Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

7 minutes ago, death tribble said:

Liked the John Oliver piece on 29th March which pointed out that The Mueller report did not exonerate the President but his supporters said it did. So they are hypocrites.

 

That's known.  Over the past couple of days, however, there have been rumblings from Mueller's camp that Barr's summary letter was 1. totally unnecessary as the report itself included summaries of each section and 2. does not accurately describe the findings of the report, especially regarding evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Not that this surprises anyone given the extreme reluctance of anyone in the GOP to release the full report.

[Badger]

Seen that graph before and so many things wrong with it, I don't know where to start.  Primarily, putting it in percentages is a ridiculous manipulation of the numbers in a desperate attempt to make Obama look frugal (quite laughable).

 

To say that Obama was so much better than Bush is to say a man who originally weigh 200 pounds, who gained 50 pounds in the next year, then 60 the second year, did a better job of weight manage than year to.  (because he reduced his percentage of weight gain from 25 to 24 percent.  Truly a man who learned restraint.)  But, this is the essentially the argument you are making to say Obama was better than Bush. 

 

Clinton is the only outlier here (cant gauge Carter at all because we don't have Ford on this list).  During the Clinton administration, we did a great job of reducing the deficit, and to at least approach fiscal sanity in our reckless spending ways.  But it set an abnormally high bar for the successor.  Bush wasn't going to be fiscally responsible.  He wanted his 2 front war for good or ill, and he didn't want to due raise money with taxes.  As a result spending rose percentage dramatically in comparison to the previous administration.  Now Obama comes in, as a result of the ensuing years, he has a pretty low bar to not raise it, still he barely slightly manages to reduce the deficit by 1 cent per 10 dollars (where would be without a "Party of No" Congress allegedly kicking him every step of the way?  Maybe Obama should send them a thank you card for all their hard work to "spite" him, because now he can say he is better than Bush, at least by percentage)

 

Conclusion: We did a pretty good job with Bill Clinton as President, didn't we?  We also had a GOP Congress for most of that.  One that on a rare note practiced a modicum of restraint with money.  Unfortunately "He Who Fights Monsters" came into play in 2001, when they got their own in as President.   Clinton for his part didn't put a fight on that level at least.  So, I give him half-credit with the Congress, sorry Republicans.  In the administration of Obama, either Obama was more insistent on pushing his spending through. Or the Party of No wasn't as obstructive as we were led to believe.  Because if the Democrats were so "fiscally responsible"  how come Obama didn't do as well as Clinton?  You don't get to double the debt and claim fiscal responsibility (to Obama and Bush both).

 

I am convinced...….to vote REpublican for Congress, no matter what.  Because their obstruction slows down spending.  Slightly.   

 

Note: This also looks very bad for Trump that he is raising the deficit despite the ridiculousness of the last 16 years.

 

 

[Old Man]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

To say that Obama was so much better than Bush is to say a man who originally weigh 200 pounds, who gained 50 pounds in the next year, then 60 the second year, did a better job of weight manage than year to.  (because he reduced his percentage of weight gain from 25 to 24 percent.  Truly a man who learned restraint.)  But, this is the essentially the argument you are making to say Obama was better than Bush. 

 

This seems like a really convoluted way of avoiding the fact that GOP administrations increase the deficit and Democratic ones reduce it.  Yes, the national debt continues to increase.  But on the original topic of fiscal conservatism and the presidency, the historical record shows that one party is clearly better than the other.  Look at the chart: GOP presidents raise the deficit.  Democratic presidents reduce it.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

Conclusion: We did a pretty good job with Bill Clinton as President, didn't we?  We also had a GOP Congress for most of that.  One that on a rare note practiced a modicum of restraint with money.  Unfortunately "He Who Fights Monsters" came into play in 2001, when they got their own in as President.   Clinton for his part didn't put a fight on that level at least.  So, I give him half-credit with the Congress, sorry Republicans.  In the administration of Obama, either Obama was more insistent on pushing his spending through. Or the Party of No wasn't as obstructive as we were led to believe.  Because if the Democrats were so "fiscally responsible"  how come Obama didn't do as well as Clinton?

 

The correct question to ask is "If the GOP is so 'fiscally responsible' why didn't any of their presidents do as well as Obama let alone Clinton?"  Especially the two most recent ones, who so far have rubber stamped a massive tax giveaway to corporations and the wealthy, the single largest increase in the size of the federal government in thirty years, and two ruinously expensive land wars in Asia. 

