American Politics

[Dragoon]

These people blatantly lie all the time. They wouldn't hesitate to pull random #'s out their ass to make someone look bad

 

[M3J]

Lol she has more money to give plus you're STILL using fox news as if they are a reliable source and not at all biased >_>

Regardless, she's given more % of her income than Bernie, even though he probably can't afford to give as much. One source says Bernie gave twice the amount that Fox News claims, but only one. He does seem to be one of the least wealthy presidential candidate though. Trump has the advantage of his dad giving him a lot of money to start out with, Hillary has the dynasty and media, and Cruz probably steals money from churches and all and gets money from the gun & cable industries.

 

[kkck]

Come on, hillary clinton is literally a multimillionaire.... A comparison of how much one gives in that regard is hardly fair.

As far as the debt issue mentioned a while back, a few points (though I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, as far as I can tell there really isn't someone who qualifies as such a thing). The first thing is that national debt does not work as a household or business debt. Governments print money so there isn't a risk of running out of it. The chance of that ever happening are at all times 0%. The only way for it to "run out" would be to willingly stop printing money which would immediately crush the economy. Second, government expenditure is not something that can be arbitrarily cut. That money goes to the economy and is earned by people and used in god knows how many things... Arbitrarily cutting it would simply stop money from flowing and that would literally crush the economy. The deficit is the result of both parties.... the bush tax cuts increased it significantly and obama extended those as far as I can tell... The mechanisms to reduce it would be either to increase taxes and/or reduce spending. Cutting spending seems counter intuitive though, it would result in the aforementioned stopping of the flow of money which would harm the economy. Anyways, at least with the information I have available to me the most realistic way to actually reduce the deficit (if you even think the US has a debt problem, as far as I can tell most economists don't actually think that) would be to raise taxes...

 

[M3J]

Good way to help reduce debt is to force other countries to pay us. West Europe owes us for kicking the Axis's asses, twice.

So, where's the proof refugee children are dangerous in the country that takes them in?

 

[Dragoon]

Good way to help reduce debt is to force other countries to pay us. West Europe owes us for kicking the Axis's asses, twice.

... you're joking right?

 

[TotalEconomist]

... you're joking right?

Yes...I hope.

Anyway, the national debt talk is blown out of proportion relative to the size of the US GDP and other factors. Japan's debt, on the other hand, is a growing concern. I wonder if default (foreign holdings) is looming over their heads right.

 

[M3J]

... you're joking right?

you should support this idea, you live in US. Positive effect for you!

 

[Dragoon]

you should support this idea, you live in US. Positive effect for you!

That seems like something sharkbait would say

 

[Claver]

Come on, hillary clinton is literally a multimillionaire.... A comparison of how much one gives in that regard is hardly fair.

The first thing is that national debt does not work as a household or business debt. Governments print money so there isn't a risk of running out of it. The chance of that ever happening are at all times 0%. The only way for it to "run out" would be to willingly stop printing money which would immediately crush the economy. Second, government expenditure is not something that can be arbitrarily cut. That money goes to the economy and is earned by people and used in god knows how many things... Arbitrarily cutting it would simply stop money from flowing and that would literally crush the economy. The deficit is the result of both parties.... the bush tax cuts increased it significantly and obama extended those as far as I can tell... The mechanisms to reduce it would be either to increase taxes and/or reduce spending. Cutting spending seems counter intuitive though, it would result in the aforementioned stopping of the flow of money which would harm the economy. Anyways, at least with the information I have available to me the most realistic way to actually reduce the deficit (if you even think the US has a debt problem, as far as I can tell most economists don't actually think that) would be to raise taxes...

Wow, kkck response just encapsulated why the country is going to hell. "So we own a ton of money, our economy isn't growing and we are spending every single year more money than we get? No problem, we can always print more money!!!"

Yeah I am sure that going to work out great in the long term.

And I know the country's debt doesn't work as household debt. It still doesn't mean you can perpetually run the country on a budget deficit and borrow or print the rest forever. The US budget needs to be balanced and it needs to be balanced urgently.

And "just raise taxes" is not as simple as solution as you say. Leftist always forget that if taxes are too high rich people can just move away and take their business and money elsewhere. The country already has a huge problem of companies moving capital and business overseas and raises taxes will only make it worse.

(if you even think the US has a debt problem, as far as I can tell most economists don't actually think that)

Oh yeah because most economist are geniuses. Just look at the way economist were totally able to predict the 2008 crash.

Half of economist are being paid by politicians to make them look good and the other half are incompetent. It always surprises me how quick people rely on "economist think..." like economy was a hard science like physics. The fact that almost none of them could predict something as huge as the 2007 global financial crisis should be enough to convince a smart person that most economist have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[xi0]

Wow, kkck response just encapsulated why the country is going to hell. "So we own a ton of money, our economy isn't growing and we are spending every single year more money than we get? No problem, we can always print more money!!!"

Yeah I am sure that going to work out great in the long term.

