Who Does Everyone Here Support For President and Why?

[onlykelsey]

Even if you argue some deficits are good, isn't it at least a possibility that the size of the deficits we are running now is bad?

Agree that the size right now is a bit worrying. or at least the projected growth of it on an aging population base.  No huge increases for next 8 years or so, but projections after that have it growing a bit quickly for my tastes. 

[hedgefund10]

Even if you argue some deficits are good, isn't it at least a possibility that the size of the deficits we are running now is bad?

Agree that the size right now is a bit worrying. or at least the projected growth of it on an aging population base.  No huge increases for next 8 years or so, but projections after that have it growing a bit quickly for my tastes.

Wait until the baby boomers retire....Who is going to pay for them?

[Kris]

[quote author=hedgefund10 link=topic=52627.msg1018521#msg1018521

I know you don't have extensive training in economics because a) you have demonstrated that you don't have a grasp of basic macroeconomics.  And because if you did, I am assuming you would have listed thst in your list of degrees that were supposed to show that you had a background in economics.

Re the link I posted, website graphics evolve. The link is from the University of Missouri, and the article is by a professor of Economics.  Here is his bio. You are dodging the question. Predictably.

http://www.cfeps.org/people/wraylr/

Kris - Not an economist here.  Quickly read the link.  Even if you argue some deficits are good, isn't it at least a possibility that the size of the deficits we are running now is bad?

Yes, that is a possibility, but that's not what I'm arguing here. I am/was arguing with Hedgehog's common misperception that a government budget is like a household budget, and the use of that fallacy to argue that deficits are therefore bad.

[JLee]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

1) You are dodging the question.
2) Unless you'd like a flood of grammar police descending on your every post, you may want to ease up on the insults.

Once again, my understanding of why you support Trump is reinforced. Faced with a question, you resort to blathering and insults.

What is the question? You think I'm scared of the grammar police on the internet. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Nah, it takes a lot to scare me. Once you've been real police, grammar police is just something to do when you're bored.  A Trump presidency is right up there, though.

The question is included in the quotes above.

[onlykelsey]

Even if you argue some deficits are good, isn't it at least a possibility that the size of the deficits we are running now is bad?

Agree that the size right now is a bit worrying. or at least the projected growth of it on an aging population base.  No huge increases for next 8 years or so, but projections after that have it growing a bit quickly for my tastes.

Wait until the baby boomers retire....Who is going to pay for them?

I think we've already seen the worst of that.  Baby boomers were born 46-62, right?  All but the youngest have retired for SS purposes.  OF course there are additional state budget outlays, I suppose.

[Jack]

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

...

Re the link I posted, website graphics evolve. The link is from the University of Missouri, and the article is by a professor of Economics.  Here is his bio. You are dodging the question. Predictably.

http://www.cfeps.org/people/wraylr/

Wow, discounting a scholarly article because the web page it's on isn't "Web-2.0" enough? hedgefund10, your 26-year-old ass is the kind of stereotypical "millennial" that gives the rest of us a bad reputation. Knock it off!

(If you had any damn sense at all, you'd realize that flashy websites are negatively correlated with useful information!)

[Kris]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

I know you don't have extensive training in economics because a) you have demonstrated that you don't have a grasp of basic macroeconomics.  And b) because if you did, I am assuming you would have listed that in your list of degrees that were supposed to show that you had a background in economics.

Re the link I posted, website graphics evolve. The link is from the University of Missouri, and the article is by a professor of Economics.  Here is his bio. You are dodging the question. Predictably.

http://www.cfeps.org/people/wraylr/

You are the dodger, keep living in your bubble world of spend spend spend. It will eventually come back to bite you.

Uh huh.

Not a particularly convincing argument, Hedge.  To the casual observer, it would be easy to assume that you don't really have a good response, so instead you resort to insults.

By the way, in my world I am saving about 55% of my income. So yeah, not really spending in a way that will come back to bite me. 

But then again, that's also because I understand that a household budget is not like a government's budget.

[hedgefund10]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

I know you don't have extensive training in economics because a) you have demonstrated that you don't have a grasp of basic macroeconomics.  And because if you did, I am assuming you would have listed thst in your list of degrees that were supposed to show that you had a background in economics.

Re the link I posted, website graphics evolve. The link is from the University of Missouri, and the article is by a professor of Economics.  Here is his bio. You are dodging the question. Predictably.

http://www.cfeps.org/people/wraylr/

You are the dodger, keep living in your bubble world of spend spend spend. It will eventually come back to bite you.

Uh huh.

