16 ms·

(Reference: http://www.federalbudget.com/ http://www.federalbudget.com/) Steps to recovery: 1) End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding dow

by geuis 15y ago

(Reference: http://www.federalbudget.com/ http://www.federalbudget.com/) Steps to recovery: 1) End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. 2) Defense spending is in the top 3 highest budget expenditures. Cut it by 1 third across the board. Maintain important overseas installations such as Japan and Taiwan. Given China's rise, its wise long-term to keep a presence in the region. Scale back deployments in Europe unless Russia still is still a threat to western Europe. 3) The most amount of money the U.S. spends is Health and Human Services. The U.S. health system is a fucking mess. Somehow we spend the most on healthcare and get some of the worst societal benefits out of any industrialized country. I don't have an answer here, but it likely involves completely tearing down the existing system to its nuts and bolts and building it back up. I'd love to hear ideas on this point from others that know more about it. 4) Social Security is the other one. My mom relies on it, so does a lot of my family. We're from meager backgrounds and traditionally have come from poorer parts of the nation. That being said, cut it. When I look at my paycheck and see that upwards of 40% of my income is being sucked out by the government and used more for things I oppose than things I support (e.g. war spending versus scientific investment) it pisses me right off. Yes, I have heard the naive argument "But taxes are there to run the things you use like roads and government services that you use every day". This is true only in part. Yup, we need an army. Yup, we need local police. Yup, we need roads. Yup, we need a justice system. But it doesn't take trillions of dollars a year to run those things. The government shouldn't interfere with business like propping up failing business models. It should work to make sure that business plays fair, i.e. anti-monopoly or collusion, etc. I'm more liberal than conservative, and definitely not one of these people that wants business to have free-reign over everything. But there are bottom lines that we have crossed and need to back off.

