Who Does Everyone Here Support For President and Why?

[JLee]

I agree which why my order goes from least to most damaging: Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders

Wow, you have got that list exactly backwards.

Why is that? This order keeps my taxes the lowest. Everything else is irrelevant. Bernie would crush my cash flow.

Wow. 

In no particular order -

Sanders is safe because he won't get anything done. 
Trump could lose the house and senate for the republicans.  Not sure what he would do in office.  Said a lot of stupid things.
Clinton won't help the democrats in the house.  Don't like her policies or trust her.  Won't get much done with repubs in congress.
Cruz - Don't particularly  like.

You are aware you are on a site called Mr. Money Mustache? If I wanted to talk about something other than money such as social issues or foreign policy, I would go into the comments section of the local paper.

Membership on a financial forum does not preclude one from having opinions on matters that are not strictly financial.

[hedgefund10]

I agree which why my order goes from least to most damaging: Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders

Wow, you have got that list exactly backwards.

Why is that? This order keeps my taxes the lowest. Everything else is irrelevant. Bernie would crush my cash flow.

Wow. 

In no particular order -

Sanders is safe because he won't get anything done. 
Trump could lose the house and senate for the republicans.  Not sure what he would do in office.  Said a lot of stupid things.
Clinton won't help the democrats in the house.  Don't like her policies or trust her.  Won't get much done with repubs in congress.
Cruz - Don't particularly  like.

You are aware you are on a site called Mr. Money Mustache? If I wanted to talk about something other than money such as social issues or foreign policy, I would go into the comments section of the local paper.

Membership on a financial forum does not preclude one from having opinions on matters that are not strictly financial.

Ok??? And if I cared about those issues I would go to the comments section of the local paper. Can you read?

[MOD NOTE: Forum Rule #1. Manners, please.]

[JLee]

I agree which why my order goes from least to most damaging: Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders

Wow, you have got that list exactly backwards.

Why is that? This order keeps my taxes the lowest. Everything else is irrelevant. Bernie would crush my cash flow.

Wow. 

In no particular order -

Sanders is safe because he won't get anything done. 
Trump could lose the house and senate for the republicans.  Not sure what he would do in office.  Said a lot of stupid things.
Clinton won't help the democrats in the house.  Don't like her policies or trust her.  Won't get much done with repubs in congress.
Cruz - Don't particularly  like.

You are aware you are on a site called Mr. Money Mustache? If I wanted to talk about something other than money such as social issues or foreign policy, I would go into the comments section of the local paper.

Membership on a financial forum does not preclude one from having opinions on matters that are not strictly financial.

Ok??? And if I cared about those issues I would go to the comments section of the local paper. Can you read?

And there it is. I see why you like Trump.

[Jack]

I agree which why my order goes from least to most damaging: Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders

Wow, you have got that list exactly backwards.

I think tax rate is a weird way to judge presidents, especially since you just agreed with me that economics isn't really the most salient way to judge a President.

Overall returns to yourself is super selfish, but whatever, if that's your goal, I haven't seen any business interest organizations backing Cruz or Trump.  Rubio, Kasich and Clinton, yes.  In my experience, business lobbies like lower taxes, but lower taxes on 0 returns (because money flows out of the US, we f with import/exports, our credit gets downgraded) doesn't get you anywhere.  I haven't heard anyone argue that Trump would be good for businesses. Protectionist trade policies do not help businesses (or our stock returns).

I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you replied to me by accident and were actually responding to hedgefund10. The amount of "damage" each candidate would do has nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with civil liberties.

Why is that? This order keeps my taxes the lowest. Everything else is irrelevant. Bernie would crush my cash flow.

That is possibly the stupidest, most short-sighted thing I've read in this thread, for a multitude of reasons:

[MOD NOTE: Let's all take it down a notch, here alright?  Forum Rule #1]

First of all, as I just said above, civil liberties are much more important. So is the environment, foreign policy, and lots of other stuff. Tax rates are way, way down the list.

