New Stimulus Plan Proposal for Congressman Hinchey

Dear Congressman Hinchey:

I have a stimulus plan and I urge you to propose it to Congress. My plan is that Congress, the President and the US Supreme Court ought to convene in Guantanamo Bay, remaining there for the next twenty years.

They could occupy the cells left by the departed terrorists. Their decisions would be limited to Guantanamo Bay.

The three branches would then be able to begin to mend the damage that they have caused to this country.

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert

Cc: President Barack Obama, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

Letter to Congressman Maurice Hinchey: Stimulus Plan

Dear Congressman Hinchey:

I have thought of a sure fire economic stimulus plan. The US Congress should shut itself down for 15 years. At the end of the 15 years, America will be in better economic, spiritual and moral health than ever before in its history.

Before you decide to take my advice, though, please do me a solid and abolish the Federal Reserve Bank. And send its chairman to jail, where he belongs.

Best Wishes,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Cc: Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Kirstin Gillibrand

Massive Tax Cuts Will Cure The Economy

The best stimulus is allowing people to keep and spend their own money. During the depression of the 1930s, the Democrats raised taxes. This, along with the range of blithering boondoggles known as the "Faint Squeal" (er, I mean the "New Deal") led to what should have been a 1-5 year depression turning into an eleven year depression. The 1920 depression was one year. In the 1890s there were two briefer depressions, and there was one in 1907.

The difference between the 1930s and the earlier depressions was (1) the election of Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, big government progressives who both used activist government approaches. As well, part of the strategy of the Faint Squeal was to raise income taxes. In 1936 the Fed tightened, exacerbating the slowdown caused by income taxes.

Cutting taxes to the bone would cause an increase in consumer demand. But it would be demand for what people want to spend money on, not for what they want to finance. It is the tax and spend policies of Democrats, Republicans and Keynesian economists that have caused the intermittent economic fluctuations since the Fed was founded in 1913.

Cut taxes, stimulate the economy. Socialism = economic stagnation.

The Late Great United States

Orenstein:

Thanks, Mitch. Sad that mismanagement and corruption have become the norm as population grew. I think that people are outraged as hell and a leader(s) will appear in the mold of a Lincoln with the vision to take back America in its crisis from the charlatans.

Langbert:

I don't think this is possible without a significant restructuring of American federalism. The incentive structures are too entrenched and "a leader" would have to lead 300 million people. Not possible in a diverse republic.

Orenstein:

I guess I'm somewhat more optimistic. I see the tragedy of Obama as a positive thing. If the people get mad enough to get motivated and mobilized they can reign in big gov't and successfully decentralize power. I see that happening now with all the tea parties, Rick Santelli, Glenn Beck's movement etc. The arrogance of govt authroty is now reaching the boiling point and people are waking up to the fundamentals of independence and personal liberty that America was founded on. Glenn Beck's 9-12 movement gives people a glimpse of what the real America looks like. On 9/12 maybe if just for a few days, people of all politcal stripes were united under our flag, until the gov't, media, academics and other traitors blew it. That's why I think high moral leadership is critical. With high tech comunications, transportation, the internet, etc. why can't 300 million people be democratically governed? If 3 million were goverend in 1776, and Lincoln led a nation 0f 31 million to unite, can a Lincolnesque figure emerge today? Anyway, just some of my thoughts, hopefully not sounding too niave. I'm interested in what you have written about restructuring American federalism. Interested as always in your thoughts.

Langbert:

Conservatives are mad and that's not surprising. But they were mad in 1980 and government has grown much larger since. Reagan did little to reduce government. Subsequently, Bush did much to increase it. Conservatives should have gotten mad in 2000-2008. But they did not. It could have had some effect. I do not believe that a conservative government would change the current pattern now. The voters are too stupid. Obama's supporters do not care that he is continuing the war in Iraq even though they elected him to end it. The Republicans didn't care that Reagan and Bush did not reduce government or end inflation even though they elected them to do those things. I don't see any change from this pattern. It is futile because the interests are too powerful, the voters stupid and indifferent and the politicians corrupt. There will need to be some pain, and even then it is unlikely that Americans are smart enough to elect a competent conservative. The nation has reached a dead end and has nowhere to go. There is no longer a United States of America. It is not because of Obama. It is because Obama and Bush are so much the same, and there is little likelihood of anyone different being elected. They are marionettes of Wall Street and the banks. That is all Americans are capable of. They watch "Marry a Millionaire", "Oprah" and "Bill Maher" while they drool.

Orenstein:

Thanks Mitch. Let's see what happens. Maybe in the log run I'll get a gun license and join you and Freida upstate!