Troll_Whisperer 15y ago
Maintain important overseas installations such as Japan and Taiwan. The US hasn't had a base in Taiwan for 30 years. Maybe you're thinking of Korea?
quandrum 15y ago
Why would you cut Social Security? It's in no danger. And frankly, medicare wouldn't be if we killed the payroll tax cap. I never understood why it's ok for payroll taxes to be regressive.
- pauldino 15y ago
  The Medicare portion of FICA isn't capped, only social security is.
  - veyron 15y ago
    Why aren't capital gains assessed medicare tax?
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      People with capital gains don't want to pay for healthier poor people.
- watchandwait 15y ago
  Social Security is supposed to be a pension program, not an income redistribution program. So you are making "contributions", not paying taxes, in the official lingo. Of course the program is most regressive for younger workers, who pay the most and will get the least in return. Social Security is in serious trouble, by the way, although it is not the driver of the current budget crisis. In just a couple of years the program goes into the red, and increasingly so as more boomers retire. The unfunded liability is around $8 trillion. That's serious money.
  - jellicle 15y ago
    There's no such thing as an unfunded liability for Social Security. By law, SS is funded solely by payroll taxes. If payroll taxes are insufficient, benefit payments are reduced to match. Social Security can never go bankrupt, and it can never be in debt.
winestock 15y ago
You're more liberal than conservative. I'm more conservative than liberal. Bless your heart, I agree with all of your points. At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now. For their pains, their careers were destroyed by the people who run the current mainstream conservative movement. Let's take a look at those points of yours. Points 1 & 2. Cut defense spending and all of the cool people will call you an isolationist. Sure, argue rationally all you want; the name will stick. Also, remember that the United States is bound by treaty to defend more than two dozen nations. That includes keeping bases in some of those nations. Those treaties will have to be renegotiated. Those nations will have to increase their own defense spending. Many of those nations have budget problems of their own. Have fun. Point 3. Touch social spending and the cool people will call you a heartless bastard who cackles at the sight of starving widows in between gulps of baby orphan blood. Sure, argue rationally all you want; the charge will stick. Of course, this doesn't solve the money problem. Iceberg? What iceberg? Point 4. Social Security is the third rail of American politics: If you touch it, you will die. Sure, argue rationally all you want. It will help as much as it ever has. Long story short, the bureaucracy rules us. The administration of administrators who administer the other administers who supervise the people in charge of those who actually get real work done cannot make any concessions to reality. It would be like Gorbachev loosening the grip of Communism; one exit through the Iron Curtain and it's all over. The Cool People will double down. They will continue to double down until it is physically impossible for them to continue doing so.
- geuis 15y ago
  Thanks. I have no refutations to any of your comments. I know exactly what you mean. One interesting thing about your first statement, "At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now". A few years ago I had the opportunity to hear Francis Fukuyama speak. He was the author of The End of History and a later follow up book. I never knew it before then, but he was one of the founding members of the Neo-conservative movement. It was originally started by him and a group of like-minded sorts around a cafeteria table in some ivy-league college (Princeton maybe?). He went on to talk about how the ideals of what they founded were adopted and warped beyond recognition by the Evangelical Christian community in the U.S. and by other conservatives. What was remarkable about the talk was that at the end, he essentially repudiated everything he had originally written in The End of History. I remember stories my grandparents told of growing up during the Great Depression. I also remember stories from my mom's family of 7 kids growing up poor in Rochester, NY in the post-war era. Perhaps I've inherited an attitude of bite-down and deal with reality from their history.
ericd 15y ago
One thing to note, I think the strength of our currency is at least partly based on the large amount of military power behind it, and the promise of stability that it brings. Basically, it went from being backed by gold to being backed by power and promise of restraint in printing more. I guess we've largely given up on the restraint side, though.
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago
  Quite a few fallen empires have made that error of judgement. I believe it hails from a time when the military could be used to make occupied peoples pay taxes. Nowadays, a military that is much bigger than what is needed for defense suffers from diminishing returns in terms of backing the currency with a safety net. The military is not going to force the Fed to stop printing money.
j_hightower 15y ago
"Given China's rise, its wise long-term to keep a presence in the region." Why? China will surpass the United States in soft and hard power eventually. This is demographically and economically inevitable. Even sooner, if not already, China will become an unshakable hegemon over all of Asia. So why fight it in the most expensive and futile ways possible, i.e., by maintaining the fiction that we will be able to exercise any sort of long-term military power in Asia? It's time we focused on our economic power, and not our military power. The former is a necessary precondition of the latter, and we're acting as though it's not.
- jerf 15y ago
  "This is demographically and economically inevitable." Oh, no it's not. First China has to hold together over that time frame. This is feasible... this is not inevitable. There's a lot of tensions over there. Then even if they pass that test, there's other things they're going to have to deal with. Right now, there isn't a single world power that's looking to be "inevitably powerful" in the next 50 years, it's really "anybody's game".
  - n09n 15y ago
    China doesn't need to hold together for that to happen. China has a far stronger ability than most other countries to collapse, reform, and remain "China."
  - eric-hu 15y ago
    "Right now, there isn't a single world power that's looking to be "inevitably powerful" in the next 50 years, it's really "anybody's game"." The Vatican?
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    First China has to hold together over that time frame. This is feasible... this is not inevitable. There's a lot of tensions over there. Then even if they pass that test, there's other things they're going to have to deal with. Right. It's entirely possible that China can hold together as a sovereign nation, but will develop or hold onto pathologies which will cripple it as a major power. Then again, the same could also be said for other potential powerhouses like Brazil, Russia, and India. The same could even be said for the EU and the US.
keyle 15y ago
This all makes good sense and would make a great political party's campaign. The problem is, it wouldn't work. The economy, as small as any small country, isn't a piece of programming. You don't audit and refactor, or rewrite parts and plug it all in. It's made of generations of flesh and bones, all of which have worked their guts out to get whatever it is you're trying to take from them. In a tyranny, maybe. In democracy, you have no chance of getting anywhere which such an overhaul.
- marshray 15y ago
  Which is why the US was founded as a federal republic.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Specifically, a federal democratic republic. There's no contradiction between "republic" and "democracy". "Republic" refers to sovereignty (the people hold sovereignty rather than a monarch), while "democracy" refers to power (the people hold power rather than a dictator). Some democracies are not republics--the UK is a constitutional monarchy. Some republics are not democracies--the Roman Republic was an oligarchy and to some extent the early United States was, too.
- geuis 15y ago
  This is a completely bullshit way of thinking. Its also just another example of the defeatist attitude so many people in this country have. "Oh, the problem is too big to handle" or "Welp, that's just the way it is". You ABSOLUTELY audit and refactor a society. Every time the country has gotten a bit more free with a new law or court decision, that's a refactor that improves the system. Sometimes people have added parts to the system or revised bits that end up for the worse. Examples include Prohibition, Jim Crow laws, Defense of Marriage Act, software patents, etc. One thing that would help society out a lot would be societal unit tests. Set baselines as to what works and doesn't, and if some new changes breaks the tests you go back and refactor again.
  - keyle 15y ago
prostoalex 15y ago
What constitutes defense spending nowadays? Is it largely salary payments to current troops? Wouldn't we have to deal with a large unemployment problem in case we laid off a bunch of military employees and told them to go find a job somewhere else? Or is it payment to defense contractors, such as Valley's own Lockheed Martin? Wouldn't this cause a large number of people to be unemployed, contributing to recession?
- geuis 15y ago
  Is it the government's job to keep people employed for the sake of employing them? No! There are times in history where government spending can help, like during the Great Depression. The government spent a lot of money on public works projects to help put some people back to work. But this didn't do much to actually end the depression. It was the onset of WWII and the subsequent ramp-up to a war economy that really ended the Depression.
  - rmrm 15y ago
    WWII and the rampup was still a public works project. What really turned the economy for good imo was not WWII but the result of WWII -- all of our competitors on the international stage having large parts of their population and infrastructure destroyed. A few year grace period while the rest of the world rebuilt turned into 50 years of global corporate hegemony.
    - dmm 15y ago
      And the USD became the world's reserve currency.
  - dctoedt 15y ago
    > Is it the government's job to keep people employed for the sake of employing them? No! The most basic task of government is to maintain a stable social order (see, e.g., the preamble to the U.S. Constitution). With sustained, pervasive unemployment comes social unrest (see any number of examples from the past 100 years). So .... > The government spent a lot of money on public works projects to help put some people back to work. But this didn't do much to actually end the depression. It was the onset of WWII and the subsequent ramp-up to a war economy that really ended the Depression. According to most economists (from what I've read), the New Deal was doing OK at getting people back to work until 1937, when the government suddenly cut its spending and raised taxes. That threw the economy back into recession.[1] And yes, the massive deficit spending of WWII did indeed pretty much take care of unemployment, and then some. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937
abalone 15y ago
The only reason the healthcare issue seems so complicated is the massive amount of propaganda we're subjected to in the U.S. media about it. You're on the right track to figuring out an answer. Just look at what all the other industrialized countries do. Then do that. Nice little overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care This is of course beyond the pale of rational discussion in U.S. political discourse. Just whisper "socialism" and it's off the table, instantly.
latch 15y ago
Social security shouldn't be cut, it should be turned into a purely social program (and grandfathered in at that too). Instead of being an entitlement program, it should become like welfare and enabled for the bottom X % of the population. Specifically, the burden for retirement for the middle class should be placed on individuals rather than government. For too long, babyboomers have relied on social security as a sort of no-interest loan. Why put that extra money in my 401K when I can rely on social security? I'll get a second car, or we'll take a yearly family vacation overseas... Also, simplify the tax system and close loopholes, but do not directly raises taxes.
- clarkevans 15y ago
  You completely underestimate how the average person finds something more important to spend money on now rather than saving for their future. The reason we have social security is because people don't save what they need to. If you don't have this, most of the population will be in poverty when they retire. Social security also has things like survivor's benefits: payments to children and dependents who have lost a wage earner. I don't think the Social Security program is at all broken; what's broken is that we've used the Social Security surplus over the last 20+ years to help fund a general fund spending deficit.
