Presidential predictions for 2024?

[Seattle]

Not very specific, legislation-wise.

No, it wasn't intended to be. Less legislation would probably be a start. You can reduce military spending, reform Social Security turning it into something where the funds put in aren't borrowed against by the government (which is the biggest debt problem) and if you are going to raise taxes (slightly) it has to be done to all current taxpayers (especially the middle class).

Raising taxes isn't a solution though, you can't productively raise it much, you can't just raise it against a small group and you can't raise it enough to make a dent when spending is what is way out of control.

I've been a little more specific now. How about you? What specifics do you have?

 

[sculptor]

IMHO Congress doesn't spend their money, they spend your money and are disinclined to spend less of it.

 

[Seattle]

IMHO Congress doesn't spend their money, they spend your money and are disinclined to spend less of it.

Yes, that's why it's a difficult problem rather than an easy problem.

 

[Jeeves]

No, it wasn't intended to be. Less legislation would probably be a start.

So, your advice to the incoming administration is: "Do less."?

OK. How does the president go about reducing military spending? My first specific suggestion would be to review all current and contemplated contracts for military supplies. Fine all those companies that are behind their deliverable schedule, refuse any cost overruns and cancel any high end items (submarines, jet fighters, missiles) that are surplus to present requirement. That is, stop orders for anticipated wars, because if you have the ordnance, you or your successor will find a use for it. Cancel any contract for soft goods, like uniforms, totes and boots, that can be made by prisoners as paid job training.

reform Social Security turning it into something where the funds put in aren't borrowed against by the government

Already covered that in the economy thread under universal basic income.

Raising taxes isn't a solution though, you can't productively raise it much, you can't just raise it against a small group and you can't raise it enough to make a dent when spending is what is way out of control.

Yes, you can raise quite a lot on a fairly small, extremely well padded group. More if that group includes religious organizations.
Spending won't be 'out of control' if the interest rate is capped at 5% flat.
I mentioned a few more specifics in that other thread. I'll go look for your recommendations.

 

[Seattle]

So, your advice to the incoming administration is: "Do less."?

That's my advice to any administration.

OK. How does the president go about reducing military spending? My first specific suggestion would be to review all current and contemplated contracts for military supplies. Fine all those companies that are behind their deliverable schedule, refuse any cost overruns and cancel any high end items (submarines, jet fighters, missiles) that are surplus to present requirement. That is, stop orders for anticipated wars, because if you have the ordnance, you or your successor will find a use for it. Cancel any contract for soft goods, like uniforms, totes and boots, that can be made by prisoners as paid job training.

Much of that is nickel and dime stuff. You have to reassess what we really need to focus on in the world (Russia, China, Iran, etc) and reduce the rest and let the nearby developed nations do more in their areas. You could cut the military budget in half this way.

Already covered that in the economy thread under universal basic income.

Universal Basic Income isn't a good idea, IMO just as sending everyone stimulus checks during Covid wasn't a good idea. Paying people not to work also isn't a good idea.

Yes, you can raise quite a lot on a fairly small, extremely well padded group. More if that group includes religious organizations.
Spending won't be 'out of control' if the interest rate is capped at 5% flat.
I mentioned a few more specifics in that other thread. I'll go look for your recommendations.

You can't cap interest rates (or anything else) at 5%. Banks aren't going to lend if inflation is 6%. Regarding "spending won't be out of control is the interest rate is capped at 5%" what does that even mean? The interest rate has nothing to do with spending.

Maybe you mean that spending should be capped at 5%? You could do that but it's arbitrary. There is already a debt ceiling and they just raise it every year. They actually have to raise it because the money has already been spent so we do, in fact, have to pay it.

The actual problem is that you can't have the "inmates" policing themselves. There are military bases and corporations spread out all over the US. No Senator or Congressman is going to cut spending in their districts. Just as the Supreme Court isn't going to regulate itself either.

