Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

9/11 Motivated Excessive Fiscal Spending

The wars are a tiny portion of the debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-war-on-terror-costs_n_856390.html

"If Congress also approves the president’s FY2012 war-funding request, the cumulative cost of post-9/11 operations would reach $1.415 trillion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

"As of October 22, 2011, the gross debt was $14.94 trillion."

This is not even addressing the point that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. You're going to have to explain your lack of conservative bona fides when Bush was in power another way.

Banks should have been allowed to fail

Not bailing out the banks would have trashed the economy. When banks fail, financing dries up, businesses can't meet their short term cash flow requirements and they default. The economy collapses. The end. It doesn't matter how you're ideologically attuned to government assistance in times of crisis, that this would have happened is simply a fact.

Better yet follow it through further. When banks collapse, without federal deposit insurance, individuals lose their personal savings. How far would you follow through your rigid and impractical ideological principles? Would you say free markets dictate they lose their savings for the bad judgement of those in the financial services industry.

Keynesian Fiscal Policy Works

Every other major economy is doing it. Take a look at how much China spent and how it's barely sputtered in growth. Every economist worth a damn is saying the US is not spending enough to prop up the economy. That whatever you're reading is drawing a comparison FDR rather than you know, something in the last 50 years should tell you they're full of the BS.

If you go back and read forecasts for unemployment before Obama was inaugurated, none of them expected to fall significantly or quickly in a short period of it. The prolonged European debt crisis has exacerbated that. Unemployment falling marginally is not evidence that stimulus spending does not work.

Look, what is it about fiscal spending that you don't understand? Economic uncertainty in Europe. Businesses don't know what demand will be like, so they sit on their money instead of investing or hiring more workers. Countries face that risk that as they wait, short term unemployed become long term unemployed because they've been out of the workforce and skills atrophy. So they spend in the short term to keep people employed or incentive through deductions for companies to hire. Tax cuts improve returns marginally. Spending to keep people employed reduces the cost of social services in the long-long term from people being shunned out of the workforce. You spend but you make your money back over time.

It's simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.

How is it that hard to understand?

The rest

I'll be honest, your writing manner makes you look stupid when you're trying to make factual arguments. Have you seen a newspaper article or dissertation written like this? No. Exactly.

FYI, I live in Australia. We have free hospital visits, virtually no government debt, almost record low unemployment and we never went into a recession. Funnily enough Keynesian fiscal policy works over here, must be an anomaly though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".
The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.
Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.
We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?
You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.




>> ^RedSky:
@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

Well, that's a bit brutal. Innocent doesn't apply to law enforcement? I guess the badge takes that innocence away? Who are these innocent people supposed to be then, since you specificall exclude all law enforcement?

Okay, so scenario. Female soldier goes overseas, and is raped by extremists. Now, in your opinion, paraphrased "boo fucking boo. He signed up for it. What did you expect?" That's sick. And no, that's not putting words in you mouth. That's applying your belief to a equal scenario, because "That's what they sign up for."

Does this mean *it does mean* any American citizen, who pays taxes and therefore directly contributes to the wars deserves to be blown up by planes? Because that's what we signed up for as American citizens who contribute willingly. Wow, Genji, that's vivid. So because one signs up for something it's nothing to be sad about?

You can try to manipulate what you said, but either A-it's full of hypocrisy, or B-it's completely insane. And my application fits. "That's what you signed up for." Wow. (Thoreau had some nice comments about taxes and civil disobedience. That's what I mean about willfully paying taxes.)

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw & @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 30th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/Psychologic">Psychologic
"You're comparing self defense with law enforcement. One is defensive. One is offensive. Apples and oranges." - Blankfist of the North Star
~~~
At lawdeedaw, the daily threat of death is what you sign up for when being a cop or soldier.
Boo fuckin' boo if you get killed. You signed up for it. What did you expect?
If seven good police officers have to die for every one innocent person saved from a wrongful death, so be it. IT'S WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR.
It's not a noble profession if you can murder an old man whittling a piece of wood because you're too afraid to put yourself at risk for even a moment.
Risking your life daily is what gives those profession prestige.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Lawdeedaw
@Psychologic
"You're comparing self defense with law enforcement. One is defensive. One is offensive. Apples and oranges." - Blankfist of the North Star
~~~
At lawdeedaw, the daily threat of death is what you sign up for when being a cop or soldier.
Boo fuckin' boo if you get killed. You signed up for it. What did you expect?
If seven good police officers have to die for every one innocent person saved from a wrongful death, so be it. IT'S WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR.
It's not a noble profession if you can murder an old man whittling a piece of wood because you're too afraid to put yourself at risk for even a moment.
Risking your life daily is what gives those profession prestige.


