Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[Bughouse]

No. Donald Trump in fact knows nothing about the debt. That is not the conventional wisdom at all. The US is in no urgent need to default whatsoever.

Our debt is cheap and all that matters in terms of any immediate urgency is whether or not we can meet interest payments. We easily can:

That's not to say there isn't an issue with the debt. There is. It's that we continue to increase it by refusing to balance budgets. Which will only ever happen with increasing tax revenue and/or entitlement reform.

 

[Shy Glizzy]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...is-just-the-conventional-wisdom/#609607b25308

This has been passed around a lot recently, but I am not convinced at all. He uses Greece, Puerto Rico, and Argentina as the three pillars of his argument and they all have flaws.

• The PR and Argentina situations are very recent, and it is impossible to tell if it will even lead to recovery, and the effects of lender confidence it will have in the future. Saying, "well these other guys did it" is moot if you don't know if it actually worked.
• Greece and Puerto Rico don't print their own currency, so they don't have the power to do what the U.S. normally does in the face of unmanageable debt, anyway. It's not like they weighed the options and went down that path. They had no choice.
  
• He mentioned that Greece did buybacks in 2013, but for some reason he doesn't mention what things are looking like three years down the line. Because they're still absolutely fucked. The buybacks did nothing to help the Greek economy, and only served to line the pockets of hedge fund managers.

That also ignores the effect it will have on America having a leading finance sector, and being the worlds reserve currency. Inventors the world over hold U.S. Treasury bonds because of the absolute confidence they will be paid back in full. It is the investing equivalent of putting your money under the mattress. You break that lender trust and you do damage to America's economic and political status worldwide, that can never be fully healed.

The worst part is he blurts out crazy shit like this on a regular basis. When interviewers ask him questions you can literally see him think over the question for the first time ever! Voters have absolutely no idea what they're getting with him because he doesn't even know himself until it is presented directly in front of him. Yet there's always his lapdogs to quickly put words in his mouth and construct what he really meant whenever he verbally diarrheas in front of a TV camera.

 

[redit]

Hey I have got all information about US election 2016 from my wiki bro. And I am curious about the result .I think it will be better if the election goes well and with full safety and I think you all expect so. Have you any idea who is the best in democratic party? please share your opinion that I am curious to know all about this.Thank you

 

[JES]

If I could vote, I would most definitely vote for Trump over Shillary.

At times, I've thought like that, but upon closer inspection, Trump might not be the lesser of two evils you think he is. His Trump University was a scam, and there is now are three ongoing lawsuits. He also has a tendency to say whatever he thinks will give him the vote. Even my father acknowledges that Shillary's history with the banks shows that she has probably been influenced, but would you really want to cast your vote for a candidate involved in a scandal? And there are also a number of other legal affairs.

The sad thing is, I don't feel positive enough about either candidate that I'm willing to vote Independent. Sure there is the fact that living in Florida probably gives my vote special importance, but I don't care if not voting for Hillary gives Trump the presidency, because I feel that both are bad in their own ways, and to hell with voting for the lesser of two evils.

When you can vote, you'll need to research your candidates of choice.

 

[Outlaw]

At times, I've thought like that, but upon closer inspection, Trump might not be the lesser of two evils you think he is. His Trump University was a scam, and there is now are three ongoing lawsuits. He also has a tendency to say whatever he thinks will give him the vote. Even my father acknowledges that Shillary's history with the banks shows that she has probably been influenced, but would you really want to cast your vote for a candidate involved in a scandal? And there are also a number of other legal affairs.

The sad thing is, I don't feel positive enough about either candidate that I'm willing to vote Independent. Sure there is the fact that living in Florida probably gives my vote special importance, but I don't care if not voting for Hillary gives Trump the presidency, because I feel that both are bad in their own ways, and to hell with voting for the lesser of two evils.

When you can vote, you'll need to research your candidates of choice.

I don't vote because I'm not registered.

And two: Lol, only three scandals? How many has Hillary been a part in? (And ducked out of, cause she's Shillary.)