[Badger]

Not sure how that is convoluted.  That is exactly how the Democrats think, per your graph.  

 

But, to satisfy you Obama did better because he took the extremely low-bar set by Bush, and raised it 1/10th of 1 percent.  You win the argument.

 

[Badger]

Anyway, I acknowledge that Obama looks better when being compared to Bush, than Bush looks when being compared to Clinton.

 

Edit: Also without comment 

 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

[DShomshak]

3 hours ago, death tribble said:

Liked the John Oliver piece on 29th March which pointed out that The Mueller report did not exonerate the President but his supporters said it did. So they are hypocrites.

 

In my grumpier moments, I would say: No, they aren't. There is no hypocrisy in politics, because there are no principles. It's only about who has power over whom.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

27 minutes ago, Badger said:

Anyway, I acknowledge that Obama looks better when being compared to Bush, than Bush looks when being compared to Clinton.

 

Edit: Also without comment 

 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

 

It's easy to conflate the debt and the deficit.  Obviously no president has reduced the national debt since Clinton.  Still, reducing the deficit is a desirable outcome for fiscal conservatives like you and me.

[Badger]

Well, according to my link no one has reduced the debt since Eisenhower, interestingly (1957).  But, my main issue is my hangup with Obama, if he had followed nearly any President in history other than Bush, he looks awful.  And even then -0.1 percent is margin of error territory.  He barely beats Bush.    Clinton was the only one that approaches fiscal conservatism in my lifetime, obviously.  Though, it is hard to draw a line on where it was due to President vs Congress. I try to say 50/50 but I cant be sure.  But, Clinton is definitely the outlier on that graph.

[Sociotard]

Again, it isn't "Democratic" or "Republican", it is only "Tribal Politician". Clinton and Obama did well because they faced opposition congresses more than Bush or Trump.  If Trump gets 8 years and six of those have an opposed congress, his deficit numbers will be very nice.

[Old Man]

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Trump has already presided over the largest non-recession deficit increase since the eighties.

 

 

The GOP has effectively driven the deficit up to $1T per year unless something major happens, and even an opposition Congress would be unable to change that. Now I'm of the opinion that the national debt is not as big a deal as people make it out to be, but only up to a point.  It's already big enough that it's affecting economic growth, and the recent tax giveaway certainly isn't going to make it better.

[Sociotard]

Would you care to make a wager? $20 to the charity of my choice that says that if:

• Trump is president for another term and
• He faces an opposition Congress for the duration of that time

Then

• The deficit will go down by an average of no less than 50 billion dollars per year.

(for the years when he had an opposition. the two with a matching Congress don't count)

[Badger]

11 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Again, it isn't "Democratic" or "Republican", it is only "Tribal Politician". Clinton and Obama did well because they faced opposition congresses more than Bush or Trump.  If Trump gets 8 years and six of those have an opposed congress, his deficit numbers will be very nice.

 

Well, Bush's worst 2 years were after the Dems took over, I believe.  But, again, the economic crisis does make that a probable outlier.

[Badger]

7 hours ago, Old Man said:

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Trump has already presided over the largest non-recession deficit increase since the eighties.

 

 

The GOP has effectively driven the deficit up to $1T per year unless something major happens, and even an opposition Congress would be unable to change that. Now I'm of the opinion that the national debt is not as big a deal as people make it out to be, but only up to a point.  It's already big enough that it's affecting economic growth, and the recent tax giveaway certainly isn't going to make it better.

 

Well, this post makes me happy just to hear that debt can become big enough to become a problem.  It sometimes seems hard to get a mention of that, in general.

 

Regular Surpluses may or may not be a good thing (Coolidge seemed to be good at surplus, and what happened after him should be easy to remember).  But, it does seem we could use a surplus year here and there to keep things somewhat stable.   (Modern Keynesians seem to be extremely guilty of forgetting the 2nd half their own philosophy: Debt has to eventually paid off in good times)

[archer]

8 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Coolidge seemed to be good at surplus, and what happened after him should be easy to remember

 

I don't think anyone can credibly argue that what happened after Coolidge left office could be laid at Coolidge's feet.

 

Hoover increased taxes and started a worldwide trade war, which had just a teensy bit to do with the cascade of US bank failures and triggering a depression.

