OT: The 'last' word on ending the deficit?

OT: The 'last' word on ending the deficit?

MephitMark
MephitMark

July 16th, 2011, 8:42 am #1

And I dare ANYONE to argue with the author of this solution!!

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. "
Quote
Share

Stumpy
Stumpy

July 16th, 2011, 8:55 am #2

How you gonna get Congress to pass a measure like that?

Quote
Share

MephitMark
MephitMark

July 16th, 2011, 10:08 am #3

1. If the national debt exceeds 3% of the U.S.A. GDP, then all sitting shall disqualified for any further federal office, elected or appointed.

2. One bill, one law, one action. No law can be passed that has more then one action. This would basically kill 'pork' spending, because no one could add a special funding to any bill. It would prevent 'poison pill' or such actions.

3. Definition of a person as covered by the US bill of rights, as being a living person and not a legal construct. And that no business or legal entity shall have any rights that exceed or supersede those rights of a person.
Quote
Share

Barry
Barry

July 16th, 2011, 11:58 am #4

And I dare ANYONE to argue with the author of this solution!!

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. "
until dead for 7 days. (just to make sure)
Quote
Share

CTPatt
CTPatt

July 16th, 2011, 12:46 pm #5

1. If the national debt exceeds 3% of the U.S.A. GDP, then all sitting shall disqualified for any further federal office, elected or appointed.

2. One bill, one law, one action. No law can be passed that has more then one action. This would basically kill 'pork' spending, because no one could add a special funding to any bill. It would prevent 'poison pill' or such actions.

3. Definition of a person as covered by the US bill of rights, as being a living person and not a legal construct. And that no business or legal entity shall have any rights that exceed or supersede those rights of a person.
But wouldn't #1 disqualify everyone who gets elected for the next dozen years or so? You don't shovel yourself out of a hole like the US has been digging for the past couple decades in a single term.
Quote
Share

That guy
That guy

July 16th, 2011, 8:07 pm #6

1. If the national debt exceeds 3% of the U.S.A. GDP, then all sitting shall disqualified for any further federal office, elected or appointed.

2. One bill, one law, one action. No law can be passed that has more then one action. This would basically kill 'pork' spending, because no one could add a special funding to any bill. It would prevent 'poison pill' or such actions.

3. Definition of a person as covered by the US bill of rights, as being a living person and not a legal construct. And that no business or legal entity shall have any rights that exceed or supersede those rights of a person.
I definitely wouldn't argue it might work to that single ended goal (reducing the deficit). Although much like any half-cocked law it has 'unforeseen' ramifications and collateral damage.

#1
Legislation takes time to have an effect on the economy.

If our deficit starts to increase, we recognize it, then take action... how will we know if it's enough? How will congress know it's enough to protect their jobs or so far overboard it will increase the wealthy/poor divide? What if the deficit lull was just a blip on the radar? Once action is taken, how long until it corrects the problem? What if the solution takes ten years?

If a law like that was passed our Government will simply keep the decicit as negative as possible. This results in a massive divide between the wealthy and poor. You will have to purchase your house outright, your income will decrease, jobs will decrease, etc. The wealthy no longer answer to the poor yada yada yada. For a nice case study on this check out Soviet block states.

Something more productive would be for society to EXACTLY define government's role. Should government only defend from outside invaders, increase productivity with roads/bridges/water treatment, how about regulating how homes are constructed, or what is considered 'goat cheese' vs 'goat/milk blend'?

A well drawn line around your goal makes it easier to focus on.

#2 and #3 are problems within problems and too abstract to discuss on this simple forum.
Quote
Share

Z50R
Z50R

July 16th, 2011, 9:17 pm #7

1. If the national debt exceeds 3% of the U.S.A. GDP, then all sitting shall disqualified for any further federal office, elected or appointed.

2. One bill, one law, one action. No law can be passed that has more then one action. This would basically kill 'pork' spending, because no one could add a special funding to any bill. It would prevent 'poison pill' or such actions.

3. Definition of a person as covered by the US bill of rights, as being a living person and not a legal construct. And that no business or legal entity shall have any rights that exceed or supersede those rights of a person.
Those ideas are gold. I don't see what is so difficult about a budget with a black number on the bottom line. If you want to spend the money you need to tax to make up for the spending. If you can't convince the people to pay the tax for it then perhaps the money shouldn't be spent.
Quote
Share

pbjosh
pbjosh

July 16th, 2011, 9:18 pm #8

And I dare ANYONE to argue with the author of this solution!!

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. "
What would have happened if we had this law to help us during the 1930's?

Just a quick grab:

"During WWII, a radically different approach was initiated. Government spending exceeded tax collections in 1942, 1943,1944, and 1945 by 14.5%, 31.1%, 23.6%, and 22.4% of GNP respectively. Unemployment was under 2% by 1943, and output increased from $209.4 (billions of 1958 dollars) to $337.1 by 1943."

from:http://moslereconomics.com/2009/01/08/w ... -spending/


To not enact deficit spending needed during WWII, either the lawmakers would have to vote to leave their office, each year, every year, or they would have to not spend the money that helped us win WWII.

Saying that we could only increase the deficit during war wouldn't work much either, since we are either almost always at war with somebody, or we would find ourselves in constantly escalating wars.


While I like the proposition of the law, there will be a situation that it would cause more harm then good, and historically there would be some major repercussions for passing it.

Josh
Quote
Share

THAT guy
THAT guy

July 16th, 2011, 10:32 pm #9

I definitely wouldn't argue it might work to that single ended goal (reducing the deficit). Although much like any half-cocked law it has 'unforeseen' ramifications and collateral damage.

#1
Legislation takes time to have an effect on the economy.

If our deficit starts to increase, we recognize it, then take action... how will we know if it's enough? How will congress know it's enough to protect their jobs or so far overboard it will increase the wealthy/poor divide? What if the deficit lull was just a blip on the radar? Once action is taken, how long until it corrects the problem? What if the solution takes ten years?

If a law like that was passed our Government will simply keep the decicit as negative as possible. This results in a massive divide between the wealthy and poor. You will have to purchase your house outright, your income will decrease, jobs will decrease, etc. The wealthy no longer answer to the poor yada yada yada. For a nice case study on this check out Soviet block states.

Something more productive would be for society to EXACTLY define government's role. Should government only defend from outside invaders, increase productivity with roads/bridges/water treatment, how about regulating how homes are constructed, or what is considered 'goat cheese' vs 'goat/milk blend'?

A well drawn line around your goal makes it easier to focus on.

#2 and #3 are problems within problems and too abstract to discuss on this simple forum.
I like the idea that any bill should be accompanied by a detailed plan on how it is funded, watched, and enforced.

Although I'm fine with it all going into one pot to cover unforeseen spending peaks and valleys... in the long run any program that deviates from the original plan either in spending or enforcement should have a mandatory review and revote.

Additionally any government sector tasked with an additional action has to submit a public report with their recommendations before the bill is voted on. This would stop things like unused roads/tunnels/bridges being build the DOT knows ahead of time are not needed. This would stop the government from spending massive sums of money on things the DOD already knows do not work.

Quote
Share

CF
CF

July 17th, 2011, 2:52 am #10

And I dare ANYONE to argue with the author of this solution!!

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. "
As noted: No pol would be fool enough to vote for such a law; nor would any pol at a constitutional convention support such amendments.

The solution is simple: Run the country as a business -- and ignore anyone who isn't a shareholder. A vote is a commodity, like any other -- the more of it there is, the less value it has. Yes, this means most of the US would have to learn to "know your role, and shut your mouth"; but then, the opposite approach has worked so well, hasn't it....
Quote
Share