My Economic Plan

[Revolution9]

I am not saying that housing is affordable and that everyone can afford housing. I'm saying that even those who cannot, do not end up literally living on the street, sleeping under the overpass or in the woods, digging through dumpsters, and generally being objects of pity and shock. They move in with friends, they move back in with parents, they go to shelters, they go to YWCAs, they get assistance from their churches, etc. etc. There's an almost unlimited number of layers of protections and fall-back plans for those needing housing. The ones who are forced to actually live on the streets in bad situations, not just during the day but even overnight, as derelicts, full-time beggars, weirdos, etc. are those who are kicked out of the shelters because of their substance abuse problems and those who are just so confused or deranged that they don't want to go to the shelters or anywhere else.

I have driven through downtown Atlanta. Believe me, the people there did not look like they were an exception to this rule. They were not normal, well-adjusted individuals.

Now there are some "homeless" people who are not really in any kind of desperate nor even uncomfortable situation, but are leftists doing it as a hip lifestyle choice, kind of like hippies. You find this type in warm, pleasant climates, like The People's Park in Berkeley.

Downtown Atlanta is where the certified scary tinfoil hat homeless wander at night. I moved from Little Five Points recently after 30 years and I know a few dozen hard working folks who cannot find any work and they dig all day, scrounge cell phone money to have a phone to call for jobs, are not substance abusers yet sleep in the weeds quite frequently as nobody wants someone on their couch nightly. But for the grace of God and good friends I would be there too. One of the scariest of thoughts. I was there from 14 to 17 in the early seventies in much freer and friendlier days. I got stuck once in Berkeley in 2002 as well, when FedEx misdelivered my computer, I lost the contract I came for and I was stuck in an RV for six months until I finally nailed a good stage design contract for big rock tour and returned home to Atlanta.

Rev9

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I know a few dozen hard working folks who cannot find any work and they dig all day, scrounge cell phone money to have a phone to call for jobs, are not substance abusers yet sleep in the weeds quite frequently as nobody wants someone on their couch nightly.

Then things are getting worse. That does not bode well.

 

[TomL]

Yeah. The guy I am working for is having a hard enough time getting merely 75 million into the country to do business here. He has to pay tax on it even though it is his money because it is coming from outside the country. He would probably park billions in US accounts but they want to rape his accounts on the transition. So he pulls only what he needs and has to wait two to three weeks plus to get his cash over here so he can invest in America and American jobs. Your plan would make it hard for the upper economic sector to re-liquidify this country with investments from foreign monies brought in or repatriated cash.

Don't quit your day job.

Rev9

Where have I said money coming into this country should be taxed?

 

[TomL]

• But the FCC also effectively controls what is said over the airwaves. That is in violation of the 1st Amendment and it makes it tough to get the message out that the Federal Reserve counterfeits money. If we heard that on the nightly news and all day long, then we could stop their theft in no time at all. The sooner the better.
  
• We don't need minimum wage laws. Your focus is on jobs rather than opportunity. Opportunity and entrepreneurship is what people need. The Federal government "owns" 650 million acres of land. They are not allowed to "own" any. When individuals are allowed to homestead those lands, competing currencies, and industrial hemp become legalized, then the economy will boom and employees will be competing for jobs while employers will be forced to pay competing wages.
  
• I did read your take on entitlements, yet the entitlement system impoverishes people. The last two years in a row seniors have been denied their COLA adjustments and this year they can expect less than 4% increase while true inflation is closer to 10%/year. Seniors are losing the entitlement game fast as it is. There is something to be said to wean people off of entitlements, but if Ron Paul doesn't get elected, then those entitlements will go away as the dollar self-destructs just like the jobs have gone away already.
  
• Property rights, honest sound money, laissez-faire free-market capitalism and the rule of law are the keys to prosperity.

1. I have given you the legitimate Constitutional function of the FCC. And those should be funded. That's what this thread is about. It's the economy, not what some government agencies do that they shouldn't. But, I agree with you.

2. And I agree with you about the minimum wage, so I don't know what your problem is.

3. And so because the elderly are not getting enough, you would even take that away too. You may have read my take on entitlements, but I don't think you understand it. I am all favor of weaning people off entitlements as long as there is an alternative.

4. From a political standpoint I agree with you. But as a Christian I believe the poor must be helped from whatever source. Scriptures are full of statements about helping the poor. So I would prefer that the church and private sector charities take care of the poor. Unfortunately, they are not doing an adequate job.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

People in the USA are homeless because of specific lifestyle choices they have made, usually involving substance abuse, and sometimes so bizarre and self-destructive we would classify the choices as mental illness. It's not that they just can't afford housing or something. No way. At least not currently. If we keep going down the socialist path, then the economy will deteriorate and eventually things will get so bad that this could change.

Are you being serious? You're kidding, right? So no one has lost a job, lost their home, had no friends and no family, and ended up on the street?

