Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 77
  1. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    Trump wants to cut.

    After he's out of office
    The only way there will be cuts is from a 2nd term president. No matter who it is, and a republican congress.
    Last edited by Angry; 08-02-2019 at 04:45 PM.


  2. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry View Post
    and a republican congress.
    LOL!

  3. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    2% cut across the board, all federal spending. Cap overall spending. Let the politicians battle on this spending vs that spending, rather than getting any new money.
    This is the proposal that needs to happen. Other than the Medicare for All gang, I canít imagine why anyone wouldnít support it.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    34,536
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry View Post
    The only way there will be cuts is from a 2nd term president. No matter who it is, and a republican congress.
    Lol. Is it 1994? The R Congress doesn't give a rat's @ss about cutting spending. Especially if a fellow R is in the White House.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Windom, MN
    Posts
    7,619

    Default

    Speaking of the fiscal situation - from the AP story today after the markets closed. S & P 500 posted its worst week of the year.

    some quotes from the article:

    Trade uncertainty has been weighing on business investment spending, and this latest escalation only adds to it. "It will be important to monitor business sentiment surveys to see whether there is a significant impact on the demand for workers — if businesses stop hiring, this would greatly increase the risk of a recession," UBS Global Wealth Management's Chief Investment Officer Mark Haefele said in a report.

    The latest round of announced tariffs, which would go into effect Sept. 1, more directly affect U.S. consumers shopping at Wal-Mart or Target. If Trump ramps them up to 25% and keeps them there for four to six months, Morgan Stanley economists say they would expect a recession within nine months.

  6. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    Lol. Is it 1994? The R Congress doesn't give a rat's @ss about cutting spending. Especially if a fellow R is in the White House.
    A dem Congress 0% repub 4.5% lol

  7. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    This post should create an explosion of abuse.... Here goes.

    It is always difficult to sort out the US government's financial condition because there is such incredible dishonesty coming from our politicians 24/7- and that comes from both sides (not equally in my view). Both sides fear voter backlash for any real solution that doesn't call for additional free stuff and maintain a steady flow entitlements and goodies to the masses (Rs are wimps). Congress, when it comes to our debt and deficits is making itself irrelevant until the voters can be educated (perhaps never). A review of actual government finances will reveal this. Here is an excellent site with real numbers that you can see for yourself:https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...evenue-3305762

    I took a look, through the site linked at the areas that now drive our spending:

    Discretionary spending: these are dealt with in the regular budgeting process (when that actually happens)
    Mandatory spending: these are largely the entitlement programs
    Interest: depends on the interest rate and the amount of debt

    If you look at discretionary spending it has bounced around between 1.1 trillion and 1.3 trillion over the past 10 years. In the Omnibus bill of 2018, the Rs wanted to revitalize the military to the tune of 80 billion and the Dems were having none of it unless they could also spend some money and they got an additional 60 billion for their negotiating efforts. The military was indeed in need of fixing after the Obama era but it was probably bad strategy by the Rs to take the deal because they look like big spenders because of it and appear disingenuous about fiscal responsibility. So that's the shiny object.

    Real analysis shows that all of that is simply chump change. The deficits are completely intractable unless entitlements are seriously addressed or we have a booming economy or better yet- both. As I have said, Trump recognizes that Congress will do nothing on entitlements and he has decided to put ZERO political capital on that at least until after 2020. That's why his strategy is to make the economy boom, put tariffs on unfair competition (and take their money) and attempt to get as many people un-addicted to the entitlement programs as possible. It is only with a full employment economy that is booming will more people consider a real fix to entitlements.

    Here is a quick table of what has happened in the past 6-7 years with the spending categories: (I go only to 2018 as that is the last completed fiscal year. I started with F 2012 because it is post stimulus, hot war and TARP so that things have settled)


    Discretionary 2012 1.15 trillion 2018 1.2 trillion + (the numbers are confusing here -see for yourself as this is where Omnibus came in)
    Mandatory 2012 2.09 trillion 2018 2.5 trillion
    Interest 2012 220 billion 2018 320 billion
    Totals 2012 3.46 trillion 2018 4.02 trillion

    So in just 6+ years our annual government expense went up almost 600 billion per year. 500 billion per year are because of mandatory spending (entitlements) and interest. There is nothing congress can do in the regular budgeting process about it, nor can President Trump do anything about the mandatory spending or the interest. Trump has one option in front of him and only one- booming economy. He is not going to get anything real coming out of congress. NO CHANCE. Congress would have to pass actual legislation that would cut the cost of entitlements or raise the funds to cover the entitlements.