C: Still would vote for Trump.

 

[JES]

I don't vote because I'm not registered.

And two: Lol, only three scandals? How many has Hillary been a part in? (And ducked out of, cause she's Shillary.)

C: Still would vote for Trump.

My father e-mailed me the link to this article on Trump, which he and I recommend any potential Trump voters for November. It discusses a little about his bankruptcies. Also interesting is how he blames China for the loss of jobs in the country, when corporations willingly close down factories here and set up shop elsewhere, so they can get away with paying workers less. Hypocritically, he has done this too setting up a clothing line with his daughter in "China (and Mexico, that land of “rapists,” and Bangladesh, a country continuously in violation of human rights for garment workers)."

 

[brightobject]

can u stop citing your dad? no offense to your dad, but it doesn't matter one jot whether you found it yourself or learnt it from ur dad. (i.e. its a bit redundant)

anyways i think something ppl should start doing itt (and like everywhere else in cong) is addressing potential counterpoints ahead of time. that's just me though

e: ironically, this post might itself be redundant...so just throwing out there that I've changed my opinion on Trump's Taco Bowl tweet. In retrospect he probably did it to gain attention and a rise out of media networks/opposition while appealing to white voters...thoughts?

e2: doubly ironically i didnt consider any ctrpts... well basically even if Trump is a racist I dont believe he would be so stupid as to think something like that would win any latino votes. He probably knows very well that he's already alienated the latino vote by too great of a margin

 

[JES]

Fine, I guess the source doesn't matter, so much as the content.

And by addressing potential counterpoints, you mean posting stuff similar to above on all the candidates, and finding any questionable actions (if not outright illegal actions), than I 1000% agree with you. I wonder what we'd find if we really started digging for dirt on Shillary?

 

[Soul Fly]

No. Donald Trump in fact knows nothing about the debt. That is not the conventional wisdom at all. The US is in no urgent need to default whatsoever.(...)

what you guys goin' about about. ofc this guy knows shit about money goddamn shillary doesn't.

 

[sunny004]

I'm going to attempt to save this thread from the hateful sh*tstorm that it's evolving into, so let me ask this to the people in this thread:

Who do you support and WHY? List policies/positions that you agree with. Please try to avoid turning your answer into a "I like *insert name here* because he/she is not *other name here*."

Another hypothetical question: What would be the positions and characteristics of your "ideal" president? Not only on political positions, but on personal beliefs and values, physicality, etc.

EDIT: I'm also seeing a lot of "Hillary Hate" going on in the above posts, claiming that she's super corrupt and slides her way out of scandals. Can you provide some sources for these claims? I'm not trying to debate your position but I'd like to have a substantial argument and not fact less screaming.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

I think it's time we stop choosing from the lesser of two evils.

We all know about Trump. He's said hateful, fascist things and for some reason can't immediately decide to condemn David Duke. Also, we're talking about the same person who doxed Lindsey Graham, right? And he's the presumptive GOP nominee? A doxer is the presumptive GOP nominee? Really guys?

As for Hillary Clinton, it's not even that her campaign positions are entirely intolerable. It's that I don't believe she genuinely believes anything she says. Her support for gay marriage didn't come until after support for gay marriage in this country surpassed 50% of the population - hell, I don't even think it came until after she announced her campaign. It just seems like she flip-flopped for the sake of boosting polling numbers. fwiw, she also flip-flopped on the TPP. And this isn't even mentioning the potential for an FBI indictment based on her use of a(n allegedly completely unsecured) private email server while Secretary of State. Being subject to an FBI investigation used to mean something.

If I want to vote in 2016, I will have to register to vote in the state of Oklahoma, which does not put third party candidates on the ballot, let alone even allow third party registration. Given that I can't even vote for a candidate I actually like, seeing as Trump has already secured the GOP nomination and Clinton is all but guaranteed the Dem nomination at this point, I'm spending the first presidential election I can vote in at home. Let me know when either the Democrats or Republicans nominate someone who isn't completely fucking insufferable.