You would not be homeless, not like a real homeless person like we think of and like I discussed above. I am confident that you are not a horrible person who has burned all his bridges, as I said. If it came down to it, your parents may well let you move in. If it came down to it, for that matter, you may very well get married, if it's a choice between marriage and desperate circumstances. But beyond your parents, if you are a decent person the world is filled with friends and family for you who are not willing to see you out on the street and certainly will not permit your starving to death. Even truly horrible people often have someone who likes them enough to let them crash on their couch.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Case in fact, I became homeless for a short time back in December of last year. We were lucky enough to be able to move in with some extended family, but they made it clear that should it happen again, they wouldn't be willing to take us in.

So I guess you're offering your place?

Also, what you say is a fact of life is not a fact of life. There's no reason your employer need know you're homeless. Shower and laundry facilities are all over the place and can be utilized for cheap or free. I've gotten a job while homeless. Multiple times, in fact.

Every application I've put in I've had to provide proof of residence.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm saying that even those who cannot, do not end up literally living on the street, sleeping under the overpass or in the woods, digging through dumpsters, and generally being objects of pity and shock. They move in with friends, they move back in with parents, they go to shelters, they go to YWCAs, they get assistance from their churches, etc. etc. There's an almost unlimited number of layers of protections and fall-back plans for those needing housing. The ones who are forced to actually live on the streets in bad situations, not just during the day but even overnight, as derelicts, full-time beggars, weirdos, etc. are those who are kicked out of the shelters because of their substance abuse problems and those who are just so confused or deranged that they don't want to go to the shelters or anywhere else.

I have driven through downtown Atlanta. Believe me, the people there did not look like they were an exception to this rule. They were not normal, well-adjusted individuals.

Now there are some "homeless" people who are not really in any kind of desperate nor even uncomfortable situation, but are leftists doing it as a hip lifestyle choice, kind of like hippies. You find this type in warm, pleasant climates, like The People's Park in Berkeley.

I live in West Virginia. Temperatures can get down to below zero in bad winters. Since I've moved to where I live currently, I have heard homeless people digging through our trash every night. They go around with a shopping cart. These people are not homeless by choice. At my apartment alone, I've seen seven different homeless people.

 

[TomL]

Tom, you are hilarious. I love to laugh, so do stick around, please. "Where in the world did I say anything about the FCC being allowed to take someone's cigarettes?" Outrage!!!!!

Look, the type of "sacrifice" Jesus would look upon favorably and promote would be to give up something good for something even better. I'm not sure that can properly be called a sacrifice, but whatever you want to call it, there it is.

The kind of sacrifice you have somehow determined I should make is the kind where I give up something good for something ugly and lousy. Like I should sacrifice a beautiful painting that I spent a year of my life making to donate it to The People's Park for the express purpose of them using it to spit on and wipe their dirty hands. Now that is a real sacrifice. It's also a horrifyingly evil notion.

I am very gratified that you have chosen to fulfill my words absolutely by refusing to answer any questions directly or provide any specifics whatsoever. That's pretty hilarious, too.

Helmuth, I am through with you. We obviously do not have a common frame of reference to continue this discussion.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I cannot and would not support your plan, as protectionism is a strong column in it--I could not support any plan that hand protectionism in it, for that matter.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Helmuth, I am through with you. We obviously do not have a common frame of reference to continue this discussion.

Oh, OK! Or you could just answer the simple question of what you want the federal budget to be. But that would be too hard. So you could just type "yes" or "no" to the question whether you would decrease the budget by at least a trillion dollars the 1st year, as Ron Paul proposes. But that would be too hard, too. Ah, well, what can one do?

 

[TomL]

I cannot and would not support your plan, as protectionism is a strong column in it--I could not support any plan that hand protectionism in it, for that matter.

As you wish. I just don't see the protectionism? Could you please tell me where it is?

 

[bolil]

The best plan is to eliminate all economic plans and planning.

Free market right? Means free.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Are you being serious? You're kidding, right? So no one has lost a job, lost their home, had no friends and no family, and ended up on the street?

People with no friends and family are that way for a reason.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Case in fact, I became homeless for a short time back in December of last year. We were lucky enough to be able to move in with some extended family, but they made it clear that should it happen again, they wouldn't be willing to take us in.

So I guess you're offering your place?

I don't know you. If you are seriously saying that those who know you think so lowly of you they'd be indifferent to your well-being, then you deserve whatever you get. Who am I to disagree with them? If what you say is true and not, as I charitably think, a mis-estimation, then you are a fairly worthless human being in the eyes of those who know you best, who are in the best position to judge. Losing someone like that will be no loss to humanity.

I frankly think it's too hard for people to die nowadays from a genetic point of view. In centuries past, being either useless or stupid was usually enough to kill you off. Now, even heaping portions of both will hardly ever be enough to kill a person. So the useless and the stupid go on to propagate their kind prolifically, with food stamps and welfare checks to encourage them, and destroy the species. This alone would be sufficient reason to end welfare and food stamps. How about we not enable survival of the weakest, survival of the unfit? I vote for survival of the fit, and let nature take its course on the unfit.

Every application I've put in I've had to provide proof of residence.

What in the world are you talking about? Are you applying at the CIA or something? No one cares where you live! At all!