    Solutions

    Nothing is going to happen between now and the end of 2020. It is political/silly season.

    Starting in 2021 the options are as follows:
    If the economy is still good and Rs are in charge: Do a combo platter of a gradual cutback on entitlements by a few percent per year- while gradually increasing over a 5 year period perhaps, the withholding that should be earmarked to the entitlement programs. Add to that older retirement ages and that would be a big step forward. I don't know if the Rs would ever have the guts to do this but....

    If one is thinking more socialistic- Ds are in power: then the solution set looks like this- give lots more free stuff and raise the tax rates and see what happens. My bet: the economy tanks and it ends in a disaster.

    Congress has become the most dysfunctional part of our government. In my view the President sets the big picture emphasis but Congress can course correct. Obama concentrated on grievance politics and giving entitlements away- not on the economy. Trump has concentrated on the economy and creating an American boom but not on fixing entitlements. Both achieved things towards their end. Congress has done almost nothing to course correct.
    I actually like your post, nice OP, overall. There are parts of this I agree with plenty. But...
    A few things to criticize, up front, because it's hard to agree or disagree with your post with the misconceptions and falsities:
    1. Tariffs are NOT paid by the exporter, they are paid by the importer. WE are the importer. So, in the example of China, WE are paying higher taxes on their goods. The reason they get hurt in the process is because their goods are now significantly more expensive on the market, and thus harder to sell. Plus, they get none of that tariff money.
    2. Inflation, which you always simply dismiss, is not at all dismiss-able. You need to include inflation anytime you present numbers if you are trying to compare one year to another. That includes revenue, spending, and etc.
    3. Republicans were the ones increasing spending between their takeover of Congress in 1/2011, and when they lost the House to begin 1/2019.
    4. The military was NOT hurting under the Obama administration. It still received far more funding than the next bunch of countries combined. And, it was the Republican Congress who forced sequestration because they could not deliver a decent budget. The decreases in military spending were directly due to that sequestration. Notably, spending was flattened across the board during sequestration. The economy also flattened during sequestration, which was stupidly enforced in the early-to-mid recovery stages from a major recession. It was done for political reasons only - to harm the POTUS at that time. It worked.
    5. The economy will tank soon enough, primarily because it never stopped bubbling after the Great Bush Recession, and the Great Orange One supercharged that bubble with the tax decreases on the wealthy and the massive spending increases. If the economy tanks soon, it'll largely (but not only) be on DJT and the Republicans for unnecessarily supercharging the economy through deficit spending; just like they did under the previous Republican POTUS, Bush Jr., the actions of which definitely helped push us into the Great Recession.
    6. Congress's "dysfunctionality" can be traced straight back to the Gingrich revolution, where Republicans decided to play hardball on every single subject instead of working with their colleagues to push the country forward. If you want Congress to work, the Republican Party needs a massive overhaul to become decent, patriotic, compromising people again. Refusal to compromise is indirectly destructive. It needs to stop.
    Last edited by cncmin; 08-02-2019 at 10:14 PM.

  8. #53

    Default

    Great post, Cincy.

  9. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottlebass View Post
    Why do you keep repeating this lie?
    Simple: Because his arguments require lies to be logical. Take out the lies and they completely fall apart. I'll give Beeg this much: he's a very logical person, just terribly misinformed. (Include KGF in that club.)

  10. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottlebass View Post
    Why do you keep repeating this lie?
    In the past six months or so I've been shocked by the price of fast food. A fast food burger, alone, runs close to $5, without side or beverage. Sadly, that I know this suggests I eat fast food more often than I'd like (which would be zero).

  11. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    2% cut across the board, all federal spending. Cap overall spending. Let the politicians battle on this spending vs that spending, rather than getting any new money.
    Really, the spending doesn't need to be cut, it just needs to be held steady. Eventually, revenues will catch up (assuming no further tax decreases) and result in surplus. The complicating factor in this is interest on the debt, though...

  12. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by short ornery norwegian View Post
    OK, let's talk about entitlements.

    Social Security - begin means-testing. reduce benefits for people with incomes and/or assets above a certain point. then start edging up full retirement age. People are living longer and many are staying in the work force, so start slowly pushing retirement age back. also, ask people to pay a little more in SS tax - while raising the wage base. (currently capped at $128K).

    Medicare - not a lot of ideas. look at some form of means-testing - maybe higher co-pays for people with assets above a certain level. May also have to bump up or adjust Medicare tax rates.

