RE: So what's your plan?

RE: So what's your plan? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 7:58:18 AM)
Give corporations the same rights that free men in this country enjoy, and no more. Taxed like free americans, jailed like free americans, no special subsidies or treatment not extended to all. end the wars. Start with the WR Grace report from Reagans days and the stuff we know now and do that forensic accounting, and get to one accounting system in the government, and slash military and then go down the line.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 11:13:25 AM)
quote: my plan would involve some radical restructuring, creative refinancing, and a brutal fisting of the Baby-Boomers OK, but the question is...specifically how. Thanks to those who have contributed ideas so far! quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Certainly everyone agrees we face financial challenges, even as people disagree about the specifics and the causes. What I see is a lot of hand-wringing. Let's get out of that. What are your solutions? Please--I don't mean vague "do something about those sonnabitches" rants, nor do I mean things that just aren't feasible, whether physically or politically at this point. I mean from where we actually are, practical steps toward solutions. Things we can actually do, that will actually address the challenges. What's your plan? [Btw--if you feel it's hopeless, please don't post at all. Start a "why it's hopeless" thread. Thank you.] Let's get started.

TheHeretic -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 12:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery OK, but the question is...specifically how. Alrighty then. Sleeves up, aspirin and caffeine isn't dealing with the whiskey residue as well as I'd like, so I'm just going to start drinking before noon, and let's see what we can come up with. We'll not be piddle-farting with foreign aid and eliminating the supply of toilet paper to military barracks. Let's go straight at the big entitlements. The age to collect Social Security needs to have a direct relationship to life expectancy. We can rewrite the disability rules to get more liberal as age increases, but it can't be a system where 10 years on a taxpayer allowance is an easy expectation for healthy, active, mentally sharp, people. (of course, realpolitik says political landmines don't get much bigger than that.) We'd have to do something similar, with MediCare. We can certainly sit down and have a really good conversation about how to deal with national health care, but what we've got isn't working. The interest on the national debt is a killer, but I have a crazy idea. It would have to be completely off the books, but why not secretly sell Afghanistan to China? Clear that debt, and those pesky interest payments drop right down into manageable range. Whether I like it or not, I think some serious inflation is inevitable (and based on the $93 bucks for a half cart of groceries with no meat, it's well off the starting line), and that is going to impact all of this, as well as screwing over people who miscalculated how long their nest egg would last. The best thing that can happen to get the deficit under control, is for the economy to be moving quickly back into the healthy range. More people working means more revenue coming in.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 2:39:17 PM)
Good points, Rich....except maybe not the Afghanistan thing (doesn't Pakistan think they own it already?). Getting out would certainly save a few bucks. Getting people back to work would help with food somewhat too, as speculators might start moving back to stocks. Sooner or later, banks and business have to stop sitting on their cash and invest again.