What part of that was aimed at me?

@Lawdeedaw & @Psychologic

"You're comparing self defense with law enforcement. One is defensive. One is offensive. Apples and oranges." - Blankfist of the North Star
~~~

At lawdeedaw, the daily threat of death is what you sign up for when being a cop or soldier.

Boo fuckin' boo if you get killed. You signed up for it. What did you expect?

If seven good police officers have to die for every one innocent person saved from a wrongful death, so be it. IT'S WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR.

It's not a noble profession if you can murder an old man whittling a piece of wood because you're too afraid to put yourself at risk for even a moment.

Risking your life daily is what gives those profession prestige.

The funniest thing (if you can call it that) about any of these is that if you take the average persons savings on whatever goods they're scrambling to get and divide them by the hours they spent in the cold and rain, you'll find they made the equivalent of less than minimum wage.

Sorry if I am doing this wrong.... I am writing in response to your comment that showed up as an email to me.

Well, I am not that up on how much tax you would have to collect. According to the Senator in the video, he said that a national sales tax would have to make up the difference.

You still have the problem of RELATIVE tax. So you have a deductible that everyone gets. That would solve the problem of truly poor people. The vast majority of our taxpayers are middle class, however. It's still the same problem, as far as I am concerned. 10% tax to a middle class family is still relatively huge compared to the uber-wealthy.

I live in the State of Washington. We don't have an income tax. I can't quite get my mind around Bill Gates. The only tax he pays to the State of Washington is property tax. Granted, it is something like $25K per year or something, maybe more. But as a percentage of his income? It is laughable.

Gates' personal saving grace is that he "taxes" himself through his Foundation, and helps support a huge number of communities' libraries and schools and what-all.

I am one of those nasty liberals that thinks that a progressive tax makes sense -- to share the relative PAIN. Progressive tax rates are there so that all "suffer" the same. 10% at even $100K income is not the same as 10% at $1 million income.

By the way, I really appreciate your respectful tone in the discussions that I have noticed you in on this thread. It is such a relief to read someone disagree without the personal attacks and angry characterizations of others. Thank you.



In reply to this comment by curiousity:
>> ^bareboards2:
lot o' stuff


Thanks for the comment bareboards2.

Do you think that a flat tax would work if it include a deductible? This deductible would be based somewhat on the poverty line and every single person would get it. This way it keeps the simplicity of a flat tax (everything applies to everyone), while also trying to account for low income people and families.

With your experience, does that sound like something that could actually work?

Always fun to see people try and defend the indefensible. Please - keep telling us just how 'fair' it is to have trillions of dollars confiscated from the people in order to feed a bloated, uncaring, incompetent bureaucracy.

That really is the main issue you 'Pro Government' people just can't seem to grasp. You keep defending high taxes under the rubrick that these taxes are all going towards funding 'poor people' or 'the sick' or 'to build great infrastructure'. The reality is that this perspective you try and sling us is 100% pure bull. Government taxation has been documented to be the LEAST efficient method possible to benefit the citizenry. For every dollar that goes into the government trough, only about a quarter comes back out in the form of actual good & services. Sometimes its more like a dime or a nickel.

The truth is that the government takes in over ten times as much money as it 'needs', and probably about 75% to 80% of what the government actually DOES isn't a 'need' so much as it is a 'lavish expense'. The government takes in billions not because it actually has billions it 'needs'. It takes in the money because it is feeding itself and trying to constantly increase its scope and size. It managed to do this year after year because there are a lot of well-meaning (but ultimately stupid, gullible, ignoramouses) who buy their propoganda that we 'must' keep giving to government in order to help out Sally Sadsack or Harry Hardluck. But the truth is that the poor and needy can be helped out far more efficiently and directly by private systems.

