PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on October 09, 2016, 06:43:07 AM
-
Robert and Rebekah Mercer, who run a mega PAC supporting Trump put out this statement:
“If Mr. Trump had told Billy Bush, whoever that is, earlier this year that he was for open borders, open trade, and executive actions in pursuit of gun control, we would certainly be rethinking our support for him. If he had admitted to Mr. Bush that he had profited privately by allowing the sale to Russia of 20% of US uranium deposits or that he had amassed his personal fortune not by hard work in the private sector but by selling favors to foreigners on the American taxpayers' dime, we would certainly be rethinking our support for him. If he had argued that he needed both a public and a private position on issues facing the American public, we would certainly be rethinking our support for him. And finally if Trump had serially terrorized and silenced the victims of violent sexual assault whom he feared could damage his political career, we would most definitely be rethinking our support for him.
“Donald Trump's uncensored comments, both old and new, have been echoed and dissected in the media repeatedly in an effort to kindle among his supporters a conflagration of outrage commensurate with the media's own faux outrage. Can anyone really be surprised that Mr. Trump could have said to Mr. Bush such things as he has already admitted saying? No. We are completely indifferent to Mr. Trump's locker room braggadocio.
“The same media that resolutely looked away when the most powerful man in the world, a sitting U.S. president with multiple violent sexual assaults to his credit, snared an impressionable young intern in his web and ruined her life, now expects us to gasp with revulsion at Mr. Trump's irreverent comments. America is finally fed up and disgusted with its political elite. Trump is channeling this disgust and those among the political elite who quake before the boombox of media blather do not appreciate the apocalyptic choice that America faces on November 8th. We have a country to save and there is only one person who can save it. We, and Americans across the country and around the world, stand steadfastly behind Donald J. Trump.”
All in all, an excellent assessment. Judging from reading various social media as well as the comment sections in "news stories" on the debacle people are overwhelmingly backing Trump. Even the smear articles in the MSM are getting pummeled by Trump supporters.
One particular poster in social media summed it up this way, and I agree with him:
Trump immediately took responsibility for his actions and owned it, then promptly apologized. He did not deny it, say he couldn't remember, try to say he fell and hit his head and has no recollection, blame his opponent or blame it on a vast conspiracy. He didn't try to blame Russia. Trump displayed leadership unlike his rival
Say what you will, but it's my belief this episode has energized his base and supporters and has further shown how desperate the political and media elites are trying to hold on to power.
-
It has energized me. I'm so fucking sick and tired of the media trying to influence elections, allowing the words "October Surprise" to become a factual certainty in the left's politics of personal destruction.
-
It has energized me. I'm so fucking sick and tired of the media trying to influence elections, allowing the words "October Surprise" to become a factual certainty in the left's politics of personal destruction.
The media elites sweep a guy into the presidency that couldn't qualify as an associate at Walmart, never held a meaningful job and who's past is deliberately clouded in secrecy. And they got him re elected.
They have become so defiant now that all pretenses of impartiality are forever gone as they try to drag an old sick criminal across the finish line Nov 8th in defiance.
Tonight's debate will be nothing more than a prepland hatchet job against Trump, with Hillary supplied all questions beforehand and carefully placed actors posing as concerned citizens.
Anderson Cooper will start it off attacking Trump. Anyone wanna place bets?
-
That didn't take long.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/09/media/anderson-cooper-martha-raddatz-town-hall-debate-questions/index.html
-
T minus 30 days and counting to the time your alternative reality comes crashing down and you learn that it does not matter how energized the base, if the base is a minority in the country.
-
Robert and Rebekah Mercer, who run a mega PAC supporting Trump put out this statement:
All in all, an excellent assessment. Judging from reading various social media as well as the comment sections in "news stories" on the debacle people are overwhelmingly backing Trump. Even the smear articles in the MSM are getting pummeled by Trump supporters.
One particular poster in social media summed it up this way, and I agree with him:
Say what you will, but it's my belief this episode has energized his base and supporters and has further shown how desperate the political and media elites are trying to hold on to power.
Trump didn't even try to blame it on Abraham Lincoln. (That was one of my favorite come-backs from the debate).
-
... the base is a minority in the country.
Heaven help us...
-
Heaven help us...
I'm afraid she's right. This country has been Fundamentally Transformed the past eight years. Obama said he would do it.
-
I'm afraid she's right. This country has been Fundamentally Transformed the past eight years. Obama said he would do it.
Obama didn't do much of it. He only begat two of the Millennials. Old age did the rest.
-
Obama didn't do much of it. He only begat two of the Millennials. Old age did the rest.
What do you mean by that?
-
Obama didn't do much of it. He only begat two of the Millennials. Old age did the rest.
From the first time he said the cops acted stupidly, and had to semi-apologize by offering a beer summit, he has been dividing and transforming America into an us-vs-them country. Everything he has done has been to pit the productive against the non-productive, the poor against the rich and the deserving against the non-deserving. He convinced a large part of the population that their own failings were not their fault and that they deserved to be given the benefits at the expense of the successful.
-
Barack Obama uses race like a wrecking ball to divide people and get attention.
Hilary Clinton uses hate and fear to keep the MSM in line. When you think of the number of dead bodies surrounding her campaign, you know people fear what will happen if they step off the reservation.
-
Our country is truly f*cked.
-
Our country is truly f*cked.
Worse than you think
-
What do you mean by that?
Simple demographics. Every day more Trump supporters shuffle off this mortal coil and more Millennials turn 18.
-
Simple demographics. Every day more Trump supporters shuffle off this mortal coil and more Millennials turn 18.
I think you are wrong about that. Millennials are getting tired of the same old Marxism they've been getting from Obama, the Democrats, and now Hillary. They are tired of working at Starbucks. They want opportunity, and Capitalism is making a comeback.
Hillary = same old socialist mantra
Trump = jobs and opportunity
-
I think you are wrong about that. Millennials are getting tired of the same old Marxism they've been getting from Obama, the Democrats, and now Hillary. They are tired of working at Starbucks. They want opportunity, and Capitalism is making a comeback.
Hillary = same old socialist mantra
Trump = jobs and opportunity
This might be true. But do they know that?
I don't trust that our universities have educated them enough to be able to analyze this.
-
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/trump%20grope_zpslawc27ht.jpg)
-
Hillary = same old socialist mantra
Trump = jobs and opportunity
Hillary = more free stuff with OPM
Trump = ????
-
I think you are wrong about that. Millennials are getting tired of the same old Marxism they've been getting from Obama, the Democrats, and now Hillary. They are tired of working at Starbucks. They want opportunity, and Capitalism is making a comeback.
Both can be true. With around 40% of Millennials being from a minority group, it is not unlikely that they support both opportunity and someone less bigoted than Trump.
Hillary = same old socialist mantra
Trump = jobs and opportunity
The first is true, but if we take Trump at his word of what he wants to do as President, he will boost the national debt and block trade, both of which are likely to lead to recession or depression. If we don't take him at his word, then we are voting on hope only.