No politicians is going to be elected promising to cut spending in their home states.

 

[Jeeves]

Much of that is nickel and dime stuff.

A hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

You could cut the military budget in half this way.

Not by executive order, you couldn't!

No Senator or Congressman is going to cut spending in their districts.

Universal Basic Income isn't a good idea,

Why? Too efficient?

You can't cap interest rates (or anything else) at 5%.

The president who can cut the military budget in half, bloody well can!

Banks aren't going to lend if inflation is 6%.

Why, with all the changes I suggested, would inflation be 6%? Who says banks can't be regulated?

Regarding "spending won't be out of control is the interest rate is capped at 5%" what does that even mean? The interest rate has nothing to do with spending.

It doesn't? You really don't think people would have more money for housing, good food, electric vehicles and maybe even starting a business, if they were not crippled by debt?

No politicians is going to be elected promising to cut spending in their home states.

So, obviously, your solution will work if each candidate promises to cut spending in some other district.
And can deliver on these promises when they're all sitting in Congress?

 

[Seattle]

A hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

Not by executive order, you couldn't!



Why? Too efficient?


The president who can cut the military budget in half, bloody well can!


Why, with all the changes I suggested, would inflation be 6%? Who says banks can't be regulated?



It doesn't? You really don't think people would have more money for housing, good food, electric vehicles and maybe even starting a business, if they were not crippled by debt?

So, obviously, your solution will work if each candidate promises to cut spending in some other district.
And can deliver on these promises when they're all sitting in Congress?

I never implied (or meant to imply) that a President by executive order could do these things. You aren't going to cut spending without Congress obviously.

You can't cap interest rates. They aren't the problem, inflation is.

 

[Seattle]

Speaking of the election, I think the reason that Trump will lose, big picture, is an image in the voter's heads of 2 people, smiling, marching into the future vs 2 frowning people in retrograde.

 

[Jeeves]

I never implied (or meant to imply) that a President by executive order could do these things. You aren't going to cut spending without Congress obviously.

And, as you pointed out, no congressperson is going to vote to reduce federal spending in their district.

You can't cap interest rates. They aren't the problem, inflation is.

So you keep saying, as if there were no connection between the two. Debt has nothing to do with spending. Government should do this, without congresspeople to vote for it. If old age pensions are subsumed along with welfare, disability, Veterans' benefits and food stamps into a universal basic income, it wouldn't cut government spending.
I'm not sure how you can picture an economy divided into separate, non-interactive compartments.

 

[Seattle]

And, as you pointed out, no congressperson is going to vote to reduce federal spending in their district.

So you keep saying, as if there were no connection between the two. Debt has nothing to do with spending. Government should do this, without congresspeople to vote for it. If old age pensions are subsumed along with welfare, disability, Veterans' benefits and food stamps into a universal basic income, it wouldn't cut government spending.
I'm not sure how you can picture an economy divided into separate, non-interactive compartments.

I don't but I'm not sure you and I are speaking the same language. You are the one who is for UBI. I never said it would cut government spending?

"Debt has nothing to do with spending"? It's a direct result of it.

 

[exchemist]

Speaking of the election, I think the reason that Trump will lose, big picture, is an image in the voter's heads of 2 people, smiling, marching into the future vs 2 frowning people in retrograde.

Do you think that contrast will be powerful enough to overcome what I read is the perception that Trump would be better for people’s economic prospects?

I continue to feel nervous about how Harris will come across when quizzed on her plans for the economy. Is she any good at that stuff and has she got a good story to tell?

 

[Seattle]

Do you think that contrast will be powerful enough to overcome what I read is the perception that Trump would be better for people’s economic prospects?

I continue to feel nervous about how Harris will come across when quizzed on her plans for the economy. Is she any good at that stuff and has she got a good story to tell?

She is a little annoying to listen to. I think Trump is falling apart as the attention goes to her. Vance is a mess. Walz is good.

