Which candidate can possibly fix the US's trade deficit and government spending?

[Thrawn]

"One obvious solution, of course, is to forbid Congress to spend more than it takes in. While a "balanced budget amendment" to the Constitution has been proposed—and while I support such an amendment—there's no substitute for a chief executive whose veto pen stands ready to shut down any congressional appropriations in excess of revenues.

As your president, I'll veto deficit spending. Period. I expect this to be an easy thing to do, since I'll be slashing the size of the federal government at the same time—so much so that taxes will be slashed as well.

A second solution is to put the American economy back on real money, backed by gold and silver, and to take away the ability of the Federal Reserve to create "money" out of thin air, debasing the value of the "money" in your wallet."

http://badnarik.org/plans_economy.php


That should do it.

Bush = Kerry.

[soda72]

Originally posted by Thrawn
, backed by gold and silver, and to take away the ability of the Federal Reserve to create "money"

This would be a "very" bad idea...

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by soda72
This would be a "very" bad idea...

Why?

[lasersailor184]

It's called Economics bud.  Study it.


What bush is doing is right out of the playbook section called, "What to do if in a recession."

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's called Economics bud.  Study it.

Okay, please educate me.  I think a fiat currency system is worse than one based on actually commodity.  It leads to infinate currency expansion and has lead to a massive trade deficit in the US.

The US changed to fiat system in 1974 and look what happend.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

What bush is doing is right out of the playbook section called, "What to do if in a recession."

It's right out of the play book of supply-side economic theory.  But how often has the supply-side economic solution to recession been tried?  Once under Reagan, and US hasn't even begun to pay off that debt.  It's not a solution, it's bandaid and simply shifts the costs of going through the downturn to later generations.  

There is no such thing as a free lunch.


I look forward to your rebuttal.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn


It's right out of the play book of supply-side economic theory.  But how often has the supply-side economic solution to recession been tried?  Once under Reagan, and US hasn't even begun to pay off that debt.  It's not a solution, it's bandaid and simply shifts the costs of going through the down turn to later generations.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.


I look forward to your rebuttal.

Thrawn.....with good intentions.....I ask you what you would have done differently?

Ride out the recession and hope for the best?  Keeping in mind we were ina  recession when sept 11th happend and Americans lost 2 million jobs in a matter of weeks.

I'm not arguing that the "bandaid" that you speak of was the right course but I'm curious to know the alternatives?  It sounds to me like alot more people would be complaining about Jobs/low pay right now without the "bandaid"

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thrawn.....with good intentions.....I ask you what you would have done differently?

Ride out the recession and hope for the best?  Keeping in mind we were ina  recession when sept 11th happend and Americans lost 2 million jobs in a matter of weeks.

I'm not arguing that the "bandaid" that you speak of was the right course but I'm curious to know the alternatives?  It sounds to me like alot more people would be complaining about Jobs/low pay right now without the "bandaid"

The first thing I would have realised was that any time the government tries to screw around with the economy they hurt it, it's called "communism".  Government regulation of the economy causes the economic problems.

I would also realise that people are going to ***** regardless what you do, especially special interests, even if you policies help the most people.

My solution would have been exactly what Badranik wants to do.  The name of the solution is "capitalism".  Governement deregulation of the economy will stop the problems.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn

My solution would have been exactly what Badranik wants to do.  The name of the solution is "capitalism".  Governement deregulation of the economy will stop the problems.

Well in Bush's defense he did just that in many areas.....Now he's accused of "catering to big business" "worst environmental president ever" "worst health care president ever"  <--last one is mostly after he cancled all the stupid ergonomic laws that clinton signed his last few weeks in office.

Think about it, all things considered the economy could be ALOT worse.  I'm not sure if doin nothing at all would have worked....not to mention no way he'd be re-elected...just my views

[GtoRA2]

What bush should have done is slash government spending, pulled our troops in from over seas,  and cut the **** out of taxes.

Stoped 90% of aid money we send out of the US.

Killed any money wasting program.

disband the ATF and DEA.

Legalise pot and tax it.

Decriminalise the rest of the drugs.

