“Not perfect, but combined with continuing chiseling down of expenditures, enough time will be bought to get the permanent job done right.”

Congress does not have any better option except to print money, devalue the dollar, set the stage for another currency to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency, increase spending, get re-elected as a reward for a bad job done badly and God bless our THIRD-WORLD grandchildren.

“Not perfect, but combined with continuing chiseling down of expenditures, enough time will be bought to get the permanent job done right.”

Congress does not have any better option except to print money, devalue the dollar, set the stage for another currency to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency, increase spending, get re-elected as a reward for a bad job done badly and God bless our THIRD-WORLD grandchildren.

Healthy economies are driven by the aggregate of millions of individual decisions made by individual consumers. We have a problem because the government insists on inserting itself into each transaction to one degree or another.

To take the other side first, a decision to put a budget or other fiscal legislation in front of the Senate and then the President that we are reasonably sure he’d veto is strictly one that’s made to set out our position, to force them/him to declare THEIR/HIS position, and to make the difference clear. Since the end result would be no enacted law but some contrasting positions revealed, the process would be completely political. It would strengthen the Republican position among many of its members, and it would appeal as well to independents who have a desire for fiscal responsibility “no matter what.” Others would disagree.

On the other hand, if Republicans decide to put forth a fiscal package they think is flawed but still better than no legislation at all, one which His Majesty would probably deign to accept, that would be BOTH a POLITICAL- and a Congressional RESPONSIBILITY-based decision. Politically, it would be seen as a responsible attempt to achieve comity, to make compromise possible, and to “keep the government open.” Those people, including some Republicans, who are afraid of the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling or of the “threat” of closing national parks would applaud such legislation, as would many independents (again) who favor government operations and subsidies more than a balanced budget. And of course, the independents who are farther to the left on the social scale would also approve on the face of it. (It’s unlikely these folks would ever provide ongoing support to Republican candidates or policies, but the idea is that they might stick with us for two years if we can show that it is Obama who is unreasonable.)

You may note the asymmetrical nature of the dilemma. There are two separate issues that promote the accommodative approach–the political appeal of cooperation, and the further appeal of our accepting Congressional responsibility to “behave like grownups”–while there is only the politics of the question that advises us to follow a confrontational approach.

While it’s nice to predict that His Highness will “fold like rice paper” if faced with a strong House and a tough decision, it also means that we are convinced that HE will regard it as a “tough decision,” and it further requires that we are, if not sanguine, at least willing to accept the consequences of his veto, both politically and as it affects the operations of government and the financial markets. Given his temperament and beliefs, he might feel the decision isn’t tough at all.

Finally, a really strong statement will never get past the current Senate. My opinion is we should therefore send a VERY strong statement to the Senate, one that will force them to explain themselves in rational terms as they reject it. We should NOT be timid. From there, we are better positioned to get every concession possible from the Senate, resulting in an package acceptable to most of us. Given a package that has made its way through a Democrat Senate, Obama is more than likely to sign it.

This strategy would require that it be applied to the 2012 budget, not to a CR or the debt ceiling. It wouldn’t work on a short-term time-limited issue.

I commend you for wanting to help the economy “get better”, but unfortunately I don’t think there is some sort of easy checklist of stuff to do that has been compiled. However, if you think about it for a minute, there are a lot of little things each of us can do.

*patronize your local farmers markets for apples, peaches, corn, tomatos, etc when possible in the summer months. Every dollar you spend goes to help keeping your local farmers afloat.

*patronize your local bike shop instead of buying a cheapie, throwaway $100 bike at walmart. Good bikes are expensive but are well worth the cost.

*You say you just bought a motorcycle. Make sure you use a good local independant mechanic when it comes time to service it.

*eating less (and eating healthy) is just good sense all the way around. It makes you live longer, gives you more energy, makes you feel better, etc. Good for you. You might want to think about taking up running, biking, or swimming to go along with your new healthier diet.

*You say you are paying down your debt – again, good for you. That’s awesome.

*Buy mulch and plants from your local mom and pop nursery rather than Lowes or Home Depot. You’ll also find you probably get better service from people that actually know what they’re doing.

*Same goes for plumbing and hardware – try to use local shops if at all possible. The last time our water heater went out (on Black Friday of all days), our local plumbing supply store was here two hours after I called and had a new unit installed very quickly – and for less than the similar 50 gallon model at Lowes cost!

Sounds like you are making some very good choices. I’ve been around for quite a few years, and I’ve always tried to help out local businesses and farmers if possible.

This is far from a list of “1,000 things from a credible economist”, so I apologize in advance for that, lol. But as they say, each little bit helps.

Apology accepted. I also apologize.

For example, I recently purchased my first motorcycle and went on a severe diet and am reducing my credit cards to a zero balance which will be accomplished in just three more months. Now, am I helping or hurting the situation by using way less gasoline, reducing the amount of food American agriculture must produce, and keeping the credit card sharks out of the formula?

Anyway, I want such a list compiled by credible economists. If millions of Americans simply do one of more of the following consistently, the economy will get better faster…I don’t want a cute response to this either-like “don’t vote for”..Concrete activities only please. Thinking small times millions equals billions…then trillions…