

DR
Get a rope!

Posted by: bills at January 11, 2009 10:12 PM

d.a.n, we know already the first 350 billion bought us time. No need to wait to see about that.

The second 350 billion, Obama just announced, is going to be targeted at homeowners and preventing foreclosures and more direct credit assistance to consumers. The details are sketchy, and the banks and financial institutions have pretty much got all they are going to get for the time being.

You are absolutely right though, that it is a wait and see situation regarding whether tax payers receive any return on their investments in private sector corporations. Their will be a rebound from this recession. Whether it lasts or not requires a working crystal ball and mine is on the fritz again.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 12, 2009 03:59 PM

bills, no ropes. Just insistence on fair and equal application of the law for all, wealthy and powerful included.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 12, 2009 04:00 PM

David, This is about a lot more than $300 to $700 Billion.

The current deficit is $1.2 Trillion.
Next year’s deficit is $1.0 Trillion more.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2009 08:13 PM

d.a.n, yes, but, we have to address deficit spending according to the legislation and its designated purpose. I was referring to the TARP funds because you referenced funds going to the banking sector, presumably never to be returned to the tax payers. That identifies the TARP funds, 700 billion, of which only 350 billion have been spent so far. Forgive the word, only! That’s an enormous amount, I know.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2009 04:23 PM