 

[TomL]

Free market right? Means free.

We supposedly have free markets. How are they working for you?

 

[Fox McCloud]

1. A 10% Border Tax

If you are buying something from over seas, you or your agent will pay the 10% tax on the cost of that item when you claim that item at the border depot. All items not claimed will remain at the border depot for a reasonable time, and space is available, then dispensed with.


2. A 10% Tax On Revenues Of Individual States.

This is a 10% tax on the revenues, no matter how derived, of the several states in the United States of America. Each State has sources of revenue. 10% of those revenues will go to the Federal Government.

4. We need to stop enacting unfair trade agreements that do nothing but open the U.S. market to other countries creating a trade imbalance, and create loopholes for U.S. companies to move to other countries. And as quickly as possible we need to get out of the unfair trade agreements already enacted. The only trade agreements I would favor are ones that say, "If you want to sell your manufactured goods in the United States, they must be made in the United States.

5. Congress should levy tariffs on all goods coming into the United States to recuperate lost revenues due to the elimination of Capital Gains and Corporate taxes. These tariffs would last no more than 10 years, allowing the United States time to enter into "Manufacture in the United States" trade agreements.

That's all protectionism. Freed trade isn't a bilateral agreement; that's a modern perversion of what free trade is. Free trade is a purely domestic policy of no taxing/penalizing imports into the country, regardless of origin--it doesn't mean that the countries we import from have to necessarily accept all of our products in return.

 

[DamianTV]

We supposedly have free markets. How are they working for you?

Too many posts to read thru. Does your plan include creating an Honest Money System that prevents Money Manipulators from Abusing the Common Man?

Does it transfer the Real Wealth of the Country back into the hands of the people that create it? And by create, I mean create, not print. The Real Value of Wealth is the standards that it is measured against. Thus, it is the Goods and Services that the People Produce. Banking is the apitomy of what is NOT an Honest Money System, and it allows those with the power to create money (Banks, through loans) to acquire the wealth (being the Goods and Services of the People) through deceptive practices, such as foreclosures, repossession, etc.

Do you intend to get us off of a Debt Backed Interest Based Fiat Currency?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

We supposedly have free markets. How are they working for you?

Who supposes that?
Can suppositions be wrong?
Do you believe everything that someone, somewhere, supposedly supposes?

 

[DamianTV]

We've all made the supposition that Fiat Currency is money. It is NOT.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The video claims that "In God We Trust" was put on money by the Founding Fathers. That is not true. It made its first appearance on US money in 1864- on the two cent coin. http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

It did not stay on money.

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription

It was not used on paper money until 1957. http://www.uspapermoney.info/history/1957.html

In 1955, Congress ordered the motto "In God We Trust", which had long appeared on U.S. coins, to be added to all of the paper currency designs as well. At the time, the BEP was planning yet another upgrade of its presses, this time to models that could handle even larger sheets of 32 notes each. It was decided, therefore, that the new motto would be added to the back design of each denomination as the new 32-subject printing plates were adopted.


$1 back with "In God We Trust"Once again, it was the $1 SC that was first to get the makeover. The new notes, dated Series 1957, had face designs basically unchanged from those of the 1935 series, but had "In God We Trust" added to the back just above the large "ONE". Since the $1 denomination made up the bulk of the BEP's production, and since the new 32-subject presses replaced the old 18-subject ones gradually over a period of years, there was an extended interval during which the 1935 and 1957 series $1 SCs were both in production. In particular, Series 1935F through 1935H all actually began printing after the Series 1957 notes were already in circulation. Therefore, the BEP finally added the "In God We Trust" to some of the 18-subject back plates as well, so that part of Series 1935G and all of Series 1935H were printed with the motto.

I have some other problems with some of the things he says in the video but don't have time for that now (and probably too much off topic anyways).

 

[DamianTV]

It wasnt the point. And youre right, he did mention that he screwed up in the vid with text about his error. The point of the video was that Fiat Currency is not Money, and no matter how you stack a deck when you use Fiat Currency, the deck is still stacked against the People.

 

[TomL]

That's all protectionism. Freed trade isn't a bilateral agreement; that's a modern perversion of what free trade is. Free trade is a purely domestic policy of no taxing/penalizing imports into the country, regardless of origin--it doesn't mean that the countries we import from have to necessarily accept all of our products in return.

Would you rather foreign goods and services be tax-free? Should we continue to over-tax the American people? What you have quoted is a tax plan. Not a trade plan. My trade plan calls for reciprocal "made in" trade agreements and treaties. That certainly is not protectionism.

I believe in fair and balanced trade, and my plan would do that. All our trade policies for past 50 years has been a detriment to the private sector economy. Once the reciprocal trade agreements are in place, the border taxes and the 10% revenue tax on revenue derived from the primary sale of foreign goods and services would be eliminated, which they are designed to do. From that point, the my tax plan will be reduced to 10% revenue derived from the primary sales of all goods and services, and the 10% tax on the revenue from the fifty states.

I still don't see see the protectionism. In the beginning, it may seem that way, but the end result is not protectionism.