-
Both can be true. With around 40% of Millennials being from a minority group, it is not unlikely that they support both opportunity and someone less bigoted than Trump.
and just who do you claim is less bigoted than Trump? the corrupt doormat? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
If we don't take him at his word, then we are voting on hope only.
Actually if we take him on his word then he will be unpredictable. Worked for Obama.
-
and just who do you claim is less bigoted than Trump? the corrupt doormat? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Corrupt yes! Bigoted, no! Not by any normal definition of the word. As Trump keeps digging himself a hole using a backhoe, the Millennial turn out will be less and less critical.
-
Actually if we take him on his word then he will be unpredictable. Worked for Obama.
Obama was not terribly unpredictable. He slid a little to the center, but mostly what he has done is not a surprise.
-
Corrupt yes! Bigoted, no! Not by any normal definition of the word. As Trump keeps digging himself a hole using a backhoe, the Millennial turn out will be less and less critical.
who was it that talked about Trump supporters in such glowing terms?
How is life in denial?
-
Obama was not terribly unpredictable. He slid a little to the center, but mostly what he has done is not a surprise.
As hard as I have tried, I cannot find the evidence from his campaign speeches that he was going to make the changes that he did. In retrospect he said things that hinted at it but I do not recall him saying that he was going to remake the healthcare industry into something untenable. Or that he was going to defer to Islam. Or bring tens of thousands of Islamic immigrants into the country while having essentially uncontrolled borders.
-
Obama has succeeded in the Fundamental Transformation he promised. This has been accomplished by identity politics to keep us divided, and by keeping the economy as weak as practical. In addition hordes of Hispanics and Muslims are flooding our country.
-
Obama was not terribly unpredictable. He slid a little to the center, but mostly what he has done is not a surprise.
No one but the most radical leftists think that Obama "slid a little to the center."
-
No one but the most radical leftists think that Obama "slid a little to the center."
Yeah, I LOL'd when I read that.
'Gimp
-
No one but the most radical leftists think that Obama "slid a little to the center."
Obama has been the most leftist President in my lifetime. Even worse than Carter. Obamacare is a disaster. Even the Dems are admitting that. Our foreign policy is a disaster. Our economy is very weak, and our tax policy sucks. He has also used identity politics to DIVIDE US, and is bringing in hordes of Hispanics and Muslims to further destabilize our country so even more laws, regulations and controls can be justified, including gun bans.
-
The election must be really and truly in doubt for the progressives to suddenly show here babbling like a brook about how mean, realist, evil, and rich Donald Trump is inserting their silly mantra into every conversation that points out the criminal they are dying to worship.
-
The election must be really and truly in doubt for the progressives to suddenly show here babbling like a brook about how mean, realist, evil, and rich adonald atrium is,inserting their silly mantra into every conversation that points out the criminal they are dying to worship.
The media, including the "news", and network TV shows are going full bore against Trump. It is vile crap, and shows just how corrupt the media, and the Democrats have become. If Hillary steals this election we are going to have a revolt.
-
The first is true, but if we take Trump at his word of what he wants to do as President, he will boost the national debt and block trade, both of which are likely to lead to recession or depression. If we don't take him at his word, then we are voting on hope only.
No. Trump never said he would boost the national debt.
Trump said he would reduce taxes on business.
The MSM quoted a report from a liberal think tank that said reducing taxes would increase the debt. What the MSM left out was that same report used the qualifier that this conclusion does not take into account the affect on productivity that Trump's tax policy might have.
I also read another report yesterday in the news paper that said Clinton's tax policy would increase the debt more than predicted by that same report, because the effects of Clinton's tax INCREASES would have on productivity were not included.
I love it when people say "In Trump's own words" then go on to quote an anti-Trump source.
-
If corporate tax RATES are reduced enough it will stimulate the economy, and we should see a NET increase in tax REVENUE due to an expanding, robust economy. Now the key is also to reduce government spending.
-
The first is true, but if we take Trump at his word of what he wants to do as President, he will boost the national debt and block trade, both of which are likely to lead to recession or depression. If we don't take him at his word, then we are voting on hope only.
You seem to feel that assuring "fair trade" is the same as blocking trade?
While that may be somewhat true, what is wrong with blocking unfair trade practices?
-
You seem to feel that assuring "fair trade" is the same as blocking trade?
While that may be somewhat true, what is wrong with blocking unfair trade practices?
Trump wants to level the playing field. We have many bad trade deals, and trade practices. Often foreign goods pay little or no fees for the privilege of being sold here. Meanwhile for us to sell our goods in Europe, China, Japan, S. America, etc we pay huge tariffs which often makes our goods too expensive, and uncompetitive. Trump wants to have these countries stop over charging to do business there, or risk the same treatment here in the U.S. Fair?
-
Progressives always play the Zero Sum Game to transform any fiscal formula into a tax increase if it involved cutting taxes to stimulate growth. It shows the utter ignorance of liberals when it comes to the economy, and the utter insanity of democrat politicians when it comes to destroying our economy in favor of globalism.
-
No. Trump never said he would boost the national debt.
Trump said he would reduce taxes on business.
The MSM quoted a report from a liberal think tank that said reducing taxes would increase the debt. What the MSM left out was that same report used the qualifier that this conclusion does not take into account the affect on productivity that Trump's tax policy might have.
I also read another report yesterday in the news paper that said Clinton's tax policy would increase the debt more than predicted by that same report, because the effects of Clinton's tax INCREASES would have on productivity were not included.
I love it when people say "In Trump's own words" then go on to quote an anti-Trump source.
That's in the playbook. Static economic scoring (I.e. projections to NOT include the effect on the economy) when it suits them and damages their opponent, and dynamic scoring when it benefits them.
-
Maybe we here on Pilot Spin need to just take over the RNC, RNCC and so on, seems we have a far better grasp on the enemies we face than the wizards of smart do.
We could hardly do worse.
'Gimp
-
Maybe we here on Pilot Spin need to just take over the RNC, RNCC and so on, seems we have a far better grasp on the enemies we face than the wizards of smart do.
We could hardly do worse.
'Gimp
But then we'd feel so dirty getting so deeply involved in politics.
-
No. Trump never said he would boost the national debt.
Correct, the Donald never said he would boost the national debt. Can’t imagine any politician saying that.
Trump said he would reduce taxes on business.
The MSM quoted a report from a liberal think tank that said reducing taxes would increase the debt. What the MSM left out was that same report used the qualifier that this conclusion does not take into account the affect on productivity that Trump's tax policy might have.
The Donald has said he would reduce taxes on business and individuals, just how much and how that would be done is a bit unclear, depends which tax plan and how you interpret it, the last one I saw was in September. A good analysis of this plan can be found here:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016
They do take into account the potential for increased business expansion, even with that, the Donald’s plan still results in a reduction of Federal revenue of something between $2.6 trillion to $3.9 trillion over 10 years. Coupled with the vagueness of what spending cuts the Donald might implement and the inability of the President/Congress to control spending, the Donald’s plan is very likely to raise the national debt. His plan really, really hopes that the economy will blossom, if it doesn’t, the deficit gets much worse.