Not a particularly convincing argument, Hedge.  To the casual observer, it would be easy to assume that you don't really have a good response, so instead you resort to insults.

By the way, in my world I am saving about 55% of my income. So yeah, not really spending in a way that will come back to bite me. 

But then again, that's also brcause I understand that a husehold budget is not like a government's budget.

It's clear that you just want to spend spend spend, because as long as you get your SS benefits and free healthcare, the hell with my generation.

[hedgefund10]

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

...

Re the link I posted, website graphics evolve. The link is from the University of Missouri, and the article is by a professor of Economics.  Here is his bio. You are dodging the question. Predictably.

http://www.cfeps.org/people/wraylr/

Wow, discounting a scholarly article because the web page it's on isn't "Web-2.0" enough? hedgefund10, your 26-year-old ass is the kind of stereotypical "millennial" that gives the rest of us a bad reputation. Knock it off!

(If you had any damn sense at all, you'd realize that flashy websites are negatively correlated with useful information!)

I thought the stereotype was that millennials were lazy? How can i fuel that stereotype when I worked 90 hours last week?

[hedgefund10]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

1) You are dodging the question.
2) Unless you'd like a flood of grammar police descending on your every post, you may want to ease up on the insults.

Once again, my understanding of why you support Trump is reinforced. Faced with a question, you resort to blathering and insults.

What is the question? You think I'm scared of the grammar police on the internet. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Nah, it takes a lot to scare me. Once you've been real police, grammar police is just something to do when you're bored.  A Trump presidency is right up there, though.

The question is included in the quotes above.

I DON'T KNOW HER TRAINING, SHE REFUSES TO SAY. ASK HER

[Kris]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

I know you don't have extensive training in economics because a) you have demonstrated that you don't have a grasp of basic macroeconomics.  And because if you did, I am assuming you would have listed thst in your list of degrees that were supposed to show that you had a background in economics.

Re the link I posted, website graphics evolve. The link is from the University of Missouri, and the article is by a professor of Economics.  Here is his bio. You are dodging the question. Predictably.

http://www.cfeps.org/people/wraylr/

You are the dodger, keep living in your bubble world of spend spend spend. It will eventually come back to bite you.

Uh huh.

Not a particularly convincing argument, Hedge.  To the casual observer, it would be easy to assume that you don't really have a good response, so instead you resort to insults.

By the way, in my world I am saving about 55% of my income. So yeah, not really spending in a way that will come back to bite me. 

But then again, that's also brcause I understand that a husehold budget is not like a government's budget.

It's clear that you just want to spend spend spend, because as long as you get your SS benefits and free healthcare, the hell with my generation.

Uh huh.

Now you're just trying to move the discussion in another direction to avoid admitting that you either didn't bother to read the article, or you did but don't want to talk about it because it proves you are wrong.

My SS benefit is a negligible part of my retirement package. But I paid into it, so I will be entitled to take out of it. And I don't have free health care. Plus when I retire I will be put of the country, so I won't be using US health care at all, most likely.

If you're concerned about your generation when you get old, then you should support politicians who strengthen the social safety net for seniors, by the way. 

[JLee]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

1) You are dodging the question.
2) Unless you'd like a flood of grammar police descending on your every post, you may want to ease up on the insults.

Once again, my understanding of why you support Trump is reinforced. Faced with a question, you resort to blathering and insults.

What is the question? You think I'm scared of the grammar police on the internet. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Nah, it takes a lot to scare me. Once you've been real police, grammar police is just something to do when you're bored.  A Trump presidency is right up there, though.

The question is included in the quotes above.

I DON'T KNOW HER TRAINING, SHE REFUSES TO SAY. ASK HER

This is pretty damn funny.

[hedgefund10]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

I know you don't have extensive training in economics because a) you have demonstrated that you don't have a grasp of basic macroeconomics.  And because if you did, I am assuming you would have listed thst in your list of degrees that were supposed to show that you had a background in economics.

Re the link I posted, website graphics evolve. The link is from the University of Missouri, and the article is by a professor of Economics.  Here is his bio. You are dodging the question. Predictably.

http://www.cfeps.org/people/wraylr/

You are the dodger, keep living in your bubble world of spend spend spend. It will eventually come back to bite you.

Uh huh.

Not a particularly convincing argument, Hedge.  To the casual observer, it would be easy to assume that you don't really have a good response, so instead you resort to insults.

By the way, in my world I am saving about 55% of my income. So yeah, not really spending in a way that will come back to bite me. 

But then again, that's also brcause I understand that a husehold budget is not like a government's budget.

It's clear that you just want to spend spend spend, because as long as you get your SS benefits and free healthcare, the hell with my generation.

