Conservatives, would you mind this?

"Bring unemployment benefits down to a maximum of 30 weeks (currently it's about 45 weeks)."

I personally don't have a problem with the unemployment of the Average Joe [But I understand why my colleagues do]. I just hate that collective bargaining agreements have extended this already long program. See: Boilermakers, Teacher's Union, et al. I know a boiler tech who has been on unemployment for 3 years... despite his ability to work and the fact that he hasn't had to apply for a job and can turn one down with no penalty (which he has)

"Then, cut food stamps by about 10 - 15 billion additional dollars "

Oh, I don't disagree. I'll just point to California, who claimed to adhere to the 3-year rule with welfare [basically that they can't have over 20% of their caseload stay on Food Stamps (and other welfare) past 3 years: That's a FEDERAL law] They got around this by splitting their case-loads into MediCal and FoodStamps, so their "overall" caseload is larger than it actually is (which functionally allows more 3+ yr retention - w/o children) The only way to combat this without throwing the notion of "billions" into the wind is to stop it completely.

"Cut the defense budget by 70 - 100 Billion (it's currently about 683 billion)"

Agreed. Completely.

"Cut welfare 20 billion "

No, but mainly as the "fuel-efficient" incentive. I will only agree to fuel efficient incentives if the money stays domestic - which it will NOT currently. The second part sounds good to me.

RESP: Check the stats on "American" car companies. The only real American capital they generate is for 1.) American shareholders and 2.) Direct employees and salespersons. They still outsource the majority of production (batteries, computers, interfaces, chargers, accessories, transmissions, even body parts) to Malaysia, Japan, China, and even Canada. I own a Jeep, and only Chasis is American-made.

For true, domestic green technology we would need to renovate infrastructure in the US - that is highly difficult (and unlikely) due to the increased cost. Plus, mechanization adds another hurdle to this already impossible task. I understand that this IS a stretch to ask for, but the argument must at least be made.

@tw3

Uh... why give money to people who haven't earned it. 250k/ea is not a stimulus... its a gift-wrapped problem.

@Gabe

Your "solution" would halt all education, period. Income differences promote education, otherwise there is little incentive at all and many things suffer: education, technological advancement, economic growth, and entrepreneurial expansion.

Plus how would "privatization" tie in with your suggestion at all? The entire point of privatization relies on entrepreneurs... and they wouldn't agree with it if their income were capped...

How is this. The U.S. population is 318 million. To spur the economy the government should give $250,000 to every citizen over 21 who does not make in salary $250,000 a year.

It would be an outlay of approx. 795 billion. Do it once every ten years, just like the census. Probably cost less than the GM and bank bailouts. It would cut many subsidy programs.

Think how beneficial it would be. New homes, mortgages paid off, education paid for, newer cars, a great stimulus for the economy.

I would prefer if we where to institute a negative income tax that ensures a certain income level for every citizen. This just makes the whole thing easier.

As for those roads and bridges, let's privatize them.

I'm not going to address each of your points, nor give you a very satisfactory answer. What I will say is that you are a big-government man, and that I don't think that's what our country needs more of.

Republicans will never be satisfied...they don't believe in the word Compromise.