Solving American Deficit And Fixing Economy

[Joshua 0]

Alright, I have an idea about how to quickly fix our deficit and turn our economy around. To put it simply, first reduce our biggest expense, and secondly keep jobs and money from leaving our economy. Here are the details:1. Reduce military expenses. A single fighter jet can cost over a billion dollars to manufacture. Small wonder that our federal deficit instantly appeared and ballooned right after we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. It takes a lot of money to support all those troops, supply all their equipment and food, provide reconnaisance in enemy territory, organize logistics, etc. What's more, we have troops stationed in dozens of countries where we no longer need troops in. If we were to pull back our troops from around the world and just focus on protecting our own borders, several things would happen: A: Expenses would get drastically reduced.B: Our world reputation would improve as nations would stop resenting us for our heavy-handed "global policeman" tactics.C: We would have the troops and diplomatic influence needed to stop real atrocities like the Darfour atrocities.Now, some might say Iran could try attacking Iraq if we pull out altogether, and with control of all Iraq's oil become so rich as to build nuclear weapons. But a simple solution would be to globally announce that anyone attacking Iraq after we leave will be dealt with harshly and quickly, and that we will utterly defend Iraq from invading forces. What is more, we could remove the large bulk of our troops and leave a remnant to protect the government headquarters and oil reserves. It is far easier, safer, and more cost effective for troops to defend a few defensible areas than trying to police an entire country. 2. Protect American jobs.People have been deceived by corporations into thinking free trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA are a good thing. But while they may increase trade, they provide companies with incentive to move industries out of the company. Thanks to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, it is very easy for companies like General Mills to send factories down to Mexico where the labor is cheaper and then ship the goods back up here at much lower costs. And thanks to NAFTA we are rewarding them for such a practice; one which is costing American workers their jobs and hurting our economy! What is more, we are becoming less independent as a nation as our industries (like the steel industry) move to other countries. This dependence on other countries gives them power over us they once did not have. We are allowing our companies to outsource jobs as much as they wish, and honest companies who would like to employ American workers are inevitably forced to employ the same horrible tactics to stay in business, or else cut jobs to avoid their rising costs (think the sole remaining American car companies Ford and G.M.).If we would eliminate those free trade pacts, yes, it would come at the cost of decreased trade. But it would be well worth it to make our country industrially independent again and on its way to becoming the global superpower it once was. It would be well worth it to protect our American jobs. Once the pacts are abolished we could set tariffs to allow American companies to compete with foreign ones. One way to do this would be to base a nation's tariff levels on what their minimum wage is as well as the working conditions for their citizens, thus creating incentive for other countries to treat their workers better. We should also enact laws to keep American companies in America, and that would punish companies like Microsoft that move their headquarters to foreign countries (in Microsoft's case, Ireland) to avoid paying the U.S.' higher taxes; thus cheating our nation out of valuable tax dollars that should be supporting our economy. ============================================================ I am convinced that effectively executing these 2 steps would turn our entire economy around. We would see such a huge amount of savings for our economy that the economic growth would be tremendous. We'd have more than enough money to enact a universal healthcare system for our citizens with all the money saved from our reduced military expenses; for I believe a country's greatness is evidenced by how it cares for the weakest of its citizens. We could pour more money into our education systems; for our future is our children. More money could be focused on scientific research including medical developments; for we should care for the sick and not lightly esteem human life.What is more, I do not think illegal immigration is the real issue behind a tightening job market. If we stopped jobs from leaving the country it would be much less of a problem. The problem with illegal immigrants is that they often bring criminal ties with them from third-world countries and because they are poor and forced to hide from the authorities they are at a greater risk of getting involved with crimes such as identity theft. IF (and that is a big IF) we could stabilize our economy first by enacting the 2 steps I mentioned above, I would be in favor of legalizing all illegal immigrants in the country, but with a probationary period so that if they commit a certain level of crime within their first 10 years as a citizen they can be instantly deported. However, after this legalization, I would enact strict border controls to keep future illegal immigrants out, but with a strengthened job market would loosen the immigration quotas so more could enter the country anyway. Once the job market is stable so there is no worry about immigrants taking vital American jobs, we could loosen the quotas to allow others the same freedom to enter our country our own ancestors once enjoyed. What is more, with them entering legally, we would have more power to keep those likely to become criminally involved from entering where they could negatively influence our society, as is now happening.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Joshua (see edit history)

[dre 0]

Small wonder that our federal deficit instantly appeared and ballooned right after we went into Afghanistan and Iraq.