Second, tax rates and cash flow do not necessarily have any correlation. I'm sure that, under a Sanders presidency (if he were effective in getting his policies passed), my taxes would go up for things like healthcare. However, my non-tax spending for healthcare would go down. For all I know, my net cash flow might improve.

[hedgefund10]

I agree which why my order goes from least to most damaging: Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders

Wow, you have got that list exactly backwards.

Why is that? This order keeps my taxes the lowest. Everything else is irrelevant. Bernie would crush my cash flow.

Wow. 

In no particular order -

Sanders is safe because he won't get anything done. 
Trump could lose the house and senate for the republicans.  Not sure what he would do in office.  Said a lot of stupid things.
Clinton won't help the democrats in the house.  Don't like her policies or trust her.  Won't get much done with repubs in congress.
Cruz - Don't particularly  like.

You are aware you are on a site called Mr. Money Mustache? If I wanted to talk about something other than money such as social issues or foreign policy, I would go into the comments section of the local paper.

Membership on a financial forum does not preclude one from having opinions on matters that are not strictly financial.

Ok??? And if I cared about those issues I would go to the comments section of the local paper. Can you read?

And there it is. I see why you like Trump.

You caught me. A+

[dramaman]

I agree which why my order goes from least to most damaging: Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders

Wow, you have got that list exactly backwards.

Why is that? This order keeps my taxes the lowest. Everything else is irrelevant. Bernie would crush my cash flow.

Wow. 

In no particular order -

Sanders is safe because he won't get anything done. 
Trump could lose the house and senate for the republicans.  Not sure what he would do in office.  Said a lot of stupid things.
Clinton won't help the democrats in the house.  Don't like her policies or trust her.  Won't get much done with repubs in congress.
Cruz - Don't particularly  like.

You are aware you are on a site called Mr. Money Mustache? If I wanted to talk about something other than money such as social issues or foreign policy, I would go into the comments section of the local paper.

Membership on a financial forum does not preclude one from having opinions on matters that are not strictly financial.

Ok??? And if I cared about those issues I would go to the comments section of the local paper. Can you read?

On a thread titled "Who Does Everyone Here Support for President and Why?", it is kind of silly to be offended when somebody brings up non financial justifications.

[onlykelsey]

Jack:  Sorry, yes, I meant to respond to hedgefund10 with a similar thought to yours.  tax rates don't really matter if you don't know what hte base is.  With Trump as president (given the reaction overseas and of our own businesses), I think we will not have to worry about rates, as we won't have gains.

I don't judge my president based on short-term financial gain to myself, but if I did, tax rate would not be the way to do it.

This thread is about who you support for president and why... lots of people will have non-financial reasons for supporting candidates.

[hedgefund10]

I agree which why my order goes from least to most damaging: Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders

Wow, you have got that list exactly backwards.

I think tax rate is a weird way to judge presidents, especially since you just agreed with me that economics isn't really the most salient way to judge a President.

Overall returns to yourself is super selfish, but whatever, if that's your goal, I haven't seen any business interest organizations backing Cruz or Trump.  Rubio, Kasich and Clinton, yes.  In my experience, business lobbies like lower taxes, but lower taxes on 0 returns (because money flows out of the US, we f with import/exports, our credit gets downgraded) doesn't get you anywhere.  I haven't heard anyone argue that Trump would be good for businesses. Protectionist trade policies do not help businesses (or our stock returns).

I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you replied to me by accident and were actually responding to hedgefund10. The amount of "damage" each candidate would do has nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with civil liberties.

Why is that? This order keeps my taxes the lowest. Everything else is irrelevant. Bernie would crush my cash flow.

That is possibly the stupidest, most short-sighted thing I've read in this thread, for a multitude of reasons:

First of all, as I just said above, civil liberties are much more important. So is the environment, foreign policy, and lots of other stuff. Tax rates are way, way down the list.

Second, tax rates and cash flow do not necessarily have any correlation. I'm sure that, under a Sanders presidency (if he were effective in getting his policies passed), my taxes would go up for things like healthcare. However, my non-tax spending for healthcare would go down. For all I know, my net cash flow might improve.