The big question… do tax reductions stimulate the economy and result in higher revenues. There is absolutely no doubt that a tax cut reduces revenue in the short term, say 1-3 years. Every economic analysis of this course of action acknowledges that. The evidence that a tax cut (in and of itself) results in increased revenue is pretty sparse, although there have been a few times when this might have been true, it took quite a few years for this to occur. Our economy is way too complex and interrelated with the rest of the world to be able to say that if we just cut taxes, the economy will bloom. Personally, I believe that business expansion (with the result of increased employment and/or higher wages) is more tied to demand for the businesses products or services. If a company is selling 100 widgets, they are not going to expand, no matter what the tax rate, if they can only sell 100 widgets. Granted, there is an argument to be made that reducing taxes on the actual consumers would increase demand, but the Donald’s tax cuts are quite favorable to the upper income folks and not so much to the lower income folks. Consumer demand is driven by the low to upper middle income folks. There just aren’t enough of the top 10% folks to really change that.
I also read another report yesterday in the news paper that said Clinton's tax policy would increase the debt more than predicted by that same report, because the effects of Clinton's tax INCREASES would have on productivity were not included.
A review of Clinton’s tax plan can be found here:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals-october-2016
Clinton’s plan has a number of problems in the long term, particularly on the potential to expand the economy and effect on employment. I do not believe we can tax our way out of the problem. But, it does raise Federal revenue and offers the potential to reduce the national debt. However, as previously mentioned, I find it highly unlikely that the President/Congress will successfully control governmental spending.
Unless the President and Congress tackle the issue of spending on entitlements (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) and the military, our debt will continue to increase. I’ve not seen any willingness of either party to truly fix this.
-
Unless the President and Congress tackle the issue of spending on entitlements (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) and the military, our debt will continue to increase. I’ve not seen any willingness of either party to truly fix this.
I hold the Democrats, AND Republicans equally accountable for our debt, and past deficits. Trump is NOT an establishment Republican that lives off of "growing the government pie". It is interesting that politicians of both parties become RICH while in office. Even if they don't get re-elected they get rich as lobbyists. Nice huh?
-
Unless the President and Congress tackle the issue of spending on entitlements (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) and the military, our debt will continue to increase. I’ve not seen any willingness of either party to truly fix this.
All the rest is debatable.
The part I quoted is gospel.
But you left out the rest of the transfer payments; ie, welfare and other so-called entitlements.
-
All the rest is debatable.
Anytime someone predicts the future, it is debatable.
part I quoted is gospel.
But you left out the rest of the transfer payments; ie, welfare and other so-called entitlements.
Just my priorities. ;D
-
Unless the President and Congress tackle the issue of spending on entitlements (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) and the military, our debt will continue to increase. I’ve not seen any willingness of either party to truly fix this.
yeah, the DOD budget really busts the budget. ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Both can be true. With around 40% of Millennials being from a minority group, it is not unlikely that they support both opportunity and someone less bigoted than Trump.
The first is true, but if we take Trump at his word of what he wants to do as President, he will boost the national debt and block trade, both of which are likely to lead to recession or depression. If we don't take him at his word, then we are voting on hope only.
Kristen, when the Bush tax cuts took full effect tax revenues increased.
-
Kristen, when the Bush tax cuts took full effect tax revenues increased.
As did Reagan's and Kennedy's.
-
But, but, but,... when the tax rate was 90% the US was the most prosperous ever!
-
As hard as I have tried, I cannot find the evidence from his campaign speeches that he was going to make the changes that he did. In retrospect he said things that hinted at it but I do not recall him saying that he was going to remake the healthcare industry into something untenable. Or that he was going to defer to Islam. Or bring tens of thousands of Islamic immigrants into the country while having essentially uncontrolled borders.
It just took one Google search to find any number articles purporting to rate whether Obama kept his political promises. I certain recall him claiming that he would overhaul healthcare. The compromise screwed it up worse than it was, but that is a result that he didn't have the support in Congress for a single payer system.
-
The media, including the "news", and network TV shows are going full bore against Trump. It is vile crap, and shows just how corrupt the media, and the Democrats have become. If Hillary steals this election we are going to have a revolt.
Hillary couldn't steal it as about the only GOP nominee who couldn't beat her is Trump. That the media is making up false things about Trump is BS. Name one thing? It is Breitbart and that ilk that make up stuff.
-
You seem to feel that assuring "fair trade" is the same as blocking trade?
While that may be somewhat true, what is wrong with blocking unfair trade practices?
It depends on your definition of "fair trade". Trump hasn't defined it, other than talking about imposing tariffs, etc.
-
It just took one Google search to find any number articles purporting to rate whether Obama kept his political promises. I certain recall him claiming that he would overhaul healthcare. The compromise screwed it up worse than it was, but that is a result that he didn't have the support in Congress for a single payer system.
O M G - do you really think a single payer system would be an improvement?
wow, simply, wow. what a complete....
(btw - obama did exactly zip wrt healthcare. what he and his democrat morons in Congress did was to completely screw up heath INSURANCE)
-
Trump wants to level the playing field. We have many bad trade deals, and trade practices. Often foreign goods pay little or no fees for the privilege of being sold here. Meanwhile for us to sell our goods in Europe, China, Japan, S. America, etc we pay huge tariffs which often makes our goods too expensive, and uncompetitive. Trump wants to have these countries stop over charging to do business there, or risk the same treatment here in the U.S. Fair?
I haven't seen any proof that bad deals have hurt our economy overall. It has been hard on the displaced workers and has contributed to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. But clearly Trump doesn't understand international trade enough to know what the real issues are. He is just pandering. It is also unlikely that Trump's style of the deal will work well in international trade negotiations, which at any rate, he will be way too busy to negotiate ever deal himself.
-
Kristen, when the Bush tax cuts took full effect tax revenues increased.
Not from where they would otherwise have been. Still, the net result was a much larger federal debt.
-
I haven't seen any proof that bad deals have hurt our economy overall. It has been hard on the displaced workers and has contributed to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. But clearly Trump doesn't understand international trade enough to know what the real issues are. He is just pandering. It is also unlikely that Trump's style of the deal will work well in international trade negotiations, which at any rate, he will be way too busy to negotiate ever deal himself.
These two things don't go together in your mind? Displaced workers and increasing stratification IS the damage to our economy.
You say that Trump doesn't understand international trade. That's economics and I'm sure that as a very successful businessman that he is pretty well versed in it. How do I know? Because he is a SUCCESSFUL businessman and an understanding of economics is simply a requirement for success. You can call him a lout and worse, but you cannot say that he is not successful.
-
These two things don't go together in your mind? Displaced workers and increasing stratification IS the damage to our economy.