Uh huh.

Now you're just trying to move the discussion in another direction to avoid admitting that you either didn't bother to read the article, or you did but don't want to talk about it because it proves you are wrong.

My SS benefit is a negligible part of my retirement package. But I paid into it, so I will be entitled to take out of it. And I don't have free health care. Plus when I retire I will be put of the country, so I won't be using US health care at all, most likely.

If you're concerned about your generation when you get old, then you should support politicians who strengthen the social safety net for seniors, by the way.

You want to deficit spend, SS is deficit spend. I want to opt out of it all together.

[Kris]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

1) You are dodging the question.
2) Unless you'd like a flood of grammar police descending on your every post, you may want to ease up on the insults.

Once again, my understanding of why you support Trump is reinforced. Faced with a question, you resort to blathering and insults.

What is the question? You think I'm scared of the grammar police on the internet. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Nah, it takes a lot to scare me. Once you've been real police, grammar police is just something to do when you're bored.  A Trump presidency is right up there, though.

The question is included in the quotes above.

I DON'T KNOW HER TRAINING, SHE REFUSES TO SAY. ASK HER

Yes, you do. You said so right there. 

Waiting...

[hedgefund10]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

1) You are dodging the question.
2) Unless you'd like a flood of grammar police descending on your every post, you may want to ease up on the insults.

Once again, my understanding of why you support Trump is reinforced. Faced with a question, you resort to blathering and insults.

What is the question? You think I'm scared of the grammar police on the internet. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Nah, it takes a lot to scare me. Once you've been real police, grammar police is just something to do when you're bored.  A Trump presidency is right up there, though.

The question is included in the quotes above.

I DON'T KNOW HER TRAINING, SHE REFUSES TO SAY. ASK HER

This is pretty damn funny.

TRAINING IS LESS THAN MINE, YOU WANT SPECIFICS ASK HER

[hedgefund10]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

1) You are dodging the question.
2) Unless you'd like a flood of grammar police descending on your every post, you may want to ease up on the insults.

Once again, my understanding of why you support Trump is reinforced. Faced with a question, you resort to blathering and insults.

What is the question? You think I'm scared of the grammar police on the internet. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Nah, it takes a lot to scare me. Once you've been real police, grammar police is just something to do when you're bored.  A Trump presidency is right up there, though.

The question is included in the quotes above.

I DON'T KNOW HER TRAINING, SHE REFUSES TO SAY. ASK HER

Yes, you do. You said so right there. 

Waiting...

TRAINING IS LESS THAN MINE. THAT'S YOUR TRAINING. DON'T COME AT THE KING AGAIN

[MoonShadow]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

1) You are dodging the question.
2) Unless you'd like a flood of grammar police descending on your every post, you may want to ease up on the insults.

Once again, my understanding of why you support Trump is reinforced. Faced with a question, you resort to blathering and insults.

What is the question? You think I'm scared of the grammar police on the internet. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Nah, it takes a lot to scare me. Once you've been real police, grammar police is just something to do when you're bored.  A Trump presidency is right up there, though.

The question is included in the quotes above.

I DON'T KNOW HER TRAINING, SHE REFUSES TO SAY. ASK HER

This is pretty damn funny.

Wow.  This is quite the dismal science fight, and I didn't even get an invitation.

[JLee]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

1) You are dodging the question.
2) Unless you'd like a flood of grammar police descending on your every post, you may want to ease up on the insults.

Once again, my understanding of why you support Trump is reinforced. Faced with a question, you resort to blathering and insults.

What is the question? You think I'm scared of the grammar police on the internet. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Nah, it takes a lot to scare me. Once you've been real police, grammar police is just something to do when you're bored.  A Trump presidency is right up there, though.

The question is included in the quotes above.

I DON'T KNOW HER TRAINING, SHE REFUSES TO SAY. ASK HER

This is pretty damn funny.

Wow.  This is quite the dismal science fight, and I didn't even get an invitation.

Sorry dude. Next time you're in NYC, hit me up and I'll buy you a drink or something.

It just gets better... :D

[Jack]

I thought the stereotype was that millennials were lazy? How can i fuel that stereotype when I worked 90 hours last week?

There are many stereotypes. As far as your work habits go, instead of fitting the millennial stereotype you fit the generic young worker stereotype of being a chump who's too inexperienced to tell when his employer is taking advantage of him. That doesn't mean there can't exist other millennial stereotypes that you do fit.

However, I take it back -- your reasoning is defective in a wide variety of ways that transcend our generation!