Civil Liberties?  You have the gun grabber Clinton just waiting to take away those scary AR-15s. Bernie is conflicted he doesn't to take them away. But has to stick with the party line.

Environment- Place tell me about the falsehood that is global warming. Oh wait I forgot it is "Global Climate Change" the liberals change the name to whatever suits their narrative.

Foreign Policy - Stay out of all these countries unless they pose a direct threat, i.e. ISIS. While we are at it, let's stop giving all this money to foreign countries and take care of Americans.

Lots of Other Stuff- Yeah

My cash flow related to healthcare would go up under Sanders. Currently under a high deductible plan with a maxed out HSA.

[hedgefund10]

I agree which why my order goes from least to most damaging: Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders

Wow, you have got that list exactly backwards.

Why is that? This order keeps my taxes the lowest. Everything else is irrelevant. Bernie would crush my cash flow.

Wow. 

In no particular order -

Sanders is safe because he won't get anything done. 
Trump could lose the house and senate for the republicans.  Not sure what he would do in office.  Said a lot of stupid things.
Clinton won't help the democrats in the house.  Don't like her policies or trust her.  Won't get much done with repubs in congress.
Cruz - Don't particularly  like.

You are aware you are on a site called Mr. Money Mustache? If I wanted to talk about something other than money such as social issues or foreign policy, I would go into the comments section of the local paper.

Membership on a financial forum does not preclude one from having opinions on matters that are not strictly financial.

Ok??? And if I cared about those issues I would go to the comments section of the local paper. Can you read?

On a thread titled "Who Does Everyone Here Support for President and Why?", it is kind of silly to be offended when somebody brings up non financial justifications.

Where did I say I was offended? I told the person why i didn't care about non financial metrics.

[hedgefund10]

Jack:  Sorry, yes, I meant to respond to hedgefund10 with a similar thought to yours.  tax rates don't really matter if you don't know what hte base is.  With Trump as president (given the reaction overseas and of our own businesses), I think we will not have to worry about rates, as we won't have gains.

I don't judge my president based on short-term financial gain to myself, but if I did, tax rate would not be the way to do it.

This thread is about who you support for president and why... lots of people will have non-financial reasons for supporting candidates.

So you are saying businesses don't want to bring home their profits trapped overseas?

[Midwest]

Where did I say I was offended? I told the person why i didn't care about non financial metrics.

I'm as free market as the next guy, but to say/infer tax rates/finances are your only criteria is silly. 

To add - Environment, foreign policy and civil liberties all impact your finances.

[onlykelsey]

That is correct.  Why bring profits under the US tax regime if you don't have to?

[Jack]

Civil Liberties?  You have the gun grabber Clinton just waiting to take away those scary AR-15s. Bernie is conflicted he doesn't to take them away. But has to stick with the party line.

Yeah, I know. And it's a measure of just how shitty the Republican choices are that they're even worse! Sure, they make a big show of defending one part of the Bill of Rights -- but while you're distracted, they're busy dismantling the rest of it (Trump with his "fuck due process" rhetoric, and Cruz with his naked Dominionism).

[onlykelsey]

but while you're distracted, they're busy dismantling the rest of it

This. And due process and other civil rights are much easier to damage as a leader... don't sign a budget... don't fund the federal courts or EEOC.  Done. 

I'm middle of the road on gun rights, but they are a lot harder to affect.  there's no federal entity protecting them that you can defund, like for free speech or due process or freedom of religion.

[xclonexclonex]

I will support any Republican candidate.

[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?

[onlykelsey]

Finance/Accounting =/= Macroeconomics.

Of course neither do my handful of courses, but just an observation.

[Kris]

Finance/Accounting =/= Macroeconomics.

Of course neither do my handful of courses, but just an observation.

Yes, my first thought, as well.