I see that more as a failure of policy than the trade deal itself. Anyone with half a brain, which rules out the government most of the time, should see that it was going to hurt lower skilled workers. There are two ways to deal with that. No trade that allows another countries low skilled workers to compete with our low skilled workers, or there needs to be policies in place to slow the loss of those jobs or to retrain the workers who are going to be displaced. But I do get your point, but as I see it, it is not a matter of tweaking the trade deal. It is either you have the trade deal and institute other policies to ameliorate the job displacement or you don't do the deal at all.
You say that Trump doesn't understand international trade. That's economics and I'm sure that as a very successful businessman that he is pretty well versed in it. How do I know? Because he is a SUCCESSFUL businessman and an understanding of economics is simply a requirement for success. You can call him a lout and worse, but you cannot say that he is not successful.
But Trump's is not all that successful. His first big deal, the Trump Tower worked well. Then he got into a string of business with borrowed money that all failed. Airline -- failed! Casinos -- failed! What he did learn was that he could license his name and image and let others put up the money and take the risk. In my book, a truly successful businessman creates wealth for him/herself and others. Trump has cost banks and investors billions, but made some for himself. I don't see why that trend would change were he in the White House.
-
Not from where they would otherwise have been. Still, the net result was a much larger federal debt.
Obama raised taxes, substantially, and yet the debt keeps growing, substantially.
-
The vast majority of Obama's tax hikes were part of the Obamacare package. Take that out of the equation, which was already spent with Obamacare, he has raised taxes very little overall. The deficit has been cut, but needless to say, the national debt keeps increasing, albeit at a slower rate. A balanced budget is a priority, one that Trump is not terribly interested in.
-
The vast majority of Obama's tax hikes were part of the Obamacare package. Take that out of the equation, which was already spent with Obamacare, he has raised taxes very little overall. The deficit has been cut, but needless to say, the national debt keeps increasing, albeit at a slower rate. A balanced budget is a priority, one that Trump is not terribly interested in.
weeeee, if we ignore all the spending increases, the debt doesn't grow at all!
And look! the annual budget deficit is smaller now than it was the first year of obama's presidency. Of course, for that to be viewed as a positive we'll have to ignore how the deficit was bloated to begin with and ignore the absolute size of the deficit.
-
Didn't Obama raise taxes by EO? Didn't the corporate rate go up?
-
Points like that are why my opinion of progressives is so low.
-
Didn't Obama raise taxes by EO? Didn't the corporate rate go up?
No & No
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/corporate-tax-rate
-
Didn't Obama raise taxes by EO? Didn't the corporate rate go up?
No, but taxes did go up by judicial fiat, when Chief Justice John Roberts declared that an unconstitutional mandated fee is now a constitutional tax.
-
weeeee, if we ignore all the spending increases, the debt doesn't grow at all!
And look! the annual budget deficit is smaller now than it was the first year of obama's presidency. Of course, for that to be viewed as a positive we'll have to ignore how the deficit was bloated to begin with and ignore the absolute size of the deficit.
Right! We would have to ignore the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration.
-
Didn't Obama raise taxes by EO? Didn't the corporate rate go up?
Can't be done by EO. Congress sets tax rates unless they have empowered the executive branch to set them, which I don't recall happening.
-
No, but taxes did go up by judicial fiat, when Chief Justice John Roberts declared that an unconstitutional mandated fee is now a constitutional tax.
You forgot that that tax was approved by Congress. Roberts merely refused to overturn it.
-
Right! We would have to ignore the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration.
Were you expecting to elicit a response from people who supported Bush's profligate spending? Good luck with that.
That Obama doubled down on spending or that Hillary will triple down on it is really the issue.
-
You forgot that that tax was approved by Congress. Roberts merely refused to overturn it.
Negative. The individual mandate/fine was NOT written as a tax. Roberts equated it to a tax, thus "deeming" it Constitutional.
-
No, but taxes did go up by judicial fiat, when Chief Justice John Roberts declared that an unconstitutional mandated fee is now a constitutional tax.
Excellent.
-
You forgot that that tax was approved by Congress. Roberts merely refused to overturn it.
The Democrats own that 100%.
-
(http://imageshack.com/a/img923/5206/8ZqF3u.jpg)
-
Right! We would have to ignore the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration.
BDS alert!
BDS alert!
-
Right! We would have to ignore the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration.
Mindless bullshit, repeated endlessly by mind numb progressives is not truth except in your fantasies.
-
Were you expecting to elicit a response from people who supported Bush's profligate spending? Good luck with that.
That Obama doubled down on spending or that Hillary will triple down on it is really the issue.
While it is true that Obama didn't do much to reduce the budget deficit, choosing instead to spend on Obamacare and stimulus programs that at least to me seemed dubious. What deficit reduction has occurred was largely the result of the improving economy. Where it goes from here is depends as much on Republicans as Hillary in the WH. The budget can't be balanced without either a large increase in taxes, cutting the military to near zero, or trimming entitlements. We will see what is going to happen as spending is largely the province of Congress.
Trump proposes to cut revenue, increase military spending, and not touch Medicare and SS. If Congress agreed, the national debt will spiral out of control at a rate not seen under Bush/Obama.
-
Negative. The individual mandate/fine was NOT written as a tax. Roberts equated it to a tax, thus "deeming" it Constitutional.
Whether the bill said "tax" or not isn't the issue. A constitutional issue does not turn on whether one magic word was used or not used. Robert's point was that if the government can pass a tax bill then it doesn't matter. I am not agreeing with Roberts, rather just pointing out that his rationale had some validity. I would have looked at the bigger picture and likely voted against. The bigger picture is that mandating the purchase of insurance is now different then demanding everyone buy broccoli for their health. It is a bridge too far down the socialistic, nanny state.
-
The Democrats own that 100%.
That is true!
-
Mindless bullshit, repeated endlessly by mind numb progressives is not truth except in your fantasies.
Massive Bush tax cuts + unfunded wars + plus new drug benefit entitlements = huge budget deficits and more national debt.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together for warmth can look at the spiraling national debt under Bush and see the cause.
-
While it is true that Obama didn't do much to reduce the budget deficit, choosing instead to spend on Obamacare and stimulus programs that at least to me seemed dubious. What deficit reduction has occurred was largely the result of the improving economy. Where it goes from here is depends as much on Republicans as Hillary in the WH. The budget can't be balanced without either a large increase in taxes, cutting the military to near zero, or trimming entitlements. We will see what is going to happen as spending is largely the province of Congress.
Trump proposes to cut revenue, increase military spending, and not touch Medicare and SS. If Congress agreed, the national debt will spiral out of control at a rate not seen under Bush/Obama.
Kristen, seriously, do even consider what you are saying before you write it? Obama doubled the national debt in his 8 years, almost 10 trillion, the same amount as what has been accumulated over the last 200+ years. This did not happen because of Obama's deficit reduction skills, it happened because he has been a budgeting disaster and the republicans let him do it because they are afraid of being called racist for bucking him. Any budget deficit reductions over Obama's terms is because the republicans did resist a little.
Finally, when taxes are reduced, tax revenues increase, look it up.
