Who has your vote as of 7/19/16

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Trillions is manageable? I would hate to see your finances. Obama has put us in a hole larger than the grand canyon.

How? He's basically kept spending the same since he took over for Bush. Debt was caused by the fact revenues were down so much due to the giant recession that started under Bush and because of his infamous tax cuts.

Bush massively increased spending and reduced taxes. Obama kept spending the same and increased taxes.

[tarcone]

LOL. Its Bushes fault!!!

That is so tiresome. Obama has had 8 years and all he did was increase the debt from 12 trillion to 19 trillion.

Stop blaming Bush.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

LOL. Its Bushes fault!!!

That is so tiresome. Obama has had 8 years and all he did was increase the debt from 12 trillion to 19 trillion.

Stop blaming Bush.

Obama also cut the deficit in half. Guess it depends on how you want to look at it.

Also let's not pretend that congress has no input.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by tarcone

LOL. Its Bushes fault!!!

TCY Junkie has been presenting a consistent and blatantly flawed argument acrdoss many threads that everything was wonderful until Obama. Poking holes in that is valid imo.

I wish Obama would have attempted to work harder towards a budget surplus, though with both Bush and Obama I think you can argue about recessions that would have made that incredibly difficult. But I would be all for higher taxes and cutting the absurd defense budget as the primary ways to accomplish this. I would be willing to accept cuts/reforms to a lot of things that the right complains about in spending too to accomplish this. I wonder how congress would have reacted to any of these things though, or the american public in general.

[Neon_Chaos]

Just be careful what you wish for, because you are most probably going to get it.

We voted in Duterte on July 1 as the next President here, and he said it would be a bloody war on drugs and criminality...

http://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/v2/07/...e-war-on-drugs

I have seen two dead bodies in the last two weeks, alleged drug pushers who have had their hands duct taped to their heads and shot multiple times. Their bodies were dumped in the dimly-lit road that runs across the gated community where I live. Cardboard signs were left on the bodies which said "I am a drug pusher. Do not follow my example."

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Just be careful what you wish for, because you are most probably going to get it.

We voted in Duterte on July 1 as the next President here, and he said it would be a bloody war on drugs and criminality...

http://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/v2/07/...e-war-on-drugs

I have seen two dead bodies in the last two weeks, alleged drug pushers who have had their hands duct taped to their heads and shot multiple times. Their bodies were dumped in the dimly-lit road that runs across the gated community where I live. Cardboard signs were left on the bodies which said "I am a drug pusher. Do not follow my example."

Isn't this the guy that encouraged the public to kill drug dealers and drug users?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Just be careful what you wish for, because you are most probably going to get it.

We voted in Duterte on July 1 as the next President here, and he said it would be a bloody war on drugs and criminality...

http://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/v2/07/...e-war-on-drugs

I have seen two dead bodies in the last two weeks, alleged drug pushers who have had their hands duct taped to their heads and shot multiple times. Their bodies were dumped in the dimly-lit road that runs across the gated community where I live. Cardboard signs were left on the bodies which said "I am a drug pusher. Do not follow my example."

When his term expires, could we maybe borrow him to be in charge of our justice department for a few years?

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Isn't this the guy that encouraged the public to kill drug dealers and drug users?

Yes.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

When his term expires, could we maybe borrow him to be in charge of our justice department for a few years?

You can have him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

LOL. Its Bushes fault!!!

That is so tiresome. Obama has had 8 years and all he did was increase the debt from 12 trillion to 19 trillion.

Stop blaming Bush.

Policies don't come to an immediate end when a new President takes office. The tax cuts were on the books, the giant expansion of Medicare was on the books, and the two wars were on the books. Previous Presidents mortgaged the future to serve themselves in the present.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by tarcone

LOL. Its Bushes fault!!!

That is so tiresome. Obama has had 8 years and all he did was increase the debt from 12 trillion to 19 trillion.

Stop blaming Bush.

1) There isn't much any President can do on finances without the complicity of Congress.

2) federal law requires the Executive to submit the budget to Congress between the first week of January and the first week of February. Given that inauguration of a new President happens at the end of January, the budget for the first year of any new President's term is most likely going to have been submitted by their predecessor.

Which means the budget for FY01 came from Clinton, like as not. FY09 would have been, likely, submitted by Bush. The budget for FY17 will likely be submitted by Obama. Etc.

3) The context on FY09, regardless of who submitted it, is OH SHIT THE WORLD'S ON FIRE EVERYTHING IS IMPLODING HOW DO WE STOP IT

You might notice that the increase in the debt went from $500 billion in FY07 to a trillion in FY08 to 1.8 trillion in FY09.