I'd much rather personally have ALL withholding taxes abolished completely, and have a national sales tax that excluded food, fuel, vehicles, homes, personal savings, medical care, and articles of clothing. Then federal government would be reduced to people only paying when they bought luxuries. Of course, that implies that all government social programs would immediately end, and government would be pared back to it's original Consititutionally mandated roles of defense and intra/inter state regulation. The primary taxation should always be at the state and local level, where the people have more control over both what is taxed, and how it is spent.

NetRunner,

I think unemployment increases when demand decreases, and unemployment decreases when demand increases. Demand increases when wages are increased and wages increase when production is increased.

I think it is a mistake to think you can simply cure a depression. You can do things that put you in the right direction, and try to prevent it from happening in the future, but there is nothing that is going to instantly fix this economy. If it was possibly to simply correct a global recession with a magic wand, why wouldn't we just use that same wand on developing countries with terrible economies and bring everyone out of poverty?

Long term, to increase employment you have to increase production, and you aren't going to want to hear it, but I think resources in the hands of private owners is the best way to do that. You have to let prices drop, companies fail, and people lose their jobs. In 18 months it will be mostly over, which if you think about it, is only maybe 9 more months if the government hadn't intervened in the first place.

Short term, no matter what you do this recession is going to be hard. People are going to lose jobs, end up homeless, and worse. I honestly don't understand why recessions are viewed so negatively; the only distinctly negative symptom is increased unemployment, don't you agree? Yes, prices drop and people lose money, but the biggest problem is people losing their jobs. Look at this graph:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/SZiQ1JIJUqI/AAAAAAAACag/qP1TeKCqlIQ/s1600-h/research.stlouisfed.org.png

Right now the rate of unemployment is 8% and we are pumping trillions into our economy to fix this, yet in 1990s (a time of relative prosperity) the rate of unemployment was also 8%. In the last 50 years, there are at least 7 instances of it being this high, yet do you remember anyone freaking out to the extent we are today?

I am realistic in that I don't expect to go from complete dependence on the government to zero dependence overnight. Private severance packages, unemployment benefits, and personal savings are all essential in easing the transition between jobs. If we are going to spend several trillion, why don't we just put it all in unemployment insurance? If the market can correct itself in 18 months if left alone, why don't we just combine the two ideologies: let the market correct itself, however brutal it may be, but directly combat the suffering caused by unemployment by increasing benefits to those affected? Keeping our hands off the market, and returning to reasonable spending will help establish a strong foundation for the economy; it will bounce back stronger than ever if we would only let it. In the meantime, we can also help out those in need. Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?

I mean honestly, we are talking about an increase in unemployment from 6% to 8%, do you really want to risk throwing the world into a 20 year depression, debasing our entire money supply, bankrupting the US, or having the dollar lose its status as the worldwide currency over a 2% increase in unemployment?

I just wrote my Senators:



Dear Senator [enter name],

I ask that you oppose this auto bailout. The large Wall Street bailout was a terrible mistake. We need not make that mistake again.

Think of those of us who are suffering during this economic hard time. These bailouts increase inflation causing our savings to be worth less and less every day. By NOT supporting this bailout, Senator, you will send a clear message to California that you respect the individual value of the people's personal savings and earnings, and furthermore you do not believe in rewarding corporate inefficiency.

The auto-industry is already one of the most regulated industries in this country, and a bailout will bring more government regulation and additional costs to us, the taxpayers. Alleviating even a little of the red tape would free up resources for them to address their financial situations, save jobs, and produce quality products to jumpstart sales.

Sincerest regards,
[name]



I copied that last part from the Campaign For Liberty site almost verbatim.

>> ^imstellar28:
does it really matter? anyone who is voting for either party has already lost sight of what's really at stake.
can anyone explain to me the differences between Obama/McCain's stance on:
1. preemptive warfare