-
Kristen, seriously, do even consider what you are saying before you write it? Obama doubled the national debt in his 8 years, almost 10 trillion, the same amount as what has been accumulated over the last 200+ years. This did not happen because of Obama's deficit reduction skills, it happened because he has been a budgeting disaster and the republicans let him do it because they are afraid of being called racist for bucking him. Any budget deficit reductions over Obama's terms is because the republicans did resist a little.
Finally, when taxes are reduced, tax revenues increase, look it up.
Obama ran up MORE DEBT than all previous Presidents COMBINED. Think about that. I did not agree with Bush's fiscal policy, and deficit spending, but Obama is much, much worse. I can't believe Progressives are still blaming Bush after eight years of the disastrous Obama "presidency"
-
Trump proposes to cut revenue,
You are confusing cutting tax rates with cutting tax revenue. As Kennedy and Reagan showed, cutting tax rates can and does lead to increased economic activity, increased personal incomes, and increased revenue to the government. More jobs means more income earners means more people paying taxes.
-
Massive Bush tax cuts + unfunded wars + plus new drug benefit entitlements = huge budget deficits and more national debt.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together for warmth can look at the spiraling national debt under Bush and see the cause.
Let's see...
Barack Obama wracks up $1.6 TRILLION in debt his first year in office and adds to it by breathtaking numbers each year and eight years later a marxist is still babbling the DNC bullshit.
Why am I not surprised?
-
You are confusing cutting tax rates with cutting tax revenue. As Kennedy and Reagan showed, cutting tax rates can and does lead to increased economic activity, increased personal incomes, and increased revenue to the government. More jobs means more income earners means more people paying taxes.
People seem to forget how Carter establishes the "malaise" as the new normal, and sat in the Oval Office in a sweater telling how America needed to turn down the thermostat and wear a fucking sweater. That's how defeated America was.
-
People seem to forget how Carter establishes the "malaise" as the new normal, and sat in the Oval Office in a sweater telling how America needed to turn down the thermostat and wear a fucking sweater. That's how defeated America was.
I remember that edict. The public utility I worked for was bound to follow it. We all wore coats and gloves in the office and still caught colds. I also noticed during the Carter years how prices went up weekly. And remember how he said his wife was the only woman he lusted after? The good old days. :'(
-
I bought a house in the Carter days and was grateful to find a mortgage at 13%.
-
Kristen, seriously, do even consider what you are saying before you write it? Obama doubled the national debt in his 8 years, almost 10 trillion, the same amount as what has been accumulated over the last 200+ years. This did not happen because of Obama's deficit reduction skills, it happened because he has been a budgeting disaster and the republicans let him do it because they are afraid of being called racist for bucking him. Any budget deficit reductions over Obama's terms is because the republicans did resist a little.
Finally, when taxes are reduced, tax revenues increase, look it up.
I have looked these things up. Apparently you have not. Obama did not double the national debt. When he took office it was 11.9 trillion. Now it is about 19.4 trillion. Get out a calculator and do the math. That is not double. That Republicans approve Obama's budget for fear of being called racist is about the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.
Do you even think before you type? Tax revenues do not always go up when tax rates are reduced. If that were true, 0 tax rates would yield infinite revenue. That is idiotic. The national debt increased every year of Bush II's administration as a percent of GDP and in real terms. He tax cuts merely created more national debt. PERIOD. They also saddled Obama with larger deficits, which of course Obama had to further increase with his stimulus spending and Obamacare. Obama doesn't have clean hand but more of the nation debt is on Bush and his predecessors than it is on Obama.
-
Obama ran up MORE DEBT than all previous Presidents COMBINED. Think about that. I did not agree with Bush's fiscal policy, and deficit spending, but Obama is much, much worse. I can't believe Progressives are still blaming Bush after eight years of the disastrous Obama "presidency"
That is just flat not true. So there is no need to think about it. The national debt was nearly 12 trillion when Obama took office and is just under 20 trillion now. That is an 8 trillion jump. 12T > 8T.
-
You are confusing cutting tax rates with cutting tax revenue. As Kennedy and Reagan showed, cutting tax rates can and does lead to increased economic activity, increased personal incomes, and increased revenue to the government. More jobs means more income earners means more people paying taxes.
That may have been true for Kennedy as the upper tax rates were like 70-80%, but that was not true for Reagan and it certainly wasn't true for the Bush II tax cuts. Common sense will tell you that if you cut the rates to zero you are going to get less revenue. Somewhere in there is a sweet spot but it is at a higher tax rate that what is currently being charged.
-
Let's see...
Barack Obama wracks up $1.6 TRILLION in debt his first year in office and adds to it by breathtaking numbers each year and eight years later a marxist is still babbling the DNC bullshit.
Why am I not surprised?
Back to school for you. Federal fiscal year started on October 1. Budget is all set for the next 12 months. A little less than 4 months into that fiscal year, Obama takes office. So for the next 8+ months, it is Bush's budget that is racking up more national debt. Math not Marx.
-
which of course Obama had to further increase with his stimulus spending and Obamacare. Obama doesn't have clean hand but more of the nation debt is on Bush and his predecessors than it is on Obama.
This is really ridiculous. First, Obama did not HAVE to do a "porkulous" stimulus, which mainly amounted to fulfilling all the dreams of liberals everywhere of a bottomless pit of money for their government and teacher union constituencies. And Obama did not HAVE to foist Obamacare on us against the will of the American people without a single vote of the opposition.
The fact remains that his increase of the debt is more than all his predecessors, combined managed to rack up.
-
People seem to forget how Carter establishes the "malaise" as the new normal, and sat in the Oval Office in a sweater telling how America needed to turn down the thermostat and wear a fucking sweater. That's how defeated America was.
It may be the only thing we will ever agree on, but Carter was a disaster as POTUS.
-
This is really ridiculous. First, Obama did not HAVE to do a "porkulous" stimulus, which mainly amounted to fulfilling all the dreams of liberals everywhere of a bottomless pit of money for their government and teacher union constituencies. And Obama did not HAVE to foist Obamacare on us against the will of the American people without a single vote of the opposition.
The fact remains that his increase of the debt is more than all his predecessors, combined managed to rack up.
So where are you getting your numbers? You need to do a little research as the government numbers were about 12T when Obama took over and hence from him to have added more than the previous, the national debt would have to be north on 24T. It is not. It is slightly less than 20T. So that statement is just flat wrong. I do agree about the stimulus which was just funding all the pork, though Republicans had their share of pork projects too. Obamacare is a disaster. We can agree on that.
-
Back to school for you. Federal fiscal year started on October 1. Budget is all set for the next 12 months. A little less than 4 months into that fiscal year, Obama takes office. So for the next 8+ months, it is Bush's budget that is racking up more national debt. Math not Marx.
Back to school for you.
Appropriations are the Consitutional responsibility of Congress. The best the President can do is to veto the budget (and, if the President is Republican, he will be blamed for shutting down the Government).