Also, at this point you're just being a condescending prick, which is doubly obnoxious given how comprehensively wrong you are. You're embarrassing yourself and don't even realize it. Fuck off before you make it worse.

[Kris]

That sounds a lot like I GUARANTEE we're going to be winners.

I'm genuinely curious, hedgefund10, Kris, whoever else, what IS your economics training?  I'm a lawyer who works with alternative investment funds, but my own economics training just took me through micro, macro, stats, 5 taxation courses (in law school), and a brutal attempt at econometrics (post Calc I-III, linear algebra, and diff eq).  Definitely not an economist, but relatively well versed.

-B.A. Finance
-B.S. Accounting
-M.S. Accounting
-CMA
-CPA
-Work in Public Accounting
-Thinking about taking the CFA, but not sure if I want to invest the time.

Huh.  How did you get that far not understanding the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics sufficiently to not understand how a government's budget is not like a household's budget?

Also, how do you know what my training is?  Have you been stalking me?  Or are you just assuming?

Maybe I got this far by understanding that a budget is a budget and if you overspend you run out of money. It really is that simple.

I know what your training is just by the stuff you are saying here.

Really? What is my training, then?

And no, it really isn't that simple.  I see no "economics" degree in your list, which I suppose explains why you think it is.

I posted this link for you above, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0601.htm

This is an explanation by an actual economist who explains the error you are making.  I highly recommend reading it.

So how do you know I haven't extensive training in economics? Sorry, that site looks like a 3rd grader made it. And the first time you posted the link it didn't work, I didn't want to call you out, but since you wanted to act like a jerk, with the comment above. Learn how to hyperlink.

I know you don't have extensive training in economics because a) you have demonstrated that you don't have a grasp of basic macroeconomics.  And because if you did, I am assuming you would have listed thst in your list of degrees that were supposed to show that you had a background in economics.

Re the link I posted, website graphics evolve. The link is from the University of Missouri, and the article is by a professor of Economics.  Here is his bio. You are dodging the question. Predictably.

http://www.cfeps.org/people/wraylr/

You are the dodger, keep living in your bubble world of spend spend spend. It will eventually come back to bite you.

Uh huh.

Not a particularly convincing argument, Hedge.  To the casual observer, it would be easy to assume that you don't really have a good response, so instead you resort to insults.

By the way, in my world I am saving about 55% of my income. So yeah, not really spending in a way that will come back to bite me. 

But then again, that's also brcause I understand that a husehold budget is not like a government's budget.

It's clear that you just want to spend spend spend, because as long as you get your SS benefits and free healthcare, the hell with my generation.

Uh huh.

Now you're just trying to move the discussion in another direction to avoid admitting that you either didn't bother to read the article, or you did but don't want to talk about it because it proves you are wrong.

My SS benefit is a negligible part of my retirement package. But I paid into it, so I will be entitled to take out of it. And I don't have free health care. Plus when I retire I will be put of the country, so I won't be using US health care at all, most likely.

If you're concerned about your generation when you get old, then you should support politicians who strengthen the social safety net for seniors, by the way.

You want to deficit spend, SS is deficit spend. I want to opt out of it all together.

Well, Hedge, this is your lucky day.  You can opt out altogether. Get ordained online as a pastor, snd then it's a simple matter of filling out a form.

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/tax-tip-social-security-and-the-option-to-opt-out/

You're welcome.  Once you've done it, let us know how easy the process was.

[onlykelsey]

Okay, so, I've been nice, but hedge is being nothing but a jerk.  I am ashamed to be a fellow Philadelphian and millennial. 

Good talk, everyone else.

[MoonShadow]

You want to deficit spend, SS is deficit spend. I want to opt out of it all together.

Well, Hedge, this is your lucky day.  You can opt out altogether. Get ordained online as a pastor, snd then it's a simple matter of filling out a form.

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/tax-tip-social-security-and-the-option-to-opt-out/

You're welcome.  Once you've done it, let us know how easy the process was.

That only works for income from church work as a pastor.

[Kris]

You want to deficit spend, SS is deficit spend. I want to opt out of it all together.

Well, Hedge, this is your lucky day.  You can opt out altogether. Get ordained online as a pastor, snd then it's a simple matter of filling out a form.

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/tax-tip-social-security-and-the-option-to-opt-out/

You're welcome.  Once you've done it, let us know how easy the process was.

That only works for income from church work as a pastor.

Maybe he can start a new church that worships money and argue that hedge funding is a spiritual practice.

Alternately, he can become a Christian Scientist. The IRS regularly grants them exemptions, from what I understand.