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    What you've described is a symptom that can't just be fixed by closing your eyes and throwing money at the government while saying, "Give this back when I need it, OK?" If the populace doesn't have the discipline to control and organize their extra resources, how can we expect politicians to do so? And why do we even trust them to do it? It's sad that people with the attitude you've described were able to convince the government to enact this as a mandatory thing -- but, the government likes money. We've seen what a faithful steward they have been for us. People without the self-restraint to save money for a period of time where they expect to live without performing any money-generating work have problems that can't be fixed so simply. Maybe that's the cause of all of this turmoil in the first place. The idea of "retirement" is also a curious new invention; people didn't save for retirement before the industrial revolution because back then, people would own houses and lands, accumulate real wealth that could be used to sustain life (e.g., agricultural assets) when individuals got too old to perform the work themselves, etc. The pace of change since the 1860s has been extremely staggering and has introduced many concerns that hadn't existed previously. It is an intriguing matter to be sure. Hopefully we can come out of it all right.
jsz0 15y ago
I have an easy solution. Let's make your federal income taxes look less like a bill and more like an order form. So for example some portion of your income taxes are pre-allocated for essential services (say 50%) and everything else is your choice. You get 50 points to spend and a variety of categories to choose from: education, defense, infrastructure, green energy, science research, enhanced Medicare services, NASA, deficit reduction, etc. This data is delivered to congress who must use it as a framework for 50% of the federal budget. After you filed your taxes mid-year you'd receive a detailed receipt that let you know exactly what Americans have decided to spend our money on.
- chc 15y ago
  The thought of how this would actually lead to a better allocation of money baffles me. It sounds like the first half of the tragedy of the commons.
  - canadaduane 15y ago
    I'm not sure if the tragedy of the commons would apply in this case. The "mandatory" aspect of elevating discretionary spending into social spending via taxation seems to fundamentally alter the psychology of spending. "Well, if I absolutely must spend this money on other people, then I guess I'll spend it on ___" (education comes to mind as one area people in America might universally agree should get more dollars). The weakness in this system would be the lack of expertise within the "common wisdom" of the people. That might be solved by, say, providing a "template spending ballot" from respected people... a sort of proxy delegation but simplified so you just copy down the numbers they say. If that latter option were made simple enough that 90% of people could understand and do it, the expertise of a few would hold larger sway than the somewhat uninformed choices of the many. BTW, a friend and I also thought of this idea independently; we called it "mandatory taxes, voluntary distribution" [1] [1] http://canadaduane.posterous.com/mandatory-taxes-voluntary-distribution-econom http://canadaduane.posterous.com/mandatory-taxes-voluntary-d...
    - AretNCarlsen 15y ago
notatoad 15y ago
the actual step 1: admit you have a problem. the US still spends with the attitude that it is a rich country. it needs to start spending with the attitude of a country that is rapidly going broke. of course, this can't happen because any politician who doesn't parrot the "America is the greatest country in the world" message gets ousted.
- rwmj 15y ago
  Why do they get ousted? Surely you'd vote for them?
  - pyre 15y ago
    Not enough people would though. They would flock to the other candidate that would inevitably reassure them that everything was going to be ok. Heaven forbid that people should vote by thinking about the issues rather than just digestion a handful of sound-bites.
    - rwmj 15y ago
      Well why don't you educate other voters on this issue? Knock on doors and canvass, even just print up flyers and push them through letterboxes.
      - notatoad 15y ago
        it is human nature to support ideas that make you happy. nobody wants to be told that their country's economic system is failing. people love to be told that everything is peachy and they have nothing to worry about. attempting to educate people about a gloomy topic is just going to make them dislike you as well.
      - salemh 15y ago
        Need an iPhone app linked to local government data with where, when, HOW to vote, appropriate links to the various candidates, etc. Start at a local level, burgeon up. KickStarter or O'Relly Gov20 project. Would love to see this tackled.
i2o 15y ago
On point #3, while I'm sure it can be better, it is worth noting out that historically medicare has done better at cost management than private healthcare (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/medicare-versus-insurers/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/medicare-versus-...). I don't have the answer either, but health is one of those areas we know enough about yet to optimize using the same techniques you would in manufacturing, for instance. It is about investing in preventative measures as it is in reactive treatments. In Canada we face similar issues where more of our tax dollars being spent on healthcare with lesser returns. This is due in part to an ageing population, but can also be attributed to the lack of broader innovation in the delivery of care. A first step would be to encourage a more team-oriented approach where the doctor's lobby group (aka union) doesn't retain so much influence and control over policy decisions. From afar it looks like the private insurance lobby is one of the larger distractions preventing the US from getting down to the real issues of efficient and effective health practices. On the business front propping up failing business models is a tough one. There is something to be said about preventing a complete and sudden collapse. The number of unemployed would hit the system in so many other ways. What we have seen from the auto industry, as much as I disagreed with the bailouts, is reinvention and retooling. I hope they take their bailouts with a great deal of thankfulness and invest wisely. I look at the next generation of companies like Tesla Motors and hope that more auto industry giants will seek to innovate and evolve rather than focus on just getting bigger (and slower). The message I believe we all (conservative and liberal) can and should agree on is respect for the tax payer dollar. Money in government isn't free, the debt and deficit isn't free. As they plan out capital and operating expenses they need to do so with an passion towards building a better country while taking calculated measures and risks. Government's role, in my mind, isn't to innovate itself but instead to facilitate innovation by its people. It should focus on facilitating the success of the people through "just enough" regulation which means refactoring how they work on a regular basis to find the most effective means in which to operate. They need to continue to question their own purposes, not get comfortable in the security of a public sector job for life. Most importantly they need to share with their shareholders, we the people, on their progress in an open and transparent manner. I don't need fancy marketing campaigns to tell me about the good work that they do, but I don't want to see them hiding it either. One way to do this is to add a more direct measure of how tax dollars are spent. In Canada we pay a good portion of our taxes into a general revenue pool. I would like to see that eliminated in favour of a clear indication of what portion of my taxes go towards specific ministries or sectors of government. I think that next level of granularity would provide a bit more awareness that public money really belongs to the public.
bigwally 15y ago
A lot of your points seem to cover international issues/action. The US needs to come to the realization that it is part of the world economy and not the ruler/leader. A large percentage of the US economy was damaged in the events that occurred after September 2001. Trying to to do business, travel or get workers to the US requires so much paperwork that a lot of business has simply gone elsewhere. Even trying to do financial trade in the US these days ends up with so much taxes or the threat of your money being taken as it may be linked to some terrorist organization. And your health insurance.... well I like collecting dividends. If you like I could go into the oil industry, I will say thank you to the American tax payer for electing to go to war and making me some money. The US has managed to dig itself into a great big hole and gave people like me money. Congratulations on your sinking economy and thank you. So keep watching that propaganda you call Fox News :)
gnosis 15y ago
You forgot the War on Drugs. Get rid of it, free all the people in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses, and tax the newly legalized drugs. This should free up a lot of money that's being wasted on ruining people's lives right now, and make more money from taxing legal drugs. As a bonus, it'll get rid of a lot of organized crime. Witness what happened with the repeal of Prohibition.
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  The war on drugs is only 0.5% (approx. $18 billion) of the Federal budget (approx. $3,456 billion), so it's inconsequential to our debt crisis. I whole heartedly agree that drug prohibition should be repealed, and that we need to put an end to the war on (some) drugs. But, the military, social security, and medicare comprise approx. 70% of the budget, so it's really not going to help us solve the debt.
  - Someone 15y ago
    I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers) Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts Sure. And just because it's a small fraction doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be addressed. But should a 0.5% line item take precedent over three items which combined total to 70%? When you need drastic improvement fast, it's just a waste of time to dally on pet agendas that don't represent a significant chunk. Get to them later when you have the time and energy to spare.
      - bermanoid 15y ago
atsaloli 15y ago
Check out www.downsizedc.org They are proponents of ending all offensive military action overseas, and cutting government spending and red tape. They have an excellent system that makes it easier for USA people to contact their government -- you put in your name and address, and they give you a simple "contact us" form (just a single text area) where you can write your comments and they automatically get routed to your reps in Congress and Senate -- very efficient use of the voter's time!
dglassan 15y ago
Tearing the healthcare system down to it's nuts and bolts would costs a lot more than to continue reforming. I spent some time consulting hospitals an implementing electronic medical record systems for hospitals. It costs a hospital millions of dollars and thousands of hours to install and train people for these systems. Too many hospitals are too deep in these EMR systems to start from scratch again. Their margins are only around 1-2 percent as it is. I agree, the healthcare system is a complete mess, but think of it like re-writing software. Sometimes continuously refactoring code is a much wiser decision than completely re-writing the code
- MartinCron 15y ago
  By "sometimes" you mean, "nearly all the damn time". As an incrementalist coder, it frustrates me to see how non-incremental the approach to solving social problems often is. Decouple, solve one thing at a time, etc.
  - yxhuvud 15y ago
    Also: refactoring is good.
- ericd 15y ago
  A hospital's margins are only 1-2%? Do you have a source for that? Maybe they can pull that off by paying themselves all the profits, but there's no way that I buy that hospitals have thinner margins than grocery stores before that. Hospital administrators are very well off on average. Their fees are way too large to be running so close to the wire, given their expenses.
  - seehafer 15y ago
    Do you have a source for the expenses that the average hospital incurs?
  - shirederby 15y ago
    I was curious about this, so I searched around a bit. This is the most recent I found -- a median of 3.1 percent: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/19/us-hospitals-usa-idUSTRE57I0IS20090819 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/19/us-hospitals-usa-i...
friendstock 15y ago
"Maintain important overseas installations such as Japan and Taiwan." - there are no US bases in Taiwan currently. Perhaps this is referring to Korea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force_installations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force...
CamperBob 15y ago
End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. Once you realize that the military is not a collection of armed forces so much as it is the US's largest social welfare program, these policies and figures start to make more sense. Put it this way: We're paying our troops there so we don't have to pay them here. Don't look for this to change anytime soon.
