Dear Right...

[Cannon Shell]

I would start with a state of the union where I would announce that I am going to be doing some things that may be very unpopular with some people including some withing my own party.

The first order of business would be to put the social agenda issues on the backburner so that we could concentrate on the economy and not be distracted. (of course if I were elected the forces that helped me get elected would have a lot different outlook than the current administration)

Then I would order my financial team to start drawing up plans to allow the crippled institutions (Banks, AIG, GM, Etc) to go away (via some sort of controlled bankruptcy) and stop being a drain. Naturally I would encounter resistance but I would put my foot down and make it happen. The bleeding would stop, there would be no nationalization and the assets of these companies that are still worth something including the physical assets would be auctioned off with some sort of federal incentive for buying. The so called toxic assets would be eaten by the govt. if we are going to wind up paying for the entire thing anyway i would rather draw down the life of these companies, take the hit and start moving in the right direction. I'm sure that it wont be as simple as this but this is theoretical.

I would lower govt spending and eliminate wasteful programs and projects. Not talk about it and do the opposite like what is being done now. The artificial attempt at propping up job creation through govt is scary because we all know that very little govt ever goes away especially if it means losing jobs. If Bush had reduced spending as well as cutting taxes his plan would have worked much better. The environmental lobby would be told that there will be no cap and trade or other token programs that will simply be window dressing. Any changes that they wish to implement will need to be done slowly and on a small scale. If they want the bone of no off shore drilling to continue, I would give them that.

I would also try to keep the dollar strong which will help our businesses and consumers as the rest of the world struggles as well. This of course is a little trickier but steps would include the above reduction in govt spending to keep from having to print more money to pay when the US treasury market stalls. A tick UP in interest rates would probably be needed also. Not much but the almost free money being offered right now has less appeal to business because of the lack of tax incentive to get and use this money. The relative strength or weakness of the dollar is tricky in its effect but i believe that a strong dollar would help the consumer and strictly US based business in a positive manner.

I would give some radical tax breaks to certain segments. The current, non default home owner would get a special, one time tax credit of significant value, not $250 dollars or something like that. They are the backbone of the housing market and responsibility should be rewarded especially since we will almost assuredly have to do something for those in default. I would also give new home owners a sweetheart deal of some sort as long as they meet certain financial standards. I would run the risk of Dems calling me for the 'rich' and other bunk but forcing home ownership on the poor is a major reason why the housing market imploded regardless of how Barney Frank tries to deflect attention away from his actions. In order to stabilize the housing market, we need new, solid ownership and increased buying. Allowing and rewarding responsible consumers to upgrade their housing while the market is depressed and they can get a great interest rate (despite my inching up of rates) helps everyone except those who defaulted.

Wall street would need help but they also need supervision. I certainly wouldn't implement wage caps. This is a purely political move that can only serve to push the really strong minds to other sectors. Getting rid of mark to market accounting is one thing that would need to be done. I would have my justice dept draw up strict regulations that will deal with fraudulent practices and predatory lending. The tricky thing is that lots of regular people depend on the health of wall street for thier retirement accounts and with that in mind we will walk a fine line between regulation which will be enforceable and effective and punitive punishment which will add to market depression.

Unions would not like me.

I would reverse the stem cell policy of the previous administration just as Obama has done.

I would refrain from doing anything on iraq or Afganistan until I fully understood the situation as opposed to the general public's view.

I would begin to take steps to simplify the tax code. This would have to be done over an extended period and since my plan would work I would have at least 8 years.

I would increase the retirement age to begin to deal with the Social Security and medicare problem.

I would increase defense spending especially in areas where the modern warfare that we currently fight are strengthened as opposed to simply buying more nuke subs. Also included is a substantial pay raise for those already in the military. Why don't we pay these people more? If we are going to subsidize the lazy of our society, why not do the same with the brave? Defense spending is almost a 100% investment in American business and job creation. I would also create a program whereby recently retired police officers (many who are in their 40's or early 50's) are brought into the military and used to create a Military police that can be used more effectively than regular troops in places like Iraq in policing the population and specializes in teaching the forces of these areas to police themselves more effectively when we leave. Our soldiers are taught to kill not police.

I would absolutely NOT tax American income overseas as the research has shown that American firms overseas investments not only strengthen their domestic businesses but increase employee compensation. This goes hand in hand with the strengthening of the dollar strategy.

Infrastructure spending would be necessary not only as a job creation function but because our country needs it.

I'll have more later

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I would start with a state of the union where I would announce that I am going to be doing some things that may be very unpopular with some people including some withing my own party.

