Fixes for the economic fix we're in...

[audtatious]

The following list was compiled via the St Petersburg Times and was submitted by "common folk":

http://www.tampabay.com/news/b...3.ece

Put America first

Patriotic retirement: There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force … pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations. They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings — unemployment fixed. They buy new American cars. Forty million cars ordered — auto industry fixed. They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage — housing crisis fixed.David Otterson, Largo

CHARGE A MARKET FEE: If you go to a mall or a flea market to sell your goods, you are charged a market fee. … The best market in the world is the good old USA. The fee we charge should be the number of man hours of labor times the difference in pay between an American worker in that industry and the foreign workers' pay. No, prices will not go up, they already charge all the market will bear. … This proposal only levels the playing field. With that we win.Bill Wallace, Tampa

MAKE STUFF OURSELVES: The only way to fix our American economy is to get back to America and American-made products and American jobs. No outsourcing of any work or any goods or services, no foreign cars or goods allowed in America. We invented cameras, radios, cars, phones, TVs, record players, lightbulbs and the list goes on and on. They should be manufactured in America and bought by Americans and sold to foreign countries who want our stuff. … Please CC the president on this one. How could we have become so clueless?Jeannine Gallagher, Largo

DEFAULT ON U.S. DEBT: The Chinese, Japanese, Arab and European governments no longer want to buy U.S. Treasuries. … It is time to default on all those foreign trillions of outstanding debts and Treasury notes and hoarded U.S. dollars. … We should simply pay them a penny on the dollar for all those bonds and be done with it. Only Britain paid us back for World War II, no one else. We paid to rebuild our competitors in the world today. Now it's time to claim financial amnesty.Doug Adams,Spring Hill

Get the bad guys

START IN THE CAPITAL: President Obama and his team should leak to the news media the names of everyone under consideration for appointment to any position in the administration. This would encourage those individuals, and probably some members of Congress, to pay all their unpaid taxes and fines, thus generating untold millions of dollars for our government.Al & Liz Clinton, Hudson

LET FAT CATS FUND THE FIX: Take the money from all of the executives who "bailed out" from the big corporations with the government's bailout money and trickle it down to the people who really need it, i.e., middle America. They can even keep a very small portion. I am not greedy!Helen Simon, New Port Richey

POLICE BUSINESSES: Install accountability into all business. A separate nonpartisan bureau could do it. … Make the CEOs tell what they did to deserve all that money. It's time for the "privileged" to come down to earth with the rest of us. P.S. Let me know where I can get a handout without a payback of some kind.Emilie Sladek, Masaryktown

MAKE BANKS NONPROFIT: We don't want to nationalize the nation's banks — not yet, anyway. The simple way to keep greed from running the banking industry is to make the entire banking system into not-for-profit corporations or co-ops. No insane executive perks, no bonuses for nothing, strict accountability to the members — us —who put our money and our financial futures in their hands. Strict control over penalties, overdraft fees, credit cards, etc. Any profits actually earned would go to higher interest rates on deposits or lower ones on accounts due.Kris E. Gonynor, Port Richey

BOYCOTT CORPORATIONS: Use your wallets and pocketbooks to boycott corporate America and hit them hard. Big corporations, their corrupt executives, and illegal monopolies sanctioned by previous administrations have ruined the spirit and ethics of business in this country, not to mention disrupted countless lives. Spend only at mom-and-pop small businesses, and remember that some franchise stores are owned by small-business people.Jeff Francis, St. Petersburg

Open the cash spigot

BAIL OUT YOU AND ME: The only way out of this mess is to give every U.S. citizen 18 and older $500,000 each. (Cheaper than throwing it away to institutions that have no idea how the working class survive.) Give the money where it's needed the most, to the people!John Balogh, Gulfport

MAKE IT A GIFT CARD: Try another rebate program, but instead of a check, it should be issued in the form of a debit card. This card could only be used to purchase consumer goods and not used for savings, investments, insurance, mortgages, etc. The total amount must be spent by a specific date or lose the balance. This would help to simulate spending, keep people working, and give government and business time to come up with better plans.Terry Thompson, St. Petersburg

Fix the home loan crisis

SUPPORT home SALES: They should allow people to take IRA and 401(k) investments without a penalty and use it to buy real estate.Frank Menna, Madeira Beach