Not to mention, I have always found it curious, for example, how many financial planners have disastrous personal financial lives.  Or how many hedge fund managers seem to have a shockingly myopic view of the larger macroeconomic financial picture. I suppose it's not seen as strictly necessary for their jobs, though. Everyone is a smaller cog in the larger machine, and all that.

ETA: Hedgefund10, in all seriousness, here's a very good explainer of the macroeconomics of why a household budget is not like a government budget.  I suggest reading all the way through, so you can grasp the entire picture, but the explanation of that particular fallacy starts about halfway through the article. 

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

[JLee]

I will support any Republican candidate.

I used to be that way. Not anymore.

[Northwestie]

Unfortunately the GOP, in Trump, is getting what they have nurtured over the past ten years.  The veiled anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor rhetoric has come back to bite them.  The big promises of taking down the big-bad-government, when they knew all this was just bluster for the red-meat masses, and they had no plan to actually carry thru any of this crap, has led to an angry base.  Well - now you have the devil you spawned. 

Really.  An immoral choice for president.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html?_r=0

[goatmom]

I really liked Bernie.  Hillary Clinton just turns me off the way that she discredited the women that accused her husband. So much for supporting women's rights.  Don't know what to do if it is Clinton vs Trump.  What a choice.

[onlykelsey]

I really liked Bernie.  Hillary Clinton just turns me off the way that she discredited the women that accused her husband. So much for supporting women's rights.  Don't know what to do if it is Clinton vs Trump.  What a choice.

Agreed that what Clinton did in the 1990s with those women is pretty despicable, if sort of standard fare.  Still, I don't see any comparison to Trump, especially with respect to how he treats and speaks about women.  Absolutely inexcusable, and when he has no personal stake.  The man can accept nothing but worship from anyone.  It's horrifying.

[thepokercab]

Unfortunately the GOP, in Trump, is getting what they have nurtured over the past ten years.  The veiled anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor rhetoric has come back to bite them.  The big promises of taking down the big-bad-government, when they knew all this was just bluster for the red-meat masses, and they had no plan to actually carry thru any of this crap, has led to an angry base.  Well - now you have the devil you spawned. 

This basically sums it up. 

You can trace the evolution of the current GOP back to Nixon who won two national elections basically scaring the shit out of white people everywhere, and Republicans have been doing it ever since. Blacks, immigrants, black presidents, Gay people- all just scary boogeymen the GOP have been demonizing for a couple of generations now. And sure, the people doing the demonizing probably don't all really think Blacks, immigrants and gay people are all that bad, but hey, if it gets some tax cuts passed, whatevs.. 

But it would seem they've gone to the well too many times now. Basically anyone who isn't white won't touch the GOP with a 10 foot pole, and they're the group of people growing most rapidly in America. And the people they've been scaring the past 40 years?  Well they're finally looking around wondering what exactly they've been voting for all this time. It's a shame that Trump is the outlet for these people but at a certain level I understand their anger. 

[hedgefund10]

That is correct.  Why bring profits under the US tax regime if you don't have to?

Um I don't know, invest in the business in the United States. Return money to shareholders.  You do realize that company's want to  bring the money back, don't you.

[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.

[onlykelsey]

That is correct.  Why bring profits under the US tax regime if you don't have to?

Um I don't know, invest in the business in the United States. Return money to shareholders.  You do realize that company's want to  bring the money back, don't you.

I am a corporate lawyer and I have never met a company that wants to do that.  Literally. Ever.  They can repatriate money for dividends through an offshore chain with no problem.

[Bucksandreds]

Unfortunately the GOP, in Trump, is getting what they have nurtured over the past ten years.  The veiled anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor rhetoric has come back to bite them.  The big promises of taking down the big-bad-government, when they knew all this was just bluster for the red-meat masses, and they had no plan to actually carry thru any of this crap, has led to an angry base.  Well - now you have the devil you spawned. 

This basically sums it up. 