[Pooperman]

Hedge has like 50 posts. The chances he's a troll are high. Don't feed trolls. Anyways, I took macro and micro in one semester. It happened to be Aug-Dec 2008. That was a better than average time to take intro economics.

As for the presidential question, of the major candidates, I would prefer Bernie's policies, and will vote for Clinton in November. I would actually vote for Jill Stein if that wasn't a throwaway vote. Yes, I'm a registered Green Party member.

[hedgefund10]

I thought the stereotype was that millennials were lazy? How can i fuel that stereotype when I worked 90 hours last week?

There are many stereotypes. As far as your work habits go, instead of fitting the millennial stereotype you fit the generic young worker stereotype of being a chump who's too inexperienced to tell when his employer is taking advantage of him. That doesn't mean there can't exist other millennial stereotypes that you do fit.

However, I take it back -- your reasoning is defective in a wide variety of ways that transcend our generation!

Also, at this point you're just being a condescending prick, which is doubly obnoxious given how comprehensively wrong you are. You're embarrassing yourself and don't even realize it. Fuck off before you make it worse.

Oh no you called me a chump. That's not nice. How is it gonna get worse? 

[hedgefund10]

You want to deficit spend, SS is deficit spend. I want to opt out of it all together.

Well, Hedge, this is your lucky day.  You can opt out altogether. Get ordained online as a pastor, snd then it's a simple matter of filling out a form.

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/tax-tip-social-security-and-the-option-to-opt-out/

You're welcome.  Once you've done it, let us know how easy the process was.

That only works for income from church work as a pastor.

Maybe he can start a new church that worships money and argue that hedge funding is a spiritual practice.

Alternately, he can become a Christian Scientist. The IRS regularly grants them exemptions, from what I understand.

Or maybe we can end the Ponzi scheme that is SS

[hedgefund10]

Okay, so, I've been nice, but hedge is being nothing but a jerk.  I am ashamed to be a fellow Philadelphian and millennial. 

Good talk, everyone else.

Philly is a dump. I'm ashamed to be from there. Kenneys new soda tax is big government at its finest

[justajane]

If the GOP had actually faced their demons in 2012, especially their stance on immigration, then maybe things would have been different in 2016. But they didn't. They doubled down.

Immigration and gay marriage, I would argue.  I think they'd get moderate pro-choicers if they changed that stance, but I understand that's probably not going to happen.  Immigration and gay marriage would have been a good start.

Yeah, possibly gay marriage as well. I don't really agree about the abortion thing, though, in large part because they would lose as many voters as they gained. Many of the voters I know who vote Republican vote so solely that way due to the abortion issue. They are the classic single issue voters, and if Republican candidates started distilling that message and they saw both parties as pro-choice, then who knows what they would do.

But moderating their stances on gay marriage and immigration reform would have been a win/win for them probably.

[MoonShadow]

My SS benefit is a negligible part of my retirement package. But I paid into it, so I will be entitled to take out of it. And I don't have free health care. 

I've got some bad news for you Kris.  The fact that you paid into it is irrelevant.  It was a tax, and those tax revenues were spent.  There is no SS fund, and no one owes you anything.  I have been saying for years, that about 2 years after enough Boomers die off that the Millennials can take over outright, the mathematics of the nature of SS as it exists will destroy it.  There might still be some kind of institution that we still call Social Security, but it's mathematically impossible for it to continue as is so that Millennials can expect a similar return on those payroll taxes, so they are as likely to destroy it outright as to try to fix it, if there is no opt-out option for them to exercise.

Trump has promised to save SS, but just like everything else so far, he is lying.

[Kris]

You want to deficit spend, SS is deficit spend. I want to opt out of it all together.

Well, Hedge, this is your lucky day.  You can opt out altogether. Get ordained online as a pastor, snd then it's a simple matter of filling out a form.

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/tax-tip-social-security-and-the-option-to-opt-out/

You're welcome.  Once you've done it, let us know how easy the process was.

That only works for income from church work as a pastor.

Maybe he can start a new church that worships money and argue that hedge funding is a spiritual practice.

Alternately, he can become a Christian Scientist. The IRS regularly grants them exemptions, from what I understand.

Or maybe we can end the Ponzi scheme that is SS

My goodness, we have been drinking the conservative talking point kool-aid, haven't we?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ponzi_Scheme_vs_Social_Security

And with that, I think I'm going to turn my attention away from this conversation and toward enjoying the beginning of the weekend with my husband. It's been fun, but arguing with someone who doesn't care whether he grasps basic concepts, and is insulting to people who try to help him educate himself, is only fun for so long.

