Trump 2.0

billvon said:
We are $38 trillion in debt because people keep electing republicans. With more democrats we'd be around $20 trillion in debt. Still not ideal but WAY better.

As a simple example, the "Big Beautiful Bill" will increase the debt by $3.4 trillion - close to a 10% increase - in 10 years. And this is just one bill. An analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that, according to their published plans, the Harris administration would have increases the deficit by 3.95 trillion. The Trump administration would increase it by 7.75 trillion - about twice as much.

This is because both parties spend about as much - democrats on social programs, republicans on military. But democrats tend to increase taxes; republicans tend to decrease them. One method leads to much higher deficits than the other.
Click to expand...
And when implemented wisely, i.e., single payer healthcare, improved primary and secondary education, free or drastically reduced tertiary education, etc., money spent on social programs can effectively reduce annual deficits overtime--for such are essentially investments, just not the sort the right are apt to recognize or acknowledge as such.

If you replace certain terminology with a certain other terminology, laissez faire capitalists often sound virtually indistinguishable from fanatical fundamentalists of the American Christian variety, which, of course, is neither coincidental nor unintentional.
 
Seattle said:
I didn't mention parties. I want debt reduction. You don't get that via politicians "representing their constituent's concerns" in the face of $38 trillion in debt. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix the problem.
Click to expand...
Post-secondary education often has the effect of turning people towards idolatry.
 
Seattle said:
I didn't mention parties. I want debt reduction.
Click to expand...
Yep. And choosing the right party is a solution to reducing the debt increase, at least.

You don't get that via politicians "representing their constituent's concerns" in the face of $38 trillion in debt.
Click to expand...

In a democracy, you have to represent your constituent's concerns. There are ways to do that and increase the debt a little, and there are other ways to do that and increase the debt a LOT.

Choose wisely.
 
billvon said:
Yep. And choosing the right party is a solution to reducing the debt increase, at least.



In a democracy, you have to represent your constituent's concerns. There are ways to do that and increase the debt a little, and there are other ways to do that and increase the debt a LOT.

Choose wisely.
Click to expand...
There is the option of not voting for those who can't effectively govern. Most people make the right decisions with their kids and forget all of those lessons in politics. If your kids keep asking for more than you can afford, you stop spending. If they are jealous or envious of others, you teach them otherwise.

If they whine, you teach them to adapt to reality. Most people manage to do all this at home and then forget it all when they vote.

I'm sure you know that the debate points you are attempting to make here are just that. It's not about Democrats being more responsible and Republicans just spending. There are mixed governments, bipartisan common votes, legacy programs and debt, pretending to tax but its only for the other people that never really works out.

Republicans cut taxes, Democrats try to raise them but only on the other party, everyone needs defense, no one needs as much defense as we have, etc. No one is fixing systemic problems. You know not keeping funding the government for a month wasn't responsible.

No one is budgeting. As I mentioned, no one has even tried since 1998. You are just effectively rooting for a sports team that can do no wrong. That's not how reality works.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
I am awake. You are not. They could have reached the same compromise weeks ago. They put unnecessary pain on the people by refusing to. And what did they getting? Not health care renewal, their main objective. A waste of time it was, but they will blame it on the GOP.
Click to expand...
Because it was the GOP that failed to offer even this "compromise" before. They sat on their butts doing nothing because Trump told them to. Then, after a recent meeting where he shouted at the GOP leaders and said how the shutdown was hurting them more than the Democrats, lo and behold they manage to reach a "compromise" with enough Dems.

So, sure, it's the Dems' fault for not reaching a compromise that wasn't previously offered by Republicans who were unwilling to negotiate. But, whatever. :rolleyes:

It's this same logic that sees you punch someone in the face then blame them for starting the fight by not putting their hands up to protect themselves.
Wizard of Whatever said:
You have to pick the time and place for your battles. This wasn't it. It caused untold suffering and harm.
Click to expand...
The Dems were simply doing their job. It was for the party seeking the super-majority to offer compromise sufficient to get the numbers they need. They didn't do that until now. Instead they sulked, and they were the sole cause of the shutdown, for not doing the job they were supposes to do. They assumed that the Dems would just roll over and aprove a clean bill. Well, the Dems didn't. Nothing wrong with that. Everything wrong with the Republicans refusing, at Trump's behest, to negotiate.
Btw, I'm assuming you are aware of the need for a super-majority rather than simple majority, right? And that the super-majority is deliberate, making it harder to pass the resolution, so that a more bi-partisan approach is required? (Even if bi-partisan is just small compromise to entice a handful of opposition across).

But, sure, blame Democrats for not simply rolling over and offering no opposition. :rolleyes:
 
Seattle said:
There is the option of not voting for those who can't effectively govern.
Click to expand...
There is, but that doesn't ultimately help matters. In a 2 party system, 1 party will be better than the other for whatever your own personal politics/issues are. If debt is yours, and you didn't vote Democrat, you're a fool.
Seattle said:
No one is budgeting. As I mentioned, no one has even tried since 1998. You are just effectively rooting for a sports team that can do no wrong. That's not how reality works.
Click to expand...
You can bleat on about budgeting, but since neither party in the US is doing that, as you say, then there's not much you can do. Unfortunately you're also using their similarity in that to then fallaciously both-sides them on their politics in general, by routing everything back to the debt.

