What are some of your thoughts on improving the economy???

We need to create a TTH forum, one in which only the most elite and well educated can post. No one will post there except him, but at least he can pat his elite back a look down upon the minions.

We need to create a TTH forum, one in which only the most elite and well educated can post. No one will post there except him, but at least he can pat his elite back a look down upon the minions. Originally Posted by Boltfan

Still no ideas except the same old shitty ones that got us in this mess, I see.

#1: Cut the White House budget and the President's/VP's salaries by 90% ...
#2: Impound all salaries and benefits of Senators and U.S. Representatives ...
#3: Reduce all Federal employees' salaries and benfits by 50%.

effictive immediately for #1 and #2. And #3 effective 1/1/2012.

For starters. #1 and #2 aren't worth paying anything.

#3 don't work enough to justify a full salary and benefits.

Once a balanced budget is achieved with no deficiency, then renegotiate salaries and benefits after a *performance review for each position.

*By a "select committee" who are also nonpaid.

What got us into this mess is Congress Spending Too Much. Government trying to be all things to all people. The mad rush for political power by spending money on targeted voting blocs. Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil and others piling money on Congress for special outlays and privileges.

If you live under the delusion that either political party gives a damn about you, you are delusional. Both sides are beholding to Corporatism. Faces change, but policies don't. We are becoming a police state, but as long as we can vote on Dancing With the Stars, we're happy.

#1: Cut the White House budget and the President's/VP's salaries by 90% ...
#2: Impound all salaries and benefits of Senators and U.S. Representatives ...
#3: Reduce all Federal employees' salaries and benfits by 50%.

effictive immediately for #1 and #2. And #3 effective 1/1/2012.

For starters. #1 and #2 aren't worth paying anything.

#3 don't work enough to justify a full salary and benefits.

Once a balanced budget is achieved with no deficiency, then renegotiate salaries and benefits after a *performance review for each position.

*By a "select committee" who are also nonpaid. Originally Posted by LexusLover

1 and 2 won't save any money. Less wealthy members of Congress would resign and e replaced by those who are even more wealthy than those who already serve.

3 would cause massive vacancies in the government, thus disrupting government services and resulting in huge numbers of breach of contract suits. Military reenlistments would go way down. And the economy would go into a greater recession because spending from individuals would decrease.

Great plan. The cut your nose off to spite your face plan.

1 and 2 won't save any money.

3 would cause massive vacancies in the government, thus disrupting government services and resulting in huge numbers of breach of contract suits. Military reenlistments would go way down. And the economy would go into a greater recession because spending from individuals would decrease.

The cut your nose off to spite your face plan. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

#1 and #2:
How would "more wealthy" Congressman prevent savings? The "savings" comes in refusing to pay for nonperformance ... isn't that a contingency fee?

The fee is contingent on results.

#3:
The fact is that most of the employees aren't providing "services" anyway, and clearly not "necessary" ones; the government "contracts to provide services" to private businesses ought to be eliminated and allow private businesses to contract with other private businesses, so there will not be any "lawsuits" by private businesses against the government for nonperformance on government contracts to "provide services to private businesses" due to resignations ... privatize functions that have been traditionally "government" jobs ..

.... and get the loafers off the government tit....from the President on "down."

As for the "military" .... the current CIC is downsizing as we speak. Re-ups aren't going to be necessary, and recruiting will be by posters again at the local Fed-Ex drop box, because the U.S. Post Office is about to be history......another example of a "contingency fee"!

The current "plan" is the "Cut your face off in spite of your nose."

#1: Cut the White House budget and the President's/VP's salaries by 90% ...
#2: Impound all salaries and benefits of Senators and U.S. Representatives ...
#3: Reduce all Federal employees' salaries and benfits by 50%.

effictive immediately for #1 and #2. And #3 effective 1/1/2012.

For starters. #1 and #2 aren't worth paying anything.

#3 don't work enough to justify a full salary and benefits.

Once a balanced budget is achieved with no deficiency, then renegotiate salaries and benefits after a *performance review for each position.

*By a "select committee" who are also nonpaid. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It is mighty sad but I do believe he is serious! He plays wayyyyy out in right field!

It is mighty sad but I do believe he is serious! Originally Posted by bigtex

"Right" now the "right field" is the "right" place to be for the economy.

When one is "upside down," it is not the time for one to spend more dollars.

#1 & #2 were threatening to cut off trust fund payments to SS recipients ...

.... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"Right" now the "right field" is the "right" place to be for the economy. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would expect that from someone still searching for WMD's in Iraq!

I would expect that from someone still searching for WMD's in Iraq! Originally Posted by bigtex

Now there is a good job idea from the "Obaminable Job Bill of 2011"!

Now there is a good job idea from the "Obaminable Job Bill of 2011"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

If I am not mistaken, the beginning date for that job was during the ill fated spring of 2003. Thus far Dub, Cheney, Wolfie and Rummy provided 8+ years of steady employment!

If my memory serves me correctly, you were right there giving them the thumbs up!

Good points Laz and let me ask you another question since you appear to have knowledge in this subject, but what is your opinion on Brazil? I have heard various stories of how their ethanol fuel has replaced oil and that Brazil doesn't need to import a drop of oil from any OPEC nation and the big thing I hear is that it all comes from plants- which are very cheap. Is this too good to be true or is the media not telling us something about what's going on in Brazil? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Yeah everything is made from coconut oil.

If my memory serves me correctly, you were right there giving them the thumbs up! Originally Posted by bigtex

“The war against Iraq has highlighted the challenge of obtaining reliable intelligence against a so-called “hard target.” While some charge that the Bush Administration exaggerated or manipulated the available intelligence, the fact is that all responsible officials from the Clinton and Bush administrations and, I believe, most Members of Congress genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein had active WMD programs. While it is too early to declare that belief to be entirely wrong, I think we all have been surprised by the inability to find meaningful evidence of such active WMD programs.

“Statement of William S. Cohen to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States” March 23, 2004

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing8/cohen_statement.pdf

BT, you are the gift that just keeps on giving ....

... me opportunities to remind you of history, as opposed to op-ed pundits.

Monday mornings are congested with superb quarterbacks, like yourself. It is too bad that Secretary Cohen did not consult you early on to benefit from your unerring intelligence as to the presence of WMD's in the sand piles from which whole airplanes emerged in time.

They need you in Libya to find GladAfie.

As for the "military" .... the current CIC is downsizing as we speak. Re-ups aren't going to be necessary, and recruiting will be by posters again at the local Fed-Ex drop box, because the U.S. Post Office is about to be history......another example of a "contingency fee"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why would people join the military at half the salary. As I recall, they are having trouble enough recruiting to meet their personnel needs at full salary.

#1 and #2:
How would "more wealthy" Congressman prevent savings? The "savings" comes in refusing to pay for nonperformance ... isn't that a contingency fee? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I guess I have to be literal with some people. 1 and 2 would not save significant amounts of money as the salaries in question don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the overall Federal budget. And since most members of Congress loose money being in Congress it would only have a small effect on the membership of Congress. And the effect that it would have would likely be a bad effect. Those Congressmen most likely to quit would be those who are least wealthy. Those who would replace them would be wealthier, on average, than the retiring members they replace.

I think that you can make an excellent case that we need more diversity in Congress in terms of financial household income, not less. The wealthy don't really understand as well as those who are less wealthy how the poor live. Congress is already an economically elite group. Your proposals would make it even more elite.

Better yet, repeal the 17th Amendment.