That is, in large part, due to two major bailouts and the increased stresses on the social safety net from people losing their jobs. The annual increase has been less than the year before in 5 of the years subsequent.

Republicans have been in control of the House since 2010 - Obama's ability to "increase the debt from 12 to 19 trillion" has been sorely limited by that.

4) You know what causes debt? People buying government bonds. You know why people buy US government bonds? Because they're perceived as safer investments than the stock market (o hai great recession) or bonds issued by other governments.

5) You could cut every non-mandatory federal program Obama critics hate from the federal budget, and you would make a negligible impact on the budget deficit and the national debt.

Like 75% of the budget is Social Security, Medicare and the military (in broad strokes). Any significant debt reduction starts by reducing those.

Wanna start with the military? Cool. Oh, by the way, we outspend the next ten countries combined and yet any attempted reduction is going to be met with jingoistic chest-thumping screams of USA USA USA because apparently our troops and tech are insufficient to combat the threats they might face without that 10:1 spending advantage. So much for American exceptionalism, but that's another thread.

Okay, that 20%'ish is out.

Let's move on to Medicare. Oh, you mean most of the people on Medicare are either seniors on fixed incomes or low-income families with young children? I guess the way you reduce those rolls is to fight poverty...which is probably going to require more spending in other areas to balance what you're going to successfully excise from Medicare. Unless you're willing to incite a public health crisis over a debt-to-GDP ratio which is already pretty damn favorable compared to most of the rest of the developed world.

Same issue with Social Security - that's mostly supplemental income for old folks on fixed incomes. Means testing might weed out wealthier seniors, but that's going to have minimal impact on that 33% of the budget. Same issue: every dollar you cut from Social Security is going to have to be spent elsewhere if you don't want to increase the vulnerability of that population.

You can, of course, raise taxes.

So there are your options. Good luck!

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) There isn't much any President can do on finances without the complicity of Congress.

2) federal law requires the Executive to submit the budget to Congress between the first week of January and the first week of February. Given that inauguration of a new President happens at the end of January, the budget for the first year of any new President's term is most likely going to have been submitted by their predecessor.

Which means the budget for FY01 came from Clinton, like as not. FY09 would have been, likely, submitted by Bush. The budget for FY17 will likely be submitted by Obama. Etc.

3) The context on FY09, regardless of who submitted it, is OH SHIT THE WORLD'S ON FIRE EVERYTHING IS IMPLODING HOW DO WE STOP IT

You might notice that the increase in the debt went from $500 billion in FY07 to a trillion in FY08 to 1.8 trillion in FY09.

That is, in large part, due to two major bailouts and the increased stresses on the social safety net from people losing their jobs. The annual increase has been less than the year before in 5 of the years subsequent.

Republicans have been in control of the House since 2010 - Obama's ability to "increase the debt from 12 to 19 trillion" has been sorely limited by that.

4) You know what causes debt? People buying government bonds. You know why people buy US government bonds? Because they're perceived as safer investments than the stock market (o hai great recession) or bonds issued by other governments.

5) You could cut every non-mandatory federal program Obama critics hate from the federal budget, and you would make a negligible impact on the budget deficit and the national debt.

Like 75% of the budget is Social Security, Medicare and the military (in broad strokes). Any significant debt reduction starts by reducing those.

Wanna start with the military? Cool. Oh, by the way, we outspend the next ten countries combined and yet any attempted reduction is going to be met with jingoistic chest-thumping screams of USA USA USA because apparently our troops and tech are insufficient to combat the threats they might face without that 10:1 spending advantage. So much for American exceptionalism, but that's another thread.

Okay, that 20%'ish is out.

Let's move on to Medicare. Oh, you mean most of the people on Medicare are either seniors on fixed incomes or low-income families with young children? I guess the way you reduce those rolls is to fight poverty...which is probably going to require more spending in other areas to balance what you're going to successfully excise from Medicare. Unless you're willing to incite a public health crisis over a debt-to-GDP ratio which is already pretty damn favorable compared to most of the rest of the developed world.

Same issue with Social Security - that's mostly supplemental income for old folks on fixed incomes. Means testing might weed out wealthier seniors, but that's going to have minimal impact on that 33% of the budget. Same issue: every dollar you cut from Social Security is going to have to be spent elsewhere if you don't want to increase the vulnerability of that population.

You can, of course, raise taxes.

So there are your options. Good luck!