Closed the borders. Stoping ilegal imagration. Kick all ilegals out, and start a work visa program that actualy works.  Charge mexico for any medical care given to ilegals.

ETC.

He prolly should not have gone into Iraq.

[lasersailor184]

I'm not talking about any complicated economic theories here.  



I'm talking about stuff within the first 10 chapters of the "Special" economics class.  This stuff is so basic that you can't even bring politics in it.


You have the GDP.  There are 4 basic things you can do.  

1.) Cut Taxes.
2.) Raise Taxes.
3.) Cut Government Spending.
4.) Raise Government Spending.

It doesn't seem logical to do what you should do in a recession to someone who has never studied economics.  But when you consider the numbers it starts to make sense.  I'll try to tell you how in my most "I studied this **** that I don't need a year ago" tone.

You have the GDP.  It's a general measure of the economy and the nation in general.  It basically measures how much money is being spent in the economy.  

So in a recession, it's rather low.  You want it to be higher.  So what do you do?  A.) You cut taxes.  If more people have more money to spend, the GDP will go up.  B.) You Raise government spending.  Governmental spending affects the economy too.  More spending = Higher GDP.  

Both of these things have to be controlled.  If you do too much, inflation will rise just as fast as the GDP will.  And this is bad, because the Physical Amount of dollars being spent into the GDP isn't worth as much anymore, so the entire effect is negated.

Yes, you will push up the debt when you do this.  It's a necessary evil when your economy is brinking on a "Great Depression."

So your country is in an economic boom.  What do you do?  Well first, because of the economic success inflation is trying to rise as well as the GDP.  So what you do is you Raise Taxes.  You also cut government spending.  While the GDP won't be as boosted as it could be, you're also putting a severe halter on Inflation.  Not only that, but your Government is taking more money in than it was.  I.E. You're spending less, taxing more.  But the economy is in a boon.  You can do this without hurting or slowing anything down.

So basically you spend so you can save later on.  Sounds wierd, but the numbers add up and with the way the economy is going right now, it's working.

*Just one quick poke in the bellybutton footnote:  Regardless of what past politics have said, what Bush is doing would earn him an A on an economics test.  However, what Kerry says he would do is directly off of the "Do not do in a recession" page of an economics book.  He would earn a D on that same test.

[Octavius]

Congratulations laser, you just helped Thrawn's argument.

TANSTAAFL.  Believe it or not, the deficit still needs to be paid.  You can't take out a loan with no intention of paying it back.  So making some waves and riding them with taxes isn't a wise idea if there isn't a net gain.  Making splashes in the tub, but it's still draining.  

No more corporate welfare, ****ty regulations, and .gov subsidies.  I remember Vulcan's post about NZ sheep a looong time ago - US regulations were hurting the overall sheep industry more than it helped the US portion.  Yeah, they're protecting US businesses that are unable to compete.  Why should they remain in business?  If a something goes under, you're out.  Thanks for playing.  Thats capitalism.

[Octavius]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
What bush should have done is slash government spending, pulled our troops in from over seas,  and cut the **** out of taxes.

Stoped 90% of aid money we send out of the US.

Killed any money wasting program.

disband the ATF and DEA.

Legalise pot and tax it.

Decriminalise the rest of the drugs.

Closed the borders. Stoping ilegal imagration. Kick all ilegals out, and start a work visa program that actualy works.  Charge mexico for any medical care given to ilegals.

ETC.

He prolly should not have gone into Iraq.

Thats Badnarik again right there.  Many who believe the Republican philosophy seem to fit the Libertarian mold better.  

Smaller, less bloated government, much less taxes, free, unregulated, market, national defense.  Not frickin global defense with American troops in over 120+ countries.  Thats not economic ties with all, thats poking these nations with a sharp stick and influencing with military strength.  It's kinda obvious why so many are upset with foreign policy.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You have the GDP.  It's a general measure of the economy and the nation in general.  It basically measures how much money is being spent in the economy.

I would like to explain how velocity of currency circluation withing an economy is any sort of indicator of economic growth.  The only useful measure of economic growth is the growth of production.  The only way to increase in growth of production is by investing in captial.  People buying consumer goods does not lead to economic or production growth.  The producers of the consumer goods taking profit from the sales and reinvesting in capital (factories, equipment etc.) makes the economy grow.