 

[JES]

Wait, states can actually refuse to put anyone on the ballot if they're not Democrat or Republican? Okay, I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that is no less than rigging the system, even if you can just write someone in. Actually, can you even write anyone in Oklahoma, or is it literally "okay here are your choices: shit or piss, have fun ;-)"?

I just want a candidate who is guaranteed to choose the next Supreme judge based on if they would side with political activist's goals to get money out of politics and the court system, and if they would do something about climate change, especially since I live in Florida, and assuming I don't move. Also finding ways to encourage development of clean renewables, from hydrogen, to nuclear fusion, wind, and solar would be very nice, rather than continuing to subsidize fossil fuels, and it is a shame that there is no talk about it.

I need to look at the other Independent and Third Party candidates. I've already looked at Andrew Basiago, and even though he is a conspiracy theorist (believes in black projects, including with alien tech), his non-controversial proposals come off as well educated and informative. For example, our power grid isn't protected against EMPs, which could knock us back into the stone age, whether it is enemy attack or a coronal mass ejection. No candidate has ever talked about this threat that I think we should be prepared for.For another example, I'll have to investigate if fluoride does calcify the pineal gland, preferably, there will be a non-conspiracy source of research to support the notion.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

I'm pretty sure Oklahoma has write-ins. So, theoretically, I could write-in Austin Petersen, Gary Johnson, or Bernie Sanders... Would it really be worth it, though?

But yes, in Oklahoma, your party registration choices are literally Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

 

[Bughouse]

Of course a state can't force you to vote for only one of two parties.

Third parties, like any other party, just have to get enough signatures in order to officially get this kind of ballot access. I think it's usually something like 3-5% of the ballots cast in the most recent presidential election.

And if you can't get that many signatures, then there was never any hope for your party to begin with.

 

[JES]

I'm pretty sure Oklahoma has write-ins. So, theoretically, I could write-in Austin Petersen, Gary Johnson, or Bernie Sanders... Would it really be worth it, though?

But yes, in Oklahoma, your party registration choices are literally Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

Perhaps rather than just complaining about the problem, and dismissing any solution as impossible, maybe we should try to do something about it. I share your frustration, and I'm sure there are at least millions of others who share our frustration. I believe that is a reason that Sanders and Trump are doing so well: they are sick and tired of the candidates the Two Major parties have been churning out in the past, who seem to rescind on many of their campaign promises once they get into office, and seems to do more what is best for the wealthy, and not for the country as a whole.

We have Twitter and other social media, and I'm sure that there are at least a few other members who feel the same way we do. That should be a start.

I voted for Jill Stein in '12 because I didn't feel that the government did much to punish those who, quite frankly, would have destroyed our economy, if the middle class didn't bail their asses out, which has been decimated in the aftermath.

And the Gulf Oil Spill, and the lack of an executive going to prison for destroying the environment and millions in dead wildlife, makes me convinced that Obama didn't deserve my vote. Even a scathing rebuttal would show a little bit of backbone and leadership in my view, and would have shown that he shared the frustration of those affected. Not to mention at least propositioning and sponsoring legislation that would make sure it NEVER could happen again, and God help anyone who does it again, or anyone in Congress who tries to repeal it. Or did I miss that?

The point is: I'm just as frustrated as you. So let's come together, and do something about it. It's either that, or things will stay the same, at the very least.

 

[Killah]

No. Donald Trump in fact knows nothing about the debt. That is not the conventional wisdom at all. The US is in no urgent need to default whatsoever.

Our debt is cheap and all that matters in terms of any immediate urgency is whether or not we can meet interest payments. We easily can:

That's not to say there isn't an issue with the debt. There is. It's that we continue to increase it by refusing to balance budgets. Which will only ever happen with increasing tax revenue and/or entitlement reform.

I'm not educated on the subject so don't take this as snark: How can we easily make interest payments when we have a 400 billion dollar deficit, on top of the ~250 billion (~1.5% GDP) in interest? If I'm reading it correctly, that's a full 20% of our tax revenue from 2015, which means we'd have to raise services or cut costs by 20% in order to not grow the debt, let alone shrink it.

