Poll

Out of current presidential candidates, who is most likely to get your vote? Number in parenthesis is their current(9/28/15) National poll percentage within their party

Hillary Clinton D (40.8%)
35 (18.3%)
Bernie Sanders D (27.6%)
83 (43.5%)
Joe Biden, assuming he runs D (20%)
5 (2.6%)
Jim Webb D (0.8%)
3 (1.6%)
Martin O'Malley D (0.8%)
0 (0%)
Donald Trump R (23.4%)
12 (6.3%)
Ben Carson R (17%)
11 (5.8%)
Carly Fiorina R (11.6%)
2 (1%)
Marco Rubio R (9.6%)
8 (4.2%)
Jeb Bush R (9.2%)
1 (0.5%)
Ted Cruz R (6.2%)
3 (1.6%)
John Kasich R (3.6%)
4 (2.1%)
Chris Christie R (3.4%)
2 (1%)
Mike Huckabee R (3.2%)
1 (0.5%)
Rand Paul R (2.4%)
13 (6.8%)
Other
8 (4.2%)

Total Members Voted: 190

Author Topic: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)  (Read 66500 times)

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #200 on: October 28, 2015, 10:39:41 AM »
Debate night!   Any predictions?

I say the media will pick Rubio while the intersphere will pick Trump/Carson as debate winners.    Rubio will be anointed the favorite for the dreadful neocon Super PAC folks.

Fiorina?   Haven't heard a peep from her since the last debate.   Has her star burned dim already?  Or will she resurge?

If you lean Democrat you may want to tune in for a few moments just to see the diversity.  The front runners are a black man,  an older man who is married to an immigrant,  two young Latino Senators, a man married to a Mexican immigrant and a woman with years of business leadership experience.   I know the media would have us believe that the Republican party does not embrace diversity, women or immigration, so this may create a bit of cognitive dissonance.

The debate topic is the economy. 

It will be interesting to see what proposals are made that might redirect our slow 30 year national economic decline.   Could rethinking trade deals really change our trajectory?  Could making clothes,  shoes,  TVs,  electronics,  and food in our own country be beneficial?  Or are we destined to be a service based economy,  importing goods and exporting cash while racking up debt for our kids?   

What about STEM and H1B1 visas?  Will that come up?    What about the ACA which represents 20-25% of our economy?   Will there be proposals there?  Energy?   

7 Central Time. CNBC,  2 hours. 

A quick guide to the candidates --http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-debate-no-3-a-guide-to-candidates-on-the-big-stage/ar-BBmwacA?ocid=ansmsnnews11


Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #201 on: October 28, 2015, 10:51:31 AM »
Debate night!   Any predictions?

I say the media will pick Rubio while the intersphere will pick Trump/Carson as debate winners.    Rubio will be anointed the favorite for the dreadful neocon Super PAC folks.

Fiorina?   Haven't heard a peep from her since the last debate.   Has her star burned dim already?  Or will she resurge?

If you lean Democrat you may want to tune in for a few moments just to see the diversity.  The front runners are a black man,  an older man who is married to an immigrant,  two young Latino Senators, a man married to a Mexican immigrant and a woman with years of business leadership experience.   I know the media would have us believe that the Republican party does not embrace diversity, women or immigration, so this may create a bit of cognitive dissonance.

The debate topic is the economy. 

It will be interesting to see what proposals are made that might redirect our slow 30 year national economic decline.   Could rethinking trade deals really change our trajectory?  Could making clothes,  shoes,  TVs,  electronics,  and food in our own country be beneficial?  Or are we destined to be a service based economy,  importing goods and exporting cash while racking up debt for our kids?   

What about STEM and H1B1 visas?  Will that come up?    What about the ACA which represents 20-25% of our economy?   Will there be proposals there?  Energy?   

7 Central Time. CNBC,  2 hours. 

A quick guide to the candidates --http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-debate-no-3-a-guide-to-candidates-on-the-big-stage/ar-BBmwacA?ocid=ansmsnnews11
I think most of them will say flat tax to give us a booming economy, and that it will somehow bring in more taxes because 15% flat tax with a slightly improved economy is more than the 35% or whatever the rich people pay in this bad economy. Then they will cut spending on everything other than military to balance the budget. Rand Paul is the only one of them that would reduce the military budget. I like the idea of a flat tax, but I think it should be 25-30% with a 15k standard deduction + a few other deductions, for kids etc. 15% won't cut it.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #202 on: October 28, 2015, 11:10:10 AM »
I agree that cutting taxes/doing away with the IRS while cutting spending (but increasing military spending) will be the simplistic panacea offered up by the candidates in tonight's debate. Hopefully Trump will be gunning for Carson and we might get some interesting exchanges. We'll see how low key Carson remains if he starts to feel like he is under fire. I can't stand Trump, but he makes these debates so much more entertaining.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4932
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #203 on: October 28, 2015, 11:43:41 AM »
Debate night!   Any predictions?

I say the media will pick Rubio while the intersphere will pick Trump/Carson as debate winners.    Rubio will be anointed the favorite for the dreadful neocon Super PAC folks.

Fiorina?   Haven't heard a peep from her since the last debate.   Has her star burned dim already?  Or will she resurge?

If you lean Democrat you may want to tune in for a few moments just to see the diversity.  The front runners are a black man,  an older man who is married to an immigrant,  two young Latino Senators, a man married to a Mexican immigrant and a woman with years of business leadership experience.   I know the media would have us believe that the Republican party does not embrace diversity, women or immigration, so this may create a bit of cognitive dissonance.

The debate topic is the economy. 

It will be interesting to see what proposals are made that might redirect our slow 30 year national economic decline.   Could rethinking trade deals really change our trajectory?  Could making clothes,  shoes,  TVs,  electronics,  and food in our own country be beneficial?  Or are we destined to be a service based economy,  importing goods and exporting cash while racking up debt for our kids?   

What about STEM and H1B1 visas?  Will that come up?    What about the ACA which represents 20-25% of our economy?   Will there be proposals there?  Energy?   

7 Central Time. CNBC,  2 hours. 

A quick guide to the candidates --http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-debate-no-3-a-guide-to-candidates-on-the-big-stage/ar-BBmwacA?ocid=ansmsnnews11
I think most of them will say flat tax to give us a booming economy, and that it will somehow bring in more taxes because 15% flat tax with a slightly improved economy is more than the 35% or whatever the rich people pay in this bad economy. Then they will cut spending on everything other than military to balance the budget. Rand Paul is the only one of them that would reduce the military budget. I like the idea of a flat tax, but I think it should be 25-30% with a 15k standard deduction + a few other deductions, for kids etc. 15% won't cut it.
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #204 on: October 28, 2015, 12:18:44 PM »
Debate night!   Any predictions?

I say the media will pick Rubio while the intersphere will pick Trump/Carson as debate winners.    Rubio will be anointed the favorite for the dreadful neocon Super PAC folks.

Fiorina?   Haven't heard a peep from her since the last debate.   Has her star burned dim already?  Or will she resurge?

If you lean Democrat you may want to tune in for a few moments just to see the diversity.  The front runners are a black man,  an older man who is married to an immigrant,  two young Latino Senators, a man married to a Mexican immigrant and a woman with years of business leadership experience.   I know the media would have us believe that the Republican party does not embrace diversity, women or immigration, so this may create a bit of cognitive dissonance.

The debate topic is the economy. 

It will be interesting to see what proposals are made that might redirect our slow 30 year national economic decline.   Could rethinking trade deals really change our trajectory?  Could making clothes,  shoes,  TVs,  electronics,  and food in our own country be beneficial?  Or are we destined to be a service based economy,  importing goods and exporting cash while racking up debt for our kids?   

What about STEM and H1B1 visas?  Will that come up?    What about the ACA which represents 20-25% of our economy?   Will there be proposals there?  Energy?   

7 Central Time. CNBC,  2 hours. 

A quick guide to the candidates --http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-debate-no-3-a-guide-to-candidates-on-the-big-stage/ar-BBmwacA?ocid=ansmsnnews11
I think most of them will say flat tax to give us a booming economy, and that it will somehow bring in more taxes because 15% flat tax with a slightly improved economy is more than the 35% or whatever the rich people pay in this bad economy. Then they will cut spending on everything other than military to balance the budget. Rand Paul is the only one of them that would reduce the military budget. I like the idea of a flat tax, but I think it should be 25-30% with a 15k standard deduction + a few other deductions, for kids etc. 15% won't cut it.
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?
I'm not sure how much they pay, but I know most of them pay more than 15%

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #205 on: October 28, 2015, 12:23:19 PM »
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?
I'm not sure how much they pay, but I know most of them pay more than 15%

The top ~40% of earners pay ~30% in taxes, including state and local.

The top ~10% of earners pay ~20% in federal income taxes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #206 on: October 28, 2015, 01:24:15 PM »
Debate night!   Any predictions?

I say the media will pick Rubio while the intersphere will pick Trump/Carson as debate winners.    Rubio will be anointed the favorite for the dreadful neocon Super PAC folks.

Fiorina?   Haven't heard a peep from her since the last debate.   Has her star burned dim already?  Or will she resurge?

If you lean Democrat you may want to tune in for a few moments just to see the diversity.  The front runners are a black man,  an older man who is married to an immigrant,  two young Latino Senators, a man married to a Mexican immigrant and a woman with years of business leadership experience.   I know the media would have us believe that the Republican party does not embrace diversity, women or immigration, so this may create a bit of cognitive dissonance.

The debate topic is the economy. 