- araes 15y ago
  True, and numerous families across the US depend on the active and guard pay of the armed forces. However, by bringing troops home, there are a number of secondary costs that can be reduced, or eliminated. For example, one of the more famous recently has been the discussion of AC in Afghanistan. Per the NPR article: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-w... We are spending 20 billion a year to truck energy supplies across some of the worst terrain in the world so that we can provide AC to thousands of horridly inefficient tents for our soldiers in the field. For comparison, that's more than the entire yearly budget of NASA. And its only one of numerous logistics and support costs we incur in our active warzones.
  - kens 15y ago
    The 20 billion a year air conditioning cost is marketing nonsense. Specifically, this number comes from someone selling energy-efficient tents to the Pentagon, and it's pretty clear they made up this number. At the very bottom of the article, the Pentagon states it spends $15 billion on energy for all military operations around the world (i.e. everything, not just air conditioning). This might be a good time to read Paul Graham's article on PR: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html (I don't mean this as an attack on araes or the suggestion to reduce military spending.)
    - araes 15y ago
uladzislau 15y ago
Great ideas! But please someone fix this site design. Current design undermines all data credibility.
Benjo 15y ago
There are lots of things we could do to end the recovery. They won't happen because they are not in the best short term interest of the politicians making the decisions. Natural selection has weeded out the congressmen that make decisions contrary to their ability to raise campaign money. That is the root cause of the problem. Until that is solved, there's no point in dreaming up efficient solutions, because they won't happen.
- mcantelon 15y ago
  Exactly. The problem is corruption. Everything else is a symptom.
  - epscylonb 15y ago
    The problem is the voters, you get the politicians you deserve. I don't think the american people are dumb or lazy, I think they are very complacent. Americans have become so used to their fairly high standard of living that they are ignoring substantive issues and focusing on trivia. My personal prediction is that the voters will wise up and listen to smart people who understand the issues eventually. At the moment though americans just see high gas prices and demand their government fix "the problem", they aren't interested in the challenging geo political, economic and social complexities. How far amercia falls on the way to this correction is difficult to tell. edit: just in case anyone thinks I am america bashing, the above applies to most of western europe as well.
    - hermannj314 15y ago
      The problem isn't the voters, the problem is the process. There is no way that basing a representative democracy on geographical cohorts can be optimal. I assume it is based originally on logistical constraints, but today is something we just accept because it is how it has always been done. Wouldn't it make more sense to divide the political arena based on the scope of the issues allowed to be legislated and not on the origin of the legislator? Or maybe we just need a stronger 10th amendment. It will never happen. I know. Wishful thinking maybe.
redthrowaway 15y ago
The only problem with slashing military spending and ending foreign interventions is that it has been just that spending, and those interventions, that have made the US the economic powerhouse it is today. The US has a history, stretching back well over a century, of launching military campaigns to support corporate interests. Be it South America, the Middle East, or Asia, the US has invaded countries and toppled governments time and again in support of its economic goals. Now, I think this is reprehensible, but I also wouldn't be so naive as to say that the path to economic recovery lies in an end to military adventurism. The US is rich for the same reason Rome, England, and Spain were: they won their riches at the the end of a sword. The American military budget is clearly unsustainable, but that doesn't mean an end to foreign wars is in their economic interest. It's no coincidence that the US has been both the most prosperous nation on Earth, as well as the most aggressive, for nearly 200 years. Take a look at the history of US military actions on Wikipedia [1], and see how many times the phrase "protected American interests/property" is mentioned. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_milit...
- dereg 15y ago
  You're making a spurious correlation. If your assertion was correct, the French, British, Danish, Portuguese, and Spanish, et al.--the great colonial powers--should be stronger economies than the United States. http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_1500_AD_to_2000.jpg http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_... In conclusion, you've made a spurious correlation.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    They were stronger. Much stronger. They collapsed for varied reasons, but suffice to say if the British Empire was as big today as it was in its heyday, it would be a larger economy than the US. Also, no need to say "in conclusion" when the sum total of your argument is a single sentence.
    - petercooper 15y ago
shareme 15y ago
1. 85% of the $14 Trillion deficit over the past 3 years was not any items you described but these items: -TARP Until we decide to have the bank lobbyists pay for their transgressions we will continue to be in deficit no matter what entitlement cuts are passed. Two options: Right now individuals pay 2/3rds of gov expenditures not corporations. 1. Reform corp tax law. There should be no Google or MSFT only paying 5% instead of the full 30% corp tax. 2. Reform internet sales tax. If states have adequate tax revenue than the Education and Medical entitlements on the Fed level can be cut back.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  >85% of the $14 Trillion deficit over the past 3 years was not any items you described but these items: -TARP TARP was $300B, of which the government will recover all but $25B, according to the CBO. The "bailout" in general (considering all acts that fall under that umbrella term) consisted of about $3.5T in payouts, the vast majority of which is expected to be recouped. Also, you're confusing debt with deficit. The debt is $14T, the deficit is just over a billion. Your 85% figure appears to have been drawn from your sphincter.
  - smcl 15y ago
    >> The debt is $14T, the deficit is just over a billion The US budget deficit is far more than $1 billion. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/u-s-had-record-222-5-billion-monthly-budget-gap-in-february.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/u-s-had-record-222-...
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      I meant trillion.
vlisivka 15y ago
Disproportion between givers and takers of money makes democracy weak at this. In democratic country, bigger and poorer group can always take some money out of smaller and richer group. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.sv... - all top countries are democratic.
tjogin 15y ago
What about the single biggest contribution to the deficit, the Bush tax cuts?
Bertil 15y ago
You seem to have forgot one point: the trillions spent in the Middle-East are to protect the supply of cheap Oil — so step 0. is: Sell your car, insulate your house.
- shiftpgdn 15y ago
  We get more oil from the gulf and Canada than we do from the Middle-east. That's not to say energy savings are a lost cause.
  - Bertil 15y ago
    You still pay it at international prices, that are set by events in the Golf.
paolomaffei 15y ago
2) I'm pretty sure Western Europe is fine with Russia without US intervention, thanks.
sandstrom 15y ago
3. The Healthcare System is interesting. The US simply pay a lot more than all other industrialized nations (and still everyone isn't covered). These two graphs are quite telling: http://www.rwjf.org/images/pr/thumbs/full/45110.jpg http://www.rwjf.org/images/pr/thumbs/full/45110.jpg http://media.economist.com/images/20090627/CBB677.gif http://media.economist.com/images/20090627/CBB677.gif I think the problem is manifold, but here are some things that may be problematic (please let me know if you agree or disagree): # Doctors risk getting sued for maltreatment, and thus they prescribe all possible medications, take too many samples and generally spend too much resources. # On the same note, they also pay large insurances against lawsuits, increasing the costs further. # Medicine prices are higher in the US, for reasons I don't fully understand.
- nickik 15y ago
  Intressting, I'm from switzerland :) In our system you need to have health care insurants. Its alot to pay but as far as I can tell we have one of the best systems and everybody really gets good treatment (my father is a doctor my mother is a nurce and my sister is studying medicin). Witch seams not to be the case in america (I watched Sicko, other then that I have know knowlage). I can only compaire to some other europen countreys but when you get hurt in italy for example the first rule is to get to switzerland as fast as possible.
zzzeek 15y ago
more liberal than conservative yet no suggestion to raise taxes which are at their lowest levels in 50 years (http://www.chamberofcommerce.com/business-advice/tax-preparation/taxes-reach-lowest-levels-in-50-years-242/ http://www.chamberofcommerce.com/business-advice/tax-prepara...) ? not even on billionaires sucking the government dry via the bush tax cuts (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_bush_tax_cuts_effect_on_th.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_bush...) ?
bostonscott 15y ago
This is a plan I could sign on to (for the most part), but as Winestock said, such a plan would never get support. It is not a coincidence that Presidential elections are as close as they are. Politicians essentially buy votes to get elected, in the form of government programs. The problem in this country is medical entitlements - not so much Social Security. Social Security in theory funds itself, although Social Security's funds have been raided to fund other programs which now jeopardize its future. Politicians will not address medical entitlements, because they will lose too many votes in doing so. Ultimately it's these medical entitlements that will bankrupt our country, and in the process, cause the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the U.S. - not from the rich to the poor, but from the young, to the old. Most people who support medical entitlements do so for "selfish" reasons, in that they want those entitlements to be available for themselves, their family, and/or their friends. They say things like "health care is a right," although it obviously is not a right. Health care is essentially the result of man's labor, and to say you have a right to health care, is to say you have a right to impose your needs on another man. Which of course is silly and inconsistent with the American constitution. Still - people will assert their right to medical entitlements, and politicians will oblige, which in the long-run will pull money away from business investment (not all businesses are rich with billions in cash). The added financial burden will either stifle entrepreneurship and innovation, or it will send it oversees. Of course, anyone who stands up against medical entitlements, like Paul Ryan, will be referred to as a villain who wants to murder old people. To quote the President: "throw grandma off the cliff." That's my long-term prediction, anyway. In the short-term we will continue to go through up and down cycles. Each down cycle will bring fear. Each up cycle will bring relief. There will be booms and busts in America's near-future, although the booms will be short-lived, and the busts (like our current bust) will be longer-lived. To the extent innovators, like many of the people on HackerNews, are able to create great innovations, we can postpone the day of reckoning for our country.
russell 15y ago
@geius: 3) Health care: it is screwed up because of the economic model. A single payer system is much more efficient with the government overhead at 5% vs private at 20%. Allow the govt to negotiate drug prices. Currently it's prohibited by law. Streamline the FDA without losing effectiveness. 4) Social Security is in decent shape. Dont cut benefits. If necessary, raise the retirement age. That's a fair trade-off for improved health care. + Fix campaign financing to remove the "hidden" corruption that is distorting Congress. Roll back anti-trust a hundred years to the age of the trust-busters. Roll back Republican/Bush deregulation so that banks aren't too big to fail, so that Rupert Murdock doesnt own all news channels. Cone down hard on regulatory capture. (The govt gang that was watching BP should be in jail.) Edit: Oh yeah taxes. Roll back the Bush tax cuts. My share of the tax cuts was $300 on a 6 figure income. At the time I wished Bush has gone for deficit reduction. The $300 made very little difference to me. Close the loopholes. The oil companies dont need subsidies.
greengarstudios 15y ago
You sound like Ron Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