There's plenty of actual solutions to this problem, but I don't see how it's easily solved. Of the three parties still in the race, both Sanders and Trumps plans seem to be 50:50 on whether they will raise or lower the deficit, while Clinton seems to be Obama 2.0 without any changes at all to the deficit.

 

[Soul Fly]

I'm not educated on the subject so don't take this as snark: How can we easily make interest payments when we have a 400 billion dollar deficit, on top of the ~250 billion (~1.5% GDP) in interest? If I'm reading it correctly, that's a full 20% of our tax revenue from 2015, which means we'd have to raise services or cut costs by 20% in order to not grow the debt, let alone shrink it.

Because US treasury bonds are the most solid collateral you can hold in exchange for debt, which in plainspeak means that you can always rely on the US to pay you back the full value of the debt, cum interest. This is what allows US to borrow/raise their debt ceiling pretty cheaply and therefore the ease of paying back interest. That number isn't as huge as you think. Overall productivity of a country determines it's financial health, which simply means that if say your citizens earn even 1% more because of some relaxed taxes then they can overall contribute more within the remaining percentage of taxes they pay to the government. It's the same logic as walmart offering huge discounts but relying on more volume of products sold due to the increased demand to make the far more money than they could have made if they sold the products at MSRP.

If I am to engage with the latter part... The "solution" to the debt problem isn't necessarily making sure to shrink/erase debt. A country with its own fiat currency is different than an old joe or a company with loans because the country can never really run out of money - therefore the greatest fear with debt - a default doesn't exist. A debt economy can be perfectly healthy and in fact spur growth and development which would make you more secure and allow you to access higher levels of credit which in turn creates a positive growth cycle, which is better than trying to survive frugally or erase debt. The issue however becomes managing domestic product versus inflation, because if you end up printing too much money without necessarily spurring production across economic classes then you risk creating a scarcity where there are a lot more dollars out there but more or less the same amount of products/services to go around, which devalues the dollar. That and Trump's ridiculous proposition to buy back the loan w/ a haircut. Sure you'll probably have little/no debt let but the country will be in economic ruins, because you will have essentially destroyed the buying power of the dollar or the worth of US treasury bonds.

 

[sunny004]

JES

I'm pretty sure Deepwater Horizon was purely a freak accident. Not really caused because of neglect Why would an executive be sent to jail for a freak accident?

 

[Bughouse]

I'm not educated on the subject so don't take this as snark: How can we easily make interest payments when we have a 400 billion dollar deficit, on top of the ~250 billion (~1.5% GDP) in interest? If I'm reading it correctly, that's a full 20% of our tax revenue from 2015, which means we'd have to raise services or cut costs by 20% in order to not grow the debt, let alone shrink it.

There's plenty of actual solutions to this problem, but I don't see how it's easily solved. Of the three parties still in the race, both Sanders and Trumps plans seem to be 50:50 on whether they will raise or lower the deficit, while Clinton seems to be Obama 2.0 without any changes at all to the deficit.

We can easily make the payment because read the graph. Paying interest on our debt takes only about a percent of GDP, as you realized, and has been trending down. In fact, as the graph shows, we've previously paid WAY more to interest on debt as a percent of GDP and no one ever freaked out about defaulting in the 80s as far as I'm aware.

Moreover, a significant portion of that debt is to the federal government itself (complicated accounting that has to do with social security), to state governments - generally through pensions - or to US citizens or companies who own bonds or invest in mutual funds, etc. For all the talk we do about China owning our debt, it's only around 6% of our federal debt iirc. And what people also forget is how much of that debt is to countries who owe us debts in return. For every dollar we owe other countries, other countries owe us roughly a dollar back. (I looked this up now and we both are owed and owe around 6 trillion in foreign debt, I think we might even currently own more foreign debt than we owe in return). So while debts don't quite "cancel out," they do indirectly show how the problem is not as bad as it might look.