Good points, and the under 65 Medicare population has a much higher than one would expect as people with disabilities, or ESRD fill these ranks.

[Chief Rum]

Those three categories were about 60% of the 2016 outlays from what I saw online, Sack. Not that that changes your argument, but figured you would want to be as honest with your figures as you could.

[Ben E Lou]

As of today, Mike Smith. But if I am called for a poll I'll say Gary Johnson just to help get a third-party candidate a bit more visibility. Come November, I'd certainly move my vote over to Johnson if by some miracle it looked like he had a prayer in NC.

[ezlee2]

Voting Green Party here!

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Wanna start with the military? Cool. Oh, by the way, we outspend the next ten countries combined and yet any attempted reduction is going to be met with jingoistic chest-thumping screams of USA USA USA because apparently our troops and tech are insufficient to combat the threats they might face without that 10:1 spending advantage. So much for American exceptionalism, but that's another thread.

Okay, that 20%'ish is out.

Not to mention that Trump has said we need to rebuild our military, insinuating that it has gotten weak. And that under him it will be "funded beautifully." So yeah, we wouldn't be cutting anything there.

It's funny working as a contractor at a gov't site. Every year folks are offered early retirement (folks in their mid-50s). At my building, it seems like few of them are replaced. I've had the same PC for ten years (actually no - mine failed, so they stuck my drive in one from a guy who used to work with me). I used to be on a team of five or six, now it's just me. We are constantly looking for things to cut.

(That's not to say there isn't waste. There is a lot of duplication from different outfits buying different software packages that do the same thing. Or that don't really do what they wanted them to. Things are getting better there, I think. But what usually gets cut? People.)

[Flasch186]

Regarding my finances versus the country's - I use leverage smartly to benefit my country, I mean my family and believe as a family, I mean country, we do the same. It's smart that when you have credit worthiness as suggested by the yields you have to pay when borrowing, that you take advantage. Instead of paying cash for a car I'll use your 0%-2% financing to keep my cash and spend it more wisely on other things. That's just wise. If the yields were a lot higher that would change however, according to the world's willingness to buy our bonds at roughly no yield, we ought to be taking advantage AND refinancing old debt. That's the only thing I disagree with regarding the handling of the debt is that we're not actively rolling it over.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Just be careful what you wish for, because you are most probably going to get it.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Those three categories were about 60% of the 2016 outlays from what I saw online, Sack. Not that that changes your argument, but figured you would want to be as honest with your figures as you could.

Fair, Chief. It's likely the numbers I used rolled similar programs into the broader categories I was discussing, but the bottom line doesn't change much. When 60% of the spending is on those three categories, you can cut every non-mandatory program and you're still not going to make an appreciable impact. In fact, there's an argument to be made that indiscriminate cuts of that nature would actually harm budgetary balance.

If you cut the EPA and people get sick and can't work because of river dumping or other formerly-regulated activities, they make less money. If they make less money, they're paying less in taxes. If they're sick and not making as much, maybe they're having to go on Medicare or get disability through SSI. Etc.

And the beat goes on.

The idea of a balanced budget, that government should live within its means, is a seductive one. The problem is that an amendment to that effect handcuffs the government in times when government spending becomes essential to prevent a crisis from worsening, and there's no mechanism within the Constitution for suspending parts of the Constitution - especially on a matter like spending which requires the cooperation of Congress.

And the idea of the rainy day fund, of the government squirrelling away excess revenues against times like that, so that economic crises don't balloon the nation's debt? That's anathema to contemporary conservatives. "Government should operate their finances the way you have to," they proclaim, "except for that because that's not their money and if they take in more than they spend they should do tax cuts and if they spend more than they take in that's socialism and is the worst thing ever."

we live in a perfect happy conservative world where everything always works exactly as you expect it to and so we should never plan for the worst except for the military which we need to spend more on than the rest of the world spends on theirs combined because otherwise those polynesians will kick our ass but on any other matter it's american exceptionalism baby usa usa usa

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

As of today, Mike Smith. But if I am called for a poll I'll say Gary Johnson just to help get a third-party candidate a bit more visibility. Come November, I'd certainly move my vote over to Johnson if by some miracle it looked like he had a prayer in NC.

Passing thought: I've voted third party for POTUS multiple times, so this is nothing new for me. However, in every one of those instances, there was a major party candidate for whom I was rooting. A Trump presidency is such a wild card to me that this is shaping up to be the first time I'm not sure which one I'll even be rooting for.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If you cut the EPA and people get sick and can't work because of river dumping or other formerly-regulated activities, they make less money. If they make less money, they're paying less in taxes. If they're sick and not making as much, maybe they're having to go on Medicare or get disability through SSI. Etc.