by geuis 15y ago

Troll_Whisperer 15y ago

Maintain important overseas installations such as Japan and Taiwan. The US hasn't had a base in Taiwan for 30 years. Maybe you're thinking of Korea?

quandrum 15y ago

Why would you cut Social Security? It's in no danger. And frankly, medicare wouldn't be if we killed the payroll tax cap. I never understood why it's ok for payroll taxes to be regressive.

pauldino 15y ago
The Medicare portion of FICA isn't capped, only social security is.
- veyron 15y ago
  Why aren't capital gains assessed medicare tax?
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    People with capital gains don't want to pay for healthier poor people.
watchandwait 15y ago
Social Security is supposed to be a pension program, not an income redistribution program. So you are making "contributions", not paying taxes, in the official lingo. Of course the program is most regressive for younger workers, who pay the most and will get the least in return. Social Security is in serious trouble, by the way, although it is not the driver of the current budget crisis. In just a couple of years the program goes into the red, and increasingly so as more boomers retire. The unfunded liability is around $8 trillion. That's serious money.
- jellicle 15y ago
  There's no such thing as an unfunded liability for Social Security. By law, SS is funded solely by payroll taxes. If payroll taxes are insufficient, benefit payments are reduced to match. Social Security can never go bankrupt, and it can never be in debt.

winestock 15y ago

You're more liberal than conservative. I'm more conservative than liberal. Bless your heart, I agree with all of your points. At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now. For their pains, their careers were destroyed by the people who run the current mainstream conservative movement. Let's take a look at those points of yours. Points 1 & 2. Cut defense spending and all of the cool people will call you an isolationist. Sure, argue rationally all you want; the name will stick. Also, remember that the United States is bound by treaty to defend more than two dozen nations. That includes keeping bases in some of those nations. Those treaties will have to be renegotiated. Those nations will have to increase their own defense spending. Many of those nations have budget problems of their own. Have fun. Point 3. Touch social spending and the cool people will call you a heartless bastard who cackles at the sight of starving widows in between gulps of baby orphan blood. Sure, argue rationally all you want; the charge will stick. Of course, this doesn't solve the money problem. Iceberg? What iceberg? Point 4. Social Security is the third rail of American politics: If you touch it, you will die. Sure, argue rationally all you want. It will help as much as it ever has. Long story short, the bureaucracy rules us. The administration of administrators who administer the other administers who supervise the people in charge of those who actually get real work done cannot make any concessions to reality. It would be like Gorbachev loosening the grip of Communism; one exit through the Iron Curtain and it's all over. The Cool People will double down. They will continue to double down until it is physically impossible for them to continue doing so.

geuis 15y ago
Thanks. I have no refutations to any of your comments. I know exactly what you mean. One interesting thing about your first statement, "At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now". A few years ago I had the opportunity to hear Francis Fukuyama speak. He was the author of The End of History and a later follow up book. I never knew it before then, but he was one of the founding members of the Neo-conservative movement. It was originally started by him and a group of like-minded sorts around a cafeteria table in some ivy-league college (Princeton maybe?). He went on to talk about how the ideals of what they founded were adopted and warped beyond recognition by the Evangelical Christian community in the U.S. and by other conservatives. What was remarkable about the talk was that at the end, he essentially repudiated everything he had originally written in The End of History. I remember stories my grandparents told of growing up during the Great Depression. I also remember stories from my mom's family of 7 kids growing up poor in Rochester, NY in the post-war era. Perhaps I've inherited an attitude of bite-down and deal with reality from their history.

ericd 15y ago

One thing to note, I think the strength of our currency is at least partly based on the large amount of military power behind it, and the promise of stability that it brings. Basically, it went from being backed by gold to being backed by power and promise of restraint in printing more. I guess we've largely given up on the restraint side, though.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago
Quite a few fallen empires have made that error of judgement. I believe it hails from a time when the military could be used to make occupied peoples pay taxes. Nowadays, a military that is much bigger than what is needed for defense suffers from diminishing returns in terms of backing the currency with a safety net. The military is not going to force the Fed to stop printing money.

j_hightower 15y ago

"Given China's rise, its wise long-term to keep a presence in the region." Why? China will surpass the United States in soft and hard power eventually. This is demographically and economically inevitable. Even sooner, if not already, China will become an unshakable hegemon over all of Asia. So why fight it in the most expensive and futile ways possible, i.e., by maintaining the fiction that we will be able to exercise any sort of long-term military power in Asia? It's time we focused on our economic power, and not our military power. The former is a necessary precondition of the latter, and we're acting as though it's not.

jerf 15y ago
"This is demographically and economically inevitable." Oh, no it's not. First China has to hold together over that time frame. This is feasible... this is not inevitable. There's a lot of tensions over there. Then even if they pass that test, there's other things they're going to have to deal with. Right now, there isn't a single world power that's looking to be "inevitably powerful" in the next 50 years, it's really "anybody's game".
- n09n 15y ago
  China doesn't need to hold together for that to happen. China has a far stronger ability than most other countries to collapse, reform, and remain "China."
- eric-hu 15y ago
  "Right now, there isn't a single world power that's looking to be "inevitably powerful" in the next 50 years, it's really "anybody's game"." The Vatican?
- stcredzero 15y ago
  First China has to hold together over that time frame. This is feasible... this is not inevitable. There's a lot of tensions over there. Then even if they pass that test, there's other things they're going to have to deal with. Right. It's entirely possible that China can hold together as a sovereign nation, but will develop or hold onto pathologies which will cripple it as a major power. Then again, the same could also be said for other potential powerhouses like Brazil, Russia, and India. The same could even be said for the EU and the US.

keyle 15y ago

This all makes good sense and would make a great political party's campaign. The problem is, it wouldn't work. The economy, as small as any small country, isn't a piece of programming. You don't audit and refactor, or rewrite parts and plug it all in. It's made of generations of flesh and bones, all of which have worked their guts out to get whatever it is you're trying to take from them. In a tyranny, maybe. In democracy, you have no chance of getting anywhere which such an overhaul.

marshray 15y ago
Which is why the US was founded as a federal republic.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Specifically, a federal democratic republic. There's no contradiction between "republic" and "democracy". "Republic" refers to sovereignty (the people hold sovereignty rather than a monarch), while "democracy" refers to power (the people hold power rather than a dictator). Some democracies are not republics--the UK is a constitutional monarchy. Some republics are not democracies--the Roman Republic was an oligarchy and to some extent the early United States was, too.
geuis 15y ago
This is a completely bullshit way of thinking. Its also just another example of the defeatist attitude so many people in this country have. "Oh, the problem is too big to handle" or "Welp, that's just the way it is". You ABSOLUTELY audit and refactor a society. Every time the country has gotten a bit more free with a new law or court decision, that's a refactor that improves the system. Sometimes people have added parts to the system or revised bits that end up for the worse. Examples include Prohibition, Jim Crow laws, Defense of Marriage Act, software patents, etc. One thing that would help society out a lot would be societal unit tests. Set baselines as to what works and doesn't, and if some new changes breaks the tests you go back and refactor again.
- keyle 15y ago

prostoalex 15y ago

What constitutes defense spending nowadays? Is it largely salary payments to current troops? Wouldn't we have to deal with a large unemployment problem in case we laid off a bunch of military employees and told them to go find a job somewhere else? Or is it payment to defense contractors, such as Valley's own Lockheed Martin? Wouldn't this cause a large number of people to be unemployed, contributing to recession?