It will be interesting to see what proposals are made that might redirect our slow 30 year national economic decline.   Could rethinking trade deals really change our trajectory?  Could making clothes,  shoes,  TVs,  electronics,  and food in our own country be beneficial?  Or are we destined to be a service based economy,  importing goods and exporting cash while racking up debt for our kids?   

What about STEM and H1B1 visas?  Will that come up?    What about the ACA which represents 20-25% of our economy?   Will there be proposals there?  Energy?   

7 Central Time. CNBC,  2 hours. 

A quick guide to the candidates --http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-debate-no-3-a-guide-to-candidates-on-the-big-stage/ar-BBmwacA?ocid=ansmsnnews11
I think most of them will say flat tax to give us a booming economy, and that it will somehow bring in more taxes because 15% flat tax with a slightly improved economy is more than the 35% or whatever the rich people pay in this bad economy. Then they will cut spending on everything other than military to balance the budget. Rand Paul is the only one of them that would reduce the military budget. I like the idea of a flat tax, but I think it should be 25-30% with a 15k standard deduction + a few other deductions, for kids etc. 15% won't cut it.
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?

Many of them pay more than 100% in taxes when one properly takes into account the inflation tax.   (generally 3% on all assets)

I propose a zero federal income tax rate.   

The US has the power to coin money without borrowing.  So the simplest thing is to continue the SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes,  cut defense spending and just print  the remaining 25% of the government spending budget.  It would come to around 1 to 1.5 trillion in new money injected into an economy valued at 80T.   So inflation wouldn't change much, if any.   

The upside is that "no tax"  appeals to every income level above 20K (who generally get paid by the tax system).    No more IRS,  No more tax accountants,  No more corporate games,  all the money comes home,  No new federal debt,  no more manipulating voters based on tax plans.   No more need to shield assets or play games to beat the tax man,  no capitol gains tax.   You earn a dollar in income (investment or wages) and you keep 85% of that dollar up to 100K.  100% over 100K

So simple a child could do it. 

So yeah,  the price of everything goes up 3-5% per year.   No big deal because wages and asset values would rise in tandem.   

 

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #207 on: October 28, 2015, 01:35:10 PM »
Debate night!   Any predictions?

I say the media will pick Rubio while the intersphere will pick Trump/Carson as debate winners.    Rubio will be anointed the favorite for the dreadful neocon Super PAC folks.

Fiorina?   Haven't heard a peep from her since the last debate.   Has her star burned dim already?  Or will she resurge?

If you lean Democrat you may want to tune in for a few moments just to see the diversity.  The front runners are a black man,  an older man who is married to an immigrant,  two young Latino Senators, a man married to a Mexican immigrant and a woman with years of business leadership experience.   I know the media would have us believe that the Republican party does not embrace diversity, women or immigration, so this may create a bit of cognitive dissonance.

The debate topic is the economy. 

It will be interesting to see what proposals are made that might redirect our slow 30 year national economic decline.   Could rethinking trade deals really change our trajectory?  Could making clothes,  shoes,  TVs,  electronics,  and food in our own country be beneficial?  Or are we destined to be a service based economy,  importing goods and exporting cash while racking up debt for our kids?   

What about STEM and H1B1 visas?  Will that come up?    What about the ACA which represents 20-25% of our economy?   Will there be proposals there?  Energy?   

7 Central Time. CNBC,  2 hours. 

A quick guide to the candidates --http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-debate-no-3-a-guide-to-candidates-on-the-big-stage/ar-BBmwacA?ocid=ansmsnnews11
I think most of them will say flat tax to give us a booming economy, and that it will somehow bring in more taxes because 15% flat tax with a slightly improved economy is more than the 35% or whatever the rich people pay in this bad economy. Then they will cut spending on everything other than military to balance the budget. Rand Paul is the only one of them that would reduce the military budget. I like the idea of a flat tax, but I think it should be 25-30% with a 15k standard deduction + a few other deductions, for kids etc. 15% won't cut it.
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?

Many of them pay more than 100% in taxes when one properly takes into account the inflation tax.   (generally 3% on all assets)

I propose a zero federal income tax rate.   

The US has the power to coin money without borrowing.  So the simplest thing is to continue the SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes,  cut defense spending and just print  the remaining 25% of the government spending budget.  It would come to around 1 to 1.5 trillion in new money injected into an economy valued at 80T.   So inflation wouldn't change much, if any.   

The upside is that "no tax"  appeals to every income level above 20K (who generally get paid by the tax system).    No more IRS,  No more tax accountants,  No more corporate games,  all the money comes home,  No new federal debt,  no more manipulating voters based on tax plans.   No more need to shield assets or play games to beat the tax man,  no capitol gains tax.   You earn a dollar in income (investment or wages) and you keep 85% of that dollar up to 100K.  100% over 100K

So simple a child could do it. 

So yeah,  the price of everything goes up 3-5% per year.   No big deal because wages and asset values would rise in tandem.   

 

Formalization of this plan would also create a run on US foreign held debt and absolutely ruin us.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #208 on: October 28, 2015, 01:47:57 PM »
Many of them pay more than 100% in taxes when one properly takes into account the inflation tax.   (generally 3% on all assets)

I propose a zero federal income tax rate.   

The US has the power to coin money without borrowing.  So the simplest thing is to continue the SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes,  cut defense spending and just print  the remaining 25% of the government spending budget.  It would come to around 1 to 1.5 trillion in new money injected into an economy valued at 80T.   So inflation wouldn't change much, if any.   

The upside is that "no tax"  appeals to every income level above 20K (who generally get paid by the tax system).    No more IRS,  No more tax accountants,  No more corporate games,  all the money comes home,  No new federal debt,  no more manipulating voters based on tax plans.   No more need to shield assets or play games to beat the tax man,  no capitol gains tax.   You earn a dollar in income (investment or wages) and you keep 85% of that dollar up to 100K.  100% over 100K

So simple a child could do it. 

So yeah,  the price of everything goes up 3-5% per year.   No big deal because wages and asset values would rise in tandem.   

I know I've responded to you before about the insanity of this plan, but for the sake of other readers I'll repost:
I also frequently like to use ridiculous incomparable numerators and denominators.  Gasoline taxes in my locality are 37% of the price of an orange.  My sales tax I'm pretty sure is calculated as 0.1% of the amount in my 401k.  And my state is running a budget deficit equal to FOUR MILLION percent of the SNAP benefits it gives out.  Or is it 120% of the cost of a Gulfstream jet?  I always forget that one...
Expressing a change in assets as a percentage of income is nonsense.  They're not comparable numbers, and they give you meaningless answers.  Is inflation higher for those with more assets?  Is inflation lower for those with higher incomes?  No.  So expressing inflation as a product of the two doesn't make any sense.
My math is pretty poor but I'm postulating that printing 4 trillion per year in a country with a net worth of 80 trillion roughly adds up to 5% inflation. 

Your denominator is wrong.  You can't use a net worth to determine inflation - you have to use the money supply, which is something like $12-15 trillion.  Now $3 trillion in printing - going directly to the money supply -  becomes 20-25% inflation to start, which most likely leads to hyperinflation.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #209 on: October 28, 2015, 02:03:06 PM »
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?
Many of them pay more than 100% in taxes when one properly takes into account the inflation tax.   (generally 3% on all assets)

I propose a zero federal income tax rate.   

The US has the power to coin money without borrowing.  So the simplest thing is to continue the SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes,  cut defense spending and just print  the remaining 25% of the government spending budget.  It would come to around 1 to 1.5 trillion in new money injected into an economy valued at 80T.   So inflation wouldn't change much, if any.   

The upside is that "no tax"  appeals to every income level above 20K (who generally get paid by the tax system).    No more IRS,  No more tax accountants,  No more corporate games,  all the money comes home,  No new federal debt,  no more manipulating voters based on tax plans.   No more need to shield assets or play games to beat the tax man,  no capitol gains tax.   You earn a dollar in income (investment or wages) and you keep 85% of that dollar up to 100K.  100% over 100K

So simple a child could do it. 

So yeah,  the price of everything goes up 3-5% per year.   No big deal because wages and asset values would rise in tandem.   

 

Formalization of this plan would also create a run on US foreign held debt and absolutely ruin us.

The numbers themselves are suspect. If you printed money to support all spending that wasn't paid through SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes, the amount of money you'd need to spend would amount to more than 3%-5% of the US GDP. More like 10%. Plus, like Beltim pointed out, its the ratio of new money printed to the overall money supply that really matters.

The value of U.S. currency depends upon the faith that people give it. Knowing that the U.S. was merely printing money to support over half its spending would destroy that faith, leading to further devaluing of the dollar.

Finally, any scheme that depends upon modest inflation tends to encourage even greater inflation over the long term.

Yeah, this would be a really, really disastrous plan.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #210 on: October 28, 2015, 02:52:42 PM »
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?
Many of them pay more than 100% in taxes when one properly takes into account the inflation tax.   (generally 3% on all assets)

I propose a zero federal income tax rate.   

The US has the power to coin money without borrowing.  So the simplest thing is to continue the SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes,  cut defense spending and just print  the remaining 25% of the government spending budget.  It would come to around 1 to 1.5 trillion in new money injected into an economy valued at 80T.   So inflation wouldn't change much, if any.   

The upside is that "no tax"  appeals to every income level above 20K (who generally get paid by the tax system).    No more IRS,  No more tax accountants,  No more corporate games,  all the money comes home,  No new federal debt,  no more manipulating voters based on tax plans.   No more need to shield assets or play games to beat the tax man,  no capitol gains tax.   You earn a dollar in income (investment or wages) and you keep 85% of that dollar up to 100K.  100% over 100K

So simple a child could do it. 

So yeah,  the price of everything goes up 3-5% per year.   No big deal because wages and asset values would rise in tandem.   