RESTRUCTURE LOANS: Modify every existing mortgage (with the exception of privately held mortgages) to a 4 percent or 4.5 percent interest rate for the next three to five years. It would not require any tax dollars. It would stem the tide of foreclosures by making it affordable for many to stay in their homes.Irv Buppert, Spring Hill

GIVE VOUCHERS FOR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS: Provide each homeowner with six coupon vouchers. Each voucher could be used in lieu of making a monthly mortgage payment. The government would then redeem the coupon-vouchers submitted by the lenders. This would not be "free money" to the homeowner, though, because each month a coupon-voucher is used, the term of the mortgage loan would be extended by an additional month. The government would have accountability for money it is actually providing to lenders, while directly benefiting the homeowner.Paula Geer, Tampa

Invest in jobs

LET PEOPLE EARN HELP: Instead of giving people money, why not make them work for it? Don't give it to the banks. This idea worked for the Depression. Remember the CCC? … They may even be able to save some of their money and thereby help out the banking industry.Carlos Gonzales, Oldsmar

REBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE: To get the accelerator principle moving, we should spend $1.3 trillion: $250 billion on our aging waterworks system, $800 billion on our aging bridges, dams and 1950s road system and $250 billion on "pork" to get this through Congress. To spend less is to guarantee failure.Marvin Winston, Tampa

THINK technology: The United States should heavily invest in: a bullet train system serving all major cities in the country; a national energy plan for oil shale technology, solar and wind power; research and development; and the manned space program.John A. Vitali, Largo

PUT HUMANS IN CUSTOMER SERVICE: Companies have moved the cost of customer service onto the customer by making them go through complex touch-tone menus with long waits. … People answering phones need some serious training on how to be helpful and welcoming. These jobs need to be created.Kathy Wilson, St. Petersburg

Cut taxes! Raise taxes!

WHO NEEDS GOVERNMENT? The collapse caused by 95 years of too much government printing, borrowing, spending, meddling and corruption cannot be solved by more of the same. Take power and money away from the federal government and trust the free enterprise system to fix itself through individual resourcefulness.C. Burt Linthicum, Tampa

TAX THE WEALTHY: Raise the personal exemption on income tax to $15,000. Increase the gasoline tax 25 cents. Increase taxes on the very wealthiest through a combination of a more progressive income tax, high-end luxury goods tax and progressive property tax rates. This slows down the concentration of wealth, which has reached levels unhealthy to the economy.Chip Thomas, Tampa

Try anything

CONVERT STORES TO GARDENS: Big box stores that are going under and emptying out might be the best inroad to bringing more local produce to market. What if you could convert one of these giant warehouses to a farm? A climate-controlled, semi-hydroponic environment built to produce food.Shelbey Rosengarten, Seminole

A VERY GREEN SOLUTION: Legalizing marijuana would create jobs, bring in billions of dollars in revenue, and eliminate millions of dollars being spent to house inmates around the country. It's a new industry, an untapped resource, and it's working great for California.Elise Hessler, Largo

GRAB SOMEONE ELSE'S PAYCHECK: Limit the millions NFL, NBA and MLB players receive for just one month and redistribute to fund much needed infrastructure work!Rick T. Parnell, Tampa

THE NO-BRAINER: Replace Bernard Madoff and put Buddy Johnson in charge of the SEC, and I'm not talking about the Southeastern Conference. What we need now is an amateur to head it up, not a pro like Madoff. Then hire the Bolleas' attorney and make him survive on $40,000 a month. Next, we get Henry Lyons to bless them all. By the way, how much of that $5 million has he paid in restitution?Mark Clemons, Citrus Springs

CALL P. DIDDY: I have a good idea for solving the financial crisis in America: a telethon. Broadcast on all channels, it would be a musical extravaganza featuring P. Diddy, John Mellencamp, the Hudson Brothers, Tony Bennett, Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg, Hulk Hogan, Flavor Flav, Whitney Houston and many more cheesy celebs. Surely we should be able to raise a billion dollars or more to give to banks and insurance companies around the nation for executive bonuses and, of course, pay more bribes to our elected officials.Jon Bessellieu St. Petersburg

MAKE IT RAIN: As a final and last resort to an economy fix, maybe the government will agree to furnish us all with machines to make our own money. Gee, we could all become millionaires. (Just kidding, of course.)JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater

[marlin29311]

This further proves to me that almost no one in the US knows anything.