geuis 15y ago
Is it the government's job to keep people employed for the sake of employing them? No! There are times in history where government spending can help, like during the Great Depression. The government spent a lot of money on public works projects to help put some people back to work. But this didn't do much to actually end the depression. It was the onset of WWII and the subsequent ramp-up to a war economy that really ended the Depression.
- rmrm 15y ago
  WWII and the rampup was still a public works project. What really turned the economy for good imo was not WWII but the result of WWII -- all of our competitors on the international stage having large parts of their population and infrastructure destroyed. A few year grace period while the rest of the world rebuilt turned into 50 years of global corporate hegemony.
  - dmm 15y ago
    And the USD became the world's reserve currency.
- dctoedt 15y ago
  > Is it the government's job to keep people employed for the sake of employing them? No! The most basic task of government is to maintain a stable social order (see, e.g., the preamble to the U.S. Constitution). With sustained, pervasive unemployment comes social unrest (see any number of examples from the past 100 years). So .... > The government spent a lot of money on public works projects to help put some people back to work. But this didn't do much to actually end the depression. It was the onset of WWII and the subsequent ramp-up to a war economy that really ended the Depression. According to most economists (from what I've read), the New Deal was doing OK at getting people back to work until 1937, when the government suddenly cut its spending and raised taxes. That threw the economy back into recession.[1] And yes, the massive deficit spending of WWII did indeed pretty much take care of unemployment, and then some. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937

abalone 15y ago

The only reason the healthcare issue seems so complicated is the massive amount of propaganda we're subjected to in the U.S. media about it. You're on the right track to figuring out an answer. Just look at what all the other industrialized countries do. Then do that. Nice little overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care This is of course beyond the pale of rational discussion in U.S. political discourse. Just whisper "socialism" and it's off the table, instantly.

latch 15y ago

Social security shouldn't be cut, it should be turned into a purely social program (and grandfathered in at that too). Instead of being an entitlement program, it should become like welfare and enabled for the bottom X % of the population. Specifically, the burden for retirement for the middle class should be placed on individuals rather than government. For too long, babyboomers have relied on social security as a sort of no-interest loan. Why put that extra money in my 401K when I can rely on social security? I'll get a second car, or we'll take a yearly family vacation overseas... Also, simplify the tax system and close loopholes, but do not directly raises taxes.

clarkevans 15y ago
You completely underestimate how the average person finds something more important to spend money on now rather than saving for their future. The reason we have social security is because people don't save what they need to. If you don't have this, most of the population will be in poverty when they retire. Social security also has things like survivor's benefits: payments to children and dependents who have lost a wage earner. I don't think the Social Security program is at all broken; what's broken is that we've used the Social Security surplus over the last 20+ years to help fund a general fund spending deficit.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  What you've described is a symptom that can't just be fixed by closing your eyes and throwing money at the government while saying, "Give this back when I need it, OK?" If the populace doesn't have the discipline to control and organize their extra resources, how can we expect politicians to do so? And why do we even trust them to do it? It's sad that people with the attitude you've described were able to convince the government to enact this as a mandatory thing -- but, the government likes money. We've seen what a faithful steward they have been for us. People without the self-restraint to save money for a period of time where they expect to live without performing any money-generating work have problems that can't be fixed so simply. Maybe that's the cause of all of this turmoil in the first place. The idea of "retirement" is also a curious new invention; people didn't save for retirement before the industrial revolution because back then, people would own houses and lands, accumulate real wealth that could be used to sustain life (e.g., agricultural assets) when individuals got too old to perform the work themselves, etc. The pace of change since the 1860s has been extremely staggering and has introduced many concerns that hadn't existed previously. It is an intriguing matter to be sure. Hopefully we can come out of it all right.

jsz0 15y ago

I have an easy solution. Let's make your federal income taxes look less like a bill and more like an order form. So for example some portion of your income taxes are pre-allocated for essential services (say 50%) and everything else is your choice. You get 50 points to spend and a variety of categories to choose from: education, defense, infrastructure, green energy, science research, enhanced Medicare services, NASA, deficit reduction, etc. This data is delivered to congress who must use it as a framework for 50% of the federal budget. After you filed your taxes mid-year you'd receive a detailed receipt that let you know exactly what Americans have decided to spend our money on.

chc 15y ago
The thought of how this would actually lead to a better allocation of money baffles me. It sounds like the first half of the tragedy of the commons.
- canadaduane 15y ago
  I'm not sure if the tragedy of the commons would apply in this case. The "mandatory" aspect of elevating discretionary spending into social spending via taxation seems to fundamentally alter the psychology of spending. "Well, if I absolutely must spend this money on other people, then I guess I'll spend it on ___" (education comes to mind as one area people in America might universally agree should get more dollars). The weakness in this system would be the lack of expertise within the "common wisdom" of the people. That might be solved by, say, providing a "template spending ballot" from respected people... a sort of proxy delegation but simplified so you just copy down the numbers they say. If that latter option were made simple enough that 90% of people could understand and do it, the expertise of a few would hold larger sway than the somewhat uninformed choices of the many. BTW, a friend and I also thought of this idea independently; we called it "mandatory taxes, voluntary distribution" [1] [1] http://canadaduane.posterous.com/mandatory-taxes-voluntary-distribution-econom http://canadaduane.posterous.com/mandatory-taxes-voluntary-d...
  - AretNCarlsen 15y ago

notatoad 15y ago

the actual step 1: admit you have a problem. the US still spends with the attitude that it is a rich country. it needs to start spending with the attitude of a country that is rapidly going broke. of course, this can't happen because any politician who doesn't parrot the "America is the greatest country in the world" message gets ousted.

rwmj 15y ago
Why do they get ousted? Surely you'd vote for them?
- pyre 15y ago
  Not enough people would though. They would flock to the other candidate that would inevitably reassure them that everything was going to be ok. Heaven forbid that people should vote by thinking about the issues rather than just digestion a handful of sound-bites.
  - rwmj 15y ago
    Well why don't you educate other voters on this issue? Knock on doors and canvass, even just print up flyers and push them through letterboxes.
    - notatoad 15y ago
      it is human nature to support ideas that make you happy. nobody wants to be told that their country's economic system is failing. people love to be told that everything is peachy and they have nothing to worry about. attempting to educate people about a gloomy topic is just going to make them dislike you as well.
    - salemh 15y ago
      Need an iPhone app linked to local government data with where, when, HOW to vote, appropriate links to the various candidates, etc. Start at a local level, burgeon up. KickStarter or O'Relly Gov20 project. Would love to see this tackled.