FullCircle -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 2:40:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Reform Patent and Copyright law, to bring it in line with modern reality, and that reality is copyright and patents should last for a shorter period of time, the idea being the creation and consumption cycle is much shorter than in the past. Remove all patrolling by the government for violations thereof, it is the owners responsibility to bring charges against the accused violator, and to sue. Ban all software "patents" this is an absurdity of the highest order. Sounds a bit like intellectual communism, could you start that process with the drugs companies first? I think people and organisations have a right to their intellectual property and since when does anyone but the individual or organisation take legal action against infringement? I don't know of governments stepping in to protect the little guy when the giants steal and repackage their ideas. All you do by reducing protection is to kill investment in new ideas because it'll be more cost effective just to wait for others to blow their budget on research and development.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 2:54:00 PM)
Better international copyright protection would help. Or in some countries, any international copyright protection.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 3:52:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: The problem with the financial system is the financial system itself. In simple terms, the problem is systemic. There was a time when a monetary system made good sense So what's your solution? Why doesn't the monetary system make good sense, and what specifically do we do about it? The monetary system doesn’t make good sense any longer primarily because we’ve entered a technological age where the exchange of labor for cash is becoming obsolete. If technology were implemented to full capabilities today, the majority of the current labor force could be eliminated. Of course, we couldn’t do this today without collapsing the entire monetary economic system. However, machines can do jobs better, and far less expensive than human labor. Machines work 24-hours a day without breaks, don't take medical leaves, and don’t require health insurance or pensions. From an emotional perspective, we have issues with this machine-replaces-human-labor concept as it threatens our livelihood and long-held identities. From a logical perspective, however, implementation of this concept would free mankind from the drudgery of labor while doing a superior job. Then of course, we are burdened with the emotional conditioning that labor is somehow honorable and noble. Under closer scrutiny, one might come to realize that labor is nothing more than submission to private dictatorships, done primarily for the purpose of extracting a sufficient amount of cash out of the system to support one’s self. So what is the key that holds us back from moving logically towards a superior machine-labor system? It’s the monetary system. Most people require ongoing income to survive within the current system. In the past, the service sector managed to absorb job losses suffered within the more labor intense fields. However, we’re now seeing technology take jobs in the service sector as well. ATMs are a good example. There are even fully automated restaurants now. It’s just a matter of time before technology advances even further. What to do? Move away from a monetary system altogether, and move towards a resource-based economy while employing technology to its full capabilities. Yes, I know the concept is difficult for most people to wrap their heads around, because it departs from everything we’ve known. Money is not a panacea; it’s actually the greatest obstacle we face towards implementing a sustainable system that serves all of humanity and our environment with the love and respect they both deserve. We have the resources and the technology to do this. However, under the current system, we don’t have the money to do this. For, if there is no profit in a large-scale project, it is simply not considered. There are other reasons why the monetary system doesn’t serve us well, but I’ll leave them be for the moment.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 4:46:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Reform Patent and Copyright law, to bring it in line with modern reality, and that reality is copyright and patents should last for a shorter period of time, the idea being the creation and consumption cycle is much shorter than in the past. Remove all patrolling by the government for violations thereof, it is the owners responsibility to bring charges against the accused violator, and to sue. Ban all software "patents" this is an absurdity of the highest order. Sounds a bit like intellectual communism, could you start that process with the drugs companies first? I think people and organisations have a right to their intellectual property and since when does anyone but the individual or organisation take legal action against infringement? I don't know of governments stepping in to protect the little guy when the giants steal and repackage their ideas. All you do by reducing protection is to kill investment in new ideas because it'll be more cost effective just to wait for others to blow their budget on research and development. I didn't say there wouldn't be any copyright, or patent protection. I said it would not be as long. You do realize right now, it's like a 100 years before copyright cedes to the public domain. And if you look up the point of copyright and patents, the very reason is to promote the pool of public domain knowledge. The idea is protection for a limited amount of time, so perpetual ownership was never the goal, or even real ownership in a sense like we associate with real property.. The government has seized several websites recently without any day in court , under the presumption of protecting copyright holders, whether they had complained or not, as in they didn't say remove this thing that this holder complained about, they simply removed the whole site, along with valid content, in a broad stroke approach to protecting copyright. What is that if not enforcing copyright for others, whether requested or not. So, yes, there would be patents, yes there would be copyright, and yes, they already expire, so the only relevant question is how long should they last, and what is the best balance between the public/national/world interest versus the individual interest. To me, 100 years + is absurd for copyright. and 20 years for a patent, which implies exclusive control of the device if you select regardless. Anyway, I think the concept of copyright and patents is reasonable, but the implementation limits more than it promotes innovation in its current form. Copyright used to be much shorter by the way, so this isn't a new debate.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 7:57:27 PM)
quote: right now, it's like a 100 years before copyright cedes to the public domain. No, it's not. If you're going to argue with him, use real numbers. Given your government seizure claims, perhaps this would best be moved to its own thread, where all the ramifications could be argued out. Here, you two disagree, OK, next person's solution please.