[audtatious]

"Patriotic retirement: There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force … pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations. They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings — unemployment fixed. They buy new American cars. Forty million cars ordered — auto industry fixed. They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage — housing crisis fixed.David Otterson, Largo"

I'm all for this if they wait 6 years to do it

[smockers83]

Perhaps we should recruit these people and have them read my economic posts, I'll even have to restart that series.

One of my favorites is the fix the housing crisis by allowing people to take their money out of their IRAs and 401(k) penalty free to buy a house. Fact of the matter is, one can already do that. One can also do it for education, among a few other things.

I love how people harp on executives for making big bucks. They compare their kind of work to the kind of work executives have to do. Live the life of an executive in a corporate office for a day or two and then come back and tell me how much they should be making.

The one I detest the most is the buy-American, no outsourcing one. Stupid, absolutely stupid and naive.

One of the most stupid ones is the market fee one. No friggin clue what's going on in that guy's head.

[audtatious]

Guess at some point the Gov will figure out they need a new directive other than taxing cigs and alcohol more? Without taxes they can't grow and take over more private corporations....

[srellim234]

I totally agree that isolationism is one of the worst things we can do. So is the market fee.

Having been one guy directly working in the office with the senior vp of operations and closely working with multiple senior vp's of a multibillion $$$ drug distributor, I agree that most people do not have a clue as to the work and the pressure a person faces in such a position. That said, I do believe a cap should be placed on their compensation limited to some figure like 20x what the lowest person in the company makes. That includes bonuses. Janitor makes $10 and hour? Then the CEO makes $200 an hour.

[audtatious]

What about private companies?

While I don't agree with the CEO's and such making that much it's up to the board or owner to determine what the payout should be. Why should it be up to the gov to set a high-water mark on what a non-gov controlled entity pays?

[srellim234]

I would limit the cap to publicly traded corporations. Privately owned companies and corporations can compensate any way they want.

I would also limit compensated positions on boards of directors to those who serve only one company. People sitting on multiple boards, or holding a corporate position while serving on the board of another, have divided loyalties and attention. Pick a company and work your heart out for that one, just like they expect the rank and file employees to do.

Too many "good old boys networks" and short term investing are really hurting a lot of corporations and small investors.

[audtatious]

So, why would companies want to go public other than some initial capital? All they would need to do after taking off is buy up the public offerings at a later time anyway. Regardless, going public helps both the company grow and the US economy as growth = jobs. People still have the right to NOT work for a company if the wages are too low.

[srellim234]

It has nothing to do with wages too low. It limits the top of the company from continuing to enlarge the gap that is eliminating the middle class by compensating the top of the company with unrealistically high compensations.

Yes, companies will continue to go public to raise capital. Restrictions on boards, particularly those committees responsible for setting compensation levels and restrictions on maximum compensation allowable would be a part of the price of going public. As would board members who are currently serving on multiple boards, dividing loyalties, and getting overly compensated for less than part time work.

"Buy backs" still have to be approved by the majority of the stockholders. If compensation is limited, no longer would boards and execs be holding the majority of the stock. Not as many buyback plans would be approved by stockholders that would then be shut out of investing in the company. As an example, 4 people (CEO, CFO, president of the company, and Chief Legal Counsel) for the $11 billion company I was working for set themselves up to wind up with control of 51% of the company. They sold out over the objections of the vast majority of the remaining shareholders. Their right under current rules but they got paid off on the side and sold their shares for current price. The rest of us saw no financial benefit and the entire company was shut down by the competitor that bought us because they just wanted us out of there. We all lost our jobs nationwide while the rich just got richer. Our work and investment got us a lot of wasted time and money.

I don't have all the answers and details, but I do believe that limiting execcutive compensation and boards is a start. In theory I like it, but it would need serious discussions by people from both sides of the aisle to design a plan that would work effectively.

[BusyBadger]

I love how people harp on executives for making big bucks. They compare their kind of work to the kind of work executives have to do. Live the life of an executive in a corporate office for a day or two and then come back and tell me how much they should be making.

Now flip that...

Imagine some upper level exec working in a textile mill, sorting & grading meat in a slaughterhouse, working on a road crew scraping up roadkill or even doing general landscaping work all day long for a week or two.

