Republican debates/primaries.
-
ptown_trojans_1
You are assuming an R Congress, with both Houses.QuakerOats;1789776 wrote:Let's take just a few items to compare:
Congress sends Trump the repeal of obamaKare: he will sign it
Trump sends senate moderate/conservative for Supreme Court (up to about 3-4 times over next 4 years): senate confirms
Congress sends Trump major corporate tax reform: he will sign it
Trump asks congress for funding to build wall or otherwise impede flow of illegals: republican congress does so
Law enforcement and border security personnel ask for administrative backup in enforcing immigration laws: Trump complies, and has their back
Trump appoints business-friendly commissioners to NLRB: congress approves them
Trump asks for certain redundant or unnecessary agencies to have funding cut or eliminated: congress approves
Republican congress crafts a budget freezing spending (or cutting it some areas): Trump signs it
Trump asks congress to bolster defense in fight against ISIS and other terror groups: congress approves
Trump tells military to return to policies and procedures that insure winning, not political correctness; military leaders applaud.
Trump tells police officers he will side with them, not with the perps; police get rejuvenated to do their jobs.
We could go on and on and on ...........but it is plainly clear that on the large important issues Trump is the exact opposite of obama and clinton, and would start to turn around the disaster we have been left with. So yes, the guy is bombastic, he mispeaks off the cuff a lot, and he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But, when it all comes down to doing what needs to be done, you can see from above that it would get done. It is not even debatable that he would be 1000x times better than what we have, and what we would have in a clinton admin. Business, and our entire economy, cannot take any more of the radical liberal policy agenda; it will kill us.
That is a hell of an assumption. Nothing is that easy in DC.
Even Obama couldn't do all he wanted with both Houses.
You are also forgetting Trump wouldn't really have his 1st budget until FY19. The FY18 Budget request is already being made up, and will be largely done by Feb of next year. No President has enough time to radically change it. That's not how the Budget process works.
So, Trump's first 100 days will be more Executive Orders. And, we all know how much R's love the Executive Order after killing Obama on them for 8 years.
You are also assuming that the D's will not try and block every single thing he does.
Finally, as Sleeper said, Trump has the debt problem. He can't have his cake and eat it too. You cannot grow the Government and cut taxes massively. He has to spell out how he plans to cut and where in order to offset the tax cuts.
I also don't get your last two points. I guess cops just go around moping and our soldiers now are just losers? What the hell does that mean? -
HitsRus
It's a moot point because he'll never be elected.QuakerOats;1789776 wrote:Let's take just a few items to compare:
Congress sends Trump the repeal of obamaKare: he will sign it
Trump sends senate moderate/conservative for Supreme Court (up to about 3-4 times over next 4 years): senate confirms
Congress sends Trump major corporate tax reform: he will sign it
Trump asks congress for funding to build wall or otherwise impede flow of illegals: republican congress does so
Law enforcement and border security personnel ask for administrative backup in enforcing immigration laws: Trump complies, and has their back
Trump appoints business-friendly commissioners to NLRB: congress approves them
Trump asks for certain redundant or unnecessary agencies to have funding cut or eliminated: congress approves
Republican congress crafts a budget freezing spending (or cutting it some areas): Trump signs it
Trump asks congress to bolster defense in fight against ISIS and other terror groups: congress approves
Trump tells military to return to policies and procedures that insure winning, not political correctness; military leaders applaud.
Trump tells police officers he will side with them, not with the perps; police get rejuvenated to do their jobs.
We could go on and on and on ...........but it is plainly clear that on the large important issues Trump is the exact opposite of obama and clinton, and would start to turn around the disaster we have been left with. So yes, the guy is bombastic, he mispeaks off the cuff a lot, and he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But, when it all comes down to doing what needs to be done, you can see from above that it would get done. It is not even debatable that he would be 1000x times better than what we have, and what we would have in a clinton admin. Business, and our entire economy, cannot take any more of the radical liberal policy agenda; it will kill us. -
QuakerOats
obviously we need to cut taxes (AND EVERY NEW ANTI-BUSINESS OBAMA REGULATION) to spur growth and prevent more companies from moving offshore, and at the same time we need to either freeze spending across the board, or cut spending (WHICH WOULD BE A NO-BRAINER FOR ANY TURNAROUND EXPERT); then allow the incremental economic growth provide the additional tax revenues to bring the deficit in line, and eventually work toward going positive. At the same time start selling most federal assets to pay down the debt.sleeper;1789782 wrote:Yeah except the math doesn't work out. You can't cut taxes and increase spending and expect the debt to go down.
Is Trump going to cut SS, Medicare, Medicard? Defense spending? No? Then he's either a liar or an idiot(or both).
Unless we start somewhere, NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. For the 10th time, he would be exponentially better than obama or clinton. -
QuakerOatsHitsRus;1789787 wrote:It's a moot point because he'll never be elected.
Some days I think that; other days I think he will win in a landslide. Going to be an interesting 8 months. -
sleeper
Where is Trump going to cut spending? He already said he wants to increase military spending and he's not touching the entitlement programs either. Who really cares where else he cuts because they barely matter especially as Boomers keep draining the system.QuakerOats;1789789 wrote:obviously we need to cut taxes (AND EVERY NEW ANTI-BUSINESS OBAMA REGULATION) to spur growth and prevent more companies from moving offshore, and at the same time we need to either freeze spending across the board, or cut spending (WHICH WOULD BE A NO-BRAINER FOR ANY TURNAROUND EXPERT); then allow the incremental economic growth provide the additional tax revenues to bring the deficit in line, and eventually work toward going positive. At the same time start selling most federal assets to pay down the debt.
Unless we start somewhere, NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. For the 10th time, he would be exponentially better than obama or clinton.
I agree about cutting corporate income tax because they are far too high, but income taxes are pretty low and have been low for most of the Boomers lifetime. The Boomers borrowed and spent money on things they didn't pay for and now want younger generations, who have no money, to foot the bill. The first step to fixing this country is to raise taxes on the Boomers until our debt is paid off. Then we can start talking about tax cuts for people. -
gut
Yeah, unlike the typical POTUS, Trump would not be the recognized leader of his "party". The only thing he's signing or getting through is what the establishment Republicans are going to pass.sleeper;1789783 wrote: Trump will get less done than Obama simply because 90% of his party doesn't want to be associated with him.
But the issue of bipartisanship is where Trump may be being unfairly dismissed. He could be a disaster. Or he could be a real catalyst working with both parties to pass legislation they agree on. In other words, he doesn't try to push one parties agenda but instead focuses on what he can get a majority on (needing mostly a majority of both parties rather than nearly all of Repubs). -
like_that
Trump in a nutshell:
-
HitsRus
The media is the unwitting enabler of the big bamboozle....It seems everyone is falling for the media trick -- focus on whether he comes off as a pompous ass, instead of what policies will change for the better, and what good things will come because of gridlock ending with R's in total control.
Any similarity of this movie clip to Trump's campaign is purely coincidental...
[video=youtube;YW3MIixEps4][/video] -
QuakerOats
No tax increase has ever, or will ever, be used to pay off the debt ----- that would be Political Fallacy # 1sleeper;1789793 wrote: I agree about cutting corporate income tax because they are far too high, but income taxes are pretty low and have been low for most of the Boomers lifetime. The Boomers borrowed and spent money on things they didn't pay for and now want younger generations, who have no money, to foot the bill. The first step to fixing this country is to raise taxes on the Boomers until our debt is paid off. Then we can start talking about tax cuts for people.
Tax increases are only ever used to be spent in a way to attract votes and retain political power. -
sleeper
Then you will never pay off the debt.QuakerOats;1789821 wrote:No tax increase has ever, or will ever, be used to pay off the debt ----- that would be Political Fallacy # 1
Tax increases are only ever used to be spent in a way to attract votes and retain political power.
We really should double taxes on anyone over 50. I'd support 90% top bracket so the Boomers can start paying for their programs that will ultimately bankrupt this country. That's the reality. -
rrfan
Guessing you are under 50....sleeper;1789822 wrote:Then you will never pay off the debt.
We really should double taxes on anyone over 50. I'd support 90% top bracket so the Boomers can start paying for their programs that will ultimately bankrupt this country. That's the reality. -
ptown_trojans_1
As sleeper stated, you will never pay off the debt, that is the fallacy.QuakerOats;1789821 wrote:No tax increase has ever, or will ever, be used to pay off the debt ----- that would be Political Fallacy # 1
Tax increases are only ever used to be spent in a way to attract votes and retain political power.
The only realistic way to tackle the deb is to cut the entitlements, reduce the size of the DOD budget, and to increase taxes and put those revenues to only tackle the debt.
Given the size of entitlements, you cannot grow your way out of the debt. -
sleeper
One word: Yup.ptown_trojans_1;1789824 wrote:As sleeper stated, you will never pay off the debt, that is the fallacy.
The only realistic way to tackle the deb is to cut the entitlements, reduce the size of the DOD budget, and to increase taxes and put those revenues to only tackle the debt.
Given the size of entitlements, you cannot grow your way out of the debt.
Is Trump going to cut Defense or entitlements? No. -
sleeper
Does it matter my age? The Boomers voted in a bunch of benefits that they did not pay for via years of low taxation. This is fact, this is reality.rrfan;1789823 wrote:Guessing you are under 50....
I'm all for low taxation and keep taxes as low as possible but we are at a crossroads where we need to start talking about tax increases, especially on the Boomers, who started the mess in the first place. -
QuakerOatssleeper;1789827 wrote:Does it matter my age? The Boomers voted in a bunch of benefits that they did not pay for via years of low taxation. This is fact, this is reality.