Trump doesn't give a shit about the debt. If you do, if that is your main political issue, vote Democrat at every opportunity, as they are better for the the debt. Their politics may not suit you, but they will raise the debt more slowly than Trump.

And this thread is about Trump, and his second term. Yes, it is like a sports team that can do no wrong, pointing and ridiculing the opposition at every opportunity. And yet all you can do is go on and on and on and on about the weather. Or about a completely different sport.
"Oh, they're both bad, because they should be using clubs to strike a much smaller ball than the larger one they kick around. Oh, it's terrible. Terrible, I say!" while you sit in the soccer stadium among the soccer fans watching soccer.
;)
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
They could have reached the same compromise weeks ago. They put unnecessary pain on the people by refusing to. And what did they getting? Not health care renewal, their main objective. A waste of time it was...
Click to expand...
That's largely correct, as far as I can tell.

Also, with the Democrats failing to stand their ground the last two or three times this sort of thing has happened, what's the chances their threats to keep the government shut down until they get what they want will be taken seriously the next time the Republicans need to raise the debt ceiling or fund the daily operations of the government?
 
Sarkus said:
There is, but that doesn't ultimately help matters. In a 2 party system, 1 party will be better than the other for whatever your own personal politics/issues are. If debt is yours, and you didn't vote Democrat, you're a fool.

You can bleat on about budgeting, but since neither party in the US is doing that, as you say, then there's not much you can do. Unfortunately you're also using their similarity in that to then fallaciously both-sides them on their politics in general, by routing everything back to the debt.

Trump doesn't give a shit about the debt. If you do, if that is your main political issue, vote Democrat at every opportunity, as they are better for the the debt. Their politics may not suit you, but they will raise the debt more slowly than Trump.

And this thread is about Trump, and his second term. Yes, it is like a sports team that can do no wrong, pointing and ridiculing the opposition at every opportunity. And yet all you can do is go on and on and on and on about the weather. Or about a completely different sport.
"Oh, they're both bad, because they should be using clubs to strike a much smaller ball than the larger one they kick around. Oh, it's terrible. Terrible, I say!" while you sit in the soccer stadium among the soccer fans watching soccer.
;)
Click to expand...
Why would I support a party whose politics "are not for me"? That's silly. It's also too simplistic to say that they raise the debt less. They aren't good from an economics perspective, IMO, therefore I don't support much of what they do, especially lately. I don't "support" Trump either but that's beside the point. He will end up doing less harm, IMO, than the modern Democratic agenda.

Some version of a libertarian would be closer to my views but the way we do politics would probably manage to make a mess of even a libertarian administration.
 
James R said:
Also, with the Democrats failing to stand their ground the last two or three times this sort of thing has happened, what's the chances their threats to keep the government shut down until they get what they want will be taken seriously the next time the Republicans need to raise the debt ceiling or fund the daily operations of the government?
Click to expand...
Schumer has not led the Dem caucus in a way so as to go out and periodically round up the strays. And this comment from him yesterday reveals why he helped let this happen:

"Americans will remember Republican intransigence every time they make a sky-high payment on health insurance."

Chuck threw 20 million people barely making their monthly bill payments under the bus so that they can pick up rage votes in the midterms next year.

He knows that fabled Decenber vote on ACA will not save it (for one thing, there's no sign of any acceptance in the other chamber of Congress).
 
James R said:
That's largely correct, as far as I can tell.

Also, with the Democrats failing to stand their ground the last two or three times this sort of thing has happened, what's the chances their threats to keep the government shut down until they get what they want will be taken seriously the next time the Republicans need to raise the debt ceiling or fund the daily operations of the government?
Click to expand...
They could have compromised at the beginning and probably got more of what they wanted, with great talking points for health care at the next election
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
They could have compromised at the beginning and probably got more of what they wanted, with great talking points for health care at the next election
Click to expand...
They still have those talking points. So they have not lost there.

But most importantly: no, they (the Democrats) could not have compromised at the beginning, because Trump told the GOP not to negotiate. The Democrats were there to negotiate. They held firm on what they were looking for, but the Republicans came back with... well, no, they didn't even come to the table.

So stop drinking the MAGA Kool-Aid, if you can. Tear your eyes and ears away from FOX News, if you can.
 
If the issue at hand was a government shut down if a CR wasn't passed, a clean CR is all that was required. The rest is all politics. The shut down didn't win the Democrats any points because the shut down was only a negative thing for anyone involved.

If the Democrats do well (or don't do well) in the mid-terms, so be it. A shut down helps no one. It's got nothing to do with Fox News? Do your opinions come from MSNOW?
 
Seattle said:
Do your opinions come from MSNOW?
Click to expand...

That's not for another few days.

But, as I understand it, the new operation is still going to have former Republican congressman as a host, Brzezinski's daughter as his wife and cohost, multiple former Republican congressmen in the punditry stable alongside that many former prosecutors and even an Army general turned law enforcer, oh, and right, and also all those Republican campaigners, authors, and at least one radio host. Oh, shit, and how could I forget the black guy? You know, the former RNC chairman? They recently elevated him to prime-time cohost.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Actually is was the democrats who did the hostage holding with their filibuster.
Click to expand...
Nope. The republicans could have passed it at any time with the nuclear option. They chose not to. Their choice, their responsibility.

Now, it's a given that no republican - EVER - wants to take responsibility for what they've done unless it's good. But the facts say otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top