i2o 15y ago

On point #3, while I'm sure it can be better, it is worth noting out that historically medicare has done better at cost management than private healthcare (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/medicare-versus-insurers/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/medicare-versus-...). I don't have the answer either, but health is one of those areas we know enough about yet to optimize using the same techniques you would in manufacturing, for instance. It is about investing in preventative measures as it is in reactive treatments. In Canada we face similar issues where more of our tax dollars being spent on healthcare with lesser returns. This is due in part to an ageing population, but can also be attributed to the lack of broader innovation in the delivery of care. A first step would be to encourage a more team-oriented approach where the doctor's lobby group (aka union) doesn't retain so much influence and control over policy decisions. From afar it looks like the private insurance lobby is one of the larger distractions preventing the US from getting down to the real issues of efficient and effective health practices. On the business front propping up failing business models is a tough one. There is something to be said about preventing a complete and sudden collapse. The number of unemployed would hit the system in so many other ways. What we have seen from the auto industry, as much as I disagreed with the bailouts, is reinvention and retooling. I hope they take their bailouts with a great deal of thankfulness and invest wisely. I look at the next generation of companies like Tesla Motors and hope that more auto industry giants will seek to innovate and evolve rather than focus on just getting bigger (and slower). The message I believe we all (conservative and liberal) can and should agree on is respect for the tax payer dollar. Money in government isn't free, the debt and deficit isn't free. As they plan out capital and operating expenses they need to do so with an passion towards building a better country while taking calculated measures and risks. Government's role, in my mind, isn't to innovate itself but instead to facilitate innovation by its people. It should focus on facilitating the success of the people through "just enough" regulation which means refactoring how they work on a regular basis to find the most effective means in which to operate. They need to continue to question their own purposes, not get comfortable in the security of a public sector job for life. Most importantly they need to share with their shareholders, we the people, on their progress in an open and transparent manner. I don't need fancy marketing campaigns to tell me about the good work that they do, but I don't want to see them hiding it either. One way to do this is to add a more direct measure of how tax dollars are spent. In Canada we pay a good portion of our taxes into a general revenue pool. I would like to see that eliminated in favour of a clear indication of what portion of my taxes go towards specific ministries or sectors of government. I think that next level of granularity would provide a bit more awareness that public money really belongs to the public.

bigwally 15y ago

A lot of your points seem to cover international issues/action. The US needs to come to the realization that it is part of the world economy and not the ruler/leader. A large percentage of the US economy was damaged in the events that occurred after September 2001. Trying to to do business, travel or get workers to the US requires so much paperwork that a lot of business has simply gone elsewhere. Even trying to do financial trade in the US these days ends up with so much taxes or the threat of your money being taken as it may be linked to some terrorist organization. And your health insurance.... well I like collecting dividends. If you like I could go into the oil industry, I will say thank you to the American tax payer for electing to go to war and making me some money. The US has managed to dig itself into a great big hole and gave people like me money. Congratulations on your sinking economy and thank you. So keep watching that propaganda you call Fox News :)

gnosis 15y ago

You forgot the War on Drugs. Get rid of it, free all the people in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses, and tax the newly legalized drugs. This should free up a lot of money that's being wasted on ruining people's lives right now, and make more money from taxing legal drugs. As a bonus, it'll get rid of a lot of organized crime. Witness what happened with the repeal of Prohibition.

dreamdu5t 15y ago
The war on drugs is only 0.5% (approx. $18 billion) of the Federal budget (approx. $3,456 billion), so it's inconsequential to our debt crisis. I whole heartedly agree that drug prohibition should be repealed, and that we need to put an end to the war on (some) drugs. But, the military, social security, and medicare comprise approx. 70% of the budget, so it's really not going to help us solve the debt.
- Someone 15y ago
  I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers) Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts Sure. And just because it's a small fraction doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be addressed. But should a 0.5% line item take precedent over three items which combined total to 70%? When you need drastic improvement fast, it's just a waste of time to dally on pet agendas that don't represent a significant chunk. Get to them later when you have the time and energy to spare.
    - bermanoid 15y ago

atsaloli 15y ago

Check out www.downsizedc.org They are proponents of ending all offensive military action overseas, and cutting government spending and red tape. They have an excellent system that makes it easier for USA people to contact their government -- you put in your name and address, and they give you a simple "contact us" form (just a single text area) where you can write your comments and they automatically get routed to your reps in Congress and Senate -- very efficient use of the voter's time!

dglassan 15y ago

Tearing the healthcare system down to it's nuts and bolts would costs a lot more than to continue reforming. I spent some time consulting hospitals an implementing electronic medical record systems for hospitals. It costs a hospital millions of dollars and thousands of hours to install and train people for these systems. Too many hospitals are too deep in these EMR systems to start from scratch again. Their margins are only around 1-2 percent as it is. I agree, the healthcare system is a complete mess, but think of it like re-writing software. Sometimes continuously refactoring code is a much wiser decision than completely re-writing the code

MartinCron 15y ago
By "sometimes" you mean, "nearly all the damn time". As an incrementalist coder, it frustrates me to see how non-incremental the approach to solving social problems often is. Decouple, solve one thing at a time, etc.
- yxhuvud 15y ago
  Also: refactoring is good.
ericd 15y ago
A hospital's margins are only 1-2%? Do you have a source for that? Maybe they can pull that off by paying themselves all the profits, but there's no way that I buy that hospitals have thinner margins than grocery stores before that. Hospital administrators are very well off on average. Their fees are way too large to be running so close to the wire, given their expenses.
- seehafer 15y ago
  Do you have a source for the expenses that the average hospital incurs?
- shirederby 15y ago
  I was curious about this, so I searched around a bit. This is the most recent I found -- a median of 3.1 percent: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/19/us-hospitals-usa-idUSTRE57I0IS20090819 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/19/us-hospitals-usa-i...

friendstock 15y ago

"Maintain important overseas installations such as Japan and Taiwan." - there are no US bases in Taiwan currently. Perhaps this is referring to Korea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force_installations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force...

CamperBob 15y ago

End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. Once you realize that the military is not a collection of armed forces so much as it is the US's largest social welfare program, these policies and figures start to make more sense. Put it this way: We're paying our troops there so we don't have to pay them here. Don't look for this to change anytime soon.

araes 15y ago
True, and numerous families across the US depend on the active and guard pay of the armed forces. However, by bringing troops home, there are a number of secondary costs that can be reduced, or eliminated. For example, one of the more famous recently has been the discussion of AC in Afghanistan. Per the NPR article: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-w... We are spending 20 billion a year to truck energy supplies across some of the worst terrain in the world so that we can provide AC to thousands of horridly inefficient tents for our soldiers in the field. For comparison, that's more than the entire yearly budget of NASA. And its only one of numerous logistics and support costs we incur in our active warzones.
- kens 15y ago
  The 20 billion a year air conditioning cost is marketing nonsense. Specifically, this number comes from someone selling energy-efficient tents to the Pentagon, and it's pretty clear they made up this number. At the very bottom of the article, the Pentagon states it spends $15 billion on energy for all military operations around the world (i.e. everything, not just air conditioning). This might be a good time to read Paul Graham's article on PR: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html (I don't mean this as an attack on araes or the suggestion to reduce military spending.)
  - araes 15y ago

uladzislau 15y ago

Great ideas! But please someone fix this site design. Current design undermines all data credibility.

Benjo 15y ago

There are lots of things we could do to end the recovery. They won't happen because they are not in the best short term interest of the politicians making the decisions. Natural selection has weeded out the congressmen that make decisions contrary to their ability to raise campaign money. That is the root cause of the problem. Until that is solved, there's no point in dreaming up efficient solutions, because they won't happen.

mcantelon 15y ago
Exactly. The problem is corruption. Everything else is a symptom.
- epscylonb 15y ago
  The problem is the voters, you get the politicians you deserve. I don't think the american people are dumb or lazy, I think they are very complacent. Americans have become so used to their fairly high standard of living that they are ignoring substantive issues and focusing on trivia. My personal prediction is that the voters will wise up and listen to smart people who understand the issues eventually. At the moment though americans just see high gas prices and demand their government fix "the problem", they aren't interested in the challenging geo political, economic and social complexities. How far amercia falls on the way to this correction is difficult to tell. edit: just in case anyone thinks I am america bashing, the above applies to most of western europe as well.
  - hermannj314 15y ago
    The problem isn't the voters, the problem is the process. There is no way that basing a representative democracy on geographical cohorts can be optimal. I assume it is based originally on logistical constraints, but today is something we just accept because it is how it has always been done. Wouldn't it make more sense to divide the political arena based on the scope of the issues allowed to be legislated and not on the origin of the legislator? Or maybe we just need a stronger 10th amendment. It will never happen. I know. Wishful thinking maybe.