 

Formalization of this plan would also create a run on US foreign held debt and absolutely ruin us.

The numbers themselves are suspect. If you printed money to support all spending that wasn't paid through SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes, the amount of money you'd need to spend would amount to more than 3%-5% of the US GDP. More like 10%. Plus, like Beltim pointed out, its the ratio of new money printed to the overall money supply that really matters.

The value of U.S. currency depends upon the faith that people give it. Knowing that the U.S. was merely printing money to support over half its spending would destroy that faith, leading to further devaluing of the dollar.

Finally, any scheme that depends upon modest inflation tends to encourage even greater inflation over the long term.

Yeah, this would be a really, really disastrous plan.

Well our current "scheme" of borrowing money is sure to be a disastrous plan.   Ever met someone who has borrowed their whole lives?   Just how long do you think it takes to pay off 19 Trillion in debt?

There are at least 10 countries who currently have no national income tax.  They are doing very well.  In fact,  the USA had no income tax for most of our existence.   So yes it is doable. 

Only about 25% of the US budget isn't military or SS/Medi/UE/ACA.   Of course much of that 25% spending is dubious but that is another discussion.   So yeah,  it would take the foresight to cut the extremely dubious military spending to a number equal to what Europe spends.  I know crazy huh?

So let's say we end up printing 1.5 T?   Well we have been borrowing and pumping into the economy 1/2 T annually pretty much for the last 7 years.   Where is the inflation?   Sure,  at the consumer level there is a little inflation.   Most of it just goes into stocks and real estate.   

Also,  inflation is more a factor of the total value of the country,  around 80T,  than the annual GNP.   1T to 80T barely moves the needle. 

Please note that I am saying that the social programs --- SS/Medi/ACA are pay as you go.   As it is now 60% of US citizens pay no income tax but do pay a very fat chunk of 15% of income on welfare taxes.   I agree we should keep that portion.    Other taxes should remain, such as gas taxes,  excise taxes,  import taxes.

By the way,  import taxes are much preferred to income taxes in an economy whose jobs are all going oversees.   We won't have any income to tax at this pace. 

One could easily replace the income tax with an import tax.   Sure the price of some goods would go up but what percentage of your income do you actually spend on electronics, TVs, imported food and general crap?   5%?   So a 100% import tax would result in a total increased cost to you of 5%.   At the same time you are paying no income tax and filing no personal papers to Uncle Sam.  Your papers are private again as enumerated in the constitution.

Meanwhile, with an import tax suddenly jobs return to the good old USA.   People are back at work.  People have dignity and pride again.  The net amount going into the welfare funds increases.   By the way a trade war is just fear mongering.   We primarily export food and wood products (paper) and military hardware to countries where people earn 4 dollars a day.  As Ross Perot said -- we aren't going to get rich selling things to people making $4 a day but they sure as hell are getting rich selling stuff to us. 

Take a look at the federal budget pie chart ---- you'll be impressed by how large the welfare and military portions are and how small the so called discretionary sections are.   

So tonight at the debate when they are talking taxes and cutting some program.  Remember how miniscule that program is in relation to where the money is actually spent.  Then call bull shit.   Then try to figure out how to increase the welfare portion of the chart?   The only way that is done is by having more jobs and income.   

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7354
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #211 on: October 28, 2015, 03:03:27 PM »
I agree that cutting taxes/doing away with the IRS while cutting spending (but increasing military spending) will be the simplistic panacea offered up by the candidates in tonight's debate. Hopefully Trump will be gunning for Carson and we might get some interesting exchanges.

Yeah, this is the only thing I predict.  I'm really curious to see Trump no-holds-barred (which I'm sure he will be) and what will be the result of a loud blowhard nut job and a nut job who barely speaks above a whisper.  I really have no idea who is going to come out looking better, though my suspicion is that Trump will be a little out of control and Carson will win a few points by looking like the more reasonable, unflappable person.  I predict that Trump's facial contortions will reach epic levels.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #212 on: October 28, 2015, 03:13:39 PM »
I predict that Trump's facial contortions will reach epic levels.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #213 on: October 28, 2015, 04:19:04 PM »
Well our current "scheme" of borrowing money is sure to be a disastrous plan.

The U.S. has borrowed money many, many more years than not. Thus far, the sky is still firmly affixed above us. The ground is not quaking.

Ever met someone who has borrowed their whole lives?

No and neither have I met anyone who can produce 16.77 trillion dollars in goods and services each year and has lived 230 years (with no end in sight), both of these being factors in why the U.S. can borrow money in ways and amounts that mere mortals cannot even fathom.

Just how long do you think it takes to pay off 19 Trillion in debt?

It depends. What are the terms of this 19 Trillion dollar loan? Is there a prepayment penalty? Is refinancing under better terms an option? Can the U.S. or its spouse get another job? Can it downsize to a smaller residence? Perhaps have a garage sale and sell off some non performing assets such as Puerto Rico?

Is it obvious yet how ridiculous and irrelevant that question was?

The real question is how long will lenders want to lend money to the U.S. government? For the time being, U.S. Treasuries are considered one of the safest places to park your money such that around the world people are beating down the door to buy them and interest rates are at all time lows. If and when that changes, the U.S. will have to pay higher interest rates and will need to make up the difference by either raising taxes and/or cutting spending. There will be belt tightening, but its not as if there will be a global sheriff's deputy knocking on the door of the U.S. threatening to evict us unless we cough up 19 Trillion dollars immediately.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #214 on: October 28, 2015, 09:31:24 PM »
Winners of this debate: Rubio, Cruz, and Paul. I also liked the guy from Jersey. The Donald was weak this debate. His finishing statement is strong. Im looking for a Shepard. One who will look out for the middle and especially lower class. The upper class have had their day and their salaries reflect that.

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #215 on: October 28, 2015, 10:06:48 PM »
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?
Many of them pay more than 100% in taxes when one properly takes into account the inflation tax.   (generally 3% on all assets)

I propose a zero federal income tax rate.   

The US has the power to coin money without borrowing.  So the simplest thing is to continue the SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes,  cut defense spending and just print  the remaining 25% of the government spending budget.  It would come to around 1 to 1.5 trillion in new money injected into an economy valued at 80T.   So inflation wouldn't change much, if any.   

The upside is that "no tax"  appeals to every income level above 20K (who generally get paid by the tax system).    No more IRS,  No more tax accountants,  No more corporate games,  all the money comes home,  No new federal debt,  no more manipulating voters based on tax plans.   No more need to shield assets or play games to beat the tax man,  no capitol gains tax.   You earn a dollar in income (investment or wages) and you keep 85% of that dollar up to 100K.  100% over 100K

So simple a child could do it. 

So yeah,  the price of everything goes up 3-5% per year.   No big deal because wages and asset values would rise in tandem.   

 

Formalization of this plan would also create a run on US foreign held debt and absolutely ruin us.

The numbers themselves are suspect. If you printed money to support all spending that wasn't paid through SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes, the amount of money you'd need to spend would amount to more than 3%-5% of the US GDP. More like 10%. Plus, like Beltim pointed out, its the ratio of new money printed to the overall money supply that really matters.

The value of U.S. currency depends upon the faith that people give it. Knowing that the U.S. was merely printing money to support over half its spending would destroy that faith, leading to further devaluing of the dollar.

Finally, any scheme that depends upon modest inflation tends to encourage even greater inflation over the long term.

Yeah, this would be a really, really disastrous plan.

Well our current "scheme" of borrowing money is sure to be a disastrous plan.   Ever met someone who has borrowed their whole lives?   Just how long do you think it takes to pay off 19 Trillion in debt?

There are at least 10 countries who currently have no national income tax.  They are doing very well.  In fact,  the USA had no income tax for most of our existence.   So yes it is doable. 

Only about 25% of the US budget isn't military or SS/Medi/UE/ACA.   Of course much of that 25% spending is dubious but that is another discussion.   So yeah,  it would take the foresight to cut the extremely dubious military spending to a number equal to what Europe spends.  I know crazy huh?

So let's say we end up printing 1.5 T?   Well we have been borrowing and pumping into the economy 1/2 T annually pretty much for the last 7 years.   Where is the inflation?   Sure,  at the consumer level there is a little inflation.   Most of it just goes into stocks and real estate.   

Also,  inflation is more a factor of the total value of the country,  around 80T,  than the annual GNP.   1T to 80T barely moves the needle. 

Please note that I am saying that the social programs --- SS/Medi/ACA are pay as you go.   As it is now 60% of US citizens pay no income tax but do pay a very fat chunk of 15% of income on welfare taxes.   I agree we should keep that portion.    Other taxes should remain, such as gas taxes,  excise taxes,  import taxes.

By the way,  import taxes are much preferred to income taxes in an economy whose jobs are all going oversees.   We won't have any income to tax at this pace. 

One could easily replace the income tax with an import tax.   Sure the price of some goods would go up but what percentage of your income do you actually spend on electronics, TVs, imported food and general crap?   5%?   So a 100% import tax would result in a total increased cost to you of 5%.   At the same time you are paying no income tax and filing no personal papers to Uncle Sam.  Your papers are private again as enumerated in the constitution.

Meanwhile, with an import tax suddenly jobs return to the good old USA.   People are back at work.  People have dignity and pride again.  The net amount going into the welfare funds increases.   By the way a trade war is just fear mongering.   We primarily export food and wood products (paper) and military hardware to countries where people earn 4 dollars a day.  As Ross Perot said -- we aren't going to get rich selling things to people making $4 a day but they sure as hell are getting rich selling stuff to us. 

Take a look at the federal budget pie chart ---- you'll be impressed by how large the welfare and military portions are and how small the so called discretionary sections are.   