You really think that debt began right after the war in Afghanistan? Perhaps I'm one of the few who think that money laying around doing money is lost money. Think about it. If you just save up money and don't invest it, you're loosing money. Of course, it's easier for the Euro Union, since the value of their currency mostly increases. All they have to do is save it up, and if by magic, it becomes more.

What's more, we have troops stationed in dozens of countries where we no longer need troops in.

This happened right after World War II. People now had a different state of mind after they realized what happened when there were huge wars, and therefore the doctrine was to prevent such things from happening in the first place rather than responding to them. Little wars instead of big ones. And by saying "where we no longer need them" is completely biased, I highly doubt troops would be put where they serve no purpose.

Our world reputation would improve as nations would stop resenting us for our heavy-handed "global policeman" tactics.

Yet they call America ignorant when it decides to stay out for once. Go figure.

We would have the troops and diplomatic influence needed to stop real atrocities like the Darfour atrocities.

Nothing will be done by anybody unless there's some sort of gain included. Some people would like to do something to help and expect nothing in return, but those are by far the minority. Lets start getting used to the real world now.

But a simple solution would be to globally announce that anyone attacking Iraq after we leave will be dealt with harshly and quickly, and that we will utterly defend Iraq from invading forces.

You don't have to say something to let everybody know you mean it. And just because you say something doesn't mean anybody must care. Foreign policy has never been and will never be simple, if it was, then there would be no wars.

What is more, we could remove the large bulk of our troops and leave a remnant to protect the government headquarters and oil reserves.

Maybe I'm just a freak, but I have a militaristic view of war, not a political one. Therefore, by doing so you're simply creating a new terrorist playground. I think Americans should be required to take a Warfare 101 class in high school.

Protect American jobs.

You wont find many people who will actually take those jobs anyways. For example, I don't see millions of eager Americans spending their whole summer in agricultural labor tasks.

I am convinced that effectively executing these 2 steps would turn our entire economy around. We would see such a huge amount of savings for our economy that the economic growth would be tremendous.

The economy is complex and is composed of many parts, doing 2 things would create catastrophic aftereffects. A solution would have to be made of many little changes and would have to take years to complete.
Personally, I feel good that the world's strongest military force is out there to protect me from millions of crackheads eager to kill me.

[Joshua 0]

You really think that debt began right after the war in Afghanistan? Perhaps I'm one of the few who think that money laying around doing money is lost money. Think about it. If you just save up money and don't invest it, you're loosing money. Of course, it's easier for the Euro Union, since the value of their currency mostly increases. All they have to do is save it up, and if by magic, it becomes more.

Our deficit began ballooning after the war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq escalated that process. Just look at our federal deficit at the beginning of each year:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

1998 - $5.50 Trillion
1999 - $5.61 Trillion
2000 - $5.77 Trillion
2001 - $5.66 Trillion
2002 - $5.94 Trillion (right after Afghanistan War started in October of 2001)
2003 - $6.40 Trillion
2004 - $7.00 Trillion (after Iraq War started in March of 2003)
2005 - $7.60 Trillion
2006 - $8.170 Trillion
2007 - $8.68 Trillion
Current - $9.06 Trillion

Our federal deficit had been hovering right around the 5-6 Trillion dollar range. Clinton had even gotten it to drop towards the end, although it's hardly as big as an achievement as his supporters would like it to appear. But once we went into Afghanistan and Iraq our deficit jumped in about 6 years by more than 3 Trillion U.S. Dollars. Just a coincidence? You can keep telling yourself that.

And I don't know what you're talking about with investing. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan was hardly an investment, and if so, probably not a good one. There's a reason we're 3 Trillion more dollars in the red after starting those wars.

This happened right after World War II. People now had a different state of mind after they realized what happened when there were huge wars, and therefore the doctrine was to prevent such things from happening in the first place rather than responding to them. Little wars instead of big ones. And by saying "where we no longer need them" is completely biased, I highly doubt troops would be put where they serve no purpose.

Considering the wars that have since happened (Iraq, Afghanistan, Persian Gulf, Vietnam), I'd say that "doctrine", assuming you're right about that having been adopted, hasn't worked all that well. As I pointed out, stationing these troops all over the place and trying to play the global policeman is hurting our economy and our global reputation. Maybe it's time to adopt a new "doctrine".