The long term implications are definitely worse than the short term implications, since the short term problem is basically non-existent. But honestly it's really not that clear how bad the long term implications are. So long as our debt remains cheap (currently it's almost free), we can afford to have a LOT of it. We should still fix either tax revenue raising or entitlement reform... or military spending. Something. But it's not nearly as much of a ticking time bomb as most people think thanks to fear mongering in the news.



I would also remind you not to give two shits about what a candidate's tax plan would do to the deficit in this day and age. Congress passes tax law. And Congress will not be making any radical revisions to the law like either Trump or Sanders would want any time soon. Clinton's very modest proposed changes are at least possible, but even those I wouldn't hold my breath for with a pretty solid Republican house.

 

[JES]

JES

I'm pretty sure Deepwater Horizon was purely a freak accident. Not really caused because of neglect Why would an executive be sent to jail for a freak accident?

I wish that were so.

"On 9 November 2010, a report by the Oil Spill Commission said that there had been "a rush to completion" on the well and criticised poor management decisions. "There was not a culture of safety on that rig," the co-chair said."[306]

That was a costly decision, especially for the wildlife and people in the affected areas. It wasn't an accident. It was negligence.

 

[shaian]

okay now why would a bp executive go to jail for that? unless you think they personally oversee the construction and management of said site (spoiler: they really dont)

cuz heres the thing:
- the actual rig was constructed by hyundai, any concerns regarding the safety of the rig should be taken up with them
- the rig was managed by a contractor based in switzerland hired by bp known as transocean <--- for the record your beef should be with these dudes if you're talking about the spill

the only thing putting an exec behind bars would do is satisfy your desire to see someone indicted and frankly, that's not what the point of the judicial system is for. and to be honest, i for one am not okay with jailing people just because it satisfies some deep misguided resentment i have towards the idea of uber rich ceos

 

[UncleSam]

I mean it's the same logic as why people on the left are calling for Snyder's resignation in Michigan or for Bush to be thrown in Guantanamo etc etc - every time something goes wrong, there's some weird human need that demands we throw whoever was ostensibly 'in charge' into prison. Even if that person did not do anything remotely illegal. It's just a bizarre resentment of wealth/success, nothing more.

 

[macle]

yeah not like they fucked up and cost people their lives and made money off of it

 

[UncleSam]

I find it impossible to believe that BP made money off the oil spill given they've paid roughly 70 billion dollars in cleanup and legal fees and haven't made any additional revenue as a result of it?

No one is reported to have died as a result, though there have been certainly been numerous consequences to public health, not to mention massive environmental costs.

BP deserved to pay for their mistake and they are being held accountable financially and in the court of public opinion. They are far from blameless. But they were not directly operating nor did they build the rig in the first place, so no one from BP ought to be sitting in a prison cell as a result of this.

 

[veiva]

I think the issue is the popular idea of "cost" is simply too narrow, when in reality it's not. It seems most look at cost in a small time period of direct cause-and-effect (e.g., buying a meal), rather than at the larger picture (e.g., buying ingredients and making food). This shows in personal finance, but also discussions about politics and business and other things. Not to mention cost over time (e.g., paying up front or paying over time), action (e.g., a postal service) and inaction (e.g., no postal service) have costs, and something else I can't quite remember now.

In the case of BP, of course BP doesn't make money off the spill, just like banking companies don't make money off being fined. But oftentimes, the fines are simply a cost of doing business. If only fines are levied, and if there remains net profit from doing something illegal, then it's worthwhile to commit fraud or negligence or whatever else.

I don't think jailing is the right option because the current retributive justice system is a joke, and there's no single person or group of people directly at fault. But fines are only an expense, much like pens or paper. And so long as it's still profitable after fines, then what's the point? Governments, ideally, have more power than simply enacting fines, all the way up to the nuclear option of dissolving corporations if necessary.

edit: I think the "something else" was who pays the cost. For example, prior to lead regulations, consumers paid the cost in quantifiable quantities (healthcare costs) and less quantifiable quantities (physical and mental health, quality of life, etc).