Do you think they'd think manual labourers get paid enough after that?

[audtatious]

Is that the "both jobs are jobs which means they are equal" defense? The laborer is a low-skilled employee which can be replaced easily whereas those in the upper levels have skills which are required to promote and grow the company into a profitable position. No profit = no company = no job. Out of the population of those who have a job today, how many can shovel road kill vs those who can perform a CEO's work? Unless they have a physical problem, all of them will be able to shovel road kill but not many will be able to jump in and be a CEO.

Again, the lower paid can always go somewhere else to work if they don't think the money is enough or the work is too hard. Not enough people to perform the task? The company will pay more for it.

[srellim234]

You talk as if all things are equal in the job market. As more and more of those unskilled jobs get outsourced, less and less of them are available. It is no longer as easy to "always go somewhere else to work" as it was, say, 20 years ago.

The poor economy and gradual erosion of the middle class is forcing more people, even some with skills, to compete for any job and settle for what is offered. For those of us who have stood in lines up to 1,000 people long for 20 jobs offerred, who have worked 4 part-time jobs without benefits to put food on the table for our families, those who have lived for a year and a half 2,000 miles away from our families because the company demanded it just to control our lives and they knew no one else in the industry was hiring, we know it's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be.

The laborer who puts in 29 1/2 years with his company, only to get laid off as a cost cutting move 6 months before retirement is not going to get hired easily when he's already in his late 50s or early 60s. And, yes, it happens. It just happened to my best friend working in the construction industry as a driver/warehouseman.

[audtatious]

Yes, the economy is poor. Why do you feel mandating execs to a set/lower salary will equate to more money for the lower-level worker? It won't.

Why not look into why jobs are leaving the country? Companies need to make a profit and with labor costs in the US, corporate tax rates in the US, Union demands, EPA, etc etc etc...they can make more money by having manufacturing in other countries. So, either the burden against US corporations needs to be lowered in order to keep plants here, higher tariffs need to be imposed against foreign goods or people need to stop buying the cheap China stuff and pay more for US products. Realize I'm not defending banks that pay CEO's 100 million a year, but what I would call "regular" companies where the execs make good buck for what they do.

[srellim234]

You have this fixation that I'm trying to get more money for the low end worker. I'm doing no such thing. The goal is to lessen the discrepancy between the top and the bottom that is eroding the middle class. Added benefits include leaving more money in the company itself to help it through lean times like now. How much of that money could go to R&D, overall job retention, and matching 401k investments thus lessening what the taxpayers have to shell out for Social Security in the long run?

What a lot of executive boards are doing is raping the companies and their staffs by taking out all the short term profits for their own personal gain. Because they are benefiting by it, almost none of them truly operate with long term business plans any more.

[audtatious]

ok....how will lowing the discrepancy of those who are making big bux going to help the middle class (or lower class) if the middle/lower class are not making more money? You simply want the gov to mandate they can't make more than "x" percent over what the lowest worker makes and then you want the gov to mandate that the company must have "X" in the bank in order to survive through a recession and to provide "X for 401k, etc? I assume your thought is that limiting the salaries of these big wigs will keep more money in the coffers to let them keep existing R&D and hiring trends as a way to ensure jobs?

It don't work that way. When companies make lots of money they invest and grow. In a down economy they shrink and survive. What a private company does with its money is not the Gov's concern or business. Period. What a company does with their money from a salary perspective is their business as well. Companies are here to make a profit or function as they deem fit, within guidelines of law. They are not here to provide people with jobs. Jobs come from the company needing people to do something.

[srellim234]

I did NOT say gov't mandate of R&D, 401k matching, money in the bank. Those would merely be benefits of keeping the money in the company instead of shelling it all out short-term because the boards can. Look at how quickly companies backed away from matching 401k investments. If they were reinvesting the money it would be ok but they're not.

Additionally, many in the corporate boardrooms and corporate offices would be more concerned about the long range health of the company if they were put in a financial position that encouraged them to need that job in the future. They're less likely to run it into the ground for short term profit and stock price if their compensation for doing so is limited.

Again, it's not a cure all; just one step along the way. Some regulations need to be eased while others are tightened in order to correct the situation we're in.

