The Republicans came up with a great new plan - cut taxes and borrow like hell to make it up.

but seems to me we could use auctions and technolgy to stop proposing more taxes

dont mind waiting in line at the DMV, and considering they don't have health care, their eyesight is probably so shitty that they don't need to be so close the fireworks anyways!

There is already great disparity between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots.

By auctioning popular items such as iphones or "hot christmas items", you simply are increasing the gap between the upper and middle class.

Right now a savvy middle classer can scrimp and save, then wait in midnight lines to secure their children the perfect christmas present.  By auctioning that same item, the middle class person will never win.

This is a horrible idea.

...because our federal checking account and IOU's already now dictate that your grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for the systemic abuses of the government's fiduciary responsibilities to us taxpayers for the past four presidential administrations.

It's a pathetically sad truth.

We're far, far past this discussion at this point.

This country's been bankrupt for awhile. Right now, it's already existing on the IOU's being written for your offspring, and their offspring, and their offspring, too.

Those in the know, here and abroad, realize that's all there is; and nothing else.

It. Is. Over.

How quickly do we recover?

Well, to some extent, the answer to that very question will be provided in the next few days...perhaps as early as tomorrow.

If the government fully nationalizes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--even if they obfuscate this reality there looks like there's little alternative to this at this point--add another $5 trillion to our already crushing liabilities ledger.

Five. Trillion. Dollars. More. As early as next week! (Tomorrow, even.)

Before this happens, your grandchildren and their children were already on the hook for these gross missteps of our government leaders past and present.

As of this coming week...that problem grows exponentially.

How do we solve these problems creatively? Ask the Chinese. Ask the Europeans. Ask the Russians. Because--for all intents and purposes--we're at a point where we're going to be required to do whatever is tacitly acceptable to THEM. In the midst of all of this mess, another truth is that we really lost a great deal of control over our own destiny.

of the kind this place is known for these days.

Indeed. Democrats should not raise taxes at all.

They should put them back to where they were. Specifically, the corporate/top tax bracket taxes of the 1950s.

A few years of restoring the top bracket's taxes to 91% ought to sort it all out. Those who remember history will notice the 1950s were not a sprawling econmic wasteland of depression.

This weekend over at The Automatic Earth, where Ilargi and Co. have become my all-time favorite analysts concerning what's going with our economy...

THIS WEEKEND ON LEHMAN BROTHERS (AND COMPARING IT TO BEAR STEARNS):

As the fears of a banking crisis gripped Wall Street, Lehman Brothers shares fell 22pc. Investors have been spooked by a filing this week showing that the bank still has $41bn of mortgage debt and other "toxic" Level III assets. Lehman now risks the same spiralling loss of confidence that engulfed Bear Stearns, though the Federal Reserve's emergency lending window for broker-dealers offers a lifeline.

The credit default swaps on Lehman debt leapt 55 basis points to 380, flashing an extreme stress signal. The implosion of Fannie and Freddie is disturbing. Neither has exposure to sub-prime loans. "The situation is far more serious than Bear Stearns," said Bill King, chief strategist at Ramsey King Securities.

THiS WEEKEND ON FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC:

Under the US stimulus plan the pair have been deployed as lenders of last resort to the housing market, carrying out a quasi-official rescue mission on behalf of Congress since March. Now the rescuers themselves need rescuing. Charles Schumer, chair of the Senate banking committee, said: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are too important to go under. If they need additional support, Congress will act quickly."

If Washington does take on the liabilities of the two, this would double the US Treasury's outstanding debt load at a stroke and raise serious concerns about the triple-A sovereign rating of the US itself. There may be no choice. Bill Gross, head of the bond giant Pimco, said a default by the two agencies would set off a "firestorm of intolerable proportions".

Standard and Poor's said in a recent report that Fannie and Freddie posed "a large contingent fiscal risk:  if the risks were to translate into increased government debt, they could hurt US credit standing". The markets have already begun to sense danger. The cost of insuring against default on 10-year US Treasury bonds surged from 8 basis points to 15 at one stage yesterday.

"America's 'AAA' rating has become a joke," said Peter Schiff, head of EuroPacific Capital. "I believe the losses from Fannie and Freddie alone could reach $500bn to $1 trillion dollars. ''The US government will not be able to meet repayments on its debt once interest rates rise," he said.

Mr Schiff said a big chunk of the agency debt is held by foreigners. A collapse of confidence could set off a dollar exodus. It is unclear if Mr Paulson can delay a state bail-out for long. "There is concern that Fannie, Freddie, and Lehman will not be around on Monday," said one analyst.

--SNIP--

Their importance to the housing market and overall economy is hard to overstate:  Fannie and Freddie either hold or back $5.3 trillion of mortgage debt, or about half the outstanding mortgages in the United States. "Without Fannie and Freddie, our economy would collapse," Piper Jaffray analyst Robert P. Napoli said in a note to clients.

In the mortgage industry, the prospect of doing business without Fannie and Freddie is truly frightening. "The cost of borrowing would go up dramatically," said Steve Habetz, president of Threshold Mortgage Co. in Westport, Conn. "We would be going back to dark ages where a homebuyer would be hoping that a local bank would (have enough resources) to make the loan that it will keep on its books."

Your ideas for raising revenue without raising taxes make zero economic sense when one considers the size of the federal budget.  Also, the idea that Democrats spend too much is pretty laughable given that it was GWB and the then-majority GOP Congress that raised spending more than any administration since LBJ.  

Also, your preference for debt over higher taxes, which you see to treat as a blanket category rather than delineating whose taxes would be raised, is not only irresponsible, it's actually dangerous.  Anyone that cares about the world they will hand their children should reject such thinking.  

How do you think the federal government is going to get its hands on the "hot items" you mention?  Just confiscate them?  "Britney's doing a comeback tour--let's force her to hand over 10% or toss her in jail".  Where do you think we're living, the Soviet Union?

A real National Lottery with innovative prizes like a ticket on a space mission would do the trick!

This "Free-market" theory economy the Republicans will leave for the Democrats, when they come to power, gives me a few ideas who else should be included on the flight.

Side note:
Why is it the LOWEST level of scientific theory (soft science), economics, gives the GOP such a hard-on, while the HIGHER levels of the HARD SCIENCES, they just don't seem to ever get?

Could it be the fact, it is PEER-reviewed, PEER-published, PEER-repeatable, PEER-accepted LOGIC required by those in that SPECIFIC FIELD of the HARD SCIENCES, which they can't EVER SPIN?

But, it sure doesn't stop them from looking damn silly trying.

Bah, another troll diary from our resident homophobe.

Higher taxes on the wealthy is the only realistic way to redistribute wealth from high to low.  Nothing else would work as effectively.  That's why I support tax increases on the upper class.

You want to cut social programs funded by the government, and you want the government to begin a new debt reduction program by using technology and auctions...Wouldn't the government have to "create" a new program for this effort? Staffing, equipment and all?

So the government would cut social programs designed to help the poor, minorities, people with disabilties and struggling Americans and developing a program to make it  easier for the wealthiest among us to get the "hot products" that many average Americans yearn for...Heh..