And I know the country's debt doesn't work as household debt. It still doesn't mean you can perpetually run the country on a budget deficit and borrow or print the rest forever. The US budget needs to be balanced and it needs to be balanced urgently.

And "just raise taxes" is not as simple as solution as you say. Leftist always forget that if taxes are too high rich people can just move away and take their business and money elsewhere. The country already has a huge problem of companies moving capital and business overseas and raises taxes will only make it worse.


Oh yeah because most economist are geniuses. Just look at the way economist were totally able to predict the 2008 crash.

Half of economist are being paid by politicians to make them look good and the other half are incompetent. It always surprises me how quick people rely on "economist think..." like economy was a hard science like physics. The fact that almost none of them could predict something as huge as the 2007 global financial crisis should be enough to convince a smart person that most economist have no idea what they are talking about.

Even if your points are completely well-founded and true, it still doesn't justify supporting someone like Trump over anyone else. Just saying.

 

[Claver]

Even if your points are completely well-founded and true, it still doesn't justify supporting someone like Trump over anyone else. Just saying.

Trump is the only one who is not a slave to Washington establishment and doesn't take money from special interest. Choosing anyone else is choosing more of the same (expect maybe Sanders). Trump MAY have a chance to change things. Also he is a money making machine and if there is something the country desperately needs is money.

 

[xi0]

Trump is the only one who is not a slave to Washington establishment and doesn't take money from special interest. Choosing anyone else is choosing more of the same (expect maybe Sanders). Trump MAY have a chance to change things. Also he is a money making machine and if there is something the country desperately needs is money.

He was never a full-fledged politician, so he had no reason to take money from special interest. If he was prior to this, you'd bet your ass he would have, that's how this works. Not to mention that he's donated to many political campaigns himself, including Clinton's.

A money making machine? Perhaps, on the back of his own name and brand with support from his father's estate. That says nothing about his greater understanding of the economy and how the country operates. In fact, he's demonstrated time and time again that it's lacking especially when it comes to practical application of the law.

 

[M3J]

Trump is the only one who is not a slave to Washington establishment and doesn't take money from special interest. Choosing anyone else is choosing more of the same (expect maybe Sanders). Trump MAY have a chance to change things. Also he is a money making machine and if there is something the country desperately needs is money.

Yes, because someone who's declared bankruptcy more than once is a money making machine, or someone whose comments got business deals cut with companies from other countries or with other countries is a money making machine. Totally makes sense.

All Trump will do is get us even more hated if he doesn't start watching what comes out of his dumbass mouth. I don't see how everyone would support him forcing Mexico to finance the wall or banning Muslims from entering the country.

 

[kkck]

Wow, kkck response just encapsulated why the country is going to hell. "So we own a ton of money, our economy isn't growing and we are spending every single year more money than we get? No problem, we can always print more money!!!"

Yeah I am sure that going to work out great in the long term.

And I know the country's debt doesn't work as household debt. It still doesn't mean you can perpetually run the country on a budget deficit and borrow or print the rest forever. The US budget needs to be balanced and it needs to be balanced urgently.

And "just raise taxes" is not as simple as solution as you say. Leftist always forget that if taxes are too high rich people can just move away and take their business and money elsewhere. The country already has a huge problem of companies moving capital and business overseas and raises taxes will only make it worse.


Oh yeah because most economist are geniuses. Just look at the way economist were totally able to predict the 2008 crash.

Half of economist are being paid by politicians to make them look good and the other half are incompetent. It always surprises me how quick people rely on "economist think..." like economy was a hard science like physics. The fact that almost none of them could predict something as huge as the 2007 global financial crisis should be enough to convince a smart person that most economist have no idea what they are talking about.

My point was that it was conceptually impossible for the US to actually run out of money. As in, a greece style situation is literally impossible. Of course, I am not suggesting that printing money is just outright an easy solution however the US as of right now does not seem to have a debt problem.

Money in an economy like the US is literally always printed... there is no alternative to that, it's not like companies print their own money. And a country can perpetually be ran on a deficit, The issue, as far as I can tell if there is one, would be it growing exponentially greater than it is an people loosing trust in the value of a dollar. Which as far as I can tell is not an issue.

Ok, lets go by what you are saying and most economists are dumbasses... then what exactly would give the idea that the US has a deficit problem or that the budget must be balanced any real merit? It would be the sort of thing that sounds "logical" however if you outright invalidate the opinions of virtually everyone who studies the subject then there literally isn't an opinion around that has any real merit. Every opinion out there would be as much an asspull as what you are saying right now because there are no facts that matter to base it on. You are simply going by what sounds "logical" and flat earth level conspiracy theories...

In any case, as far as I can tell the following are facts:

1.- Over the past few years wealth has increasingly accumulated over relative few.
2.- Cutting government spending would crash the economy. And it makes sense, the idea that cutting government spending in an economy like the US would foster growth does not even make sense. The implication here is that having less money moving in the economy, literally the economy shrinking, would foster growth.

