12 Jul 18
Originally posted by @mchillDonald Trump specifically ran on a pro-deficit platform. The U.S. is running a large deficit because that's what (enough) voters want.
An independent, non-partisan commission needs to be created specifically for the debt (the Federal Reserve is a joke). Legislation needs to be passed ensuring that debt is reduced each and every single year.
Let us hope so. This is going to get very ugly if something is not done.
Originally posted by @mchillYou yanks won't raise taxes. Instead you will reduce the "entitlements" like medicare and pensions that people have paid into and also make them work to 70 or 75 before they can retire.
Since CNN and FOX News seem to be able to do little except bash each other, I've turned to CNBC financial news. The folks on wall street are getting genuinely concerned about a looming bipartisan problem, America's spiraling national debt. For the last 6 years unemployment has been low and the economy has been strong, but neither President Obama or President ...[text shortened]... n-the-economy-2018-3
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/14/fed-mester-central-bank-raise-rates.html
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @mghrn55Make US a cash offer - they might be selling the family silver.
I'm Canadian.
We want the Stanley Cup back. 😀
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @uzlessRepublicans like Ryan keep talking about that, but they know it would be political suicide to do it. Over 65's voters are a favorable demographic for Republicans but mess with their Social Security and Medicare and that would rapidly change.
You yanks won't raise taxes. Instead you will reduce the "entitlements" like medicare and pensions that people have paid into and also make them work to 70 or 75 before they can retire.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraKN has been devining in the same majic crystal ball as No1, on any subject the answer is the same, 'that's what voters want'. You do not know the motivation of the voters, in my opinion the main motivation to vote for Trump was Clinton, not the 'pro-deficit platform'. When some other topic comes up we'll hear the same BS line from No1. Even multi-party systems can't come near the thousands of ways goobermint interferes in our lives.
Donald Trump specifically ran on a pro-deficit platform. The U.S. is running a large deficit because that's what (enough) voters want.
"oooo" we hear No.1 say, "oooo but if they felt strongly enough, oooo"
Fugedaboutit, on a couple of issues the two main parties duke it out, on all the rest they're 100% in cahoots and the voter does not get any kind of say in it.
The voters voted on the pro-deficit issue? haha, at least it's the funniest thing on here in a while.
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @wajomaI didn't claim they voted Trump because of his pro-deficit platform. But they were aware of his pro-deficit policies and voted for him anyway - so clearly they didn't have strong objections to the deficit being greatly increased esp. since Trump faced an anti-deficit candidate.
KN has been devining in the same majic crystal ball as No1, on any subject the answer is the same, 'that's what voters want'. You do not know the motivation of the voters, in my opinion the main motivation to vote for Trump was Clinton, not the 'pro-deficit platform'. When some other topic comes up we'll hear the same BS line from No1. Even multi-party sy ...[text shortened]... oters voted on the pro-deficit issue? haha, at least it's the funniest thing on here in a while.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorrawhoosh, over your head.
I didn't claim they voted Trump because of his pro-deficit platform. But they were aware of his pro-deficit policies and voted for him anyway - so clearly they didn't have strong objections to the deficit being greatly increased esp. since Trump faced an anti-deficit candidate.
Edit: "....that's what (enough) voters want."
Edit 2 "The U.S. is running a large deficit because that's what (enough) voters want."
13 Jul 18
I had a look at the Wikipedia page. It makes the point that since 2010 you're getting negative real interest rates. So, assuming that what is written there is accurate, debt reduction is built in, at least for the fixed interest loans inflation does the job for you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
Originally posted by @no1marauderNo, it wouldn't. The GOP's has made extensive healthcare cuts, like their tax plan cutting healthcare in order to pay for it; their dismantling of Obamacare, etc.. This only made them more popular with their base, even though the poor and elderly would be the most severely impacted by healthcare cuts. The GOP in Kentucky cut medicaid benefits in order to force a law mandating employment to get those benefits. Yet, there's no real public backlash. That's probably because the 65+ crowd is more likely to be conservative, and is the core audience of Fox News.
Republicans like Ryan keep talking about that, but they know it would be political suicide to do it. Over 65's voters are a favorable demographic for Republicans but mess with their Social Security and Medicare and that would rapidly change.
If cuts to Social Security are made, Fox News has it covered, and will spin it somehow in a way that blames Democrats, just like when they called a shutdown by a Republican-controlled Congress a "liberal shutdown".
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @wajomaVoters had the options:
whoosh, over your head.
Edit: "....that's what (enough) voters want."
Edit 2 "The U.S. is running a large deficit because that's what (enough) [b]voters want."[/b]
A. Increase deficit + other things.
B. Decrease deficit + other things.
Maybe they preferred the other things from A and a decreased deficit, but Trump's promises to increase the deficit surely didn't deter them. They wanted the package A.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraA. Not Hilliary + other things
Voters had the options:
A. Increase deficit + other things.
B. Decrease deficit + other things.
Maybe they preferred the other things from A and a decreased deficit, but Trump's promises to increase the deficit surely didn't deter them. They wanted the package A.
B. Hilliary + other things.
If we were to ask No.1 we'd get a different formula weekly.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @wajoma"Not Hillary" came with strongly increased deficits. This didn't deter voters. Ergo, voters either wanted huge deficits or didn't care strongly about them.
A. Not Hilliary + other things
B. Hilliary + other things.
If we were to ask No.1 we'd get a different formula weekly.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYou'll have no problem presenting us with some of Clintons 'decrease the deficit' policies she had as part of her campaign then.
"Not Hillary" came with strongly increased deficits. This didn't deter voters. Ergo, voters either wanted huge deficits or didn't care strongly about them.
Since you dream that they were a factor in people voting for her.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @wajomaI never claimed that deficits were a strong factor in deciding who to vote for. If it were, Clinton would have won with a landslide.
You'll have no problem presenting us with some of Clintons 'decrease the deficit' policies she had as part of her campaign then.
Since you dream that they were a factor in people voting for her.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYou keep saying that but it is a direct contradiction of your earlier statement saying deficit spending is what voters want.
I never claimed that deficits were a strong factor in deciding who to vote for. If it were, Clinton would have won with a landslide.
"The U.S. is running a large deficit because that's what (enough) voters want."
Edit: What were Clintons policies for reducing the deficit, tax increases? They'd need to be accompanied by cutting spending. There must have been some distinct cut the deficit policies they were campaigning on for such a bold statement from you.