[BlueMR2]

I finally did one of those things to find your candidate based on your stance.  Apparently I'm most compatible with Gary Johnson, whoever that is...  Bernie came in second for me, then a whole bunch of people that don't stand a chance, followed by Trump in second to last and Hillary all the way last.

Seems pretty accurate.  I've been feeling Bernie > Trump > Hillary for awhile now.

[hedgefund10]

You want to deficit spend, SS is deficit spend. I want to opt out of it all together.

Well, Hedge, this is your lucky day.  You can opt out altogether. Get ordained online as a pastor, snd then it's a simple matter of filling out a form.

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/tax-tip-social-security-and-the-option-to-opt-out/

You're welcome.  Once you've done it, let us know how easy the process was.

That only works for income from church work as a pastor.

Maybe he can start a new church that worships money and argue that hedge funding is a spiritual practice.

Alternately, he can become a Christian Scientist. The IRS regularly grants them exemptions, from what I understand.

Or maybe we can end the Ponzi scheme that is SS

My goodness, we have been drinking the conservative talking point kool-aid, haven't we?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ponzi_Scheme_vs_Social_Security

And with that, I think I'm going to turn my attention away from this conversation and toward enjoying the beginning of the weekend with my husband. It's been fun, but arguing with someone who doesn't care whether he grasps basic concepts, and is insulting to people who try to help him educate himself, is only fun for so long.

Just couldn't resist one more personal attack could you? That has been MO all along.

[MoonShadow]

I finally did one of those things to find your candidate based on your stance.  Apparently I'm most compatible with Gary Johnson, whoever that is...

Gary Johnson was the Libertarian nominee in 2012, and a former state governor.  He is likely to be the nominee again, if he is running again.  I voted for him in 2012, and will do so again.  Before him, I voted for Wayne Allen Root, IIRC.

In short, the quiz is telling you that you are a libertarian.

[Jack]

I finally did one of those things to find your candidate based on your stance.  Apparently I'm most compatible with Gary Johnson, whoever that is...

Gary Johnson was the Libertarian nominee in 2012, and a former state governor.  He is likely to be the nominee again, if he is running again.  I voted for him in 2012, and will do so again.  Before him, I voted for Wayne Allen Root, IIRC.

In short, the quiz is telling you that you are a libertarian.

Yeah, Gary Johnson isn't bad (give or take his support for insufficiently-progressive taxation). He'd probably be my second choice, behind Sanders.

[MoonShadow]

I just checked, and Gary Johnson is, indeed, running for the Lib Nom.  Along with 15 others.  Most people no one is likely to know, except John McAfee, the guy that founded the virus filter company by the same name.

[Cressida]

Saying something that contains elements of untruth is not the same as lying. Even saying something that's completely false is not the same as lying.

Ummmm.....what?!?!?!?!

I guess it depends on what your definition of lying is, is?

Now I understand how you are so staunch in your support of HRC.

Not that we're talking about this anymore, but, to set the record straight: Saying something false is not necessarily lying. You might be saying something false because your memory is faulty or because you don't understand the issue. When Ted Cruz says something like "lowering taxes on corporations leads to economic growth," I think he's delusional and wrong, but I don't think he's lying.

[MoonShadow]

Saying something that contains elements of untruth is not the same as lying. Even saying something that's completely false is not the same as lying.

Ummmm.....what?!?!?!?!

I guess it depends on what your definition of lying is, is?

Now I understand how you are so staunch in your support of HRC.

Not that we're talking about this anymore, but, to set the record straight: Saying something false is not necessarily lying. You might be saying something false because your memory is faulty or because you don't understand the issue. When Ted Cruz says something like "lowering taxes on corporations leads to economic growth," I think he's delusional and wrong, but I don't think he's lying.

I would agree, Cruz believes what he is saying.  I don't believe that Trump does, nor do I believe he even cares to be correct.  He just wants to win, and sadly, he will.

[LeRainDrop]

Okay, sorry for the double post (two different political threads on the MMM forum), but this clip is too hilarious to miss.  All of the audio really is Donald Trump at his campaign rallies/speeches, and as the comedians point out, he really does sound like a drunk guy rambling on about himself and his plans.  America, please save us from this!  https://www.facebook.com/frienddogstudios/videos/1627096487540629/

[Yaeger]

Or maybe we can end the Ponzi scheme that is SS

My goodness, we have been drinking the conservative talking point kool-aid, haven't we?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ponzi_Scheme_vs_Social_Security

And with that, I think I'm going to turn my attention away from this conversation and toward enjoying the beginning of the weekend with my husband. It's been fun, but arguing with someone who doesn't care whether he grasps basic concepts, and is insulting to people who try to help him educate himself, is only fun for so long.