"McCain supports the Bush Doctrine and Obama opposes it"

2. increasing the size of government
McCain talks the conservative game of smaller government but has supported all of Bush's expansion of the national government
Obama wants to expand healthcare and other social programs, but says that will come at the expense of other programs (subscribves to PAYGO philosophy)
Not so clear on this one

3. FISA
Obama pissed off liberals with support of FISA
McCain seems to be obfuscating his opinion

4. federal bailouts of businesses (such as feddie mae/frannie mac)
Obama - help homeowners shore up mortgages rather than bail out companies
McCain- too big to fail, bail out companies not speculative homeowners who are whining now

5. the federal reserve
neither cnadidate represents change on this issue (although it is a bit fringe for most americans to care about)

6. personal liberties
is this the FISA question again, or are we talking abortion? too vague to disinguish differences

7. bringing all troops home from all 741 military bases
Ridiculously leading topic that assumes that isolationism is the correct strategy

8. foreign policy in afghanistan
Obama - get Bin Laden, secure AFghan/Pakistani borderlands
McCain - get Bin Laden, but not in Pakistan. Iraq matters more

9. stance on the georgia/russia conflict
Obama - 'there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force – not simply Russian troops.'
McCain - Georgia conflict is the ‘first serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.’ [RIGGGHHHT?!?] Russia's evil!

10. the ICC
Obama - consult with military commanders and examine the track record of the Court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a State Party to the ICC
McCain - 'the ICC was not set up for countries such as the U.S.'

11. inflation
gonna guess that they're both against it

12. income taxes
McCain- continue Bush cuts for wealthiest Americans, give a few pennies to those at the bottom
Obama - let Bush tax cuts expire, give tax breaks to 95% of Americans
graphical representation

13. the war on drugs
Obama - reduce sentences for dealers, needle exchange, nothing about foreign policy
McCain - stronger borders, tougher penalties and sentences, funded wars against drug producing countries (i.e., Colombia)

14. offshore drilling
Obama - can be part of energy plan if it helps gain approval
McCain - we're gonna drill our way outta this in just 2 years, wait 5 years, no 10 years (ok... never)

15. the patriot act
Obama - YES to re-authorization, NO to expanded wiretapping
McCain - YES to re-authorization, YES to expanded wiretapping

16. the graham-levin amendment
Obama - no guantanamo, yes to habeas corpus, no torture, no forced testimony
McCain - no guantanamo, no habeas corpus, no torture (but not really)

17. supported school of economics
Obama - Chicago school of economics
McCain - admitted he doesn't know much about economics

18. creationism
Obama - "religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking" from Audacity of Hope
McCain - doesn't believe in it but VP Palin sure does

19. agricultural subsidies
Obama - limit subsidies, try to get them to small farmers and not corporations
McCain - opposes subsidies, gets in the way of free trade agreements

20. social security entitlements
Obama - remove $97K cap, no privatization, no new commission
McCain - personal savings accounts, maybe raise the cap above $97K

21. the bureaucratic class
Got bored just thinking about researching this

22. national debt
Obama - repeal Bush cuts, end Iraq War, pay-as-you-go system, balanced budget
McCain - debt bad, balanced budget, stop pork and earmarks

I am more informed now, hope you are. Although that took way too long and I am a bit tired of it. If you want more, you can always start here: On the Issues.

holy shit. that is amazing to see people of another supporting one of our presidential candidates like that. amazing. I wonder how Romney feels when he writes himself a 4+ million dollar check from his personal savings and then see's that Ron Paul's supporters take it upon themselves to do massive fundraising for him.

garsh: You can view the videos directly from the 'Sifted' or 'Unsifted' page by clicking "show video" directly under the thumbnail image, and then clicking the 'start' button on the video player. That way you're kids will never have to see any of the naughty, naughty comments. BTW, I am FAR from being the only person here who occasionally writes profane comments, so if that's a problem then maybe VideoSift isn't for you.

Arvana: I'm pretty sure this one was posted first, but if it turns out I'm wrong about this and too hastily discarded your video I apologize. If that's the case I'll personally save it and discard this one.

I can't believe he said that.

FYI: he was talking about social security reforms:

Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)