[Pariah]

Worldwide trade war? Huh. I can't imagine that any modern world leader would think that'd be a good idea....

[archer]

26 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Worldwide trade war? Huh. I can't imagine that any modern world leader would think that'd be a good idea....

 

Oh, Trump is definitely a throwback to Hoover.

[Badger]

8 hours ago, archer said:

 

I don't think anyone can credibly argue that what happened after Coolidge left office could be laid at Coolidge's feet.

 

Hoover increased taxes and started a worldwide trade war, which had just a teensy bit to do with the cascade of US bank failures and triggering a depression.

 

Yeah, even if Hoover isn't to blame for it initially happening, he definitely is a major one to blame for why it got to be so horrible. IMO

[DShomshak]

One of All Things Considered's go-to stories is The Actual Expert Dissects Trump's Latest Idiocy. Today, it was Trump's assertion that Mexico could easily shut down the flow of illicit drugs to the US. They interviewed Gil Kerlikowsky, former Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection, and before that Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He said that of the drugs that kill people -- meth, cocaine, fentanyl, and the like -- about 90% of what enters the US comes through regular, legal ports of entry. And the single largest channel is plain old U. S. mail. So if you really want to interdict drugs, start at the post office.

 

Kerlikowski also noted that Mexico has its own drug problem, and their agencies and our agencies cooperate intensively trying to stop it from both sides. Pissing off the Mexican government, endangering that cooperation, is very much Not Helpful.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

10 hours ago, Pariah said:

Worldwide trade war? Huh. I can't imagine that any modern world leader would think that'd be a good idea....

 

The one we have in the White House now said, "Trade wars are good, and easy to win."

[megaplayboy]

Long term deficit spending is really only "bad" if:

1) your debt grows faster, long term, than your economy

2) your debt becomes larger than your GDP

We could run deficits of 50-250 billion a year effectively indefinitely with little long term down side.  Because our debt would grow more slowly than our national economy overall.  

 

I believe Greece and Japan have the largest Debt-to-GDP ratios of any developed countries.  We are substantially under those debt levels, at the moment.  But the biggest problem currently isn't that we spend too much; it's that our government is undercapitalized.  We don't raise enough money.  Primarily this is because we take it relatively easy on the richest members of society, and on corporations.  

[archer]

2 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

We could run deficits of 50-250 billion a year effectively indefinitely with little long term down side. 

 

People and other countries have to be willing to continue loaning us the $22 trillion of debt the US already has indefinitely (as those short-term bonds come due) plus the additional $50-250 billion a year added to that debt indefinitely for there to be "little long term down side".

 

If the people of the US were internally purchasing US government bonds without the country either having to rely on huge yearly outlays of money from other countries or having the Fed wave a magic wand to invent huge amounts of money to purchase the US government bonds, perhaps there wouldn't be a hell of a lot of downside. But since that's not been the case for decades....

[archer]

Free Bernie Sanders 2020 sticker. This will put you on their email list but it's easy to opt out later if getting emails annoys you.

 

https://act.berniesanders.com/signup/free-not-me-us-sticker/?source=em190404-1-30&t=2&akid=951.8166177.oCSzj-

[archer]

Free Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 bumper sticker.

 

https://secure.kirstengillibrand.com/page/s/easteregg

[archer]

Conspiracy theorists keep their Ginsburg death claims alive

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/437661-conspiracy-theorists-keep-their-ginsburg-death-claims-alive

 

She's alive! She's dead! She showed up in public! The photos of her in public are doctored!

 

Fun for everyone!

[megaplayboy]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 5:19 AM, archer said:

 

People and other countries have to be willing to continue loaning us the $22 trillion of debt the US already has indefinitely (as those short-term bonds come due) plus the additional $50-250 billion a year added to that debt indefinitely for there to be "little long term down side".

 

If the people of the US were internally purchasing US government bonds without the country either having to rely on huge yearly outlays of money from other countries or having the Fed wave a magic wand to invent huge amounts of money to purchase the US government bonds, perhaps there wouldn't be a hell of a lot of downside. But since that's not been the case for decades....

We can run deficits of that size indefinitely because our economy is likely to grow faster than the debt, at that pace.  Larger GDP = more tax revenue = adequate funds to service the debt.  Oversize deficits are a problem because they make the debt grow faster than the GDP does.  But there are plenty of successful countries that regularly run modest deficits with no problem.