So tonight at the debate when they are talking taxes and cutting some program.  Remember how miniscule that program is in relation to where the money is actually spent.  Then call bull shit.   Then try to figure out how to increase the welfare portion of the chart?   The only way that is done is by having more jobs and income.

I've seen you make this argument before, and it always surprises me to see you align with so many populists who have urged similar devaluations of currency (Bryan with silver in 1890s, FDR with no more gold in 1933, and more).

The borrowing we do is very different from the example you're thinking of. The US is like a chronic high spender who has a huge, super-wealthy family behind them bankrolling them. I guess in a sense it says that being trustworthy is far more useful than being fiscally responsible. It's also like a Ponzi scheme in super slow motion, with us paying off old investors by borrowing from new ones. Fortunately, just about everyone of any means in almost the whole world has a financial stake in keeping the ball rolling.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #216 on: October 28, 2015, 10:22:04 PM »
Winners of this debate: Rubio, Cruz, and Paul.

I didn't watch much but I saw Cruz not answer a substantive question by spending a minute complaining that the media didn't ask substantive questions - and then complain that the moderators didn't give him a chance to answer the question.

That's pretty typical of what I've seen of Cruz.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #217 on: October 29, 2015, 08:20:47 AM »
Winners of this debate: Rubio, Cruz, and Paul.

I didn't watch much but I saw Cruz not answer a substantive question by spending a minute complaining that the media didn't ask substantive questions - and then complain that the moderators didn't give him a chance to answer the question.

That's pretty typical of what I've seen of Cruz.
Do you work for CNBC?  heh

As someone who actually watched the debate, it appeared Cruz and several others rightly nailed the awful moderators.  What an embarrassment for CNBC.  I guess we're to he point where the liberal elites no longer fail to mask their bias.  This is a good thing.  The candidates jumped all over them to great effect as you can tell by the audience reaction. 

If it wasn't already over, Bush's campaign was essentially finished when he attacked Rubio.  Rubio's response was classy and perfect.

Big Debate winners: Cruz, Trump, Rubio
Had a decent night: Huckabee, Christie
Neutral: Fiorina, Carson
Debate losers: Bush, Paul, Kasich   <===  These guys will drop out soon

The moderators were awful, but it was typical Cruz pettiness to spend all his time whining about the quality of the questions and then complain because he wasn't being given extra time to answer what was an actual substantive question that he had been asked.

And you don't have to work for CNBC to recognize that Cruz was being a jerk at that point.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #218 on: October 29, 2015, 08:23:09 AM »
What would have made for a great answer regarding greatest weakness...

DONALD TRUMP: My greatest weakness is my mouth. It also happens to be my greatest strength. Go figure.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #219 on: October 29, 2015, 08:33:21 AM »
Winners of this debate: Rubio, Cruz, and Paul.

I didn't watch much but I saw Cruz not answer a substantive question by spending a minute complaining that the media didn't ask substantive questions - and then complain that the moderators didn't give him a chance to answer the question.

That's pretty typical of what I've seen of Cruz.

I hope to see that performance come back some day as an infomercial for the Princeton Debate Club.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #220 on: October 29, 2015, 09:03:42 AM »
Winners of this debate: Rubio, Cruz, and Paul.

I didn't watch much but I saw Cruz not answer a substantive question by spending a minute complaining that the media didn't ask substantive questions - and then complain that the moderators didn't give him a chance to answer the question.

That's pretty typical of what I've seen of Cruz.
Do you work for CNBC?  heh

As someone who actually watched the debate, it appeared Cruz and several others rightly nailed the awful moderators.  What an embarrassment for CNBC.  I guess we're to he point where the liberal elites no longer fail to mask their bias.  This is a good thing.  The candidates jumped all over them to great effect as you can tell by the audience reaction. 

If it wasn't already over, Bush's campaign was essentially finished when he attacked Rubio.  Rubio's response was classy and perfect.

Big Debate winners: Cruz, Trump, Rubio
Had a decent night: Huckabee, Christie
Neutral: Fiorina, Carson
Debate losers: Bush, Paul, Kasich   <===  These guys will drop out soon

The moderators were awful, but it was typical Cruz pettiness to spend all his time whining about the quality of the questions and then complain because he wasn't being given extra time to answer what was an actual substantive question that he had been asked.

And you don't have to work for CNBC to recognize that Cruz was being a jerk at that point.

No.  What you saw is a man refusing to be bullied and America loved it.  Was a great night for the GOP and because of that I fully expect there to be much gnashing of teeth in the people's republic of mustacheland.

LOL, I guess a Cruz fan might think that whining is how one sounds tough. Cruz certainly does quite a bit whining. I will dispute that America loved it. Only Cruz fans ate it up. Everybody else were just shaking their heads.

I was much more impressed with Christie's comeback over the moderator interrupting him tsking that he was being rude even for someone from New Jersey. That was a classic diss! Much better than Cruz's "Oh you meanie for not letting me answer when my time is up" whine.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #221 on: October 29, 2015, 10:22:36 AM »
Winners of this debate: Rubio, Cruz, and Paul.

I didn't watch much but I saw Cruz not answer a substantive question by spending a minute complaining that the media didn't ask substantive questions - and then complain that the moderators didn't give him a chance to answer the question.

That's pretty typical of what I've seen of Cruz.
Do you work for CNBC?  heh

As someone who actually watched the debate, it appeared Cruz and several others rightly nailed the awful moderators.  What an embarrassment for CNBC.  I guess we're to he point where the liberal elites no longer fail to mask their bias.  This is a good thing.  The candidates jumped all over them to great effect as you can tell by the audience reaction. 

If it wasn't already over, Bush's campaign was essentially finished when he attacked Rubio.  Rubio's response was classy and perfect.

Big Debate winners: Cruz, Trump, Rubio
Had a decent night: Huckabee, Christie
Neutral: Fiorina, Carson
Debate losers: Bush, Paul, Kasich   <===  These guys will drop out soon

The moderators were awful, but it was typical Cruz pettiness to spend all his time whining about the quality of the questions and then complain because he wasn't being given extra time to answer what was an actual substantive question that he had been asked.

And you don't have to work for CNBC to recognize that Cruz was being a jerk at that point.

No.  What you saw is a man refusing to be bullied and America loved it.  Was a great night for the GOP and because of that I fully expect there to be much gnashing of teeth in the people's republic of mustacheland.

Instead of answering a substantive question, Cruz spent a full minute whining about the moderators.  This was after a nice little discussion about the feasibility of some of the tax plans, Bush's attack on Rubio for missing so many votes on the Senate, and Rubio's masterful sidestep (of course Bush and the Sun-Sentinel didn't complain about McCain or Obama missing votes in the Senate - they weren't from Florida). 

How did the moderators bully Cruz by asking a question about his thoughts on a plan currently before the Senate?  You do realize that Cruz's job is Senator, right? 

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #222 on: October 29, 2015, 10:52:20 AM »
Winners of this debate: Rubio, Cruz, and Paul.

I didn't watch much but I saw Cruz not answer a substantive question by spending a minute complaining that the media didn't ask substantive questions - and then complain that the moderators didn't give him a chance to answer the question.

That's pretty typical of what I've seen of Cruz.
Do you work for CNBC?  heh

As someone who actually watched the debate, it appeared Cruz and several others rightly nailed the awful moderators.  What an embarrassment for CNBC.  I guess we're to he point where the liberal elites no longer fail to mask their bias.  This is a good thing.  The candidates jumped all over them to great effect as you can tell by the audience reaction. 

If it wasn't already over, Bush's campaign was essentially finished when he attacked Rubio.  Rubio's response was classy and perfect.

Big Debate winners: Cruz, Trump, Rubio
Had a decent night: Huckabee, Christie
Neutral: Fiorina, Carson
Debate losers: Bush, Paul, Kasich   <===  These guys will drop out soon

The moderators were awful, but it was typical Cruz pettiness to spend all his time whining about the quality of the questions and then complain because he wasn't being given extra time to answer what was an actual substantive question that he had been asked.

And you don't have to work for CNBC to recognize that Cruz was being a jerk at that point.

No.  What you saw is a man refusing to be bullied and America loved it.  Was a great night for the GOP and because of that I fully expect there to be much gnashing of teeth in the people's republic of mustacheland.

Instead of answering a substantive question, Cruz spent a full minute whining about the moderators.  This was after a nice little discussion about the feasibility of some of the tax plans, Bush's attack on Rubio for missing so many votes on the Senate, and Rubio's masterful sidestep (of course Bush and the Sun-Sentinel didn't complain about McCain or Obama missing votes in the Senate - they weren't from Florida). 

How did the moderators bully Cruz by asking a question about his thoughts on a plan currently before the Senate?  You do realize that Cruz's job is Senator, right?

The point of the debate is not to have an earnest discussion of anything. The goal for a candidate is to appeal to their target audience. In some cases this involves answering questions directly to show a policy view. Sometimes it is to appeal to a perceived emotional need in the audience. If the debates - Republican or Democrat - are viewed in this light, they make more sense. Cruz taking an opportunity to beat the dead horse of the biased media is not unexpected. It is a dog whistle. To some it is whining. If you are part of his target audience who already feels there is unfair bias in media, it is exactly what they want to hear. All his response really tells us is who his target audience is. By an large, they probably choose to watch Fox news, where "biased mainstream media" is a common trope despite Fox being a mainstream media outlet. This is a statement of the obvious, but it bears repeating now and again.

It is also interesting how much of the Republican field is taking on this victimhood stance relating to media treatment. It is persistent enough that it is not accidental. Does it also parallel the same emotional context that "take our country back" hits at? The country is changing and slipping away, the media doesn't represent our views and we are fighting the valiant fight from a position of disadvantage? (open question here).

