Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump on Debt Crisis: "I Won't Be Here" when it blows up

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Uncle Figgy View Post

    Just because something isn't quick or obvious doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen. Why don't you give the guy ha;f a chance and see how it works out? I'm pretty sure he knows more about it than you do.
    It's been two years into his elected four year term. That IS "half a chance".

    But one doesn't need to wait and see how it all plays out to know you can't build up the military to the biggest ever AND reduce the debt at the same time. That's simple math.

    And no. I don't think he knows more about it than I do. Why would he? He knew nothing about any of it when he ran for office. Isn't that part of WHY you voted for him? Because he WASN'T an experienced politician?
    Last edited by guido61; 12-06-2018, 10:44 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by guido61 View Post

      It's been two years into his elected four year term. That IS "half a chance".

      But one doesn't need to wait and see how it all plays out to know you can't build up the military to the biggest ever AND reduce the debt at the same time. That's simple math.

      And no. I don't think he knows more about it than I do. Why would he? He knew nothing about any of it when he ran for office. Isn't that part of WHY you voted for him? Because he WASN'T an experienced politician?
      So, you call the game over at half time? That doesn't sound like a fair chance to me.
      "I belong to,a religion that calls for the hatered and stupidity. My religious beliefs doesn't allow me to serve Trumplethinskin or his trumpanzees"- oldsoapbars

      Comment


      • #33
        By the way the economic indicators are starting to run, Donny Dipchit may not get out of the way before a crash.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by oldsoapbars View Post
          By the way the economic indicators are starting to run, Donny Dipchit may not get out of the way before a crash.
          I kind of remember a quote from him indicating that '08 was a good year for harvesting devalued real estate.
          Only in the darkness can you see the stars.

          Martin Luther King

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Uncle Figgy View Post

            So, you call the game over at half time? That doesn't sound like a fair chance to me.
            Calling out bad economic policy is pretty easy.

            There is NO economic model I've ever seen that calls for increasing deficit spending during good economic times. It's not only complete idiocy, but it's dangerous when we are already have such a high debt load.

            It's not only pretty clear Trump doesn't know jack about economics, he essentially told us all when he was running when he said things like that he was the "king of debt" and suggesting that he could renegotiate the terms of the debt we already have.

            The federal debt isn't like a loan you got from a bank and if you get into too much trouble you can go in and ask them to forgive half of what you owe them for fear you might default on the rest. Not when you're the USA anyway.

            Nor can you just file bankruptcy on it and walk away and go get money from somewhere else as Trump did 4 times in his career.

            The man is not only obviously (and rather admittedly) clueless about so many things that are central to the job he now holds, he's also not the type of person who is at all interested in learning because he foolishly believes he knows more than anyone else in the room when it comes to any subject.

            This is the guy who said he knows more than the generals and cited as his source of knowledge the fact that he's seen a lot of people talking about stuff on cable news shows.

            And THIS is the guy you love and call "sweet sweet". I've NEVER fallen in love with a politician. I can barely stomach most of the ones I've voted for and supported. Yet you and others here are completely over the moon for this inexperienced, ill-informed, narcissistic ninny like old ladies at a Monkees' reunion concert.

            It's kinda creepy if you ask me.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by oldsoapbars View Post
              By the way the economic indicators are starting to run, Donny Dipchit may not get out of the way before a crash.
              I hope the economy doesn't crash but if it does? Worst case scenario: Economy goes down, Trump gets booted out of office and he blames it all on the media and Nancy Pelosi.


              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                I agree with this.

                But I’d add that there aren’t really that many “social programs” left to cut unless we start talking about the two big monsters: SS and MediCare
                Oh, we're going to have to talk about those (as well as military spending) if we're going to get a handle on our national debt. They are the biggest expenses in the US budget.



                Click image for larger version  Name:	1506369198_federal_spending.png Views:	1 Size:	111.0 KB ID:	32411006


                Social Security is going to run out of money in the not too distant future - soon enough that it will have an impact on many of the people here - myself included. Either we raise the retirement age, raise the cap on the earnings amount that is subject to Social Security withholding (currently it's $128,400 IIRC) or cut benefits - the two major political parties can't agree on which of those things to implement and don't want to risk ticking off the voters by doing something fiscally responsible but painful and unpopular, so they keep passing the buck to the "next congress" and the next, and the next...

                Of course, most of us would love to see "Medicare for all", but the question is how do we pay for yet another social program when we already have amassed a large, crushing national debt that no one wants to try to reduce or pay down - and if we continue with deficit spending and don't reduce the debt and start paying it down, the interest on it is going to soon become an even greater expense than what we pay for the military and veteran's affairs, and then not too long after that, it will surpass Social Security and Medicare in terms of percentage of the national budget....