But I think this is a perfect example of the bifurcation that occurs in all these conversations. Sure dumping toxic sludge in the water is bad. We all know that and none of us support it.

But lets look at less sexy and less publicized initiatives.
The EPA spent 2.7 Billions dollars to pass RICE NESHAP and its derivatives (40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII, 40 CFR part 60 subpart JJJJ)

To make this easy and not require everyone to be an engineer this is Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. This affects a few different types of equipment, but by and large it impacts the stationary emergency generator industry the most. This was a progressive legislation that Tiered in increasingly stringent emissions restrictions on the manufactures of Stationary Emergency Engines. Today the emission from a back up generator are 5-7x cleaner than those that come from an on highway vehicle. Great we are cleaning up the air. Or are we? These engines typically average 72 hours operation per year (Per EGSA)..compared with 2,500 hours per year for an on highay road tractor (8 wheeler). Interestingly the road tractors were not regulated because they ahve very good lobbies and unions. The cost of new power generation equipment has seen a 400% increases over the last 5 years while comparable construction equipment not affected by this legislation has actually DECREASED in cost due to technology improvements.

Every hospital in the country has faced these costs. (Increases measured in the millions) because even if they didn't buy new equipment they were required to retrofit their existing equipment to meet current standards or face absurd fines ($250k for first offense). But in typical government fashion, the EPA employs exactly ZERO national inspectors charged with enforcing this legislation.

This is the type of stuff that happens in every industry that most will never hear about. But there are thousands of examples.

This is where the opportunity exists to cut spending, imho. (Along with the Big 3 you very accurately pointed out)

[EagleFan]

We need SMALL government. Return this country to the people, not the stuffed suits and wall street.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

We need SMALL government. Return this country to the people, not the stuffed suits and wall street.

If only libertarians were mainstream in this country.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

That's a weird interpretation. My interpretation is the exact opposite: this outlines yet another area where MORE spending is needed (in this case, spending to hire the national inspectors needed to enforce the regulation, not to mention more spending to enact stricter regulations on road tractors).

Ha.
Wow.

No, we dont need meaningless regulation that doesn't make a difference. Now if we want to nerd out I'll point out even further why they failed.

The legislation regulates the % of emissions that various bad chemicals can be as a function of HP. So, for example, a 50hp engine can only have 8% NOx of its total emissions.
Well first thing first, when you choke the engine down with emission restricting equipment you now frequently need a larger displacement engine to produce a given constant hp. So that 2.4 liter engine that used to make 50hp is now replaced by a 4.1l engine.
Next once you implement this new engine you learn that for every 1,000,000 particles you currently have 90,000 NOx particles. (BTW the old 2.4 was up around 40% NOX but only had 65,000 particles) SO what do you do? Easy dump more fuel. Now you triple the volume of exhaust while only doubling NOx output.
So now you have 3,000,000 exhaust particles but only 180,000 NOx particles, less than 8% = WIN!

Nevermind the 180,000 particles compared to the old 65,000.
In a joint panel senior experts from Cat, Cummins, Deere and MTU universally told congress that they were increasing net hazardous pollutant emissions because of their legislation. The measure still passed. At the time the EPA did not employ a single ICE engineer.

But you are right. What we need to do is hire MORE people to police the stupidly written law.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

We need SMALL government. Return this country to the people, not the stuffed suits and wall street.

I'm sure that when the government is smaller everyone, regardless of means, will have a much more equal say in the direction of the country. Those with money will no longer have outsized influence.

[digamma]

And how many of the 22 million federal employees are you looking to fire?

[larrymcg421]

A smaller government will give Wall Street more control, not less.

[panerd]

I was in the vote for Johnson but not worried about a Hillary presidency camp. (Very worried about trump). Now with this face covered with egg let's blame the Russians nonsense I worry what Clinton may have in store for us with foreign policy and privacy issues. Still better than Trump but a little troubling.

[Easy Mac]

I have nothing to add, except living in South Carolina, pretty much everyone in my office has convinced themselves to vote Trump, even though I know for a fact they all said there was no chance they would vote for him in the general a few months ago. All I hear is Hillary is the devil.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'll probably vote for stein depending on polls. If Johnson can get 5% I will vote for him. If the race is close I'll vote for Hildawg, very very reluctantly.

Don't vote for an anti-science anti-vaxxor!

[digamma]

Looks like we need to add Putin as an option in future polls.