I mean you can't simply hit the reset button, or go back to an earlier restore point on the economy.
I am not a financial wizard or economic student, I'm just good with crunching numbers.Mathematics alone will not solve our financial mess. IS there even a realistic solution?
...to analyze Trump and Clinton's respective economic plans. According to a new report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), Clinton’s economic plan would add $200 billion to the national debt over the next decade, while Trump’s would add $5.3 trillion -- or 26.5 times as much as Clinton. Trump has tweaked his plan recently because his plan in June would have added $11.5 trillion to the national debt. If you ask me, I think he's just tweaking, period.
Trump has said: "I love debt. I'm the King of Debt."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/04/i-love-debt-trump-says-he-is-the-king-of-debt/
You'd think Republicans would tear their hair out because they've been wringing their hands over the national debt for years. But they're gutless pukes who will quickly fall in line behind Trump and say (to paraphrase Gordon Gekko): "Debt, for lack of a better word, is good."
-- Modified on 9/22/2016 3:39:53 AM
a jackass or a lying Progressive piece of shit. Thanks, but I think I've said in the past that I plan on skipping this election.
I did read the articles, and the 2nd one basically said that Trump will reduce taxes and reduce spending, but more on the former. Clinton will increase spending, but also raise taxes. There's your difference. I've already been fucked by Obama with an increase in a number of taxes, and I want more of that? Example, Clinton taking a cue from Bernie, wants free college education. What happens when you subsidize something already in demand? Hint - the price goes up! This is what you learn day 1 in Macro Economics 101.
I'm not voting for Trump because I love immigration, specifically the right kind of immigration. Hint, we need to import more college educated immigrants. It helps the industry I'm in. I'm also a fan of TPP, NAFTA and other free trade deals. I sell outsourcing for a living. I'm not voting for Hillary, because I don't believe in the Progressive utopia platform. I'm not paying for the extra shit you want. The Fed government share of GDP is about 23%. Historical norm is between 18-20%. Medicare loses $80 BILLION a year to fraud, waste, and abuse. And I want more of that with a single payer system.
GaG repeats one word constantly. Gridlock! I want gridlock now more than ever. It serves a purpose, at least to an independent, moderate, incrementalist.
Here is a question for the board. Who is the highest paid public employee in the U.S? And this person actually deserves every damn penny.
Trump has said: "I love debt. I'm the King of Debt."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/04/i-love-debt-trump-says-he-is-the-king-of-debt/
You'd think Republicans would tear their hair out because they've been wringing their hands over the national debt for years. But they're gutless pukes who will quickly fall in line behind Trump and say (to paraphrase Gordon Gekko): "Debt, for lack of a better word, is good."
-- Modified on 9/22/2016 3:39:53 AM
Actually the projections are a complete farce. I defy anyone to find a ten year projection regarding the budget/debt etc that was even in the same ballpark as reality. There are simply too many unknowns to make these kind of projections and virtually all of them have some kind of fatal flaw built into their "assumptions"
Lets take the Trump assumptions. Most economists are factoring a "trade war" costing hundreds of billions or even trillions of lost dollars to the economy even though there is ZERO evidence that re negotiating some of our very bad trade deals is going to lead to any kind of "trade war"
Both candidates have "promised" to do several things. Some are most likely bullshit, like Hillary reining in Wall St or Trump deporting 11 million illegals, NEITHER of those things are going to happen. One thing I firmly believe Trump is going to accomplish is repatriating the bulk of the TWO TRILLION DOLLARS that is currently parked offshore. TWO TRILLION DOLLARS of non taxpayer subsidized REAL MONEY economic stimulus will do wonders in jump starting this lackluster economy, but every so called expert doesn't factor any of that in when estimating future revenue over the next ten years.
In short, figures don't lie, but liars figure. None of these "studies" hold water in my opinion, especially since except purely by accident every one of these studies has been so far off as to have been totally worthless in the past. Why should we take any of them seriously with all their fundamental flaws built into them today?
but he really likes to get in Lane Kiffin's face on national TV.
I realize that most of these grandiose plans never materializes, but just the discussion of them like trade (H1-B visas to be specific) does have a delay effect on some of the deals I work on. With the liberals it's the "death by a thousand cuts" approach that just pisses me off. It's never enough for them, and you just want to choke the next liberal that utters the phrase, "you need to pay your fair share".
Nevertheless, Trump or Clinton, I'll find a way to make money.