You can trace the evolution of the current GOP back to Nixon who won two national elections basically scaring the shit out of white people everywhere, and Republicans have been doing it ever since. Blacks, immigrants, black presidents, Gay people- all just scary boogeymen the GOP have been demonizing for a couple of generations now. And sure, the people doing the demonizing probably don't all really think Blacks, immigrants and gay people are all that bad, but hey, if it gets some tax cuts passed, whatevs.. 

But it would seem they've gone to the well too many times now. Basically anyone who isn't white won't touch the GOP with a 10 foot pole, and they're the group of people growing most rapidly in America. And the people they've been scaring the past 40 years?  Well they're finally looking around wondering what exactly they've been voting for all this time. It's a shame that Trump is the outlet for these people but at a certain level I understand their anger.

Even educated whites are turning away from republicans. Basically it's the rich and poor whites that vote republican. The poor whites are flocking to Trump. The Republican Party needs burnt down and reform as something more moderate that supports less government growth and Christian values but does it in a less extreme way. It's important for politics that there is a viable alternative but it's just not there right now.

[Midwest]

Unfortunately the GOP, in Trump, is getting what they have nurtured over the past ten years.  The veiled anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor rhetoric has come back to bite them.  The big promises of taking down the big-bad-government, when they knew all this was just bluster for the red-meat masses, and they had no plan to actually carry thru any of this crap, has led to an angry base.  Well - now you have the devil you spawned. 

This basically sums it up. 

You can trace the evolution of the current GOP back to Nixon who won two national elections basically scaring the shit out of white people everywhere, and Republicans have been doing it ever since. Blacks, immigrants, black presidents, Gay people- all just scary boogeymen the GOP have been demonizing for a couple of generations now. And sure, the people doing the demonizing probably don't all really think Blacks, immigrants and gay people are all that bad, but hey, if it gets some tax cuts passed, whatevs.. 

But it would seem they've gone to the well too many times now. Basically anyone who isn't white won't touch the GOP with a 10 foot pole, and they're the group of people growing most rapidly in America. And the people they've been scaring the past 40 years?  Well they're finally looking around wondering what exactly they've been voting for all this time. It's a shame that Trump is the outlet for these people but at a certain level I understand their anger.

Trump is has said some monumentally stupid things. 

Having said that, the republican field included 2 latinos, 1 black guy and 1 woman.  Cruz is still in it.  Non-whites won't touch Trump with a 10 foot pole.  I think you are equating the party too closely to Trump's buffoonish comments.

Cruz might beat Clinton.  Kasich would beat Clinton.  Both Cruz and Kasich would get some non-white vote.

[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.

[hedgefund10]

Unfortunately the GOP, in Trump, is getting what they have nurtured over the past ten years.  The veiled anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor rhetoric has come back to bite them.  The big promises of taking down the big-bad-government, when they knew all this was just bluster for the red-meat masses, and they had no plan to actually carry thru any of this crap, has led to an angry base.  Well - now you have the devil you spawned. 

This basically sums it up. 

You can trace the evolution of the current GOP back to Nixon who won two national elections basically scaring the shit out of white people everywhere, and Republicans have been doing it ever since. Blacks, immigrants, black presidents, Gay people- all just scary boogeymen the GOP have been demonizing for a couple of generations now. And sure, the people doing the demonizing probably don't all really think Blacks, immigrants and gay people are all that bad, but hey, if it gets some tax cuts passed, whatevs.. 

But it would seem they've gone to the well too many times now. Basically anyone who isn't white won't touch the GOP with a 10 foot pole, and they're the group of people growing most rapidly in America. And the people they've been scaring the past 40 years?  Well they're finally looking around wondering what exactly they've been voting for all this time. It's a shame that Trump is the outlet for these people but at a certain level I understand their anger.

Minorities have been voting Dem for the past 50 years and they are still complaining about the same stuff. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

My best friend is a 2nd generation Indian immigrant, his parents came here with nothing, and worked their way up. He works at Goldman Sachs. Him and his family doesn't understand how Americans who were born here are poor.

[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.

[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.

[Midwest]

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.

You posted your qualifications and said you worked at a public accounting firm.  Do you have additional qualifications beyond what was posted?