[audtatious]

Again, Gov has no business telling a private company what they can do with their money or how they pay their executives. Even if company "X" is sucking all the overhead away from the company to pay board members and executives it is up to them to do it as long as they are not breaking any laws. If they run the company into the ground then so be it. Lowering the cost of doing business is the only way we are going to increase the number of jobs by stopping manufacturing jobs from going overseas. Lowering the burden of Unions is another. I'm sure there are far more ways in which companies can be nudged with incentives to increase the workforce here. Maybe giving the corporation a discount on taxes if the majority of their work force is in the US as compared to companies that have outsourced manufacturing, who knows. At this point, even something like that would never happen due to the amount of money the Administration is trying to suck in to pay for their failing pet projects.

Now, if the company is accepting public funds for doing business or accepting gov handouts then I would agree there should be stipulations in place to ensure the public money gets paid back before some CEO gets a huge payout.

[srellim234]

I think if we're going to try to steer people into private retirement accounts as a way to cut social security, we have to help those people keep their companies from being run into the ground. The people at Home Depot, for example, had no control over it when the board brought in that hatchet man who destroyed the company and took mega millions on the way out. Those of us who were invested in our company at Bindley Western had no control over it when the four top guys decided to give away the company to Cardinal Health for cash payouts to them.

You say it's ok as long as they're not breaking any laws. It is. But I'm talking about making some of what they're doing against the law.

I agree with you about providing incentives for companies to keep manufacturing and assembly jobs here. While I'm not in favor of isolationism or huge tariffs, I do believe we need a certain amount of protectionism with regards to our workforce.

With regards to companies receiving bailouts- would you support forcing a company not only to pay it back but to additionally add that amount of money to their available reserves before they could start again with the bonuses and big compensations? It would prevent those companies from getting into that position of needing that much money again in the future.

[audtatious]

I think if we're going to try to steer people into private retirement accounts as a way to cut social security, we have to help those people keep their companies from being run into the ground. The people at Home Depot, for example, had no control over it when the board brought in that hatchet man who destroyed the company and took mega millions on the way out. Those of us who were invested in our company at Bindley Western had no control over it when the four top guys decided to give away the company to Cardinal Health for cash payouts to them.

If a company has a pension plan or funded retirement plan they should have it 100% solvent. That way, if they go butt-up the promises to the employees are covered. This, I would agree with whole-heartedly. If a company is matching IRA's and such that money should already be in the employees personal retirement plan so it should be covered.

You say it's ok as long as they're not breaking any laws. It is. But I'm talking about making some of what they're doing against the law.

I would support what is mentioned above only if the benefit was part of their employment. I would not agree to force public companies to provide such to their employees as a mandatory rule.

With regards to companies receiving bailouts- would you support forcing a company not only to pay it back but to additionally add that amount of money to their available reserves before they could start again with the bonuses and big compensations? It would prevent those companies from getting into that position of needing that much money again in the future.

Depends on what the end result requirements are. The main question would be why they got in that situation in the first place and require they change their practices as terms of the bailout. As it stands, there were no terms for the money these financial companies received, so they did crap like buy other banks and such.

[BusyBadger]

Is that the "both jobs are jobs which means they are equal" defense?

No, its me pointing out that there are two sides to the"fish of water" perspective. Its about comfort zones and familiarity, nothing more. I wasn't offering a defense, I think you're reading between lines that I didn't put there.

Haven't you ever seen "Trading Places" or since that deals with money and may present more reading 'tween the lines, how about "Freaky Friday"?

Unless they have a physical problem, all of them will be able to shovel road kill but not many will be able to jump in and be a CEO.

Physically capable doesn't equate to mentally willing. But thats heading into welfare reform territory and moving further OT.

[audtatious]

No, its me pointing out that there are two sides to the"fish of water" perspective. Its about comfort zones and familiarity, nothing more. I wasn't offering a defense, I think you're reading between lines that I didn't put there.

Haven't you ever seen "Trading Places" or since that deals with money and may present more reading 'tween the lines, how about "Freaky Friday"?

I'm simply making the point that sweat equity does not equal real world dollars. They could not pay me enough to scoop roadkill....but.....if I was hungry and needed a job I'd do it in a flash. There is a reason there are executives although there are times we wonder why they are executives

I recently saw "17 again", does that count?

Physically capable doesn't equate to mentally willing. But thats heading into welfare reform territory and moving further OT.

Agreed