Of course, the worst the President can do is lobby for more and more and more money (a la obama)
You should do some math yourself.
-
Back to school for you.
The best the President can do is to veto the budget (and, if the President is Republican, he will be blamed for shutting down the Government).
Whenever the government is 'shut down" (laughable in itself) the Republicans will be blamed, whether they are the Congress wanting a decent budget , or the President objecting to bloated spending.
-
This is really ridiculous. First, Obama did not HAVE to do a "porkulous" stimulus, which mainly amounted to fulfilling all the dreams of liberals everywhere of a bottomless pit of money for their government and teacher union constituencies. And Obama did not HAVE to foist Obamacare on us against the will of the American people without a single vote of the opposition.
The fact remains that his increase of the debt is more than all his predecessors, combined managed to rack up.
This country has not had a budget for years. It operates on series after series of continuing resolutions. What have you been drinking?
-
This country has not had a budget for years. It operates on series after series of continuing resolutions. What have you been drinking?
Huh? Nothing I said contradicts what you said.
-
I have looked these things up. Apparently you have not. Obama did not double the national debt. When he took office it was 11.9 trillion. Now it is about 19.4 trillion. Get out a calculator and do the math. That is not double. That Republicans approve Obama's budget for fear of being called racist is about the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.
Do you even think before you type? Tax revenues do not always go up when tax rates are reduced. If that were true, 0 tax rates would yield infinite revenue. That is idiotic. The national debt increased every year of Bush II's administration as a percent of GDP and in real terms. He tax cuts merely created more national debt. PERIOD. They also saddled Obama with larger deficits, which of course Obama had to further increase with his stimulus spending and Obamacare. Obama doesn't have clean hand but more of the nation debt is on Bush and his predecessors than it is on Obama.
Kristen, National debt when Obama was sworn in, $10.6 Trillion, National debt as of 10/20/16 $19.8 trillion. Increase from Obama's inauguration, 87% with three months to go, he has doubled the national debt unless you want to quibble over a few hundred billion.
You need to go to the source, not democracy now or occupy democrat or what ever site you use, they lead you astray.
http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2009&endMonth=10&endDay=23&endYear=2016
Tax revenues increased after the Bush tax cuts and they have increased after just about every tax cut in recent history. SPENDING INCREASED TOO, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A DEBT PROBLEM. Tax increases will further slow the economy and lower revenues in the long term. You can't tax a country into prosperity.
Obama owns the national debt and people are sick of his whining that it is Bush's fault, he had 8 years to fix it, in his first 2 years he owned congress too. No excuses, Obama is a failure.
Your and my grand children are the ones that will have to deal with this mess Obama caused and probably the resultant revolution when it hits the fan and the millions getting free shit now get the gravy train shut down because the US is forced to default.
-
Kristen, National debt when Obama was sworn in, $10.6 Trillion, National debt as of 10/20/16 $19.8 trillion. Increase from Obama's inauguration, 87% with three months to go, he has doubled the national debt unless you want to quibble over a few hundred billion.
You need to go to the source, not democracy now or occupy democrat or what ever site you use, they lead you astray.
http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2009&endMonth=10&endDay=23&endYear=2016
Your numbers and Kristen's aren't that far apart and are reasonably accurate. Why the dig at her source?
Tax revenues increased after the Bush tax cuts and they have increased after just about every tax cut in recent history.
Although that is fun to say, historic data doesn't bear that out. Tax cuts MAY have a stimulus effect, particularly in a booming economy, but it is nowhere near a hard and fast rule. Tax cuts cause an immediate loss in revenue. Beneficial effects (if any) take years to show up. While President Reagan did indeed cut income tax rates (justifiably IMHO) he also increased taxes and eliminated a number of deductions that resulted in increases in revenue. Of course, President Bush #1 had to go back on the "Read my lips" promise to deal with budget deficits.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
As far as the Bush 2 tax cuts, they had the effect of adding to the reduction in revenue during 2001, 2002 and 2003. Revenue did not reach 2000 levels until 2005. The state of the economy has FAR more impact on revenue than changing tax rates. The economy was coming off the tech crash of 1999/2000. The Bush tax cuts did nothing to increase revenue during that time period. I believe you are confusing correlation and causation.
SPENDING INCREASED TOO, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A DEBT PROBLEM. Tax increases will further slow the economy and lower revenues in the long term. You can't tax a country into prosperity.
Can't disagree with the first part and last part. The middle part is certainly speculation.
Obama owns the national debt and people are sick of his whining that it is Bush's fault, he had 8 years to fix it, in his first 2 years he owned congress too. No excuses, Obama is a failure.
Lots of people "own" the debt, I don't lay blame on one particular person, it has been a group effort. The 2008/2009 crash was certainly a major contributor, probably to the tune of increasing the total debt by +/- $5 trillion. So was the Afghanistan war, Iraq war, entitlements, increased unemployment benefits, increased SNAP costs and Medicare Part B expansion. As far as spending, the President/Congress has only ever reduced spending (over the last 50 years) in 2010, 2012 & 2013, when compared to the year before. Damn that Obama! ;)
Your and my grand children are the ones that will have to deal with this mess Obama caused by many administrations and probably the resultant revolution when it hits the fan and the millions getting free shit now get the gravy train shut down because the US is forced to default.
With a minor (and accurate) change, this is true.
-
This country has not had a budget for years. It operates on series after series of continuing resolutions. What have you been drinking?
Sorry, I hit the wrong button and replied to the wrong message. My reply was meant for Kristen. :-[
-
Your numbers and Kristen's aren't that far apart and are reasonably accurate. Why the dig at her source?
Although that is fun to say, historic data doesn't bear that out. Tax cuts MAY have a stimulus effect, particularly in a booming economy, but it is nowhere near a hard and fast rule. Tax cuts cause an immediate loss in revenue. Beneficial effects (if any) take years to show up. While President Reagan did indeed cut income tax rates (justifiably IMHO) he also increased taxes and eliminated a number of deductions that resulted in increases in revenue. Of course, President Bush #1 had to go back on the "Read my lips" promise to deal with budget deficits.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
As far as the Bush 2 tax cuts, they had the effect of adding to the reduction in revenue during 2001, 2002 and 2003. Revenue did not reach 2000 levels until 2005. The state of the economy has FAR more impact on revenue than changing tax rates. The economy was coming off the tech crash of 1999/2000. The Bush tax cuts did nothing to increase revenue during that time period. I believe you are confusing correlation and causation.
Can't disagree with the first part and last part. The middle part is certainly speculation.
Lots of people "own" the debt, I don't lay blame on one particular person, it has been a group effort. The 2008/2009 crash was certainly a major contributor, probably to the tune of increasing the total debt by +/- $5 trillion. So was the Afghanistan war, Iraq war, entitlements, increased unemployment benefits, increased SNAP costs and Medicare Part B expansion. As far as spending, the President/Congress has only ever reduced spending (over the last 50 years) in 2010, 2012 & 2013, when compared to the year before. Damn that Obama! ;)
With a minor (and accurate) change, this is true.