redthrowaway 15y ago

The only problem with slashing military spending and ending foreign interventions is that it has been just that spending, and those interventions, that have made the US the economic powerhouse it is today. The US has a history, stretching back well over a century, of launching military campaigns to support corporate interests. Be it South America, the Middle East, or Asia, the US has invaded countries and toppled governments time and again in support of its economic goals. Now, I think this is reprehensible, but I also wouldn't be so naive as to say that the path to economic recovery lies in an end to military adventurism. The US is rich for the same reason Rome, England, and Spain were: they won their riches at the the end of a sword. The American military budget is clearly unsustainable, but that doesn't mean an end to foreign wars is in their economic interest. It's no coincidence that the US has been both the most prosperous nation on Earth, as well as the most aggressive, for nearly 200 years. Take a look at the history of US military actions on Wikipedia [1], and see how many times the phrase "protected American interests/property" is mentioned. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_milit...

dereg 15y ago
You're making a spurious correlation. If your assertion was correct, the French, British, Danish, Portuguese, and Spanish, et al.--the great colonial powers--should be stronger economies than the United States. http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_1500_AD_to_2000.jpg http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_... In conclusion, you've made a spurious correlation.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  They were stronger. Much stronger. They collapsed for varied reasons, but suffice to say if the British Empire was as big today as it was in its heyday, it would be a larger economy than the US. Also, no need to say "in conclusion" when the sum total of your argument is a single sentence.
  - petercooper 15y ago

shareme 15y ago

1. 85% of the $14 Trillion deficit over the past 3 years was not any items you described but these items: -TARP Until we decide to have the bank lobbyists pay for their transgressions we will continue to be in deficit no matter what entitlement cuts are passed. Two options: Right now individuals pay 2/3rds of gov expenditures not corporations. 1. Reform corp tax law. There should be no Google or MSFT only paying 5% instead of the full 30% corp tax. 2. Reform internet sales tax. If states have adequate tax revenue than the Education and Medical entitlements on the Fed level can be cut back.

redthrowaway 15y ago
>85% of the $14 Trillion deficit over the past 3 years was not any items you described but these items: -TARP TARP was $300B, of which the government will recover all but $25B, according to the CBO. The "bailout" in general (considering all acts that fall under that umbrella term) consisted of about $3.5T in payouts, the vast majority of which is expected to be recouped. Also, you're confusing debt with deficit. The debt is $14T, the deficit is just over a billion. Your 85% figure appears to have been drawn from your sphincter.
- smcl 15y ago
  >> The debt is $14T, the deficit is just over a billion The US budget deficit is far more than $1 billion. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/u-s-had-record-222-5-billion-monthly-budget-gap-in-february.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/u-s-had-record-222-...
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    I meant trillion.

vlisivka 15y ago

Disproportion between givers and takers of money makes democracy weak at this. In democratic country, bigger and poorer group can always take some money out of smaller and richer group. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.sv... - all top countries are democratic.

tjogin 15y ago

What about the single biggest contribution to the deficit, the Bush tax cuts?

Bertil 15y ago

You seem to have forgot one point: the trillions spent in the Middle-East are to protect the supply of cheap Oil — so step 0. is: Sell your car, insulate your house.

shiftpgdn 15y ago
We get more oil from the gulf and Canada than we do from the Middle-east. That's not to say energy savings are a lost cause.
- Bertil 15y ago
  You still pay it at international prices, that are set by events in the Golf.

paolomaffei 15y ago

2) I'm pretty sure Western Europe is fine with Russia without US intervention, thanks.

sandstrom 15y ago

3. The Healthcare System is interesting. The US simply pay a lot more than all other industrialized nations (and still everyone isn't covered). These two graphs are quite telling: http://www.rwjf.org/images/pr/thumbs/full/45110.jpg http://www.rwjf.org/images/pr/thumbs/full/45110.jpg http://media.economist.com/images/20090627/CBB677.gif http://media.economist.com/images/20090627/CBB677.gif I think the problem is manifold, but here are some things that may be problematic (please let me know if you agree or disagree): # Doctors risk getting sued for maltreatment, and thus they prescribe all possible medications, take too many samples and generally spend too much resources. # On the same note, they also pay large insurances against lawsuits, increasing the costs further. # Medicine prices are higher in the US, for reasons I don't fully understand.

nickik 15y ago
Intressting, I'm from switzerland :) In our system you need to have health care insurants. Its alot to pay but as far as I can tell we have one of the best systems and everybody really gets good treatment (my father is a doctor my mother is a nurce and my sister is studying medicin). Witch seams not to be the case in america (I watched Sicko, other then that I have know knowlage). I can only compaire to some other europen countreys but when you get hurt in italy for example the first rule is to get to switzerland as fast as possible.

zzzeek 15y ago

more liberal than conservative yet no suggestion to raise taxes which are at their lowest levels in 50 years (http://www.chamberofcommerce.com/business-advice/tax-preparation/taxes-reach-lowest-levels-in-50-years-242/ http://www.chamberofcommerce.com/business-advice/tax-prepara...) ? not even on billionaires sucking the government dry via the bush tax cuts (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_bush_tax_cuts_effect_on_th.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_bush...) ?

bostonscott 15y ago

This is a plan I could sign on to (for the most part), but as Winestock said, such a plan would never get support. It is not a coincidence that Presidential elections are as close as they are. Politicians essentially buy votes to get elected, in the form of government programs. The problem in this country is medical entitlements - not so much Social Security. Social Security in theory funds itself, although Social Security's funds have been raided to fund other programs which now jeopardize its future. Politicians will not address medical entitlements, because they will lose too many votes in doing so. Ultimately it's these medical entitlements that will bankrupt our country, and in the process, cause the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the U.S. - not from the rich to the poor, but from the young, to the old. Most people who support medical entitlements do so for "selfish" reasons, in that they want those entitlements to be available for themselves, their family, and/or their friends. They say things like "health care is a right," although it obviously is not a right. Health care is essentially the result of man's labor, and to say you have a right to health care, is to say you have a right to impose your needs on another man. Which of course is silly and inconsistent with the American constitution. Still - people will assert their right to medical entitlements, and politicians will oblige, which in the long-run will pull money away from business investment (not all businesses are rich with billions in cash). The added financial burden will either stifle entrepreneurship and innovation, or it will send it oversees. Of course, anyone who stands up against medical entitlements, like Paul Ryan, will be referred to as a villain who wants to murder old people. To quote the President: "throw grandma off the cliff." That's my long-term prediction, anyway. In the short-term we will continue to go through up and down cycles. Each down cycle will bring fear. Each up cycle will bring relief. There will be booms and busts in America's near-future, although the booms will be short-lived, and the busts (like our current bust) will be longer-lived. To the extent innovators, like many of the people on HackerNews, are able to create great innovations, we can postpone the day of reckoning for our country.

russell 15y ago

@geius: 3) Health care: it is screwed up because of the economic model. A single payer system is much more efficient with the government overhead at 5% vs private at 20%. Allow the govt to negotiate drug prices. Currently it's prohibited by law. Streamline the FDA without losing effectiveness. 4) Social Security is in decent shape. Dont cut benefits. If necessary, raise the retirement age. That's a fair trade-off for improved health care. + Fix campaign financing to remove the "hidden" corruption that is distorting Congress. Roll back anti-trust a hundred years to the age of the trust-busters. Roll back Republican/Bush deregulation so that banks aren't too big to fail, so that Rupert Murdock doesnt own all news channels. Cone down hard on regulatory capture. (The govt gang that was watching BP should be in jail.) Edit: Oh yeah taxes. Roll back the Bush tax cuts. My share of the tax cuts was $300 on a 6 figure income. At the time I wished Bush has gone for deficit reduction. The $300 made very little difference to me. Close the loopholes. The oil companies dont need subsidies.

greengarstudios 15y ago

You sound like Ron Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul