Promises of "free" money

[superrific]

I am very surprised the Republicans are letting her get away with that promise. Massive error.

Maybe it's because they really don't want people thinking about the costs of proposed policies given that their guy is just promising tens of trillions of dollars of new giveaways and tax expenditures.

 

[ZenMode]

Last response on this thread. Ain't got time for this.

Almost made it 60 minutes.

 

[4thgenheel]

You wouldn't have all these problems if you had the initiative to read some economic history. Since 1970, most of the economic distress and almost none of the job creation has been on the Republican watch. St. Reagan almost tripled the national debt. George W. Bush passed on a huge obligation to Obama with the misguided wars. By almost every metric, we've done better economically under Democrats. When you grasp this (It is to laugh), come back and nitpick, whine and misconstrue some more.

its been even longer than since 1970.

since 1949, the economy has been astronomically better under democratic presidents than republican ones. GDP, job growth, interest rates, unemployment, wages, inflation, income, etc. etc. etc. you name it.

the GOP somehow fleecing much of the general public into believing that they're better at the economy is one of the greatest con jobs in the history of this country.

Economic performance is stronger when Democrats hold the White House - EPI Action

Besides the pronounced superiority of macroeconomic performance under Democratic presidents, the fruits of economic growth are also distributed substantially more equally under Democratic presidents.

epiaction.org

 

[finesse]

its been even longer than since 1970.

since 1949, the economy has been astronomically better under democratic presidents than republican ones. GDP, job growth, interest rates, unemployment, wages, inflation, income, etc. etc. etc. you name it.

the GOP somehow fleecing much of the general public into believing that they're better at the economy is one of the greatest con jobs in the history of this country.

Economic performance is stronger when Democrats hold the White House - EPI Action

Besides the pronounced superiority of macroeconomic performance under Democratic presidents, the fruits of economic growth are also distributed substantially more equally under Democratic presidents.

epiaction.org

For much of the board, there is no history before 1970. I didn't want to confuse them any more than necessary.

 

[UNCatTech]

There doesn't seem to be any urgency, on the part of either party, to address the debt or recent deficits. This has been the case since the 90's when Ross Perot had some success running a campaign of fiscal responsibility.

It seems to me that both Trump and Harris are putting more focus on giveaways than any presidential candidate duo I can remember. Some in the form of tax credits, others in the form of continuing tax cuts, loan forgiveness, dissolving existing debt, etc.

To me, this is a concerning trend that is likely to only worsen our financial situation. Why isn't there more concern about this among Americans?

The 90's? Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

The debt started trending up hard under Reagan and has only hit a couple of speed bumps, under Clinton and Obama.

I have concerns, but I've read some economic theory that says that it is basically ok, if used correctly.

I also started a thread about this a few weeks ago. The primary response was to look at who holds the debt.

One thing I learned long ago the countries debt is not comparable to our personal debt. This seems to be a sticking point for many.

And lastly. TRUMPS tax cuts for businesses and the rich really reduced the revenues available to combat the deficit and the debt.

If we want to reduce the debt, increased revenues is far more likely to achieve that goal than cutting spending.

 

[UNCatTech]

Thread 'Issue discussion: Deficit and national debt'

Aug 1, 2024

The other board got so bad with the name calling and disinformation that the good discussions about actual issues seemed to fall to the side.

I would like to discuss the deficit and the debt. It seems to me that even if we can print money, we still need to address this issue.

I understand that COVID is a reason it increased substantially in the last 5 years, but it's been steadily going up since Reagan.

How are corporate taxes involved here? It seems like reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% reduces revenues, but did those companies produce more and have increased taxable...

• UNCatTech
• Replies: 35
• Forum: Politics & Other Topics

 

[UNCatTech]

This entire thread is an attempt at a both sides troll. One candidate has been more focused on giveaways than any candidate ever. Harris, by contrast, is running a standard campaign with standard policy proposals. She's not showing up to events and then randomly promising stuff to make that particular audience cheer.

Additionally one candidate is also promising vengeance, retribution, and other unthinkable promises from a presidential candidate.

 

[UNCatTech]

Once again, choosing between the lesser of two evils while not addressing a problem and continuing to make to worse.

Once again an all or nothing binary approach never works.

Choosing a candidate that is projected to actually make some progress by not increasing the debt as much, if that is your concern, is a move in the right direction.

If one votes for Trump, they should be forbidden from pretending to be concerned with this topic knowing that his proposals are far worse.

 

[ZenMode]

The 90's? Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

The debt started trending up hard under Reagan and has only hit a couple of speed bumps, under Clinton and Obama.

I have concerns, but I've read some economic theory that says that it is basically ok, if used correctly.

I also started a thread about this a few weeks ago. The primary response was to look at who holds the debt.

One thing I learned long ago the countries debt is not comparable to our personal debt. This seems to be a sticking point for many.

And lastly. TRUMPS tax cuts for businesses and the rich really reduced the revenues available to combat the deficit and the debt.

If we want to reduce the debt, increased revenues is far more likely to achieve that goal than cutting spending.

I'm not really looking to debate individual causes of our current debt and I get that some situation, i.e. Covid, wars, etc necessitate borrowing money. It's just confusing that so few people, including those who control the purse strings, seem to be concerned.

 

[CFordUNC]

I'm not really looking to debate individual causes of our current debt and I get that some situation, i.e. Covid, wars, etc necessitate borrowing money. It's just confusing that so few people, including those who control the purse strings, seem to be concerned.

And your contention is that voting third-party is the way to get the attention of those who control the purse strings?

 

[UNCatTech]

I thought I removed my response to you and edited my post that was intended for only 336heel. Since I didn't intend to reply to you, I didn't include a full list of giveaways.

• Continuing most/all Trump's tax cuts
• Extending Medicare coverage
• Money for home purchases and opening businesses
• Some type of forgiveness of student loan debt
• Some type of forgiveness for medical bills
• Increased child tax credits
• No taxes on tips (new)

And, the fact that it's "standard campaign fare" to give away money, without accounting for it, is the crux of the issue.

Harris doesn't plan to keep trumps tax cuts, she said that corporate taxes and taxes on those making over $400K should return to pre trum levels.

Trumps plan actually increases taxes on the poorest while giving more tax cuts to the wealthy.

The way to eliminate the debt is to increase taxes on those who can most afford it and utilize that revenue for that.


On top of that, if properly funded and managed this country has plenty of money for helping new parents and college tuition.

 

[aGDevil2k]

And your contention is that voting third-party is the way to get the attention of those who control the purse strings?

He's not a serious voter

Just a "I am going to bitch no matter what because I think my throw-away makes me blameless" cop-out.

 

[UNCatTech]

Since you responded the topic.....

So, we're in an unavoidable death spiral where politicians are unwilling to be the adults in the room in favor of self preservation in the form of placating voters?

So much hyperbole.

No we are not in an unavoidable death spiral.

But if Trump is elected we could well be.

 

[UNCatTech]

The promise wasn't for forgivable loans of $1,000,000. It was for up to one million forgivable loans of $20,000. The total cost if every single one of those loans is made and every single cent is forgiven (which obviously won't happen) would be $20 billion, which is hardly "astronomical."

There are so many more details to this.

Many of the people with this debt have paid the original loan off. What they owe now comes from compound interest and shady deferment practices by the lenders.

 

[CFordUNC]

He's not a serious voter

Just a "I am going to bitch no matter what because I think my throw-away makes me blameless" cop-out.

Completely unserious voter. Now, granted, I’m not even fully convinced that he’s not going to vote for Trump. But actually I would find a vote for Trump, though reprehensible, to be more admirable than a knowingly throwaway vote for a third-party candidate. At least by voting for Trump, someone is putting themselves on the record as a voter that they endorse one of the only two candidates who has a chance to win an American presidential election. I think ZenMode gets some sort of weird erotic satisfaction out of both sidesing us to death, but ultimately will either vote for Trump, or will be satisfied if Trump wins.

 

[UNCatTech]

I'm not really looking to debate individual causes of our current debt and I get that some situation, i.e. Covid, wars, etc necessitate borrowing money. It's just confusing that so few people, including those who control the purse strings, seem to be concerned.