« Last Edit: October 29, 2015, 10:56:15 AM by Glenstache »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #223 on: October 29, 2015, 11:10:03 AM »
Does it also parallel the same emotional context that "take our country back" hits at? The country is changing and slipping away, the media doesn't represent our views and we are fighting the valiant fight from a position of disadvantage? (open question here).

Yes, we poor white straight men are such a victimized minority in America these days.  First they told me I couldn't beat my slaves, then they told me I couldn't beat my wife, and now they won't even let me beat up the queers.  What's the point of being an American anymore?  Is this really the future we want to leave to our children?

At least I can still beat up ragheads and terrorists.  That's something, I guess.
 
</vileness>

Did anyone else catch Colbert's joke about Trump's second place polling in Iowa being "the first time a billionaire has ever been an underdog for anything"?  Genius.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #224 on: October 29, 2015, 11:13:58 AM »
Winners of this debate: Rubio, Cruz, and Paul.

I didn't watch much but I saw Cruz not answer a substantive question by spending a minute complaining that the media didn't ask substantive questions - and then complain that the moderators didn't give him a chance to answer the question.

That's pretty typical of what I've seen of Cruz.
Do you work for CNBC?  heh

As someone who actually watched the debate, it appeared Cruz and several others rightly nailed the awful moderators.  What an embarrassment for CNBC.  I guess we're to he point where the liberal elites no longer fail to mask their bias.  This is a good thing.  The candidates jumped all over them to great effect as you can tell by the audience reaction. 

If it wasn't already over, Bush's campaign was essentially finished when he attacked Rubio.  Rubio's response was classy and perfect.

Big Debate winners: Cruz, Trump, Rubio
Had a decent night: Huckabee, Christie
Neutral: Fiorina, Carson
Debate losers: Bush, Paul, Kasich   <===  These guys will drop out soon

I tuned in but mostly read Scott Adams blog post while watching the debate.   

My ranking ----

Winners (not big)  Rubio, Cruz,  Christie, Trump  (Rubio will pick up the most points while Trump drops a few)
Neutral - Fiorina, Kasich
Losers - Carson, Bush,  Paul, Huck  -- bad, bad night for Carson who was rising in the polls.   Bush is just toast at this point.  I don't know if any about of peach jam and butter can save her.

Trump won the debate hands down based on two things.   1.  He was the only one interviewed by CNBC for 10 minutes after the debate.  2.  The morning on line polls from Fox,  Breitbart and ??? were all Trump.  Those are Republican sites by the way. 

Best lines of the night came from Huckabee, who by the way is a great debater,  the best,  but just too damn Jesus.

Huckabee says -- "I'm wearing a Trump tie,  get over it."   "Trump could beat Hilary everyday of the week and twice on Sunday."  I can see these on future campaign adds for Trump. 

Carson behaved like the Idiot Savant he apparently is but DT treated him with the respect that a P would treat a VP.   Cruz,  Huck,  Trump,  Carson all played nice together.   They have their little club now.   Most of the debaters said everyone up there would make a good Pres considering the socialist alternatives.   That bodes well for Trump who in the past wouldn't have been rated that highly.

Sadly most of them have crazy tax plans.   I love the flat taxers. (not)  It is like, well the bottom 60% pay negative taxes so we just hit them with 10%.  Of course the Pres doesn't make tax policy or really even set the budget.   A lot of what they talk about is congresses job.   

How many more seats do you think the Republicans will pick up this cycle?   I hear at least 4 Senate seats and a bunch of Congressional District seats.   I imagine the Tea Party will pick up several more and become a real force/party in 2017.    We may basically be looking at a 3 party congress for the next decade.  Standard Republicans,  Tea Party and the National Socialists.   

I'm cheering for the Tea Party simply because they align most with MMM types who really want to get the budget under control and pay down debt.  They are willing to shut down 10% of the Government to do it.   Kinda like cutting cable and switching to Republic wireless.   


Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #225 on: October 29, 2015, 11:25:14 AM »
You really think "rich" people pay 35% of their income in taxes?
Many of them pay more than 100% in taxes when one properly takes into account the inflation tax.   (generally 3% on all assets)

I propose a zero federal income tax rate.   

The US has the power to coin money without borrowing.  So the simplest thing is to continue the SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes,  cut defense spending and just print  the remaining 25% of the government spending budget.  It would come to around 1 to 1.5 trillion in new money injected into an economy valued at 80T.   So inflation wouldn't change much, if any.   

The upside is that "no tax"  appeals to every income level above 20K (who generally get paid by the tax system).    No more IRS,  No more tax accountants,  No more corporate games,  all the money comes home,  No new federal debt,  no more manipulating voters based on tax plans.   No more need to shield assets or play games to beat the tax man,  no capitol gains tax.   You earn a dollar in income (investment or wages) and you keep 85% of that dollar up to 100K.  100% over 100K

So simple a child could do it. 

So yeah,  the price of everything goes up 3-5% per year.   No big deal because wages and asset values would rise in tandem.   

 

Formalization of this plan would also create a run on US foreign held debt and absolutely ruin us.

The numbers themselves are suspect. If you printed money to support all spending that wasn't paid through SS/Medi/ACA/UE taxes, the amount of money you'd need to spend would amount to more than 3%-5% of the US GDP. More like 10%. Plus, like Beltim pointed out, its the ratio of new money printed to the overall money supply that really matters.

The value of U.S. currency depends upon the faith that people give it. Knowing that the U.S. was merely printing money to support over half its spending would destroy that faith, leading to further devaluing of the dollar.

Finally, any scheme that depends upon modest inflation tends to encourage even greater inflation over the long term.

Yeah, this would be a really, really disastrous plan.

Well our current "scheme" of borrowing money is sure to be a disastrous plan.   Ever met someone who has borrowed their whole lives?   Just how long do you think it takes to pay off 19 Trillion in debt?

There are at least 10 countries who currently have no national income tax.  They are doing very well.  In fact,  the USA had no income tax for most of our existence.   So yes it is doable. 

Only about 25% of the US budget isn't military or SS/Medi/UE/ACA.   Of course much of that 25% spending is dubious but that is another discussion.   So yeah,  it would take the foresight to cut the extremely dubious military spending to a number equal to what Europe spends.  I know crazy huh?

So let's say we end up printing 1.5 T?   Well we have been borrowing and pumping into the economy 1/2 T annually pretty much for the last 7 years.   Where is the inflation?   Sure,  at the consumer level there is a little inflation.   Most of it just goes into stocks and real estate.   

Also,  inflation is more a factor of the total value of the country,  around 80T,  than the annual GNP.   1T to 80T barely moves the needle. 

Please note that I am saying that the social programs --- SS/Medi/ACA are pay as you go.   As it is now 60% of US citizens pay no income tax but do pay a very fat chunk of 15% of income on welfare taxes.   I agree we should keep that portion.    Other taxes should remain, such as gas taxes,  excise taxes,  import taxes.

By the way,  import taxes are much preferred to income taxes in an economy whose jobs are all going oversees.   We won't have any income to tax at this pace. 

One could easily replace the income tax with an import tax.   Sure the price of some goods would go up but what percentage of your income do you actually spend on electronics, TVs, imported food and general crap?   5%?   So a 100% import tax would result in a total increased cost to you of 5%.   At the same time you are paying no income tax and filing no personal papers to Uncle Sam.  Your papers are private again as enumerated in the constitution.

Meanwhile, with an import tax suddenly jobs return to the good old USA.   People are back at work.  People have dignity and pride again.  The net amount going into the welfare funds increases.   By the way a trade war is just fear mongering.   We primarily export food and wood products (paper) and military hardware to countries where people earn 4 dollars a day.  As Ross Perot said -- we aren't going to get rich selling things to people making $4 a day but they sure as hell are getting rich selling stuff to us. 

Take a look at the federal budget pie chart ---- you'll be impressed by how large the welfare and military portions are and how small the so called discretionary sections are.   

So tonight at the debate when they are talking taxes and cutting some program.  Remember how miniscule that program is in relation to where the money is actually spent.  Then call bull shit.   Then try to figure out how to increase the welfare portion of the chart?   The only way that is done is by having more jobs and income.

I've seen you make this argument before, and it always surprises me to see you align with so many populists who have urged similar devaluations of currency (Bryan with silver in 1890s, FDR with no more gold in 1933, and more).

The borrowing we do is very different from the example you're thinking of. The US is like a chronic high spender who has a huge, super-wealthy family behind them bankrolling them. I guess in a sense it says that being trustworthy is far more useful than being fiscally responsible. It's also like a Ponzi scheme in super slow motion, with us paying off old investors by borrowing from new ones. Fortunately, just about everyone of any means in almost the whole world has a financial stake in keeping the ball rolling.

Yeah,  the tax discussion is for another thread -- sorry I diverted from the theme here.   You are entirely correct about the Ponzi scheme nature of the current national debt fiasco.   

Huckabee had a great take on this last night when he talked about handing his grandkids 20 Trillion in debt.   Good Luck kids  -- we had fun while the party lasted.

All Ponzi scams eventually come down.   It is the classic when, not if, scenario at this point.   I mean at 6 trillions the debt was realistic.  At 20 T we're just whistling past the grave yard. 

Let's see ---- at 20 T that is just 500,000 per tax paying family in the USA.  I guess at 2% the interest is only 10K -- but man paying the debt down seems impossible at this point.    Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.    Hard to imagine what the debt will be in 15 more years?  100 Trillion?


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #226 on: October 29, 2015, 11:42:55 AM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.   