Currency circulation velocity is just one fact that the GDP takes into account, but it's pointless.  GDP does also take into account capital investments and that is really the only measure that we need to look at to determine grow, so we might as well just toss the GDP.  

Governmental spending affects the economy too.

Sure does.  Anytime the government spends money they are displacing wealth were the market doesn't demand it.  What's more it does damage to the sectors of the economy were the money is spent.

Exp.

There is a special interest in housing because there is a housing shortage.  The special interest lobbys and the government decides it's going to build some houses and rents them out cheap.  Great, they just under cut all the businesses that rely on rental income.  Those business now have to lower price because demand is less.  Now they are recieving less profits on thier business and can't afford to invest in building new houses, or at the very least thier is less desire to build new houses because not as much wealth can be made off the investment.  Net effect, housing shortage gets worse.  Not only that, but during the building of the government houses workforce is displaced were their might be actual higher demand.

There are only two ways the government is going to get the wealth to build these house.  One is to tax individuals, thus taking away thier wealth that they could spend on investing in actual business that might make them more wealth.  The only thing worse than this is when the government borrows money that they have to pay interest on in non-economically viable projects.

Both of these things have to be controlled.

Why don't you say "these things have to be planned", praise Marx and get it over with.  

If you do too much, inflation will rise just as fast as the GDP will.  And this is bad, because the Physical Amount of dollars being spent into the GDP isn't worth as much anymore, so the entire effect is negated.

Yes, you will push up the debt when you do this.  It's a necessary evil when your economy is brinking on a "Great Depression."

Inflation, the boom/bust cycle and the Great Depression are/were caused by government manipulation of currency.

The Fed was created in 1913 to help bail out banks.  They offered below market interest rates, currency was expanded, and low currency reserve policies were set for the banks.  And what happened?  The banks lent like crazy,  people invested on margin.  And surprise, surprise everything fell appart.  Samething happens now with the Fed screwing around with the interest rate.  Up, down, boom, bust.

Regardless of what past politics have said, what Bush is doing would earn him an A on an economics test.  However, what Kerry says he would do is directly off of the "Do not do in a recession" page of an economics book.  He would earn a D on that same test.

Bush = Kerry.

They just spend money on different special interests.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Thrawn
, backed by gold and silver, and to take away the ability of the Federal Reserve to create "money"
 
Originally posted by soda72
This would be a "very" bad idea...

Originally posted by Thrawn
Why?

Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's called Economics bud. Study it.
 

I noticed you didn't touch on fiat currencey versue commodity backed currency.  I look forward on your thoughts on that.




PS:  For those of you on the right, that call yourselves captialists (that means you Gunslinger and NUKE ), there is no way in hell I can recommend this book enough.  It totally changed my world view (much to the chagrin of all my Canuckian socialist friends ).

It is extremely acessable to the layman with no education in economics, like myself.  This short book just kicks the hell out of every major socialist fallacy.  I think you will be surprised how my economic views you have aren't capitalist at all.


Economics in One Lesson - by HENRY HAZLITT

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517548232/002-3923488-9253618?v=glance

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
What bush should have done is slash government spending, pulled our troops in from over seas,  and cut the **** out of taxes.

Stoped 90% of aid money we send out of the US.

Killed any money wasting program.

disband the ATF and DEA.

Legalise pot and tax it.

Decriminalise the rest of the drugs.

Closed the borders. Stoping ilegal imagration. Kick all ilegals out, and start a work visa program that actualy works.  Charge mexico for any medical care given to ilegals.

ETC.

He prolly should not have gone into Iraq.

Other than the border part you sound like Badnarik.

[FUNKED1]

Thrawn those guys are right BTW.  You can stimulate the economic growth (GNP/GDP) with decreased taxes / increased government spending.  You learn that in the first week of any Macroeconomics class.

The problem is that despite the short term growth, you get into long term problems with sustained deficit spending.

To me, a balanced budget is not the goal, just a positive result of the larger goal of getting the government out of our wallets and out of our jobs.  Let us make our own economic decisions and keep DC out of it.