Brain -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 9:07:40 PM)
I think they should: • give Medicare to everyone regardless of age which will improve healthcare outcomes as well as REDUCE the deficit. In general, Medicare enrollees reported high satisfaction with both access to and quality of health care. Most members (96%) rated skill, experience, and training of physicians and the friendliness and courtesy of the staff favorably. • Allow the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% to expire • end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as bring the troops home worldwide including Europe and Asia (Japan) • infrastructure stimulus – trains, roads, bridges, developing alternative energy to oil • Social Security - Raise the cap to 90% of taxable earnings Approximately 39% reduction in shortfall, Raise taxes on benefits 10% reduction in shortfall This amounts to a reduction in the benefit to high wage earners so the pros and cons are purely subjective. • Preserve tax on estates over $3.5 million PROs: Improves tax progressivity, affects only 1/2 of 1% of all estates. • campaign finance reform - no corporate contributions and all political parties campaigns are taxpayer-funded in equal amounts • According to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, Pres.. Obama told Democrats not to draw any “line in the sand” in debt negotiations on the debt ceiling. This strategy will not work because it will destroy programs like Medicare and Medicaid needed by the poor and elderly. At some point — sooner rather than later — the president has to draw a line. Otherwise, he might as well move out of the White House, and hand the keys over to the Tea Party • remove the Senate filibuster as it inhibits progress quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Certainly everyone agrees we face financial challenges, even as people disagree about the specifics and the causes. What I see is a lot of hand-wringing. Let's get out of that. What are your solutions? Please--I don't mean vague "do something about those sonnabitches" rants, nor do I mean things that just aren't feasible, whether physically or politically at this point. I mean from where we actually are, practical steps toward solutions. Things we can actually do, that will actually address the challenges. What's your plan? [Btw--if you feel it's hopeless, please don't post at all. Start a "why it's hopeless" thread. Thank you.] Let's get started.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/21/2011 10:09:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: right now, it's like a 100 years before copyright cedes to the public domain. No, it's not. If you're going to argue with him, use real numbers. Given your government seizure claims, perhaps this would best be moved to its own thread, where all the ramifications could be argued out. Here, you two disagree, OK, next person's solution please. Yes it is. Links galore.... http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/determining-length-of-copyright-protection-29483.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length First two, Copyright is your lifetime + 70 years. That is generally over a 100 years.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 6:50:03 AM)
OK, Thanks.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 9:35:42 AM)
quote: What to do? Move away from a monetary system altogether, and move towards a resource-based economy while employing technology to its full capabilities. Yes, I know the concept is difficult for most people to wrap their heads around, because it departs from everything we’ve known. Money is not a panacea; it’s actually the greatest obstacle we face towards implementing a sustainable system that serves all of humanity and our environment with the love and respect they both deserve. We have the resources and the technology to do this. However, under the current system, we don’t have the money to do this. For, if there is no profit in a large-scale project, it is simply not considered. It's an interesting essay. So how would a resource-based economy work? Assume we remove the obstacles.

SternSkipper -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 10:32:14 AM)
quote: I think we need to be investing in massive infrastructure projects that will generate jobs. I am thinking bullet trains that can connect our major cities with one another is a good place to start. I agree that infrastructure projects are terrific since there is a double bang for your buck. You see an initial upward cost, but the benefit to the economy comes in at a larger rate than was paid out because the wages paid are spread across the economy and create opportunity everywhere. The problem I see is that bullet trains and wind and other renewable energy projects were first on the chopping block when John Boner came to the whitehouse to collect his winnings. So I guess those kinds of things under the current house leadership are not on the table. quote: I also think we do need to cut spending, and the only feasible place to do so is with regard to military spending. It is our largest ticket item, after all. I would agree with that too but take it a step further. Have some rules for how the cuts are determined. For instance if a project flows out into the economy and the material cost and corporate profits combined are not say, at least 10% below (60/40) the amount paid out in wages, simply cut the project altogether. And do it swiftly. Let these corporate assholes threaten us with increased unemployment all they want. The fact is, they can't as individuals threaten the overall economy that much. And we COULD start setting a precedent to corporate america that in order to be in on the spoils, they have to show a significant benefit to the overall economy. Also, why not pass tax law (since they aren't going to throw it out for the time being), that exclude any company that has now or in the future significant portions of its labor force overseas. Corporations get plenty of tax credits, deductions and incentives such as subsidy, If during a given fiscal year they have maintained something like a foreign call center servicing the united states customers, then they lose any incentives that are meant for corporations operating within our borders (or perhaps, apply a formula based on the percentage of the company's overseas presence that actually penalizes them for off-shoring jobs). I think this would make perfect sense for the service economy. It might be a bit murky for the manufacturing economy, since US Corporations should have a legitimate right to set up in other countries to sell to those countries if the logistics to so so here are sufficiently difficult to warrant that. But the same plants should not be petted for selling products, goods, and services that could or worse yet HAD been made here. And a LOT of that is going on and it's taken a much larger chunk out of our economy that the federal deficit has in the last 20 years,