Yet they call America ignorant when it decides to stay out for once. Go figure.

Umm... what are you talking about?

Nothing will be done by anybody unless there's some sort of gain included. Some people would like to do something to help and expect nothing in return, but those are by far the minority. Lets start getting used to the real world now.

Believe it or not, there are actually some people who don't like seeing those atrocities committed and would be willing to act to stop them regardless of whether there's any personal gain. Are you saying that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan then because there was "some sort of gain included"? You can keep your "real world" morals, thank you very much.

You don't have to say something to let everybody know you mean it. And just because you say something doesn't mean anybody must care. Foreign policy has never been and will never be simple, if it was, then there would be no wars.

Either way it's a solution to the problem posed by those suggesting Iran might attack Iraq if we pull out. And might as well be honest and up front with other nations. Maybe they'd respect us a little more if we started doing that.

Maybe I'm just a freak, but I have a militaristic view of war, not a political one. Therefore, by doing so you're simply creating a new terrorist playground. I think Americans should be required to take a Warfare 101 class in high school.

What I don't think you realize is that BY staying in Iraq we've been creating a "new terrorist playground." There is no evidence any WOMD ever existed. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Bin Laden while he was in charge. We effectively eliminated a huge point of resistance AGAINST the very terrorists who attacked us and by destroying the country's government not only created the lawlessness needed for terrorists but also created the cause/incentive needed for them to attract fresh troops.

We are also creating growing global dissent against our heavy-handed ways by staying in Iraq. The papers are full of our atrocities like Guantanamo Bay and every time our troops kill Iraqi civilians the world hears about it. Think about it. If you rush into a country, kill off the leader in what appears a biased trial, destroy the forces and the country's infrastructure, and annihilate a bunch of innocent civilians along the way, don't you think that if some of the citizens WEREN'T going to fight you before, now they WILL?

You wont find many people who will actually take those jobs anyways. For example, I don't see millions of eager Americans spending their whole summer in agricultural labor tasks.

And all the jobs the steel-workers had? What about those? And all the telephone operating jobs we're outsourcing? You don't think some Americans might want those? And the factory jobs getting sent down to Mexico, like when General Mills shut down their cereal plants in Illinois to opt for the cheaper labor a few years ago? You don't think that's costing a few jobs as well?

The economy is complex and is composed of many parts, doing 2 things would create catastrophic aftereffects. A solution would have to be made of many little changes and would have to take years to complete.

So basically you're saying making major changes are a bad thing? Serious problems call for serious changes. Our federal deficit is sky-rocketing. Unemployment is growing. Economists are telling us we're at risk for a depression due to a stagnating housing market among other things. And you think a bunch of "little changes" are just going to turn all this around? Major changes are what created these problems, and if we're going to fix them, we're going to need major reversals.

Personally, I feel good that the world's strongest military force is out there to protect me from millions of crackheads eager to kill me.

Maybe if we hadn't sent that "strongest military force" to attack countries who hadn't done anything to us there would be a few less million "crackheads" who'd like to see your head just south of their scimitars.
Edited October 18, 2007 by Joshua (see edit history)

[dre 0]

Are you saying that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan then because there was "some sort of gain included"? You can keep your "real world" morals, thank you very much.

Wow dude. And how about the contractors that are gaining billions, and then the oil? Cmon, don't tell me you're living in a fairy tale.

QUOTE(dre @ Oct 16 2007, 07:13 PM) *Yet they call America ignorant when it decides to stay out for once. Go figure.


Umm... what are you talking about?

I'm not going to hand it on a plate to you, read what you said and my response to it...

Our deficit began ballooning after the war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq escalated that process. Just look at our federal deficit at the beginning of each year:

To me it looks like a steady increase in debt. The higher numbers don't mean anything since you didn't correct for the declining value of the dollar.

What I don't think you realize is that BY staying in Iraq we've been creating a "new terrorist playground." There is no evidence any WOMD ever existed. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Bin Laden while he was in charge. We effectively eliminated a huge point of resistance AGAINST the very terrorists who attacked us and by destroying the country's government not only created the lawlessness needed for terrorists but also created the cause/incentive needed for them to attract fresh troops.
We are also creating growing global dissent against our heavy-handed ways by staying in Iraq. The papers are full of our atrocities like Guantanamo Bay and every time our troops kill Iraqi civilians the world hears about it. Think about it. If you rush into a country, kill off the leader in what appears a biased trial, destroy the forces and the country's infrastructure, and annihilate a bunch of innocent civilians along the way, don't you think that if some of the citizens WEREN'T going to fight you before, now they WILL?