The first order of business would be to put the social agenda issues on the backburner so that we could concentrate on the economy and not be distracted. (of course if I were elected the forces that helped me get elected would have a lot different outlook than the current administration)

Then I would order my financial team to start drawing up plans to allow the crippled institutions (Banks, AIG, GM, Etc) to go away (via some sort of controlled bankruptcy) and stop being a drain. Naturally I would encounter resistance but I would put my foot down and make it happen. The bleeding would stop, there would be no nationalization and the assets of these companies that are still worth something including the physical assets would be auctioned off with some sort of federal incentive for buying. The so called toxic assets would be eaten by the govt. if we are going to wind up paying for the entire thing anyway i would rather draw down the life of these companies, take the hit and start moving in the right direction. I'm sure that it wont be as simple as this but this is theoretical.

I would lower govt spending and eliminate wasteful programs and projects. Not talk about it and do the opposite like what is being done now. The artificial attempt at propping up job creation through govt is scary because we all know that very little govt ever goes away especially if it means losing jobs. If Bush had reduced spending as well as cutting taxes his plan would have worked much better. The environmental lobby would be told that there will be no cap and trade or other token programs that will simply be window dressing. Any changes that they wish to implement will need to be done slowly and on a small scale. If they want the bone of no off shore drilling to continue, I would give them that.

I would also try to keep the dollar strong which will help our businesses and consumers as the rest of the world struggles as well. This of course is a little trickier but steps would include the above reduction in govt spending to keep from having to print more money to pay when the US treasury market stalls. A tick UP in interest rates would probably be needed also. Not much but the almost free money being offered right now has less appeal to business because of the lack of tax incentive to get and use this money. The relative strength or weakness of the dollar is tricky in its effect but i believe that a strong dollar would help the consumer and strictly US based business in a positive manner.

I would give some radical tax breaks to certain segments. The current, non default home owner would get a special, one time tax credit of significant value, not $250 dollars or something like that. They are the backbone of the housing market and responsibility should be rewarded especially since we will almost assuredly have to do something for those in default. I would also give new home owners a sweetheart deal of some sort as long as they meet certain financial standards. I would run the risk of Dems calling me for the 'rich' and other bunk but forcing home ownership on the poor is a major reason why the housing market imploded regardless of how Barney Frank tries to deflect attention away from his actions. In order to stabilize the housing market, we need new, solid ownership and increased buying. Allowing and rewarding responsible consumers to upgrade their housing while the market is depressed and they can get a great interest rate (despite my inching up of rates) helps everyone except those who defaulted.

Wall street would need help but they also need supervision. I certainly wouldn't implement wage caps. This is a purely political move that can only serve to push the really strong minds to other sectors. Getting rid of mark to market accounting is one thing that would need to be done. I would have my justice dept draw up strict regulations that will deal with fraudulent practices and predatory lending. The tricky thing is that lots of regular people depend on the health of wall street for thier retirement accounts and with that in mind we will walk a fine line between regulation which will be enforceable and effective and punitive punishment which will add to market depression.

Unions would not like me.

I would reverse the stem cell policy of the previous administration just as Obama has done.

I would refrain from doing anything on iraq or Afganistan until I fully understood the situation as opposed to the general public's view.

I would begin to take steps to simplify the tax code. This would have to be done over an extended period and since my plan would work I would have at least 8 years.

I would increase the retirement age to begin to deal with the Social Security and medicare problem.

I would increase defense spending especially in areas where the modern warfare that we currently fight are strengthened as opposed to simply buying more nuke subs. Also included is a substantial pay raise for those already in the military. Why don't we pay these people more? If we are going to subsidize the lazy of our society, why not do the same with the brave? Defense spending is almost a 100% investment in American business and job creation. I would also create a program whereby recently retired police officers (many who are in their 40's or early 50's) are brought into the military and used to create a Military police that can be used more effectively than regular troops in places like Iraq in policing the population and specializes in teaching the forces of these areas to police themselves more effectively when we leave. Our soldiers are taught to kill not police.

I would absolutely NOT tax American income overseas as the research has shown that American firms overseas investments not only strengthen their domestic businesses but increase employee compensation. This goes hand in hand with the strengthening of the dollar strategy.

Infrastructure spending would be necessary not only as a job creation function but because our country needs it.

I'll have more later

The Coffee kicked in...
Yesssss.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Then I would order my financial team to start drawing up plans to allow the crippled institutions (Banks, AIG, GM, Etc) to go away (via some sort of controlled bankruptcy) and stop being a drain. Naturally I would encounter resistance but I would put my foot down and make it happen. The bleeding would stop, there would be no nationalization and the assets of these companies that are still worth something including the physical assets would be auctioned off with some sort of federal incentive for buying. The so called toxic assets would be eaten by the govt. if we are going to wind up paying for the entire thing anyway i would rather draw down the life of these companies, take the hit and start moving in the right direction. I'm sure that it wont be as simple as this but this is theoretical.