[justajane]

Cruz might beat Clinton.  Kasich would beat Clinton.

Nah, neither of them would. The GOP just doesn't have the numbers demographically in purple states. Is Kasich any more compelling than Romney was? The Romney/Obama election was a freaking landslide. I guess you're assuming Clinton is less appealing than Obama was in 2012. I just don't believe Clinton is toxic enough to override the current demographic shift.

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.

[Jack]

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.

It doesn't work that way when you're the one who controls the money supply.

[onlykelsey]

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.

[Midwest]

Cruz might beat Clinton.  Kasich would beat Clinton.

Nah, neither of them would. The GOP just doesn't have the numbers demographically in purple states. Is Kasich any more compelling than Romney was? The Romney/Obama election was a freaking landslide. I guess you're assuming Clinton is less appealing than Obama was in 2012. I just don't believe Clinton is toxic enough to override the current demographic shift.

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.

Two things - 1) Clinton is that bad of a candidate.  I know numerous democrats who don't like her.  I'm not personally an Obama fan, but he's charismatic.  She's not.  Plus the Clinton baggage is huge. 2) Kasich is a better candidate than Romney.

BTW, if she wins I think the republicans keep congress.  If Trump wins, they may well lose congress in 2 years.  He's pretty toxic at the moment.

[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.

You posted your qualifications and said you worked at a public accounting firm.  Do you have additional qualifications beyond what was posted?

So you think they just give out a Accounting and finance degrees without taking economics courses? What do you want my transcripts?  If Obama doesn't have to release his, I'm not releasing mine.

[SomedayStache]

Trump...Hes not the person hes acting to be to win the nomination but being a politician (in all the wrong ways) to try and get the win.

So your support for this candidate is based on the knowledge that he won't really do what he says?

I've heard this line from other Trump supporters and I just don't understand.  At all. 

<I will probably regret wading into this conversation.  But I voted Bernie.>

[hedgefund10]

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.

It doesn't work that way when you're the one who controls the money supply.

Ask Zimbabwe how that worked out...

[onlykelsey]

So you think they just give out a Accounting and finance degrees without taking economics courses? What do you want my transcripts?  If Obama doesn't have to release his, I'm not releasing mine.

Wait, people want Obama's transcripts?  Why? Who is asking for them?

[hedgefund10]

So you think they just give out a Accounting and finance degrees without taking economics courses? What do you want my transcripts?  If Obama doesn't have to release his, I'm not releasing mine.

Wait, people want Obama's transcripts?  Why? Who is asking for them?

This is like 8 years ago...

[onlykelsey]

Birthers, I remember.  I don't understand why we're interested in college transcripts.  Is that a standard ask of politicians now?  I've never seen them, and i"m not sure I care.... so long as they actually graduated where they said they did, which is pretty easily verifiable.

[Midwest]

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.

You posted your qualifications and said you worked at a public accounting firm.  Do you have additional qualifications beyond what was posted?

So you think they just give out a Accounting and finance degrees without taking economics courses? What do you want my transcripts?  If Obama doesn't have to release his, I'm not releasing mine.

I'll take that as a no.  I have an accounting degree, a CPA and 20 years experience.  Economics was a small part of the curriculum.

You have no idea what the experiences/backgrounds of the other posters are.  For all you know they could work at the federal reserve and know a shitload more than you about economics.  I think the deficits are too big, but comparing it to the family budget is a bit simplistic.

[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 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/

[randymarsh]

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.

It doesn't work that way when you're the one who controls the money supply.

Ask Zimbabwe how that worked out...

That's a great comparison since the US and Zimbabwe have such similar economies.

[hedgefund10]

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.

It doesn't work that way when you're the one who controls the money supply.

Ask Zimbabwe how that worked out...

That's a great comparison since the US and Zimbabwe have such similar economies.

Try to stay on subject read the thread again. It is about controlling the money supply, the poster implied we would never run out of money because we control the money supply.

[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.

[Midwest]

[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?

[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.