For real? Have you applied any analysis to that link's 'comparison' chart?

1. SS is not solvent. If it was we wouldn't need continual reform. It doesn't meet the definition of the word.
2. This is the core of what a Ponzi scheme is.
3. Because it's not voluntary means it's not deceiving and exploitative?
4. SS funds are NOT invested legitimately.
5. Outsized returns promised, yes! Unfunded liabilities decades down the road with no plan on how to pay for them.

It's sad when we're defending a deficit nearly the size of the entire Defense budget to pay for entitlement programs. There's no need to keep borrowing so much money, to unduly burden the economy and increase the country's financial risk, to pay for routine things.

[Kris]

Or maybe we can end the Ponzi scheme that is SS

My goodness, we have been drinking the conservative talking point kool-aid, haven't we?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ponzi_Scheme_vs_Social_Security

And with that, I think I'm going to turn my attention away from this conversation and toward enjoying the beginning of the weekend with my husband. It's been fun, but arguing with someone who doesn't care whether he grasps basic concepts, and is insulting to people who try to help him educate himself, is only fun for so long.

For real? Have you applied any analysis to that link's 'comparison' chart?

1. SS is not solvent. If it was we wouldn't need continual reform. It doesn't meet the definition of the word.
2. This is the core of what a Ponzi scheme is.
3. Because it's not voluntary means it's not deceiving and exploitative?
4. SS funds are NOT invested legitimately.
5. Outsized returns promised, yes! Unfunded liabilities decades down the road with no plan on how to pay for them.

It's sad when we're defending a deficit nearly the size of the entire Defense budget to pay for entitlement programs. There's no need to keep borrowing so much money, to unduly burden the economy and increase the country's financial risk, to pay for routine things.

It is not a Ponzi scheme. It does not meet the criteria.

I am completely willing to have a discussion about whether the SS system is fair, or sustainable, whether one should be able to opt out, etc. All of those questions are completely valid. But it is not a Ponzi scheme.

If one needs to misrepresent something in order to make a point, then it's not a very good point.

[MoonShadow]

If one needs to misrepresent something in order to make a point, then it's not a very good point.

Kris, it's only you that willfully ignores the facts concerning your pet issues.  And why are you still here?  Didn't you promise us that you were going to only annoy your poor husband for a weekend?

[Yaeger]

It is not a Ponzi scheme. It does not meet the criteria.

I am completely willing to have a discussion about whether the SS system is fair, or sustainable, whether one should be able to opt out, etc. All of those questions are completely valid. But it is not a Ponzi scheme.

If one needs to misrepresent something in order to make a point, then it's not a very good point.

Let's look at it then. Let's start with the definition: "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator."

Analyzing 'fraudulent' is pretty irrelevant, because the government can call anything legal. It's fraudulent if Charles Ponzi does it, but not if the US Government does it? You could frame it as a Social Insurance system, but then you'd have to change it from what it is today to accurately reflect that. Change it into another welfare system and away from an entitlement program.

My SS benefit is a negligible part of my retirement package. But I paid into it, so I will be entitled to take out of it.

The above quote means that you're an investor that has paid into the program and expect to be paid a return in the future? SS earns no profit, so all that you're entitled to will come from young workers 'investing' their 10-35 years of earnings into the system to be eligible for a return. Sounds like another part of that definition. Check.

The label of it being a Ponzi scheme really hinges on the 'fraudulent' aspect of it. If the US government legalized Ponzi's and Bernie Madoff's plan, would that have made it any less destructive or exploitative to the investors? If anything SS is MORE destructive as it FORCES the majority of Americans to pay 12.4% of their earnings, for their entire lives, into this bad investment. You'd honestly get a better return buying bonds. "Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security."

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/still-better-deal-private-investment-vs-social-security

[starguru]

I think this entire exchange demonstrates that our politics and our politicians have failed us.  We need someone to lead us out of this political quagmire.  Both sides need to realize that we can't win unless we all at least generally agree on solutions that are in the middle.  And there are the solutions in the middle that, while they will not make anyone completely happy, most reasonable people can live with, and might actually do some good.  Seriously. 

[wienerdog]

I finally did one of those things to find your candidate based on your stance.  Apparently I'm most compatible with Gary Johnson, whoever that is...