I remember that tax revenues were WAY up because the economy was dotcom booming and tax rates were much higher than they are today.

What happened?  The Bush tax cuts and bubble burst reduced revenues, then we started a bunch of very expensive wars funded by debt.  That may have been the first time in human history a society started a war and tried to pay for it by reducing taxes.  What happened to rubber rationing and victory gardens?  We used to ask people to sacrifice to pay for our national violence, but somehow the fraud of trickle down economics convinced people you could balance your budget by earning less and spending more, for once.  Oops.

As to future debt numbers, I think we could get it under control again by reverting to 90s like conditions.  We need a stronger economy and higher tax rates, and we need to stop incurring new liabilities by invading middle eastern countries.  Spend less on military invasions, earn more by restoring tax rates to levels that actually fund your current liabilities, and then hope your capitalist economy will pick up the slack.  Might work.

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4958
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #227 on: October 29, 2015, 11:53:28 AM »
What I would really love to see at a debate is a countdown clock on the each candidate's time, and when the timer buzzed, their microphone got turned off.

I would watch approximately 1 million more debates if they did that. 

Currently I just follow the live chatting/tweeting/blogging since I cannot stand listening to these morons live without copious quantities of alcohol. 

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #228 on: October 29, 2015, 11:55:15 AM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.   

I remember that tax revenues were WAY up because the economy was dotcom booming and tax rates were much higher than they are today.

What happened?  The Bush tax cuts and bubble burst reduced revenues, then we started a bunch of very expensive wars funded by debt.  That may have been the first time in human history a society started a war and tried to pay for it by reducing taxes.  What happened to rubber rationing and victory gardens?  We used to ask people to sacrifice to pay for our national violence, but somehow the fraud of trickle down economics convinced people you could balance your budget by earning less and spending more, for once.  Oops.

As to future debt numbers, I think we could get it under control again by reverting to 90s like conditions.  We need a stronger economy and higher tax rates, and we need to stop incurring new liabilities by invading middle eastern countries.  Spend less on military invasions, earn more by restoring tax rates to levels that actually fund your current liabilities, and then hope your capitalist economy will pick up the slack.  Might work.

I would also add that we should do things that will make the next generation and generation after that strong and competitive even if we do not reap immediate personal benefits (aka more tax cuts). This includes strong funding for education, research, and smart infrastructure.

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #229 on: October 29, 2015, 12:05:20 PM »
I had to dvr the debate and finished watching around midnight last night, this is the recap I sent to my friend.

Jeb Bush will not recover after his creepy and awkward "warm kiss" comment and getting metaphorically bitch slapped by Rubio, his campaign is over and this was the turning point. Kasich did decent, Rubio kicked ass, Fiorina bobs her head a lot and blinks her eyes at an incredibly rapid pace (not substantive but it bugged me for some reason). Christie did well, Rand Paul is irrelevant, Trump is still an ass but had a few good zingers. Cruz said something that needed to be said and made the moderators look ridiculous but at the end of the day he still sucks as a candidate. Carson will not get the nomination, Huckabee is good for short sound bites but sucks as a candidate, and I am forgetting one candidate because their performance was not memorable and I had a few beers.

Coming from someone that has experience being paid staff organizing field operations for presidential campaigns with additional campaign finance training. I was entertained.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #230 on: October 29, 2015, 01:27:52 PM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.   

I remember that tax revenues were WAY up because the economy was dotcom booming and tax rates were much higher than they are today.

What happened?  The Bush tax cuts and bubble burst reduced revenues, then we started a bunch of very expensive wars funded by debt.  That may have been the first time in human history a society started a war and tried to pay for it by reducing taxes.  What happened to rubber rationing and victory gardens?  We used to ask people to sacrifice to pay for our national violence, but somehow the fraud of trickle down economics convinced people you could balance your budget by earning less and spending more, for once.  Oops.

As to future debt numbers, I think we could get it under control again by reverting to 90s like conditions.  We need a stronger economy and higher tax rates, and we need to stop incurring new liabilities by invading middle eastern countries.  Spend less on military invasions, earn more by restoring tax rates to levels that actually fund your current liabilities, and then hope your capitalist economy will pick up the slack.  Might work.
"We need to stop incurring new liabilities." I agree, that's why I don't like Bernie Sanders. I like Rand Paul, and wish he would do a 20-30% flat tax instead of 15% flat tax.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #231 on: October 29, 2015, 01:49:40 PM »
After listening to the debate here are my thoughts.
My previous favorite is starting to sound like a broken record, Kasich just keeps saying he has balanced budgets. He also kept trying to get more talking time which got annoying.
Trump didn't change at all, I still think he's of the top 2 worst candidates for president, along with Socialist Sanders.
Rubio did good, I think he's the best debater, and will either get the nomination, or be the vice president candidate. Him being so young and a great public speaker, he'll probably be a presidential candidate some day unless him or America changes a lot. I'll add that he's not one of my favorites.
Bush is faltering, he still has name recognition(which is both good and bad for him) and a chance, but he has much worse odds than a month ago, and much much much worse odds than 3 months ago.
I don't like Cruz at all, but I liked his comment about the moderators asking stupid questions. I think all the whining about talking time is annoying, Cruz and Kasich being the worst during this debate.
Rand Paul seemed neutral to me, most people said he's one of the biggest losers of the debate, but I think he did average and still want him as the GOP presidential candidate(although the odds are very low)
I think of all the people in the main debate, Huckabee has the worst odds of being the GOPs presidential candidate. I like some of what he said though, and he did alright this debate.
Chris Christie did pretty good and will probably see a slight poll increase.
Ben Carson didn't change much. I hope he doesn't become president.
I also hope Carly Fiorina doesn't become president, she was a shitty CEO, she says they doubled the amount of jobs they had, but that's because they bought another company. She says the NASDAQ dropped 80% while HP dropped 50%, but during her full tenure, NASDAQ only dropped 23%. The one major reason she thinks she's qualified to be president is because she was a good CEO that made good tough decisions, but she was a shitty CEO that made shitty decisions and ran HP through the gutter and got fired for it.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4932
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #232 on: October 29, 2015, 02:03:09 PM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.   

I remember that tax revenues were WAY up because the economy was dotcom booming and tax rates were much higher than they are today.

What happened?  The Bush tax cuts and bubble burst reduced revenues, then we started a bunch of very expensive wars funded by debt.  That may have been the first time in human history a society started a war and tried to pay for it by reducing taxes.  What happened to rubber rationing and victory gardens?  We used to ask people to sacrifice to pay for our national violence, but somehow the fraud of trickle down economics convinced people you could balance your budget by earning less and spending more, for once.  Oops.

As to future debt numbers, I think we could get it under control again by reverting to 90s like conditions.  We need a stronger economy and higher tax rates, and we need to stop incurring new liabilities by invading middle eastern countries.  Spend less on military invasions, earn more by restoring tax rates to levels that actually fund your current liabilities, and then hope your capitalist economy will pick up the slack.  Might work.

I would also add that we should do things that will make the next generation and generation after that strong and competitive even if we do not reap immediate personal benefits (aka more tax cuts). This includes strong funding for education, research, and smart infrastructure.
I am with you guys (and not the tea party).


Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #234 on: October 29, 2015, 06:07:43 PM »
Mr. Rubio is not exactly a financial whiz:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCwQFjAEahUKEwix65W_7OjIAhVPxmMKHbaeBFg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F06%2F10%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fmarco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html&usg=AFQjCNHlte0PrdXpw3mnA9rhIRfgUeOtYQ
During the debate they said he became a millionaire from his book, makes a lot of money as a senator, and still had to take money out of his retirement account prematurely..... Even having to pay a lot of taxes and an early withdrawal fee on that money. He definitely doesn't sound like a mustachian and I'm not sure he should be the one suggesting budgets to congress. If someone can handle a budget for 1 household, how can we expect them to recommend one to congress for our entire nation? But alas, the public ate up his "it's hard to live off of $150,000, so it must be very hard to live off $40,000."

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #235 on: October 29, 2015, 07:39:09 PM »
I think Rubio might be too young but he is a master of debate. His performance appeared off the cuff and I think he could shut people up on the spot during critical times just the way a true leader should. I knew nothing of him or Cruz going into this but I won't forget them now.

I like Paul. I think he is always willing to address the issues that need to be addressed. I'm not sure he can man handle congress. So while he will always have my respect and certainly deserves to be in government I think his chances of winning this one are small. He shouldn't give up though. His problem is he is right but has no major appeal to any one group. Who will carry the torch for him?

Single moms and the conditions of the lower middle class are very real. The top end is usually out of touch with this. When it comes to votes the mean makes $28,000. They have been being robbed from medical premiums, Obama Care, gas prices, food prices from eggs to beef, and most importantly a decrease of full time jobs and an increase of part time jobs that require you to be always available, and no real pay raises. My state department hasn't seen a pay raise in 8 years. It doesn't even give you 2% for inflation. Nothing. Because more people are looking for jobs attractive benifits are disappearing. Rubio and Cruz appear to understand this and it will take them far

What I got out of left field. I don't watch normal news

Fiorina-- champion of small business
Christie-- champion of police and anticorruption
Paul-- fiscal responsibly and small government
Carson-- not clear by this debate but flat taxes seem to benefit the rich. Anti political correctness, working together?
Rubio-- champion of the struggling family
Cruz-- champion of single moms, the fatherless, and the poor-- demands to be heard and effectively does it
Bush-- more of the same, Im not sure he will get past his name
Huckabee-- champion for seniors
Katich-- I have been doing my job. Evaded questions and pushed agenda. Seemed desperate despite his competence
Trump-- Im successful. I can do it. Starting to raise a real arrogant air, but I think he needs to be himself. Anything less robs his potency

« Last Edit: October 29, 2015, 08:47:14 PM by mrpercentage »

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #236 on: October 30, 2015, 12:42:21 AM »
I think Rubio might be too young but he is a master of debate. His performance appeared off the cuff and I think he could shut people up on the spot during critical times just the way a true leader should. I knew nothing of him or Cruz going into this but I won't forget them now.

