gulliver
gulliver's JournalAll-electronic money would save us from supporting things we oppose.
If we had all-electronic money we could give an electronic serial number to every "dollar unit." Then every single transaction could be forced through a government clearinghouse network by using digital signatures to prevent any other form of transfer. The clearinghouse could track the history of every single dollar.
It would be great, because you could ask for a report that would show if any of the dollars you spend end up funding abortions, or paying for criminal activity, or going to someone you don't like for whatever reason. Then you could simply refuse to spend your hard-earned dollars anywhere where those dollars might somehow end up going somewhere you don't like. I mean, if it's your money, you should have the right to know where it is being spent downstream from you.
You could even set preferences on your money so that it could never ever be spent again on anything you don't approve of. Think how great that would be for those religions whose holy books (apparently) specifically say not only what you can buy, but what the people you buy from can buy.
We should do this!
Why not a permanent "Job Security Agency?"
The WPA worked. The only problem was that it ended when unemployment dropped. Instead, it should have been left on warm standby.
I would love to see an agency that would ensure unemployment does not go above a set threshold level, say 7% (pick a number). When unemployment goes above that level, then the "Job Security Agency" would immediately activate government projects to lower unemployment. Projects would be activated and workers/contractors employed until the unemployment level dropped.
The agency would also be tasked with ensuring that high-employment-level businesses don't default catastrophically. I'm thinking of the automotive industry bail-outs here. They worked, and they should be made a permanent, automatic part of our bag of tricks. Note that this encourages business to employ people in this country. The bail-out insurance would not apply to out-sourcers.
If the unemployment level dropped below, say 6.5% (pick a number), then the agency would begin to wind down government projects and targeted industry support. During idle times, the agency could work to maintain a running list of potential projects based on existing government and industry goals.
Together with unemployment insurance for rapid, temporary response to economic faults, a job security agency would keep workers working and (just as importantly) keep employer businesses operating. Workers would not be without jobs, and as many as possible would continue their current jobs throughout the downturn.
The current unemployment-check-only approach doesn't do this. It wastes valuable skills by idling people, an incalculable loss of real wealth to the country. And it creates all kinds of discontinuity, social, and political distress. It is the government's job to promote the general welfare of the people and prevent these unnecessary harms.
The jobs security agency needs to be left running and monitoring the jobs situation at all times. When the trigger thresholds are reached, it should quite simply and automatically begin its work. Its operation should under no circumstances depend upon enacting or blocking legislation at the time of crisis. That way we won't get these hostage-taking, blackmail situations the Republicans have become so fond of.
How would it be paid for? An automatic, graduated surtax on the wealthiest in conjunction with responsible deficit spending.
Ok, fire away. Why wouldn't this be a good thing?
Corporations can lease oil rights from the government but I can't lease Medicare.
I just don't get why it's legal for corporations to lease oil rights from the government, but I can't lease healthcare insurance from it. Right now, I have to buy healthcare insurance in the open market. The government has it, but I can't buy it. Republicans wouldn't like it and would say no, even though it's my money and my government that has what I want to buy.
But an oil company? They don't have to lease oil from private owners on the open market. They can lease oil rights from the government all they want. Who cares if it undercuts the prices private owners would be able to charge? Republicans love the government leasing out oil rights to corporations.
We should be consistent. If the government can lease something corporations want to corporations, then it should be able to lease something people want to people.
I know, I know. Government run health insurance would be a total rip-off. It would be run by the worthless, inefficient bureaucrats that Republicans tell us literally infest every crevice of the government. Health insurance companies would have nothing to worry about competing with those idiot government bureaucrats. So there shouldn't be a problem offering to let people buy into Medicare if they want to. No one would buy into it anyway if the Republican vision of government efficiency is worth its salt. Why would Republicans say no to the government offering to sell something no one would buy?
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,190