Yeah Gary, what's one point three trillion dollars? Using her numbers the percent increase is in the mid 60's, no where near double, so it was germane to my point.
Tax cuts have been historically done in during recessions to stimulate the economy and it works. Here we have a perfect example in an economy that has not recovered from a recession, but just kind of limps along after a trillion dollar stimulus failure and billions wasted on quantitative easing, the economy is still barely performing. I can not recall a tax cut in a booming economy.
Bush II came in during a recession from the end of the Clinton years, he lowered taxes in two tiers, after the second cut took effect the economy boomed and revenues went up.
So, Obama since he was elected threatened tax increases, finally got what he wants and unemployment is still through the roof (discouraged workers), people are under employed and GDP growth is 1% (dismal).
Bush and others lower taxes and economies boom, tax revenues go up. Pretty simple to me. The only missing factor from making these booms more sustainable is the need for fiscal discipline and the elimination of deficit spending.
Obama doesn't own all the federal debt, but he owns almost half of it, it happened on his watch and he has failed dismally at trying to stop it. In fact I think he is proud of it.
-
-
The middle part is certainly speculation.
As a reminder, the "middle part" was an assertion that a tax increase would decrease the economy.
The answer is "it depends" because the question is "by what metric"? If you're looking for more GNP then it is true - a tax cut will increase GNP. But HOW it does that is very important.
The GNP is built from 3 basic building blocks, although there are some other minor inputs to it. But the 3 basic building blocks of the GNP are Government Spending, Private Spending (individuals, not businesses) and Business Spending. One of the major differences about private and business spending is that people don't spend everything, they save some. So if we assume that private and business have a 5% savings rate then the amount each is spending is not PS and BS , it's PRS = PS * .95 and BRS = BS * .95 and the GNP = GS + PRS + BRS (+ external factors). So, now if you take money from the private sector and the business sector where some of it gets saved and move it to government spending, GNP goes up. Factual and scientifically.
The trouble is - that is moving money FROM the private sector and FROM the business sector. So the private and business sectors have less money. Everyone gets poorer.
Obviously it is enormously more complicated than this. But no matter how many other factors you put into it, the simple matter remains that for the government to spend money, they must take it away from someone else.
-
Back to school for you.
Appropriations are the Consitutional responsibility of Congress. The best the President can do is to veto the budget (and, if the President is Republican, he will be blamed for shutting down the Government).
Of course, the worst the President can do is lobby for more and more and more money (a la obama)
You should do some math yourself.
Nothing I said was counter to that. Nothing to do math about. Though the president does present the budget.
-
I have looked these things up. Apparently you have not. Obama did not double the national debt. When he took office it was 11.9 trillion. Now it is about 19.4 trillion. Get out a calculator and do the math. That is not double.
Rolling way back here because as I was backtracking a thread, I noticed this. My (weak) secret power is remembering numbers and 11.9 didn't look right.
According to the treasury dept, the debt was 9.2 trillion in Jan 2008 and is 19.5 trillion now, which would be more than double. Where did you get 11.9 from?
Jan 2008 - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2008/opds012008.pdf
Sep 2016 - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2016/opds092016.pdf
-
Rolling way back here because as I was backtracking a thread, I noticed this. My (weak) secret power is remembering numbers and 11.9 didn't look right.
According to the treasury dept, the debt was 9.2 trillion in Jan 2008 and is 19.5 trillion now, which would be more than double. Where did you get 11.9 from?
Jan 2008 - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2008/opds012008.pdf
Sep 2016 - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2016/opds092016.pdf
Hmmmm..... unless you are trying to make a different point.. President Obama's term started in January 2009.
-
Hmmmm..... unless you are trying to make a different point.. President Obama's term started in January 2009.
True, but Kristin was also using the 9/30/2009 debt as the baseline, presumably because that was Bush's budget.
If that's the case, fine. Then she must also include all debt through 9/30/2017 to be fair. I'm quite confident his debt will more than double all previous presidents' debt combined under that scenario.
-
To be fair, both the Democrats (Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during Obama's first two years), and REPUBLICANS had to vote for these huge budget deficits, and more debt the last eight years. Yes, Obama signed them all as well. The two party gravy train keeps rolling.
-
and folks, I realize that math is not everyone's strength. But, "double" does not mean exactly 2.0000000000 times larger.
-
and folks, I realize that math is not everyone's strength. But, "double" does not mean exactly 2.0000000000 times larger.
And "decimate" doesn't necessarily mean divide by 10.
-
and folks, I realize that math is not everyone's strength. But, "double" does not mean exactly 2.0000000000 times larger.
LOL! Good to put that into perspective, what's a few hundred billion here or there. ;)
-
LOL! Good to put that into perspective, what's a few hundred billion here or there. ;)
hey, if people don't understand what the words mean, it is more challenging to communicate.
-
To be fair, both the Democrats (Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during Obama's first two years), and REPUBLICANS had to vote for these huge budget deficits, and more debt the last eight years. Yes, Obama signed them all as well. The two party gravy train keeps rolling.
Actually no and anyone who states that isn't thinking about the real problem with the budget - which is social services, medical expenses and I'll throw debt service into that. These items are mandated spending and the money is authorized to be spent by previous Congresses. The current Congress would actually have to proactively make a new law to cut the spending and that would include presidential signature.
The reason this is a trouble is because these items are predicted to spend 72% (2.84T) of the budget in 2016. Before Congress allocates the first dime to the military, national parks or the FAA, 85% of the revenue is already allocated, all but 500 billion.
Congress is not voting for more debt, they're voting to keep the government running. The hard truth is that we have only two paths out of this deficit. 1) Raise taxes by about 20% across the board and suffer the fallout from that or 2) cut social programs and suffer the fallout from that. Some people believe we can grow the GNP but most of those same people believe in taxing their way to a higher GNP and that exacerbates the problem.
Now I don't know about you, but I'm struggling every month to keep it going at my 28% marginal rate. I cannot imagine paying 20% more in taxes - it becomes a choice of what I give up...the mortgage, groceries, school tuition, or insurances.
-
Congress is not voting for more debt, they're voting to keep the government running. The hard truth is that we have only two paths out of this deficit. 1) Raise taxes by about 20% across the board and suffer the fallout from that or 2) cut social programs and suffer the fallout from that. Some people believe we can grow the GNP but most of those same people believe in taxing their way to a higher GNP and that exacerbates the problem.
3) grow the GNP
-
3) grow the GNP
Yep. Grow, and expand the economy is the answer. This means allowing private businesses to expand, and create new businesses. More private sector wealth creation, more tax revenue, even at lower tax RATES. Growing government like Obama has done for eight years is just more of a drain on the economy.
-
Actually no and anyone who states that isn't thinking about the real problem with the budget - which is social services, medical expenses and I'll throw debt service into that. These items are mandated spending and the money is authorized to be spent by previous Congresses. The current Congress would actually have to proactively make a new law to cut the spending and that would include presidential signature.