I just don't see the momentum with Trump anymore now that Biden is out of the picture and she picked everyone's favorite uncle as VP.

The only remaining question, IMO, is the economic aspect as you suggest. If she stays moderate it will be fine. If she starts hanging out with Elizabeth Warren all bets are off.

She has to walk a tight line at the moment. Biden is still the President and she is still VP. She is a Democrat so she has to meet with union leaders. She can't veer too much from Biden at the moment.

I don't see her as an extreme progressive and the same is true for Walz. We'll see. If she is smart she will avoid the crazy stuff that Biden throws out there knowing it can't be passed.

 

[Seattle]

Not that there is any "magic bullet" that would solve all of our problems in the US and no system is perfect but I wonder if a Parliamentary system wouldn't result in better outcomes here in the US?

It's more transparent and tends to result in more compromise and it's not really possible to end up with a dictator (or very, very difficult).

For example, both Canada and Australia have such a system, wages are a bit lower in Canada but they are more or less the same (as ours) in Australia. They have a great social safety net and a much, much lower national debt to GDP ratio.

It's a more transparent system. We hide our debt with monetizing the debt, "borrowing" from Social Security, artificially keeping interest rates low to hide the size of the debt payments to say nothing of how hard it is to amend our Constitution and we "hope" Congress will "police" itself. It's more or less impossible to reduce the size of the military since it's spread over most politicians home districts.

There is no transparency. That wouldn't be as much of an issue under a Parliamentary system.

Not that we could just snap our fingers and change to one easily but something has to change here.

 

[Sarkus]

Not that there is any "magic bullet" that would solve all of our problems in the US and no system is perfect but I wonder if a Parliamentary system wouldn't result in better outcomes here in the US?

It's more transparent and tends to result in more compromise and it's not really possible to end up with a dictator (or very, very difficult).

For example, both Canada and Australia have such a system, wages are a bit lower in Canada but they are more or less the same (as ours) in Australia. They have a great social safety net and a much, much lower national debt to GDP ratio.

It's a more transparent system. We hide our debt with monetizing the debt, "borrowing" from Social Security, artificially keeping interest rates low to hide the size of the debt payments to say nothing of how hard it is to amend our Constitution and we "hope" Congress will "police" itself. It's more or less impossible to reduce the size of the military since it's spread over most politicians home districts.

There is no transparency. That wouldn't be as much of an issue under a Parliamentary system.

Not that we could just snap our fingers and change to one easily but something has to change here.

I'm not clear how a change in government system to a Parliamentary system would make any difference at all. How things are passed is somewhat different to what is being passed. All parliamentary systems have a head of government (prime minister) and some, e.g. France, elect a President above that. And the UK is at 100% debt to GDP even though we have a parliamentary system.
What do you think would change in what is passed if the US moved to a parliamentary system? How would it affect the actual policies that are put in place?
What may be better would be a move to the electoral college votes being awarded on a proportional basis in all states. That would be a good start, imo. Or even the electoral college being awarded on the basis of the national popular vote. If states with 270 electoral votes signed up to and enacted that, then the President would be elected on the popular vote from then on.

 

[exchemist]

She is a little annoying to listen to. I think Trump is falling apart as the attention goes to her. Vance is a mess. Walz is good.

I just don't see the momentum with Trump anymore now that Biden is out of the picture and she picked everyone's favorite uncle as VP.

The only remaining question, IMO, is the economic aspect as you suggest. If she stays moderate it will be fine. If she starts hanging out with Elizabeth Warren all bets are off.

She has to walk a tight line at the moment. Biden is still the President and she is still VP. She is a Democrat so she has to meet with union leaders. She can't veer too much from Biden at the moment.

I don't see her as an extreme progressive and the same is true for Walz. We'll see. If she is smart she will avoid the crazy stuff that Biden throws out there knowing it can't be passed.