    Discretionary spending - to try and get the budget somewhat under control - hard freeze 1st year, then 1% real cut in discretionary spending every year for at least 5 years, then re-assess. have to take a hard look at all federal spending - separate the nice from the necessary on grant programs, research, etc.
    maybe offer some kind of tax incentive for corporations that contribute to a private-sector fund for grants and research to take the onus off federal gov't.
    In my opinion, means testing is completely unfair and unnecessary. EVERYone who pays into SS should get at least what they paid in back. SS problems can be solved extremely easily: reduce payouts by very small percentages, annually, until incoming SS revenue matches outgoing expenditures. A longer-term solution is to not raise SS payouts (e.g., to match inflation), and let SS revenues catch up. Or increase SS revenues, as occurred under Reagan/Congressional Dems to solve the problem back in the 80s.

    I would also disagree with means testing on Medicare; same deal. Medicare deficit needs to be controlled through reduced healthcare costs and/or increase Medicare revenues.
    Last edited by cncmin; 08-02-2019 at 11:20 PM.

  13. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cncmin View Post
    I actually like your post, nice OP, overall. There are parts of this I agree with plenty. But...
    A few things to criticize, up front, because it's hard to agree or disagree with your post with the misconceptions and falsities:
    1. Tariffs are NOT paid by the exporter, they are paid by the importer. WE are the importer. So, in the example of China, WE are paying higher taxes on their goods. The reason they get hurt in the process is because their goods are now significantly more expensive on the market, and thus harder to sell. Plus, they get none of that tariff money.
    2. Inflation, which you always simply dismiss, is not at all dismiss-able. You need to include inflation anytime you present numbers if you are trying to compare one year to another. That includes revenue, spending, and etc.
    3. Republicans were the ones increasing spending between their takeover of Congress in 1/2011, and when they lost the House to begin 1/2019.
    4. The military was NOT hurting under the Obama administration. It still received far more funding than the next bunch of countries combined. And, it was the Republican Congress who forced sequestration because they could not deliver a decent budget. The decreases in military spending were directly due to that sequestration. Notably, spending was flattened across the board during sequestration. The economy also flattened during sequestration, which was stupidly enforced in the early-to-mid recovery stages from a major recession. It was done for political reasons only - to harm the POTUS at that time. It worked.
    5. The economy will tank soon enough, primarily because it never stopped bubbling after the Great Bush Recession, and the Great Orange One supercharged that bubble with the tax decreases on the wealthy and the massive spending increases. If the economy tanks soon, it'll largely (but not only) be on DJT and the Republicans for unnecessarily supercharging the economy through deficit spending; just like they did under the previous Republican POTUS, Bush Jr., the actions of which definitely helped push us into the Great Recession.
    6. Congress's "dysfunctionality" can be traced straight back to the Gingrich revolution, where Republicans decided to play hardball on every single subject instead of working with their colleagues to push the country forward. If you want Congress to work, the Republican Party needs a massive overhaul to become decent, patriotic, compromising people again. Refusal to compromise is indirectly destructive. It needs to stop.
    Yeah, bgaís post was a really good and well thought out post. I hadnít read it or much of this thread.

    Then you posted ďItís all the Republicans faultĒ crap, and always have to bring in inflation to your argument (inflation has been low in historical terms over the last couple decades btw), and doom and gloom predictions, etc.

    The tariffs are hurting China more than theyíre hurting us. It hurts sectors of our economy when China decreases imports. And when it hurts those sectors, some folks complain like crazy, naturally. But it frankly isnít good when sectors of the economy become too dependent on fewer customer sources or one. Dependency gives leverage to the buyer.

    A side note: how can you possible think that the buyers of Chinese products bear all of the tariff taxes? The seller, China, still wants to maximize the number of units that they sell and total profit, and a tax will certainly have a negative effect on unit volume, but the seller will undoubtably reduce their profit margins to maintain the maximum number of units sold and maximize total profit. By reducing their profit margins, they are paying a portion of that tariff, so both sides are paying. But we have more to gain b/c we buy 3 times as much stuff as they buy from us. That is our leverage and Trump is using it.

    China has lost huge numbers of manufacturing jobs and some companies are getting out b/c of the tariffs. Thatís bad for them. As a result, we are increasing our trade with Mexico and Canada. Again, our leverage.

    One of the issues bga discussed is the unwillingness of our politicians to reduce spending b/c of the electoral consequences of cut the budget where they would be most needed and significant, entitlements. China doesnít have to worry about electoral consequences. They have a President for Life. Congress must suck up to its constituents constantly, and therefore they have absolutely zero leverage to make hard decisions about entitlement cuts.