The reason this is a trouble is because these items are predicted to spend 72% (2.84T) of the budget in 2016. Before Congress allocates the first dime to the military, national parks or the FAA, 85% of the revenue is already allocated, all but 500 billion.
Congress is not voting for more debt, they're voting to keep the government running. The hard truth is that we have only two paths out of this deficit. 1) Raise taxes by about 20% across the board and suffer the fallout from that or 2) cut social programs and suffer the fallout from that. Some people believe we can grow the GNP but most of those same people believe in taxing their way to a higher GNP and that exacerbates the problem.
Now I don't know about you, but I'm struggling every month to keep it going at my 28% marginal rate. I cannot imagine paying 20% more in taxes - it becomes a choice of what I give up...the mortgage, groceries, school tuition, or insurances.
Tip Oneil used to shut the government down with regularity, he didn't give a shit, he had balls. Bohner, Ryan and McConnell are pussies, Obama knows this and gets what he wants. Hillary knows this and will get what she wants. Trump knows this and will get what he wants, although he will have to work a little hard than Obama or Hillary.
So the question is do you want 4 more years of incompetence or do you want things to begin to get better? Hillary = incompetence, Trump = turn around and better things. I know how I'm voting.
-
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/hillary%20vs%20trump_zpswhrexsmy.jpg)
-
3) grow the GNP
Actually, growing the GNP is close but not the right answer. Grow the private sector is the right answer, except that the government can do very little to grow the private sector other than get out of the way. They can and do a great deal to inhibit growth in the private sector. The only means for growing the GNP that the government has is raising taxes, which was option #2.
Capitalism has a natural upward growth and the less it is restrained, the more it will grow. Conversely the more regulation put on the private sector, the more it is restrained and the growth stagnates or could even be negative. But what are the chances that any Congress or any Democrat president will reduce regulation on the private sector? It's unthinkable that it will happen and so I did not list it as an option.
If you know another way to grow the private sector without reducing regulation, write a paper on it. You'll certainly win the Nobel Prize for Economics if you are right.
-
If you know another way to grow the private sector without reducing regulation, write a paper on it. You'll certainly win the Nobel Prize for Economics if you are right.
De-regulation, and reducing, or eliminating some taxes are kind if a pipe dream today. Government's main job, on most levels is no longer to provide services to people that the private sector can't, or won't. Today, and for many years, the Government's primary job is to grow itself, and expand. It is counter to the principals that founded this country, and made it successful.
-
Actually, growing the GNP is close but not the right answer. Grow the private sector is the right answer, except that the government can do very little to grow the private sector other than get out of the way. They can and do a great deal to inhibit growth in the private sector. The only means for growing the GNP that the government has is raising taxes, which was option #2.
"except that the government can do very little to grow the private sector other than get out of the way."
true
"The only means for growing the GNP that the government has is raising taxes, which was option #2. "
false.
-
Rolling way back here because as I was backtracking a thread, I noticed this. My (weak) secret power is remembering numbers and 11.9 didn't look right.
According to the treasury dept, the debt was 9.2 trillion in Jan 2008 and is 19.5 trillion now, which would be more than double. Where did you get 11.9 from?
Jan 2008 - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2008/opds012008.pdf
Sep 2016 - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2016/opds092016.pdf
Obama didn't take office until 2009 and even then the budget was pretty much set until October 1, 2009, which would have been the first budget passed under Obama's watch, though obviously voted on by Congress so there is blame for the GOP as well.
-
True, but Kristin was also using the 9/30/2009 debt as the baseline, presumably because that was Bush's budget.
If that's the case, fine. Then she must also include all debt through 9/30/2017 to be fair. I'm quite confident his debt will more than double all previous presidents' debt combined under that scenario.
Agreed, but it is quite unlikely that Obama would have doubled it. It is also debatable how much of the war expenditures after 9/30/2009 should be blamed on Obama as he did not really have an option to instantly end those expenditures when he took office. Even if he had broken the Bush agreement to remain until 2011 and pulled out immediately, there would have been substantial cost in doing that. OTOH, Obama will wear Obamacare forever.
-
Obama didn't take office until 2009 and even then the budget was pretty much set until October 1, 2009, which would have been the first budget passed under Obama's watch, though obviously voted on by Congress so there is blame for the GOP as well.
Obama had a Democrat Congress for his first two years. That is how he got Obamacare, and the economic stimulus passed which was a $1 Trillion dollar pay off to unions, and other cronies. Look where it has gotten us. Obamacare premiums going up 25% - 100% depending on which state. A terrible economy with low workforce participation, and very, very low GDP growth. God forbid Hillary wins, as it will only get WORSE. At least Trump understands economics, and finance. He's a Wharton grad, and experienced businessman.
-
Agreed, but it is quite unlikely that Obama would have doubled it. It is also debatable how much of the war expenditures after 9/30/2009 should be blamed on Obama as he did not really have an option to instantly end those expenditures when he took office. Even if he had broken the Bush agreement to remain until 2011 and pulled out immediately, there would have been substantial cost in doing that. OTOH, Obama will wear Obamacare forever.
You're dancing in the head of a pin. Does Obama get credit for passing the 2008 "stimulus" giveaway since he voted for it as a Senator, or does he get full absolution of responsibility?
-
You're dancing in the head of a pin. Does Obama get credit for passing the 2008 "stimulus" giveaway since he voted for it as a Senator, or does he get full absolution of responsibility?
Maths is hard.
-
Obama had a Democrat Congress for his first two years. That is how he got Obamacare, and the economic stimulus passed which was a $1 Trillion dollar pay off to unions, and other cronies. Look where it has gotten us. Obamacare premiums going up 25% - 100% depending on which state. A terrible economy with low workforce participation, and very, very low GDP growth. God forbid Hillary wins, as it will only get WORSE. At least Trump understands economics, and finance. He's a Wharton grad, and experienced businessman.
I agree as to Obama's spending policies regarding the stimulus and Obamacare. He owns those.
Trump understands finance and how to use it to make him money, but he has not done much to make anyone else any money. I would expect that to continue were he to become POTUS. I doubt he has much of a grip on overall global economics.
-
You're dancing in the head of a pin. Does Obama get credit for passing the 2008 "stimulus" giveaway since he voted for it as a Senator, or does he get full absolution of responsibility?
He gets 1/535th of the responsibility for what he voted for in Congress.
-
T minus 30 days and counting to the time your alternative reality comes crashing down and you learn that it does not matter how energized the base, if the base is a minority in the country.
Yes, someone's alternative reality did come crashing down last night.
-
He gets 1/535th of the responsibility for what he voted for in Congress.
He gets credit for 100% of his vote.
But your logic is why Senators and Congressmen generally make lousy Presidents. They belong to a pack of wolves that don't feel they need to take responsibility for anything, but they expect credit for everything.
-
Libs conspicuous in their absence this morning. I think they're all on House Hunters: Canada.
-
Yes, someone's alternative reality did come crashing down last night.
Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.
-
Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.
;D