                I've said it repeatedly, regardless of which party is in power: it's unsustainable.

                and the problem with those is less the politicians than it is the American people. Most everyone wants those programs; few want to pay what will be required to maintain them. Especially conservatives. (I suspect most liberals would be willing to accept a tax increase to cover them)
                Sure, most liberals would probably support a tax increase, but most liberal politicians don't want to consider a raise in the retirement age, or a reduction in benefits - in fact, they want (or at least keep proposing) MORE benefits, and drastically increased spending on these programs (e.g. Medicare for all), in spite of not having any viable way of paying for them. Republicans don't want to see taxes raised, the SS taxable income cap raised, and/or defense spending lowered - so both sides shoot down the efforts (weak as they may be) of the other to address the issue. And frankly, I think it's going to take a combination of things (including some that are going to make both sides unhappy) if Social Security is going to survive in anything similar to its current form, and if we're going to get a handle on the national debt.

                The politicians really need to be honest with the American people about the reality of those two programs but they all fear that doing so would be political suicide.
                Yup - so they irresponsibly pass the buck and wait until it becomes a crisis that can no longer be ignored, in some sort of sick version of political musical chairs - hoping they can stay in power for as long as possible, but that they won't be the ones in office when the music stops...
                **********

                "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."
                - George Carlin

                "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."
                - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

                "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."
                - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

                Comment


                • Phil O'Keefe
                  Phil O'Keefe commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I mentioned the Republican's unwillingness to consider lowering military spending. However, cutting the military alone isn't going to solve the problems we face IMO. It's certainly not enough to add yet another entitlement program (i.e. Medicare for all) and pay for it... the cost of which is estimated at over 30 TRILLION for the first ten years... and that's a heck of a lot more than we spend on the military (roughly six trillion) in the same time period.

                  https://budget.house.gov/budget-bust...icare-for-all/

                  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...dicare-for-all

                • Tom Hicks
                  Tom Hicks commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I objected to over funding the military to play world cop.

                  we certainly have many many things here at home we could be spending that same money on.

                  Infrastructure the general welfare Etc.

                • Phil O'Keefe
                  Phil O'Keefe commented
                  Editing a comment
                  The problem is Tom, if we aren't the biggest kid on the block, someone else is going to fill that role - and the most likely to do so are the Russians and the Chinese - and neither of those two countries would have the same priorities as we do...

              • #38
                Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post





                Sure, most liberals would probably support a tax increase, but most liberal politicians don't want to consider a raise in the retirement age, or a reduction in benefits - in fact, they want (or at least keep proposing) MORE benefits, and drastically increased spending on these programs (e.g. Medicare for all), in spite of not having any viable way of paying for them. Republicans don't want to see taxes raised, the SS taxable income cap raised, and/or defense spending lowered - so both sides shoot down the efforts (weak as they may be) of the other to address the issue. And frankly, I think it's going to take a combination of things (including some that are going to make both sides unhappy) if Social Security is going to survive in anything similar to its current form, and if we're going to get a handle on the national debt.


                .
                SS is actually a pretty easy fix. But yes, you pointed out the things neither side is willing to do. If we raise the cap and raise the retirement age (let's remember that when first instituted, the age for receiving benefits was HIGHER than the average lifespan at the time.) we'd actually be fine. And once we get past the boomers retiring, we'd go through a long period of it running surpluses again as the Gen X generation is smaller but the Millennial generation is even larger than the Boomers.

                Medicare is a bigger problem and Medicare for All is pretty much unworkable in any of the proposals I've seen thus far. The problem is, people are going to get sick and we're going to have to pay for it one way or another anyway.

                Obviously we'd have to raise taxes a GREAT DEAL to cover MFA. But since most of us are already paying several hundred dollars a month for private insurance, it really shouldn't be quite as oppressive as it sounds. And I think any workable proposal would have to be some sort of public/private partnership. MFA can cover the basics and the catastrophic and allow people to purchase private insurance to cover a lot of the stuff in between, perhaps? Maybe Medicare will pay to take care of your initial injuries and get you somewhat back on your feet but you're on your own for things like long-term rehabilitation and such?

                I dunno. There's gotta be a way to make it work. Seems a lot of other countries have figured out ways to deal with it. We just have to all be willing to accept that A) it's not going to be cheap B) it's not going to be perfect.

                But what we have is already neither of those things. Not even close.

                Comment


                • #39
                  And not to scare everyone with 'death panels' but we do need to consider that a huge amount of health care expenses go to cover the last 6 months of people's lives. We have to be realistic about what makes sense for extending out people's lives at the end.

                  And MediCare seems to pay for a lot of stupid (IMO) stuff. My 84 year old mother has had trouble walking without pain for several years. She decided to try having her hips replaced. There's no guarantee that doing so will relieve her pain or that her hips are even the cause of it. She's already had one replaced and doesn't really feel much better but she's going to go in and have the other one replaced anyway. MediCare is covering it all.

                  Geez...she's my mom and I don't want her to be in pain and all of that, but c'mon. She's 84 and they don't even know for sure that the surgery will help?

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    The GOP plan is to starve the beast and reduce the size of government.*

                    *by spending more than any previous administration.

                    Comment


                    • #41
                      I had kind of held out hope that Trump might be the type of guy who, if he became president, he'd take the case to the people about what needed to be done and then knock some bi-partisan heads together in congress.

                      It's sad because he probably DOES actually possess the rhetorical chops to do so. And if he pulled it off his approval ratings would probably shoot up to 70%. But he can't seem to get out of his own way. He's so short-term focused on what Hannity is going to say about it that night and what the immediate reaction of his "base" will be, that he can't seem to understand how much better he'd be off in the long term to actually BE the outsider-reformer he envisions himself being.
                      Last edited by guido61; 12-06-2018, 12:42 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #42
                        Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                        SS is actually a pretty easy fix. But yes, you pointed out the things neither side is willing to do. If we raise the cap and raise the retirement age (let's remember that when first instituted, the age for receiving benefits was HIGHER than the average lifespan at the time.) we'd actually be fine. And once we get past the boomers retiring, we'd go through a long period of it running surpluses again as the Gen X generation is smaller but the Millennial generation is even larger than the Boomers.
                        To me, those are the solutions that make the most sense... but again, it's a combination of things that neither side is going to like - the Democrats don't want to raise the retirement age, and the Republicans don't want to raise the cap. Neither one by itself is going to get the job done - it's going to take both, and one aspect or the other of that solution is going to be distasteful to whatever party happens to be in power ATM, which means it's not likely to be done any time soon - and the longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes.

                        Medicare is a bigger problem and Medicare for All is pretty much unworkable in any of the proposals I've seen thus far. The problem is, people are going to get sick and we're going to have to pay for it one way or another anyway.

                        Obviously we'd have to raise taxes a GREAT DEAL to cover MFA.
                        I suspect we'd have to nearly double the current tax rates in order to pay for MFA. Look at that pie chart again - the national budget is ~$3.84T a year; MFA would require ~$3.2T in additional spending annually - and that's just in the first ten years - the costs, as they seem to do with all such programs, would most likely only increase over time. And even with a doubling of taxes to pay for MFA, that still wouldn't address the deficit spending and national debt issues, or the rising amount we have to pay in interest with each passing year...



                        **********

                        "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."
                        - George Carlin

                        "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."
                        - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

                        "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."
                        - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

                        Comment


                        • #43
                          Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

                          To me, those are the solutions that make the most sense... but again, it's a combination of things that neither side is going to like - the Democrats don't want to raise the retirement age, and the Republicans don't want to raise the cap. Neither one by itself is going to get the job done - it's going to take both, and one aspect or the other of that solution is going to be distasteful to whatever party happens to be in power ATM, which means it's not likely to be done any time soon - and the longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes.



                          I suspect we'd have to nearly double the current tax rates in order to pay for MFA. Look at that pie chart again - the national budget is ~$3.84T a year; MFA would require ~$3.2T in additional spending annually - and that's just in the first ten years - the costs, as they seem to do with all such programs, would most likely only increase over time. And even with a doubling of taxes to pay for MFA, that still wouldn't address the deficit spending and national debt issues, or the rising amount we have to pay in interest with each passing year...


                          How much are you paying now for private insurance?

                          Comment


                          • #44
                            Private Health Insurance (34 percent share): Private health insurance spending increased 5.1
                            percent to $1.1 trillion in 2016, which was slower than the 6.9 percent growth in 2015. The
                            deceleration was largely driven by slower enrollment growth in 2016 after two years of robust
                            enrollment growth due in part to ACA coverage expansion.
                            • Out-of-Pocket (11 percent share): Out-of-pocket spending grew 3.9 percent in 2016 to $352.5
                            billion, faster than the growth of 2.8 percent in 2015. This was the fastest rate of growth since
                            2007 and exceeded the average annual of growth 2.0 percent from 2008-15.
                            from: CMS.com

                            Comment


                            • #45
                              Originally posted by guido61 View Post
                              And not to scare everyone with 'death panels' but we do need to consider that a huge amount of health care expenses go to cover the last 6 months of people's lives. We have to be realistic about what makes sense for extending out people's lives at the end.

                              And MediCare seems to pay for a lot of stupid (IMO) stuff. My 84 year old mother has had trouble walking without pain for several years. She decided to try having her hips replaced. There's no guarantee that doing so will relieve her pain or that her hips are even the cause of it. She's already had one replaced and doesn't really feel much better but she's going to go in and have the other one replaced anyway. MediCare is covering it all.

                              Geez...she's my mom and I don't want her to be in pain and all of that, but c'mon. She's 84 and they don't even know for sure that the surgery will help?
                              My mother in law will be 100 in Feb. Three years ago she broke her hip and not quite a year later she fell and broke the other hip. Up until that time she lived in a an apartment. She is now confined to a nursing home and it costs a little over $5K a month. She is quite fortunate in that she has assets and can pay her nursing home bills for probably another 2+ years before her assets are depleted and after that my wife and I could carry it at least another 5 years. We're lucky (???) in that it's not a burden for Medicare but think of all the elderly people that rely on Medicare.

                              Such is life.
                              (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.) Cuban Leaf

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X