    China makes hard decisions in minutes. They can flex their muscles and not have to worry about the consent of the people or sectors of their economy. This gives them leverage over our elected officials and is the reason why Bush or Obama didnít challenge them like Trump, beside that fact that China has boomed as a trading partner since they went capitalist-communist and therefore this has only become an issue in the last couple decades.

    Trade wars are bad, but when disequilibrium is occurring, itís a good long term correction for becoming too dependent on a world adversary. If Trump is successful in bringing about fair trade between the US and China, our economy will take off. It is doing well, even with the trade issue holding it back.

    If Trump gets a favorable deal with China, the 2020 re-election is a lock with the good economy and those sectors of concern, like farmers, will be in the fold. And, if the Republicans take back the House and keep the Senate, he might be able to drag the Senate and House kicking and screaming to make some real spending cuts. I wonít hold my breath on that though.

  14. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    Yeah, bga’s post was a really good and well thought out post. I hadn’t read it or much of this thread.

    Then you posted “It’s all the Republicans fault” crap, and always have to bring in inflation to your argument (inflation has been low in historical terms over the last couple decades btw), and doom and gloom predictions, etc.

    The tariffs are hurting China more than they’re hurting us. It hurts sectors of our economy when China decreases imports. And when it hurts those sectors, some folks complain like crazy, naturally. But it frankly isn’t good when sectors of the economy become too dependent on fewer customer sources or one. Dependency gives leverage to the buyer.

    A side note: how can you possible think that the buyers of Chinese products bear all of the tariff taxes? The seller, China, still wants to maximize the number of units that they sell and total profit, and a tax will certainly have a negative effect on unit volume, but the seller will undoubtably reduce their profit margins to maintain the maximum number of units sold and maximize total profit. By reducing their profit margins, they are paying a portion of that tariff, so both sides are paying. But we have more to gain b/c we buy 3 times as much stuff as they buy from us. That is our leverage and Trump is using it.

    China has lost huge numbers of manufacturing jobs and some companies are getting out b/c of the tariffs. That’s bad for them. As a result, we are increasing our trade with Mexico and Canada. Again, our leverage.

    One of the issues bga discussed is the unwillingness of our politicians to reduce spending b/c of the electoral consequences of cut the budget where they would be most needed and significant, entitlements. China doesn’t have to worry about electoral consequences. They have a President for Life. Congress must suck up to its constituents constantly, and therefore they have absolutely zero leverage to make hard decisions about entitlement cuts.

    China makes hard decisions in minutes. They can flex their muscles and not have to worry about the consent of the people or sectors of their economy. This gives them leverage over our elected officials and is the reason why Bush or Obama didn’t challenge them like Trump, beside that fact that China has boomed as a trading partner since they went capitalist-communist and therefore this has only become an issue in the last couple decades.

    Trade wars are bad, but when disequilibrium is occurring, it’s a good long term correction for becoming too dependent on a world adversary. If Trump is successful in bringing about fair trade between the US and China, our economy will take off. It is doing well, even with the trade issue holding it back.

    If Trump gets a favorable deal with China, the 2020 re-election is a lock with the good economy and those sectors of concern, like farmers, will be in the fold. And, if the Republicans take back the House and keep the Senate, he might be able to drag the Senate and House kicking and screaming to make some real spending cuts. I won’t hold my breath on that though.
    Dude. Why do you always do this? I posted very little opinion in my post; it was almost all fact. That it might reflect bad on Republicans is merely evidence that reflects poorly on them. Too bad. Quit being such a huge fanboy of a political party. What's in it for you to always suck up to any and every Republican?

    I made no argument whatsoever on Trump's trade war with China. In fact, I praised Trump for taking up that fight on this very board a couple of months back, and I largely support the current trade war with China (and pretty much only China), which is long overdue.

    As for the economy, it seems to me to be on life support (i.e., supported by massive deficit spending) right now, and it's only a matter of time before the economy takes a downturn. The economy is really the only thing the current POTUS has going for him, and frankly, it's really not all that great. It very likely will downturn during the next Presidential term, no matter who is President. For the sake of your idol, you better hope he loses this election; or the impending "Trump Depression" will cement him as by far and away the worst President in American history.
    Last edited by cncmin; 08-02-2019 at 11:31 PM.

  15. #60

    Default

    Facts? Hahahaha

    Yeah, the same kinds of “facts” seen on CNN and MSNBC.

    You said that our buyers will pay all of the tariffs in higher prices. It’s not true, but it is a Dem talking point.

    I don’t grade Trump like Trump grades Trump with the stock market, but the market is a reflection of what investors think is going to happen with our economy in the foreseeable future. The market is seeing something quite different than you are. I’ll trust it before your opinion of doom.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •