Idea #3

Stu’s Idea #3:

Let's keep the same premise with one major change, you will follow the golden rule of Christianity, namely treat others the way you would want to be treated. Tweak the plan and let's see how that works out.

TL/DR GROK says “It works out more sustainably than the sledgehammer version.”

GROK:

Alright, let’s run with the same premise—eminent domain on the Fed, sticking with the dollar, lowering interest on the debt, and cutting the government to judiciary, State, military, and DOJ—but now guided by the Golden Rule: treat others as you’d want to be treated. This adds a moral lens, implying fairness and empathy in how the U.S. handles creditors, citizens, and itself. Here’s the tweaked plan and how it plays out.

Seizing the Fed via eminent domain stays the same—legally complex but doable with a public-purpose argument like debt relief. The government takes the Fed’s $7 trillion in Treasuries and lowers interest rates on that chunk. Applying the Golden Rule, though, means not just strong-arming the other $19 trillion in debt holders (China, Japan, investors). If the U.S. wants fair treatment as a debtor, it can’t unilaterally slash rates on them without negotiation. So, instead of dictating 0% yields, the government offers a voluntary deal—say, 1-2% rates (still below current averages) in exchange for extended repayment terms or tax perks for domestic investors. Foreign creditors get diplomatic sweeteners, like trade concessions. It’s not charity, but it’s less of a slap in the face than a forced haircut.

Now, the budget cuts. Keeping only judiciary ($9B), State ($60B), military ($850B), and DOJ ($40B)—totaling ~$960B—still guts the $6.1 trillion budget. But the Golden Rule kicks in here too. If you’d want compassion as a citizen, slashing Social Security, Medicare, and education outright feels off. So, let’s soften it: phase out non-essential agencies (think Commerce, Energy, HUD) over 5-10 years, saving $1-2 trillion annually while keeping safety nets like Social Security ($1.4T) and Medicare ($1T) intact for now. Total spending lands around $3.4T. With $4.9T in revenue, that’s a $1.5T surplus—less aggressive than the $4T, but more humane. Debt repayment slows to 15-20 years, but you avoid mass suffering.

The dollar stays, backed by a now-government-run Fed. Lowering interest on the $7T internally saves hundreds of billions yearly, and negotiated rates on the rest ease the burden without tanking global trust. The Golden Rule tempers the chaos—creditors aren’t enraged, citizens aren’t abandoned. The economy still takes a hit; cutting $2T in spending shrinks GDP, maybe 5-10%, spiking unemployment temporarily. But keeping healthcare and pensions cushions the blow, and phased cuts give people time to adapt.

Outcomes? Markets might wobble but not collapse—creditors feel consulted, not robbed. The dollar holds value better with less shock. Socially, it’s less brutal; seniors and the sick aren’t cast aside, aligning with treating others as you’d want. Politically, it’s still a long shot—Congress hates cuts, and phasing takes bipartisan grit. Internationally, the U.S. looks less like a bully, preserving alliances.

It works out more sustainably than the sledgehammer version. Debt gets tackled—$26T paid off in two decades with $1.5T surpluses—without turning the country into a shell. The Golden Rule forces compromise: slower debt relief, but a stabler society. Fairness to creditors and citizens trades speed for resilience. Thoughts—does this feel closer to the mark?