This may be exactly what will happen if the banks are Nationalized.
This is almost exactly what happened in a case (hi im god presented
in the form of an audio in an earlier post) during the Savings and Loan crisis in the 80's were one institution was indeed Nationalized. It turned out to be
a controlled bankruptcy even though that was not intended.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I saw that episode

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

This may be exactly what will happen if the banks are Nationalized.
This is almost exactly what happened in a case (hi im god presented
in the form of an audio in an earlier post) during the Savings and Loan crisis in the 80's were one institution was indeed Nationalized. It turned out to be
a controlled bankruptcy even though that was not intended.

Not really. While the Feds may need control of the bank as it is dismantled, nationalizing banks under the current plan is attempting to right the ship instead of scuttling it.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Not really. While the Feds may need control of the bank as it is dismantled, nationalizing banks under the current plan is attempting to right the ship instead of scuttling it.

They intend for private investors to take over the responsibilities.
Exactly as what God posted in that interview. Its almost the same
thing. Take a listen. It will actually give you more fodder.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

They intend for private investors to take over the responsibilities.
Exactly as what God posted in that interview. Its almost the same
thing. Take a listen. It will actually give you more fodder.

There is pretty much zero chance that this will actually happen. Govt NEVER truly relinquishes authority and hardly anyone qualified wants to even serve in the Treasury dept much less manage these debacles for peanuts.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

They intend for private investors to take over the responsibilities.
Exactly as what God posted in that interview. Its almost the same
thing. Take a listen. It will actually give you more fodder.

For peegarden

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

For peegarden

Why has the stock market fallen so much as politicians have talked about nationalizing the banks? If this was such a wonderful way of fixing credit markets, wouldn’t you think that stocks would go up?

No.

Not until the government organizes and
gets out.

Where have you found that Obama has said he plans
to run the banks, and keep the banks in government control?
Where? I have not found it yet...

stop it with the silly stuff.
You can call it Nationalizing or whatever. But the degree
to which the govt. takes control, manages, and for how long
are the real issues.

Just say we should let the banks fail and watch the market.
It will dive. But imo it will come back. Is there a middle ground?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Why has the stock market fallen so much as politicians have talked about nationalizing the banks? If this was such a wonderful way of fixing credit markets, wouldn’t you think that stocks would go up?

No.

Not until the government organizes and
gets out.

Where have you found that Obama has said he plans
to run the banks, and keep the banks in government control?
Where? I have not found it yet...

stop it with the silly stuff.
You can call it Nationalizing or whatever. But the degree
to which the govt. takes control, manages, and for how long
are the real issues.

Just say we should let the banks fail and watch the market.
It will dive. But imo it will come back. Is there a middle ground?

Let me explain this because you seem to have a problem forming independent thoughts.

If the govt "nationalizes" banks, who exactly is going to run them? Please tell me this. Who will be in charge and who will they have to answer to?

Let me ask another question. If the "nationalization" plan actually works out (which is almost an impossibility) why would the govt then give up control regardless of which party is in charge? Can you actually say with a straight face that Congress is going to give a successful bank back? Why would they?

If it doesnt work (which is lke a 99.9% chance) then who exactly is going to want them especially with the draconian rules that will surely be drafted?

What is Obama SUPPOSED to say? Yeah we are taking over the Banking business and probably going to keep it? Hell when Chris Dodd said it the market went into a freefall and his word is far less meaningful than Obama's.

The market is falling regardless. The worry is what happens in the future if the govt gets into the banking business. You may want to call it rightwing paranoia but why wouldn't govt banks be just another cog in the giant political machine? Politics cost all of us. There is a reason that the Fed Reserve is supposed to be apolitical.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

forcing home ownership on the poor is a major reason why the housing market imploded

Based on what I have read,
this is just not true.

The mortages that were written up
where shameful. And then the way
they were hidden amongst other good
loans was criminal.

This is the major reason it is so difficult
to ascertain the value of a mortage "packages"
sold as investments. Toxic mixed with clean.
And one of the reasons Bush/Volcker
failed in righting the ship.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Based on what I have read,
this is just not true.

The mortages that were written up
where shameful. And then the way
they were hidden amongst other good
loans was criminal.

This is the major reason it is so difficult
to ascertain the value of a mortage "packages"
sold as investments. Toxic mixed with clean.
And one of the reasons Bush/Volcker
failed in righting the ship.

You have read incorrect information.

While the mortages may have been deceptive the people signing them bear responsibility and the politicians that forced FM and FM to cover the bad bets are fundementally to blame.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You have read incorrect information.

While the mortages may have been deceptive the people signing them bear responsibility and the politicians that forced FM and FM to cover the bad bets are fundementally to blame.