That’s encouraging. I think I came across something suggesting she may have a tendency to lapse into W. Coast psychobabble, which rather worried me. I’ll be more confident if she can handle a few question and answer sessions. Shouldn’t be hard to come across as more coherent than Trump.

 

[exchemist]

Not that there is any "magic bullet" that would solve all of our problems in the US and no system is perfect but I wonder if a Parliamentary system wouldn't result in better outcomes here in the US?

It's more transparent and tends to result in more compromise and it's not really possible to end up with a dictator (or very, very difficult).

For example, both Canada and Australia have such a system, wages are a bit lower in Canada but they are more or less the same (as ours) in Australia. They have a great social safety net and a much, much lower national debt to GDP ratio.

It's a more transparent system. We hide our debt with monetizing the debt, "borrowing" from Social Security, artificially keeping interest rates low to hide the size of the debt payments to say nothing of how hard it is to amend our Constitution and we "hope" Congress will "police" itself. It's more or less impossible to reduce the size of the military since it's spread over most politicians home districts.

There is no transparency. That wouldn't be as much of an issue under a Parliamentary system.

Not that we could just snap our fingers and change to one easily but something has to change here.

I really think the best change would be strict limits on campaign expenditure, like we have in the UK. Getting the big money influence out of your politics would do a power of good. It would stop lawmakers being bought and make presidential candidates less open to influence too.

As for defence against dictatorship, short of reintroducing monarchy (only kidding), at least an amendment to the constitution to make clear the president is not above the law would be pretty handy.

 

[Jeeves]

I never said it would cut government spending?

I did, and explained how.

"Debt has nothing to do with spending"? It's a direct result of it.

I wasn't making that assertion; I was mocking your apparent reluctance to connect dots.

The interest rate has nothing to do with spending.

They're all connected. People can't spend money on something (new car, retraining, solar panels) that they owe to the bank for nothing (interest on the interest on 20-year-old student loan). People can't spend money on anything, if they have to borrow at prohibitive repayment schedules. A whole lot of the 'economy' is sucked into the black hole of debt. And the only part of that you acknowledge is government spending.
Granted, the government should have more autonomy than the banks and corporations, but, hey, this is Capitalism, the state religion, the only air anyone's allowed to breathe, the only thinkable solution to all human problems.
Commentators are still talking about growth economy, as though that were a good thing.
Make and sell more stuff; use more energy; throw more garbage into the ocean; fight more wars.

 

[parmalee]

Shouldn’t be hard to come across as more coherent than Trump.

A lot of people are saying that Trump has been looking into this "incoherence" problem very strongly, and that Trump has been speaking very strongly--very strongly--against it. Or maybe to it. Towards it? Either way, whatever it was that he was looking at or into, or speaking about or against, he was doing so very strongly.

 

[Jeeves]

A lot of people are saying that Trump has been looking into this "incoherence" problem very strongly, and that Trump has been speaking very strongly--very strongly--against it. Or maybe to it. Towards it? Either way, whatever it was that he was looking at or into, or speaking about or against, he was doing so very strongly.

...and by he way, it's them that's incoherent, not us. They're so incoherent, like nobody's ever, it's unbelievable how ino-incohinnent she is, the likes of which nobody's ever seen. A very smart man said to me on e time, Captain Ahab, a great man, the late Captain Ahab, he said to me, "Sir," he said, "that Kambala I don't know what colour she is, but she's incohermen," He was a great friend of mine, Captain Ahab, he loved me.... they all love me.... the press doesn't talk about that.

 

[Seattle]

I really think the best change would be strict limits on campaign expenditure, like we have in the UK. Getting the big money influence out of your politics would do a power of good. It would stop lawmakers being bought and make presidential candidates less open to influence too.

As for defence against dictatorship, short of reintroducing monarchy (only kidding), at least an amendment to the constitution to make clear the president is not above the law would be pretty handy.

That is the problem but Citizen's United pretty much blocks that.