Well, most of the terrorists that come to Iraq are not from Iraq. Therefore if forces are pulled out, then it'll create a safe haven for them. And I agree with you about the part where you said Hussein was an enemy of Bin Laden and that taking the head off will leave the body...messed up. America obviously "forgot" the strategy it used in Afghanistan and hopefully is slowly relearning it. But you're absolutely right, the attack on Iraq wasn't really justified, which like I said earlier, leads me to believe there are gains from this war.

And all the jobs the steel-workers had? What about those? And all the telephone operating jobs we're outsourcing? You don't think some Americans might want those? And the factory jobs getting sent down to Mexico, like when General Mills shut down their cereal plants in Illinois to opt for the cheaper labor a few years ago? You don't think that's costing a few jobs as well?

Service jobs are slowly going away. 80% of jobs are service jobs, and a lot of them are headed for extinction. Only in earlier years could those jobs support you anyways. I guess what Americans want is easy jobs that pay well, which isn't going to happen. With that, the companies themselves lose money rather than having cheap labor.

So basically you're saying making major changes are a bad thing? Serious problems call for serious changes. Our federal deficit is sky-rocketing. Unemployment is growing. Economists are telling us we're at risk for a depression due to a stagnating housing market among other things. And you think a bunch of "little changes" are just going to turn all this around? Major changes are what created these problems, and if we're going to fix them, we're going to need major reversals.

I'm saying you can't just come in and curbstomp the whole entire system. Nobody is ready for that (in my opinion at least). If people in general were actually competent enough, than yes, what you said would work. Sadly, the real world doesn't offer those kind of simple solutions.

QUOTE(dre @ Oct 16 2007, 07:13 PM) *Personally, I feel good that the world's strongest military force is out there to protect me from millions of crackheads eager to kill me.


Maybe if we hadn't sent that "strongest military force" to attack countries who hadn't done anything to us there would be a few less million "crackheads" who'd like to see your head just south of their scimitars.

Usually they had to do something to get the US to come and intervene. Marines wont be deployed to apprehend grannies surfing the net.
Edited October 18, 2007 by dre (see edit history)

[Joshua 0]

Wow dude. And how about the contractors that are gaining billions, and then the oil? Cmon, don't tell me you're living in a fairy tale.

 

Maybe they did go into Iraq for those reasons, maybe they didn't. Seems likely, but I won't call it certain but it's not. Just because that's the way some people or even most people might run things doesn't make it right.

 

To me it looks like a steady increase in debt. The higher numbers don't mean anything since you didn't correct for the declining value of the dollar.

 

Isn't the dollar declining in value in part because of our stagnating job economy which is due to jobs leaving our country and our growing deficit? And how should any decrease in the dollar's worth account for 3 Trillion dollars of debt piled on in about 6 years?

 

Well, most of the terrorists that come to Iraq are not from Iraq. Therefore if forces are pulled out, then it'll create a safe haven for them. And I agree with you about the part where you said Hussein was an enemy of Bin Laden and that taking the head off will leave the body...messed up. America obviously "forgot" the strategy it used in Afghanistan and hopefully is slowly relearning it. But you're absolutely right, the attack on Iraq wasn't really justified, which like I said earlier, leads me to believe there are gains from this war.

 

Maybe you're right and there were gains from the war. But I don't think we should operate on a system of only doing good if there's something in it for us. I'd like to think our country's founders, at least some of them, had more noble ideals in mind.

 

Service jobs are slowly going away. 80% of jobs are service jobs, and a lot of them are headed for extinction. Only in earlier years could those jobs support you anyways. I guess what Americans want is easy jobs that pay well, which isn't going to happen. With that, the companies themselves lose money rather than having cheap labor.

 

There are a lot of college students and high school students competing with seniors for just any kinds of jobs. I don't think it matters so much what kind of jobs are created in our country so long as they're humane. What the companies want is people they can pay slave wages to like Walmart does to its workers in China (ever hear of a documentary called "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"?). If Americans want jobs better than that, I don't blame them, and our government owes it to them to provide them with better jobs than it is.

 

I'm saying you can't just come in and curbstomp the whole entire system. Nobody is ready for that (in my opinion at least). If people in general were actually competent enough, than yes, what you said would work. Sadly, the real world doesn't offer those kind of simple solutions.