There are plenty of court cases as we speak that will
show that many mortages were criminally deceptive. And I'm
sorry, if some of the best financial people in the world
cant understand some of the investments instruments
that Banks invented using mathematicians... We have a problem
that is much deeper than poor people not knowing
what they are doing.

You have read about these...
Yes?

I would now like a post involving the huge wastes in
Iraq and before made by private defense companies that have basically
become government entities. Since the military creates
so many jobs. Anytime lots of money goes into an area
by way of government, there will be criminals lapping at the table.
Could any rightwinger possibly post about the
billions of dollars extracted from the govt. by defense
contractors.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

There are plenty of court cases as we speak that will
show that many mortages were criminally deceptive. And I'm
sorry, if some of the best financial people in the world
cant understand some of the investments instruments
that Banks invented using mathematicians... We have a problem
that is much deeper than poor people not knowing
what they are doing.

You have read about these...
Yes?

I would now like a post involving the huge wastes in
Iraq and before made by private defense companies that have basically
become government entities. Since the military creates
so many jobs. Anytime lots of money goes into an area
by way of government, there will be criminals lapping at the table.
Could any rightwinger possibly post about the
billions of dollars extracted from the govt. by defense
contractors.

You are talking about two distinct, separate issues

Are you serious? you make this statement "Anytime lots of money goes into an area by way of govt, there will be lots of criminals lapping at the table" Then you make a strange statement about money "extracted" by defense contractors.

Let me address your first statement first. The Obama administration has just unleashed the greatest govt spending spree in history. Therefore according to your inane theory, the "criminals" must be "lapping" like ****in madmen.

Statement number two. Who exactly is supposed to build military items? How much should an airplane or missile cost?

You can watch basketball and simply have a bad opinion. On these topics you just throughout rhetoric and innuendo seemingly without much understanding.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are talking about two distinct, separate issues

Are you serious? you make this statement "Anytime lots of money goes into an area by way of govt, there will be lots of criminals lapping at the table" Then you make a strange statement about money "extracted" by defense contractors.

Let me address your first statement first. The Obama administration has just unleashed the greatest govt spending spree in history. Therefore according to your inane theory, the "criminals" must be "lapping" like ****in madmen.

Statement number two. Who exactly is supposed to build military items? How much should an airplane or missile cost?

You can watch basketball and simply have a bad opinion. On these topics you just throughout rhetoric and innuendo seemingly without much understanding.

I am sure the issues are distinct for you.
Some parallels will bypass addicts that read
only what fits their model.

Govt spending on the whole is wasteful?
Its just your waste is another persons food.

The military spends money and creates jobs.
Social programs do nothing but make dependents.

I got it.

But in both areas we can find many instances of
incompetence and waste. You choose to emphasize
a certain type of waste. Liberals another.

And Obama has "unleashed (like Godzilla)" a spending
"spree" (shopping for women's lingere). Just tossing
dollars about randomly. No innuendo or opinion there.

The largest.
You got that right.

As far as who is supposed to build military items...
Apparently not INDEPEDENT private contractors. I guess
government run contractors, might as well be. Its getting
really hazy. But you might want a privatized military.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I am sure the issues are distinct for you.
Some parallels will bypass addicts that read
only what fits their model.

Govt spending on the whole is wasteful?
Its just your waste is another persons food.

The military spends money and creates jobs.
Social programs do nothing but make dependents.

I got it.

But in both areas we can find many instances of
incompetence and waste. You choose to emphasize
a certain type of waste. Liberals another.

And Obama has "unleashed (like Godzilla)" a spending
"spree" (shopping for women's lingere). Just tossing
dollars about randomly. No innuendo or opinion there.

The largest.
You got that right.

As far as who is supposed to build military items...
Apparently not INDEPEDENT private contractors. I guess
government run contractors, might as well be. Its getting
really hazy. But you might want a privatized military.

Stop your whining. How exactly do i know what fits my "model" before I read it? Just another attempt at discrediting the source rather than the issue.

Govt spending is generally wasteful by virtually ALL accounts. Remember there are 8500 earmarks we have not even delved into. How many of them wouldnt be considered wasteful except by the people that they benefit. Remember that unlike private business or individuals, the pols that direct the spending dont have much to gain by keeping the money.

You want to compare military spending and social programs? That is fine with me.

Lets see where to start. Military spending creates growth, benefits American businesses, provides good paying jobs, and provides tax revenue. Most social programs ****** growth, do zippo for American business, provide more govt mouths to feed, and eat up tax revenue.

Are you attempting to minimize Obama's spending or say that it something other than frighteningly enormous?

Just how many companies out there build tanks and attack fighters? It isnt fuzzy at all. People have complained about Hailburton except they always fail to point out that sometimes there is only one company that can do the job required. What then?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You can watch basketball and simply have a bad opinion.

Ouch kabibbles...