And while it is true that companies and wealthy people will always look for better alternatives when it comes to taxes and whatnot... you are vastly overestimating how easy it is to actually move your business. Sure, a hedge fund manager can have an office anywhere but things like factories are infinitely more complicated, specially nowadays where china has actually lost a fair bit of its competitive edge when it comes to production costs.

Also worth noting, no one has ever actually observed tax tax cutting for the rich as something which generates jobs or investment... It is something that sounds right but has never produced consistent results. And this isn't about theories and whatnot, it simply has never been observed. And in a way it makes sense... Imagine a company generates 500k profit... What difference does it make whether the tax rate is 10% or 15%. Sure, the ones who receive the profits would receive less however how productive the company was does not change. And imagine the economy is in a recession... What difference does it make to a company that did not produce a profit whether the tax rate is 5% or 90%? If anything the tax cuts which might work are not even in favor of rich people, it's tax cuts for poor people that might work because they are more likely to spend the money and keep the economy moving rather than keep that money at the bank.

The whole point of raising taxes is not to arbitrarily cover the cost of a government that does nothing... The whole point is to cover the cost of programs which help drive poorer people up, improve lifestyles and drive consumption up. Sure, raising taxes or wages is bound to affect some companies in the ways you suggest and they will simply move... but that is not something the vast majority of companies usually do. In turn if the result is to increase the purchasing power and lifestyles of poorer people that is a win for the economy. It's a healthier economy.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 17, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 17, 2016 ---

As for trump being a money making machine...
http://www.wyattresearch.com/article/donald-trump-missed-out/

Well, setting aside that he could have not worked a day in his life and be richer than he claims to be, if the issue is picking a billionaire money making machine then I would argue trump is the wrong pick. The other billionaires have over performed trump by quite the margin....

 

[M3J]

I don't get why Trump gets so much praise for being wealthy or a money-making machine when his dad gave him $1 million loan. It would be impressive only if he started from nothing or with so little money and made it big.

 

[Dragoon]

I don't get why Trump gets so much praise for being wealthy or a money-making machine when his dad gave him $1 million loan. It would be impressive only if he started from nothing or with so little money and made it big.

What did you expect? That people would actually look carefully at who they are praising and voting for? Pshhhhh you're crazy

 

[kkck]

I don't get why Trump gets so much praise for being wealthy or a money-making machine when his dad gave him $1 million loan. It would be impressive only if he started from nothing or with so little money and made it big.

Well, the issue here is not that he is a money making machine rather than where his money came from. Compared to other billionaires, trump is simply not really a money making machine.

 

[GrySun]

In 2008? No, not really. The coverage wasn't the same as it is now. I only remember stuff like Howard Dean going crazy on his microphone and John Edwards shitting the bed. I wasn't "supporting" anyone really. Like most things it most often comes down between choosing for the lesser of two evils. That's why I would vote for Sanders before I did for Clinton.

Wasn't Hillary running back then as well? What made you vote Obama instead of her?

I think you're confusing pessimism with realism. No idea why you continue to give this clown so much benefit of the doubt. The President isn't a CEO. He doesn't simply do whatever he wants with whatever resources he thinks he commands just because he thinks it's a good idea. If a CEO does a bad job, he loses a lot of people a lot of money and then gets fired. If a president does a shitty job, you're at the mercy of his competition or his party somehow miraculously decided not to support him (which never happens, anyone who shouldn't run for a second term usually forgoes reelection). The wall is an objectively bad idea by all accounts. At this point it just seems as if you're trolling because you think it'll be funny if he gets elected or something without actually paying any attention to the stakes.

No way is it a bad idea "on all accounts". I've been reading a lot about the wall from many different sources, probably more than you, both from pro and anti Trump articles and people. They all have their certain points, but calling it "objectively a bad idea" is far too silly. Both sides address the major concerns of the wall and explain why it can/can't work. I'm not gonna say that the wall is a safe bet. It's definitely a risk, but one that could be pulled off amazing if done well.

I don't get why Trump gets so much praise for being wealthy or a money-making machine when his dad gave him $1 million loan. It would be impressive only if he started from nothing or with so little money and made it big.

What did you expect? That people would actually look carefully at who they are praising and voting for? Pshhhhh you're crazy

It's always funny to see people who couldn't turn 10 dollars into 20 belittle turning a million into billions.

 

[kkck]

No way is it a bad idea "on all accounts". I've been reading a lot about the wall from many different sources, probably more than you, both from pro and anti Trump articles and people. They all have their certain points, but calling it "objectively a bad idea" is far too silly. Both sides address the major concerns of the wall and explain why it can/can't work. I'm not gonna say that the wall is a safe bet. It's definitely a risk, but one that could be pulled off amazing if done well.

Really? Do you have a source? Honestly, I have yet to find a single vaguely adequate source which suggests there is some form or context in which the wall would do what it is supposed to do. If anything it seems like a conceptual impossibility because a good chunk of immigrants simply don't cross the border that way.

 

[SharkBait]

I am surprised democrats are still against guns in America when it is a clear source of great economic and job potential.