 

Maybe you're right. Maybe the world isn't ready for it. But once in a while a crazy dream will succeed and if it's worth enough, sometimes you just need to go ahead and try to make it happen.

 

Usually they had to do something to get the US to come and intervene. Marines wont be deployed to apprehend grannies surfing the net.

 

America has a bad habit of starting wars for selfish reasons, as you yourself alluded to it as far as the contractors. The Revolutionary War was started right after England passed a law against slavery, and some would say southern plantation owners pushed a revolt to protect their industry. The Mexican American War was started because Mexico generously opened its borders to all because it had extra land in what we know as Texas, and greedy slave-owners ran into claim their land. But when Mexico likewise passed a law against slavery, the slave-owners got together to say they wanted to cede from Mexico. The U.S. knew it was a sham but southerners pushed the war to add another slave state since the slave states needed 1 more to equal out the non-slave states' advantage. And why are we cutting off Cuba from the rest of the world? Not to mention the Vietnam War and the Iraq War...

 

We've had some good presidents, we've had some bad presidents. If we can just get a good one they could turn all this around and set our country on a right course once more. We need another Washington or Lincoln to stand up for our country.

[dre 0]

Isn't the dollar declining in value in part because of our stagnating job economy which is due to jobs leaving our country and our growing deficit? And how should any decrease in the dollar's worth account for 3 Trillion dollars of debt piled on in about 6 years?

Well if the value of the dollar is declining then for example if you had 500 billion dollars in debt one year and 5 years later you're at 900 billion, couldn't the value of those numbers be the same? If the value is going down, then there has to be more to account for the same value. In my eyes it makes the debt rise look smaller. (I'm not sure if these numbers are realistic since I can't find any trusted sources that say how much the dollar declines yearly, seems like a 10-20% decline though) I wish it was really this simple, but like I said earlier, the economy and complex and several factors come together to do this.
Also, I'm happy to see we've reached some agreements upon a couple things.
Edited October 20, 2007 by dre (see edit history)

[jamers 0]

I'm afraid some of these ideas though sound in theory are too little too late. The economy is in a downward spiral. I think it has been let go on purpose so that we will have no choice but to accept and even welcome the Amero when it comes. (BTW they already have some minted - search that on youtube, goolge video etc. to see for yourself)NAFTA was supposedly phase 1 in bringing about a North American Union and the Amero. This is like following suit of the European Union and the Euro. Supposedly there will be four global "Unions" (EU, NAU, APEC asian thing and one other which I forget the acronym). Once there are these four in place there will be few steps to only ONE. One gov't... one currency... one religion?? This had to be done once the European Union was formed because countries like Russia and China really want to stick it to the states and are jumping at the chance to dump US dollar holdings and buy Euros.The US dollar has been doomed for a long time now. I can only say it's a good thing we can all communicate using the internet because without information sharing none of us common folk stand a chance in this new world disorder.

[Joshua 0]

I'm afraid some of these ideas though sound in theory are too little too late. The economy is in a downward spiral. I think it has been let go on purpose so that we will have no choice but to accept and even welcome the Amero when it comes. (BTW they already have some minted - search that on youtube, goolge video etc. to see for yourself)
NAFTA was supposedly phase 1 in bringing about a North American Union and the Amero. This is like following suit of the European Union and the Euro. Supposedly there will be four global "Unions" (EU, NAU, APEC asian thing and one other which I forget the acronym). Once there are these four in place there will be few steps to only ONE. One gov't... one currency... one religion?? This had to be done once the European Union was formed because countries like Russia and China really want to stick it to the states and are jumping at the chance to dump US dollar holdings and buy Euros.
The US dollar has been doomed for a long time now. I can only say it's a good thing we can all communicate using the internet because without information sharing none of us common folk stand a chance in this new world disorder.

You raise some scary but likely possibilities. Maybe the economy's downfall was a planned thing. Whatever's to come sure doesn't look good. If so though, it sounds similar to some of the stuff in Revelation about a one-world government which will be signaled in by a dictator declaring himself God in the temple of Jerusalem, which by the way, is even now being rebuilt by Israel after all these centuries of lying in ruin.

The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. or so by Rome. The new Sanhedrin is even now working on new designs for rebuilding it. Once that happens, the events of Revelation could begin at any time.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
Edited December 17, 2007 by Joshua (see edit history)