popeye1250 -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 10:59:00 AM)
Bankruptcy court. Any co. that was one tenth in as bad a shape as our govt. would be in receivership long ago. And spending limits and guidelines imposed by the court with feedback from the citizens. LBJ never should have let congress raid the social security funds! That should have been kept seperate and allowed to accumulate interest and some of it should have been in the stock market. And get out of the I.M.F. too. We shouldn't be subsidizing the lifestyles of foreign nationals. There's too much "make believe money" floating around these days. You can be assured that the U.S. will never be the beneficiary of I.M.F. funds for the simple reason that there aren't enough of them. How do you "bail out" the U.S.? "Got an extra $15 trillion hanging around?" And get rid of foreign aid which only underwrites failure! Some countries have been sucking money out of the U.S. for 20,30, even 40 years now! That's not a "hand up" that's total dependance! I wish someone would give me money for decades and not expect anything for it. And people are starting to realise that you have to have a strong manufacturing base in your country to be prosperous. Look at the countries that manufacture and then look at the countries that don't, for example Brazil vs Bolivia. Brazil has been producing aircraft for a long time now. And manufacturing increases tax renenues much more than a "service economy." That's a funny phrase, "service economy", you get "associates" who make $10 or $15 an hour! I guess someone working in a car wash could be called an "Associate!" "Government" in this country should'nt be trying to get involved in "everything" by throwing money at it, that type of thinking is what got us in this mess in the first place! The congress who hold the purse-strings should be cheapskates when spending The People's money! What household can keep spending more than they take in year after year?

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 11:03:52 AM)
quote: Bankruptcy court. Any co. that was one tenth in as bad a shape as our govt. would be in receivership long ago. Not at all. GDP and debt are about 1 to 1. We've been worse off in WWII. If that meant receivership, then nearly everyone would a mortgage is insolvent. The IMF is for shortfalls in current accounts. Ours is fine. As for the rest...it's a list of shouldn'ts. Take a look at the rant portions and outline positive steps--HOW do we do these things? Some of your beefs are small portions of the budget, while other parts, like manufacturing, need a plan. So what's the plan?

popeye1250 -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 11:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Bankruptcy court. Any co. that was one tenth in as bad a shape as our govt. would be in receivership long ago. Not at all. GDP and debt are about 1 to 1. We've been worse off in WWII. If that meant receivership, then nearly everyone would a mortgage is insolvent. The IMF is for shortfalls in current accounts. Ours is fine. As for the rest...it's a list of shouldn'ts. Take a look at the rant portions and outline positive steps--HOW do we do these things? Some of your beefs are small portions of the budget, while other parts, like manufacturing, need a plan. So what's the plan? And how do you get out of debt when each man, woman and child owes $40-$50k? This government is insolvent.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 1:58:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Bankruptcy court. Any co. that was one tenth in as bad a shape as our govt. would be in receivership long ago. Not at all. GDP and debt are about 1 to 1. We've been worse off in WWII. If that meant receivership, then nearly everyone would a mortgage is insolvent. The IMF is for shortfalls in current accounts. Ours is fine. As for the rest...it's a list of shouldn'ts. Take a look at the rant portions and outline positive steps--HOW do we do these things? Some of your beefs are small portions of the budget, while other parts, like manufacturing, need a plan. So what's the plan? And how do you get out of debt when each man, woman and child owes $40-$50k? This government is insolvent. First, we easily have that much wealth. Second, you're ignoring our vast assets/resources. And finally, again, this isn't the bitch thread...it's what's your specific plan to practically resolve the matter. Please.

SternSkipper -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 4:51:41 PM)
quote: Remove or greatly restrict the prescription drug benefit. Sure .. and while you're at it cap the prices drug companies charge (who have targeted the projected illnesses of the elderly baby boomers for the past 20 or so years of development so an elderly blue collar worker who's company's pension got raided and destroyed to enhance the bottom line for shareholders and put a few Bush family members in office don't have to pay more than say $50 of the $1200 they get a month. These people earned their benefits. And made a good faith agreement with the government.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (5/22/2011 8:01:03 PM)
We need a single payer plan. The entire world knows it's more efficient. We're paying more (and will still in a few years) out of political posturing. It will simply save us money in the long term.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875