I like Paul. I think he is always willing to address the issues that need to be addressed. I'm not sure he can man handle congress. So while he will always have my respect and certainly deserves to be in government I think his chances of winning this one are small. He shouldn't give up though. His problem is he is right but has no major appeal to any one group. Who will carry the torch for him?

Single moms and the conditions of the lower middle class are very real. The top end is usually out of touch with this. When it comes to votes the mean makes $28,000. They have been being robbed from medical premiums, Obama Care, gas prices, food prices from eggs to beef, and most importantly a decrease of full time jobs and an increase of part time jobs that require you to be always available, and no real pay raises. My state department hasn't seen a pay raise in 8 years. It doesn't even give you 2% for inflation. Nothing. Because more people are looking for jobs attractive benifits are disappearing. Rubio and Cruz appear to understand this and it will take them far

What I got out of left field. I don't watch normal news

Fiorina-- champion of small business
Christie-- champion of police and anticorruption
Paul-- fiscal responsibly and small government
Carson-- not clear by this debate but flat taxes seem to benefit the rich. Anti political correctness, working together?
Rubio-- champion of the struggling family
Cruz-- champion of single moms, the fatherless, and the poor-- demands to be heard and effectively does it
Bush-- more of the same, Im not sure he will get past his name
Huckabee-- champion for seniors
Katich-- I have been doing my job. Evaded questions and pushed agenda. Seemed desperate despite his competence
Trump-- Im successful. I can do it. Starting to raise a real arrogant air, but I think he needs to be himself. Anything less robs his potency

I'm not sure I follow the 28k mean earnings comment. I think US median household income is 54k, or some such thing right about 50k. The mean will always tend higher than median. Are you saying that poorer people are (far) more likely to vote?

Your descriptions of my favorite three (Rubio, Cruz, Paul, in no particular order) seem pretty accurate. And I think you'd have to say Trump has had his arrogant air the whole time.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #237 on: October 30, 2015, 06:41:15 AM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.    Hard to imagine what the debt will be in 15 more years?  100 Trillion?

Well, in the last 15 years, we had major tax cuts, medicare expansion, 9/11, two recessions (one so bad it has been dubbed the Great Recession) and two wars that have lasted longer than any other wars in U.S. history. In that time the debt went from around 5 trillion to 18 trillion, which is an increase of 360%.

If we had the exact same set of circumstances in the next 15 years, one might expect the debt to increase by the same amount. 18 trillion X 360% = 64.8 trillion.

I'm not sure exactly what would need to happen to force the debt to 100 trillion. In my mind, then the worse case scenario is that we repeat the last 15 years and end up with 64.8 trillion in debt. The best case scenario is that we find ourselves in another era like the 90's in which relative peace and prosperity with modest tax increases and limits in the growth of spending causes the debt to cease to be a concern. More likely is that we will find ourselves somewhere in the middle, with the debt increasing but at a more modest rate, perhaps somewhere between 35-50 trillion.

Later Addition

Rather than continue to side rail this thread, I have started a new post to discuss the National Debt.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/us-national-debt-some-real-numbers/
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 07:39:59 AM by dramaman »

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #238 on: October 30, 2015, 08:35:18 AM »

I'm not sure I follow the 28k mean earnings comment. I think US median household income is 54k, or some such thing right about 50k. The mean will always tend higher than median. Are you saying that poorer people are (far) more likely to vote?

Your descriptions of my favorite three (Rubio, Cruz, Paul, in no particular order) seem pretty accurate. And I think you'd have to say Trump has had his arrogant air the whole time.
Per Capita. A household includes two parents working. There are not many stay at home moms anymore. So that $54,000 would be more like 27-28. Scroll down to the bottom. We are actually going down while prices go up. But according to social security there is no inflation.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/us/#family

Oh and I forgot to add-- I am saying there is much more poor. There is much more lower middle class. They have the numbers and always will and if they have a champion they will come out and vote for them. They are usually ignored.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 08:40:01 AM by mrpercentage »

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #239 on: October 30, 2015, 10:26:54 AM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.    Hard to imagine what the debt will be in 15 more years?  100 Trillion?

Well, in the last 15 years, we had major tax cuts, medicare expansion, 9/11, two recessions (one so bad it has been dubbed the Great Recession) and two wars that have lasted longer than any other wars in U.S. history. In that time the debt went from around 5 trillion to 18 trillion, which is an increase of 360%.

If we had the exact same set of circumstances in the next 15 years, one might expect the debt to increase by the same amount. 18 trillion X 360% = 64.8 trillion.

I'm not sure exactly what would need to happen to force the debt to 100 trillion. In my mind, then the worse case scenario is that we repeat the last 15 years and end up with 64.8 trillion in debt. The best case scenario is that we find ourselves in another era like the 90's in which relative peace and prosperity with modest tax increases and limits in the growth of spending causes the debt to cease to be a concern. More likely is that we will find ourselves somewhere in the middle, with the debt increasing but at a more modest rate, perhaps somewhere between 35-50 trillion.

Later Addition

Rather than continue to side rail this thread, I have started a new post to discuss the National Debt.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/us-national-debt-some-real-numbers/

Thanks for that

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #240 on: October 30, 2015, 10:56:20 AM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.    Hard to imagine what the debt will be in 15 more years?  100 Trillion?

Well, in the last 15 years, we had major tax cuts, medicare expansion, 9/11, two recessions (one so bad it has been dubbed the Great Recession) and two wars that have lasted longer than any other wars in U.S. history. In that time the debt went from around 5 trillion to 18 trillion, which is an increase of 360%.

If we had the exact same set of circumstances in the next 15 years, one might expect the debt to increase by the same amount. 18 trillion X 360% = 64.8 trillion.

I'm not sure exactly what would need to happen to force the debt to 100 trillion. In my mind, then the worse case scenario is that we repeat the last 15 years and end up with 64.8 trillion in debt. The best case scenario is that we find ourselves in another era like the 90's in which relative peace and prosperity with modest tax increases and limits in the growth of spending causes the debt to cease to be a concern. More likely is that we will find ourselves somewhere in the middle, with the debt increasing but at a more modest rate, perhaps somewhere between 35-50 trillion.

Later Addition

Rather than continue to side rail this thread, I have started a new post to discuss the National Debt.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/us-national-debt-some-real-numbers/
Pretty sure they haven't lasted longer than the cold war did...

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #241 on: October 30, 2015, 01:22:59 PM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.    Hard to imagine what the debt will be in 15 more years?  100 Trillion?

Well, in the last 15 years, we had major tax cuts, medicare expansion, 9/11, two recessions (one so bad it has been dubbed the Great Recession) and two wars that have lasted longer than any other wars in U.S. history. In that time the debt went from around 5 trillion to 18 trillion, which is an increase of 360%.

If we had the exact same set of circumstances in the next 15 years, one might expect the debt to increase by the same amount. 18 trillion X 360% = 64.8 trillion.

I'm not sure exactly what would need to happen to force the debt to 100 trillion. In my mind, then the worse case scenario is that we repeat the last 15 years and end up with 64.8 trillion in debt. The best case scenario is that we find ourselves in another era like the 90's in which relative peace and prosperity with modest tax increases and limits in the growth of spending causes the debt to cease to be a concern. More likely is that we will find ourselves somewhere in the middle, with the debt increasing but at a more modest rate, perhaps somewhere between 35-50 trillion.

Later Addition

Rather than continue to side rail this thread, I have started a new post to discuss the National Debt.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/us-national-debt-some-real-numbers/
Pretty sure they haven't lasted longer than the cold war did...

That wasn't an actual war.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #242 on: October 30, 2015, 01:39:13 PM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.    Hard to imagine what the debt will be in 15 more years?  100 Trillion?

Well, in the last 15 years, we had major tax cuts, medicare expansion, 9/11, two recessions (one so bad it has been dubbed the Great Recession) and two wars that have lasted longer than any other wars in U.S. history. In that time the debt went from around 5 trillion to 18 trillion, which is an increase of 360%.

If we had the exact same set of circumstances in the next 15 years, one might expect the debt to increase by the same amount. 18 trillion X 360% = 64.8 trillion.

I'm not sure exactly what would need to happen to force the debt to 100 trillion. In my mind, then the worse case scenario is that we repeat the last 15 years and end up with 64.8 trillion in debt. The best case scenario is that we find ourselves in another era like the 90's in which relative peace and prosperity with modest tax increases and limits in the growth of spending causes the debt to cease to be a concern. More likely is that we will find ourselves somewhere in the middle, with the debt increasing but at a more modest rate, perhaps somewhere between 35-50 trillion.

Later Addition

Rather than continue to side rail this thread, I have started a new post to discuss the National Debt.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/us-national-debt-some-real-numbers/
Pretty sure they haven't lasted longer than the cold war did...

That wasn't an actual war.
Well how about the Vietnam War

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #243 on: October 30, 2015, 02:36:11 PM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.    Hard to imagine what the debt will be in 15 more years?  100 Trillion?

Well, in the last 15 years, we had major tax cuts, medicare expansion, 9/11, two recessions (one so bad it has been dubbed the Great Recession) and two wars that have lasted longer than any other wars in U.S. history. In that time the debt went from around 5 trillion to 18 trillion, which is an increase of 360%.