If you would like to learn more about the Libertarian candidates you might look into Jason Stapleton.  He is for Liberty (not a politician) and is trying to change the Libertarian party as he believes they have a huge messaging problem.  He has a podcast and is slowing moving into bigger media.  At the 5 minute mark of the Soundcloud link he talks about the Mississippi debate.

https://soundcloud.com/libertydotme/the-jason-stapleton-program-breaking-down-the-libertarian-debate

or video (just talks about the debate):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQosg3e5KpI

Nobody is going to take Libertarians serious when they put things like the North Carolina debate out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS2Y8GYf-So

Just seeing McAfee with no video and an icon with a gun to his head and his shirt off is a total joke.  The Google Hangouts thing was a total fail.  I couldn't even watch it.

Anyway Jason's show and beliefs are based on 5 basic principles:

• Pro Limited Government – Government should exist to protect Life, Liberty and Property. Nothing more. Liberty is a primary political value.  (does an act of gov. increase or decrease an individual’s liberty)
• Pro Individualism – The rights of the individual are above the rights of the collective. The individual is sovereign.
• Pro Tolerance – you should not interfere with things you do not agree with or disapprove of.
• Pro Peace – The principle of non intervention. Free movement of capital, labor, people, goods/services and Ideas.
• Pro Free Markets – No transaction Or cooperation should occur unless it is voluntary.

If that is something that might interest you Jason's podcast is an hour long each week day and has been enjoyable to listen to.  Take his 10 episode challenge.  You won't be disappointed!

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-jason-stapleton-program/id840193021

[hedgefund10]

If one needs to misrepresent something in order to make a point, then it's not a very good point.

Kris, it's only you that willfully ignores the facts concerning your pet issues.  And why are you still here?  Didn't you promise us that you were going to only annoy your poor husband for a weekend?

+1

[simmias]

Third, the previous point was just about polls. Logical reasoning also suggests Sanders would do better than Clinton in the general. Clinton has been getting most of her primary margin of victory from here in the South -- in red states that she isn't going to win in November. Sanders, on the other hand, has been doing relatively well in the blue states and swing states where the electoral votes are actually going to come from. (Even in in purple states where Clinton won, the margin of victory has been very, very small -- certainly small enough that the cynics who only voted for Clinton because they didn't think Sanders could win might have actually been the deciding factor!)

What swing states has Bernie won besides Colorado and NH?  Meanwhile, Hillary handily defeated him in Florida, Virginia and Ohio, defeated him comfortably in NC and beat him in Iowa and Nevada.

What are you considering to be swing states?  And how are you defining "very, very small"?

[Bucksandreds]

I think this entire exchange demonstrates that our politics and our politicians have failed us.  We need someone to lead us out of this political quagmire.  Both sides need to realize that we can't win unless we all at least generally agree on solutions that are in the middle.  And there are the solutions in the middle that, while they will not make anyone completely happy, most reasonable people can live with, and might actually do some good.  Seriously.

Hillary is a deal maker. I promise you that. Now the Freedom Caucus of the republican house needs to be broken and Ted Cruz type stuff in the Senate needs to end and real change (carried interest exemption abolished, corporate inversions abolished, reforming corporate tax code, expansion of EITC) could be completed in weeks.

[hedgefund10]

I think this entire exchange demonstrates that our politics and our politicians have failed us.  We need someone to lead us out of this political quagmire.  Both sides need to realize that we can't win unless we all at least generally agree on solutions that are in the middle.  And there are the solutions in the middle that, while they will not make anyone completely happy, most reasonable people can live with, and might actually do some good.  Seriously.

Hillary is a deal maker. I promise you that. Now the Freedom Caucus of the republican house needs to be broken and Ted Cruz type stuff in the Senate needs to end and real change (carried interest exemption abolished, corporate inversions abolished, reforming corporate tax code, expansion of EITC) could be completed in weeks.

You could end corporate inversions in days if the corporate tax rate was lowered to 15% and U.S profits overseas could be brought back into the country at that same 15% rate.

[scottish]

Are the Republicans going to come up with some way to block Donald Trump from winning the Republican nomination?   and if they do, who would get the nomination?

[starguru]

I think this entire exchange demonstrates that our politics and our politicians have failed us.  We need someone to lead us out of this political quagmire.  Both sides need to realize that we can't win unless we all at least generally agree on solutions that are in the middle.  And there are the solutions in the middle that, while they will not make anyone completely happy, most reasonable people can live with, and might actually do some good.  Seriously.

Hillary is a deal maker. I promise you that. Now the Freedom Caucus of the republican house needs to be broken and Ted Cruz type stuff in the Senate needs to end and real change (carried interest exemption abolished, corporate inversions abolished, reforming corporate tax code, expansion of EITC) could be completed in weeks.

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.