Lets take the Trump assumptions. Most economists are factoring a "trade war" costing hundreds of billions or even trillions of lost dollars to the economy even though there is ZERO evidence that re negotiating some of our very bad trade deals is going to lead to any kind of "trade war"
Both candidates have "promised" to do several things. Some are most likely bullshit, like Hillary reining in Wall St or Trump deporting 11 million illegals, NEITHER of those things are going to happen. One thing I firmly believe Trump is going to accomplish is repatriating the bulk of the TWO TRILLION DOLLARS that is currently parked offshore. TWO TRILLION DOLLARS of non taxpayer subsidized REAL MONEY economic stimulus will do wonders in jump starting this lackluster economy, but every so called expert doesn't factor any of that in when estimating future revenue over the next ten years.
In short, figures don't lie, but liars figure. None of these "studies" hold water in my opinion, especially since except purely by accident every one of these studies has been so far off as to have been totally worthless in the past. Why should we take any of them seriously with all their fundamental flaws built into them today?
I expect the direct cost to me over the next four years would be about a million dollars, but I do believe that should be offset by higher oil prices under a Clinton Administration. Hillary would be bad for Big Oil, but shutting down the fracing of shale formations and other onerous rules and regulations on the overall oil business will result in reduced US oil production and higher prices for crude. Even a ten dollar difference in the price of crude will more than make up the million dollars or so that Obama Care and the higher payroll costs I will incur due to a national increase in the minimum wage, so I can probably still do ok under a Clinton Administration.
It's funny, one of my personal worries about a Trump presidency is him opening up the entire country to drill drill drill. That has the potential to cost me more money if oil goes back to the $20s due to a glut of production than anything Clinton can do to me, but on balance, my wallet and my conscience just doesn't allow me to vote for Clinton, I plan on holding my nose, crossing my fingers and voting for Trump come November.
I mean you can't simply hit the reset button, or go back to an earlier restore point on the economy.
I am not a financial wizard or economic student, I'm just good with crunching numbers.
Mathematics alone will not solve our financial mess.
IS there even a realistic solution?
We are like a working American couple who makes $250,000 year. On the surface their life looks great, and you would think they could live quite comfortably, pay their bills and even save for the future. but when you start peeling back the layers of the onion you find the husband has been paying 10,000 month in alimony from his first wife, both the husband and wife have kids they have just finished putting through Ivy League schools at the tune of $200,000 a year apiece, and they also have kids together approaching college age.
Add this to his country club membership, her $5,000 month shopping habit, private schools for the kids approaching college age, the two luxury cars they drive and the $500,000 mortgage they have on the home they live in, Now factor in his sick mother and her sick father both requiring long term care.
When you add all this up, you find that even if they cut out the country club membership, the $5,000 shopping habit and every other "frill" in their lives, they are still not only going to spend every penny of that $250,000 "GDP" but be forced to borrow an additional $25,000 yr just to stay afloat.
This family has three choices, either live like paupers and tell their youngest kids "you are on your own" give up any illusions of ever being able to retire, and resign themselves to NEVER getting out of debt. OR they could find a way to make more money, OR the most palatable option, renegotiate their debt. I think that might be the best option for the country as well.
Lets face it, we are NOT going to pay off $20,000,000,000 of debt, we just are NOT going to do that. We can't even balance the budget for a single year, much less pay off TRILLIONS. China is not going to foreclose on the most powerful nation on the world.
Like I said NO ONE is going to like it, but I don't see us EVER paying off $20 TRILLION in debt. Do you?
but you don't do it overnight. Right now interest rates are next to nothing, so it's easier for the Federal Government to pay the interest on the debt. But we are not in a normal interest rate environment as it relates to economic cycles.
The obvious thing to do is for the country to somewhat agree on the role, responsibility and size of the Federal Government. It is as simple and complex as that. You then fund it through taxes. Today the Federal Government consumes about 23% of GDP. Historically the Fed consumes between 18-20%. Why is it higher. More social programs, more military spending, Homeland Security which didn't exist years ago. etc. etc. etc. I believe, and I could be off a bit, Fed spending in 2016 will be about $3.8T, with revenues at about $3.3T. See the problem.
The problem tends to get exacerbated because of business cycles within Capitalism. Look at it from bell curve perspective. It starts with recovery, expansion, peak, followed by contraction and recession. Rinse and repeat about every 8 years. And a lot of the recessions are caused by excesses and shocks. I'm not an Adam Smith adherent. I do believe in bit of Keynesian economics, especially the role of government to kick-start an economy during a recession, i.e. stimulus, tax cuts, along with running a deficit for that period.