If we had the exact same set of circumstances in the next 15 years, one might expect the debt to increase by the same amount. 18 trillion X 360% = 64.8 trillion.

I'm not sure exactly what would need to happen to force the debt to 100 trillion. In my mind, then the worse case scenario is that we repeat the last 15 years and end up with 64.8 trillion in debt. The best case scenario is that we find ourselves in another era like the 90's in which relative peace and prosperity with modest tax increases and limits in the growth of spending causes the debt to cease to be a concern. More likely is that we will find ourselves somewhere in the middle, with the debt increasing but at a more modest rate, perhaps somewhere between 35-50 trillion.

Later Addition

Rather than continue to side rail this thread, I have started a new post to discuss the National Debt.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/us-national-debt-some-real-numbers/
Pretty sure they haven't lasted longer than the cold war did...

That wasn't an actual war.
Well how about the Vietnam War

Yes, the Vietnam War was longer. My bad. According to Wikipedia it lasted 17 years, while the Afghan War, which is still going on is currently at 14 years, while the Iraq War ended after 8 years.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #244 on: October 30, 2015, 02:37:39 PM »
Some of us may remember pre Bush 2 when we were in the black and the CBO actually projected we would be out of debt by now.   That was 15 years ago.    Hard to imagine what the debt will be in 15 more years?  100 Trillion?

Well, in the last 15 years, we had major tax cuts, medicare expansion, 9/11, two recessions (one so bad it has been dubbed the Great Recession) and two wars that have lasted longer than any other wars in U.S. history. In that time the debt went from around 5 trillion to 18 trillion, which is an increase of 360%.

If we had the exact same set of circumstances in the next 15 years, one might expect the debt to increase by the same amount. 18 trillion X 360% = 64.8 trillion.

I'm not sure exactly what would need to happen to force the debt to 100 trillion. In my mind, then the worse case scenario is that we repeat the last 15 years and end up with 64.8 trillion in debt. The best case scenario is that we find ourselves in another era like the 90's in which relative peace and prosperity with modest tax increases and limits in the growth of spending causes the debt to cease to be a concern. More likely is that we will find ourselves somewhere in the middle, with the debt increasing but at a more modest rate, perhaps somewhere between 35-50 trillion.

Later Addition

Rather than continue to side rail this thread, I have started a new post to discuss the National Debt.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/us-national-debt-some-real-numbers/
Pretty sure they haven't lasted longer than the cold war did...

That wasn't an actual war.
Well how about the Vietnam War

Yes, the Vietnam War was longer. My bad. According to Wikipedia it lasted 17 years, while the Afghan War, which is still going on is currently at 14 years, while the Iraq War ended after 8 years.
The revolutionary war was also 8 years, which was the longest war until the vietnam war.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #245 on: October 30, 2015, 03:02:16 PM »
Yes, the Vietnam War was longer. My bad. According to Wikipedia it lasted 17 years, while the Afghan War, which is still going on is currently at 14 years, while the Iraq War ended after 8 years.
The revolutionary war was also 8 years, which was the longest war until the vietnam war.

Yeah, funny, when I studied the revolutionary war growing up, I never reflected upon how long it was -- twice the length of WWII. In retrospect, it makes sense. The U.S. basically gained its independence by not giving up and eventually the Brits tired of the whole thing.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #246 on: October 30, 2015, 03:51:58 PM »
Yes, the Vietnam War was longer. My bad. According to Wikipedia it lasted 17 years, while the Afghan War, which is still going on is currently at 14 years, while the Iraq War ended after 8 years.
The revolutionary war was also 8 years, which was the longest war until the vietnam war.

Yeah, funny, when I studied the revolutionary war growing up, I never reflected upon how long it was -- twice the length of WWII. In retrospect, it makes sense. The U.S. basically gained its independence by not giving up and eventually the Brits tired of the whole thing.
The 2nd deadliest war after the civil war(in terms of percentage of population). The French helping them is definitely a large reason they won too, it's still crazy that we won, as we were not a United Nation when we fought, we were a bunch of individual states that didn't agree on things very often, they didn't supply the army with enough money or supplies and our army had tons of soldiers rebelling against no pay, no supplies, and often abandoning.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #247 on: November 05, 2015, 02:01:24 PM »
Kinda back on topic ---  (about 87 days till the Iowa primary)

The elections of Tuesday, while small, could be an indicator of the future.

Kentucky elected a Republican Tea Party outsider newcomer businessman vs. a former Dem Governor.    The day before the polls had the dem winning by a large margin but the result was a large margin for the Tea Party guy.

  Ohio shot down legal weed and Texas (Huston?) voted for sane sexual identity laws. 

This apparently shows a willingness of voters to continue moving right over the last 5-8 years.   The vast majority of states, cities, counties and both federal houses  are now Republican controlled. 

State houses are now 68 out of 98 Republican.  For reference that number would be considered a huge landslide and mandate if applied to the presidential election.  70/30

Bernie is pretty much toast, (sorry all you Feel the Bern voters here) so one must assume that the much hated HRC will be the Dem candidate.      Pretty sure Bill will vote for her reluctantly.   No need to show me polls on this.   In fact,  Hillary will be the poster child for the Republican get out the vote campaign.  Pretty much any Republican or even a zombie off  the Walking Dead will beat her.


Don't be too shocked that Trump continues to hold a lead in Republican polls at 26,  Carson - 23,  Rubio - 11,  Cruz - 11.  (as of 11/5 Fox poll of likely Republican voters)  The rest are non finishers.  Poor Jeb is lucky to crack 4%. 

It looks like Trump has an 80%+ shot at the primary victory at this point.   It is hard to imagine a path to primary victory for Carson.   He may poll well but at lever pulling time I don't see it.    I love the recent story of him believing that the pyramids were built for grain storage based on biblical interpretation.   It may well be true --- but it just sounds off.   Plus Ben makes around 30 Million per year in books sales and speaking engagements and I don't think he really wants to give that gravy train up. 

Trump's  potential running mate from the primary field would be Cruz.   Hilary will never pick an alpha running mate.   So you are basically looking at two alphas vs. two betas.   (yes it really is that simple)    So at this point it is 75% likelihood Trump will win the General Election.   Based on the way the wind is blowing,  I would guess he will have very long coat tails as well. 

Oh yeah and don't forget to watch the highest rated Saturday Night Live in a decade this weekend! 


 

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #248 on: November 05, 2015, 03:17:01 PM »
Kinda back on topic ---  (about 87 days till the Iowa primary)

The elections of Tuesday, while small, could be an indicator of the future.

Kentucky elected a Republican Tea Party outsider newcomer businessman vs. a former Dem Governor.    The day before the polls had the dem winning by a large margin but the result was a large margin for the Tea Party guy.

  Ohio shot down legal weed and Texas (Huston?) voted for sane sexual identity laws. 

This apparently shows a willingness of voters to continue moving right over the last 5-8 years.   The vast majority of states, cities, counties and both federal houses  are now Republican controlled. 

State houses are now 68 out of 98 Republican.  For reference that number would be considered a huge landslide and mandate if applied to the presidential election.  70/30

Bernie is pretty much toast, (sorry all you Feel the Bern voters here) so one must assume that the much hated HRC will be the Dem candidate.      Pretty sure Bill will vote for her reluctantly.   No need to show me polls on this.   In fact,  Hillary will be the poster child for the Republican get out the vote campaign.  Pretty much any Republican or even a zombie off  the Walking Dead will beat her.


Don't be too shocked that Trump continues to hold a lead in Republican polls at 26,  Carson - 23,  Rubio - 11,  Cruz - 11.  (as of 11/5 Fox poll of likely Republican voters)  The rest are non finishers.  Poor Jeb is lucky to crack 4%. 

It looks like Trump has an 80%+ shot at the primary victory at this point.   It is hard to imagine a path to primary victory for Carson.   He may poll well but at lever pulling time I don't see it.    I love the recent story of him believing that the pyramids were built for grain storage based on biblical interpretation.   It may well be true --- but it just sounds off.   Plus Ben makes around 30 Million per year in books sales and speaking engagements and I don't think he really wants to give that gravy train up. 

Trump's  potential running mate from the primary field would be Cruz.   Hilary will never pick an alpha running mate.   So you are basically looking at two alphas vs. two betas.   (yes it really is that simple)    So at this point it is 75% likelihood Trump will win the General Election.   Based on the way the wind is blowing,  I would guess he will have very long coat tails as well. 

Oh yeah and don't forget to watch the highest rated Saturday Night Live in a decade this weekend!
75% chance Trump will be president? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: 2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)
« Reply #249 on: November 05, 2015, 03:25:31 PM »
The elections of Tuesday, while small, could be an indicator of the future.

Last Tuesday just reemphasizes that turnout will be key next year. Every year the demographics favor the Democrats more and more, such that the best chance the GOP has for winning is if fewer, but more passionate voters come to the polls. That's why the Republicans continue to push policies limiting access to vote.

Trump's  potential running mate from the primary field would be Cruz.   Hilary will never pick an alpha running mate.   So you are basically looking at two alphas vs. two betas.   (yes it really is that simple)    So at this point it is 75% likelihood Trump will win the General Election.   Based on the way the wind is blowing,  I would guess he will have very long coat tails as well.

Me thinks you are counting your chickens a bit early, considering your hen hasn't even laid an egg yet. And I'm not sure why you think Hillary is a beta. She has proven that she can be tough as nails. Considering how Trump backed off of Fiorina when she stood up to him, I wouldn't bet on his rude alpha-dog shtick being any more successful against Hillary. Remember, this is a woman who has been married to Bill for 40 years and a target of conservative vitriol since the 90's. I seriously doubt anything Trump could say would rattle her.