From what I've read i don't believe economist see it as the existential crisis that some do.

That's why I pointed out its different than our personal finances. Most Americans don't seem to have a grasp on their personal finance, but are somehow outraged with the debt?

Ask yourself why? That's right it's because the Republicans have been running as fiscal conservatives for 50+ years all the while their spending and budgets have not demonstrated what they claim to be.

 

[CFordUNC]

From what I've read i don't believe economist see it as the existential crisis that some do.

That's why I pointed out its different than our personal finances. Most Americans don't seem to have a grasp on their personal finance, but are somehow outraged with the debt?

Ask yourself why? That's right it's because the Republicans have been running as fiscal conservatives for 50+ years all the while their spending and budgets have not demonstrated what they claim to be.

That’s a fantastic point. I’ve got family members who barely have two nickels to rub together, and who have been scammed out of money multiple times by telemarketing scams, but they will be the first to tell you that our country is headed for a disaster financially. All you can do is laugh.

 

[ZenMode]

And your contention is that voting third-party is the way to get the attention of those who control the purse strings?

That's more of a hope.... admittedly a long shot that would involve a 3rd party candidate getting 5% of the popular vote, which would result in receiving federal election funds and begin a series of events which ends with the Libertarian party being in contention. At this point, my unwillingness to vote for an R or D candidate is more on principle than anything. I'm tired of voting for a subpar candidate as the "lesser of two evils". I want to vote FOR someone. Neither party, IMO, seems to want to offer much to vote for. Had Dems replaced Biden with a quality candidate, I don't think the race is close right now.

 

[rodoheel]

There are so many more details to this.

Many of the people with this debt have paid the original loan off. What they owe now comes from compound interest and shady deferment practices by the lenders.

Not sure we're talking about the same thing. This is a proposal Harris has made; none of these loans have happened yet.

 

[rodoheel]

At this point, my unwillingness to vote for an R or D candidate is more on principle than anything. I'm tired of voting for a subpar candidate as the "lesser of two evils". I want to vote FOR someone. Neither party, IMO, seems to want to offer much to vote for.

You are obviously free to do as you want, but this is simply immature, selfish reasoning.

This is a country of roughly 350 million people. And our current political system (two-party system with largely first-past-the-post voting) essentially guarantees that one of two candidates is going to win an election. No one is guaranteed that one of those two candidates will match their own political beliefs perfectly, and in fact for the vast majority of us no candidate will match those beliefs perfectly. So we simply have to choose the candidate who is the best, or the one who is the least bad, however you want to look at it. By voting for anyone other than the two candidates who are able to win, you are simply throwing your vote away. You are accomplishing nothing more than someone who doesn't vote at all, or who writes in Beavis and Butthead for President and VP. You are simply declining to choose and saying whatever everyone else chooses is fine. Instead of picking the candidate who you think is, in balance, the best (or the least bad) of the two candidates.

It's understandable to be dissatisfied with this system. Almost everyone is dissatisfied with it in some way. But being dissatisfied with it does not mean it isn't the system. And voting for a third party candidate for president will do absolutely nothing to change the system. Whatever fantasy you have of the libertarian candidate getting 5% of the vote, then somewhere down the line true change happening, is a fantasy. The libertarian candidate could get 20% and it would change absolutely nothing, unless they actually won some electoral votes somewhere, which requires getting a much higher percentage in a particular state than 20%. And if the party isn't electing any candidates for other federal offices, it's useless anyway. You can't change the system by simply refusing to participate in it.

This is not a parliamentarian system, and you can't make it such a system by simply voting for third parties. All you're doing is opting out because you're mad the candidates aren't good enough for you. Leftists (which I know you're not) love to see that neither candidate "deserves" their vote. Which is absolutely, positively meaningless. I don't vote for a candidate because they "deserve" my vote, though in some cases they do. It is my only way, as a citizen, to have direct input on who controls the levers of power, and if I throw that opportunity away, then I have no input at all. And by voting for neither, you are not making a principled decision, you are simply making a cowardly one. Which, as noted above, is absolutely your right.