Our problem today is that the economy has been growing 1% to 2% a year since 2008. When you exit a recession, you have pent up demand, and you normally get 4% growth. Obama will be the first President to not achieve 3% growth in any one year during his Presidency. This slow anemic growth, and you can blame a lot of people and both parties, is the reason for low to zero interest rates, quantitative easing, and all these other never tried before initiatives by the Fed.
GaG mentioned $2 Trillion sitting offshore. Companies, like Apple will not bring their share home to be taxed at 35%. They will if the U.S. was competitive at say 15%. $300B tax on $2T. That would be a nice little dent into our deficit and debt problem. But at the same time you can't say, "Free College for Everybody". I'm sorry, but that is just the dumbest program. Of the 2400 4 year universities in the U.S. only 25% are public. They are all running at 110% occupancy. And now you want to have it free. Think about the consequences. Sorry to digress.
I am not a financial wizard or economic student, I'm just good with crunching numbers.
Mathematics alone will not solve our financial mess.
IS there even a realistic solution?
The impact of $2 TRILLION of essentially NEW money will have a huge effect, generating new revenue and thus new taxes that go on and on.
The last several stimuli were simply rebates of our own tax dollars given back to us, This $2 trillion is all NEW money, not just money borrowed from ourselves.
As for FREE college, free college is like free health care, it simply doesn't exist. Call it taxpayer funded college if you like, but it most definitely is NOT free. and it's dumb, almost as dumb as Obamacare.
it's a bit hard to dumb down this topic to a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at each other. But yes, the $2T will be the gift that keeps on giving through reinvestment, capex, you name it.
The last several stimuli were simply rebates of our own tax dollars given back to us, This $2 trillion is all NEW money, not just money borrowed from ourselves.
As for FREE college, free college is like free health care, it simply doesn't exist. Call it taxpayer funded college if you like, but it most definitely is NOT free. and it's dumb, almost as dumb as Obamacare.
...if you vote for Trump, you will go against your core political principle. As St. Croix pointed out in this thread, your bedrock belief is "gridlock." No matter how reluctant you are to vote for Trump, doing so will throw out everything you stand for politically. Just sayin'
It's a way to manage the process, or in some cases, table/defeat partisan and/or bad legislation. It's a way to force compromise. When I vote, I have split government as part of my thought process, and that is even more relevant today based on the extremists on both sides of the aisle.
...thought process. It's a question of what's more important to them - their principles or their principal.
He won't have any easier time getting legislation passed by a GOP controlled Congress than Hillary, assuming for the moment we still have a GOP controlled Congress. Right now it's looking like a split Congress may be the best the GOP can hope for.
Now if a "real" Republican was running, like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, most likely I would simply stay home on November 8.
..."It's the Supreme Court, stupid!"
Trump will be under tremendous pressure from the right to appoint conservative justices who will tilt the S.Ct. conservative for the next thirty years. That's why evangelicals and other conservatives want Trump to win. They're looking past Trump and keeping their eyes on the prize. They want justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and have more decisions like Citizens United.
You're not a social conservative, yet you're willing to turn the country into one giant Bible Belt in exchange for what - 30 pieces of silver
Months ago, Drumpf put out a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, blessed by the Heritage Foundation an described as "red meat" to conservatives.
So if you want Roe v. Wade eroded and more Citizens United, he's your boy.
I enaudify (?) Trump, "As President, I will appoint myself to the Supreme Court, and they will vote for me and approve me. I don't worry about the Senate. They are a bunch of idiots and I know how to manipulate idiots. And I know more than judges which is why I should be on the Supreme Court. I make mincemeat of judges in my lawsuits. I have never lost a case, except for the ones that were rigged against me. We don't count those, because they were rigged. I am the best at legal stuff, right? Many people tell me that I'm great at legal stuff and that they want me to be on the Supreme Court. And I can do both the President thing and Supreme Court at the same time. That's why I have a VP. And he's a great VP. And I never sleep or nap, unlike my old opponents, Jeb and Hillary, who do sleep and nap. Losers. So I can do both."
Not for the remote chance that Roe v Wade might get overturned someday.
I am mixed on who I want on the Supremes and then sometimes people will surprise you like John Roberts twisting himself into a pretzel to uphold Obamacare in one of the screwiest decisions I have ever seen.
I will sleep just fine at night knowing I voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton, and if she is elected I'll live with it, just like I have lived with our current POTUS.