I'm all for low taxation and keep taxes as low as possible but we are at a crossroads where we need to start talking about tax increases, especially on the Boomers, who started the mess in the first place.
I am not sure what you are talking about when you say boomers voted in a "bunch of benefits"; what specific benefits are you talking about? Social Security and Medicare have been around for 50 - 70 years. The government took the funds paid into these trusts (BY EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS) and spent it on other stuff. The boomers paid into the programs and their employers MATCHED their contributions; it was/is their money; not BIG government's. Don't go increasing income taxes now to bolster these programs just because trillions were squandered by BIG government.
What should happen is that SS should be privatized and individual accounts established that have real money in them earning real returns. If this occurred workers would amass substantial nest eggs from which to draw during retirement AND STILL HAVE TENS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS LEFT OVER to leave to their heirs when they die.
We could spending tomorrow by 15% and not miss it. That is the reality. The government already has plenty of money if they only ran things efficiently.
As far as the debt; it could be cut dramatically by selling federal assets that the government has no business owning. That is the only way out on the debt; it will never be reduced by raising taxes --- that is a pipe dream. -
sleeper
They did nothing to address the obvious steps in under funding the entitlement programs. People live longer, they should have recognized this fact and that the current funding levels were insufficient to cover them and their extended life.QuakerOats;1789829 wrote:I am not sure what you are talking about when you say boomers voted in a "bunch of benefits"; what specific benefits are you talking about? Social Security and Medicare have been around for 50 - 70 years. The government took the funds paid into these trusts (BY EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS) and spent it on other stuff. The boomers paid into the programs and their employers MATCHED their contributions; it was/is their money; not BIG government's. Don't go increasing income taxes now to bolster these programs just because trillions were squandered by BIG government.
What should happen is that SS should be privatized and individual accounts established that have real money in them earning real returns. If this occurred workers would amass substantial nest eggs from which to draw during retirement AND STILL HAVE TENS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS LEFT OVER to leave to their heirs when they die.
We could spending tomorrow by 15% and not miss it. That is the reality. The government already has plenty of money if they only ran things efficiently.
As far as the debt; it could be cut dramatically by selling federal assets that the government has no business owning. That is the only way out on the debt; it will never be reduced by raising taxes --- that is a pipe dream.
I'd support a 30% increase in FICA contributions from those 50 and older to help pay for their underfunded programs. That would be "fair" to account for their selfishness.
Boomers; the no accountability generation. -
ptown_trojans_1
Privatize SS, sure, but can you get that through Congress? Tried just a fraction of that during the Bush years and it crashed and burned. So, good luck. You are really going to have to make the case and get a lot more people on board than Bush did back in day.QuakerOats;1789829 wrote:I am not sure what you are talking about when you say boomers voted in a "bunch of benefits"; what specific benefits are you talking about? Social Security and Medicare have been around for 50 - 70 years. The government took the funds paid into these trusts (BY EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS) and spent it on other stuff. The boomers paid into the programs and their employers MATCHED their contributions; it was/is their money; not BIG government's. Don't go increasing income taxes now to bolster these programs just because trillions were squandered by BIG government.
What should happen is that SS should be privatized and individual accounts established that have real money in them earning real returns. If this occurred workers would amass substantial nest eggs from which to draw during retirement AND STILL HAVE TENS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS LEFT OVER to leave to their heirs when they die.
We could spending tomorrow by 15% and not miss it. That is the reality. The government already has plenty of money if they only ran things efficiently.
As far as the debt; it could be cut dramatically by selling federal assets that the government has no business owning. That is the only way out on the debt; it will never be reduced by raising taxes --- that is a pipe dream.
Selling land? Are you referring to federal land like in Oregon/ Nevada?
Sure, I would be for that as long as it is not a National Park. Those are lands left for all of us to enjoy.
I am not sure how you convince Congress to approve that, or how it would be divided up, back to the states perhaps?
And, you know what also would save money, a new DOD BRAC, where we can consolidate bases. The DOD has been calling for one now for a a few years and every single member of Congress has refused. So, again, good luck. -
sleeper
Also selling federal assets isn't going to make a dent in a Trump budget that calls for increased expenditures in Homeland Security(the wall/immigration) and increased defense spending.
Let me know when Trump wants to raise taxes, cut entitlements, and cut defense spending. That's the only real way to fix the budget deficit and the corresponding national debt. Sorry reality doesn't jive with your delusional view on the world. Thanks Obama! -
QuakerOatssleeper;1789830 wrote:They did nothing to address the obvious steps in under funding the entitlement programs. People live longer, they should have recognized this fact and that the current funding levels were insufficient to cover them and their extended life.
I'd support a 30% increase in FICA contributions from those 50 and older to help pay for their underfunded programs. That would be "fair" to account for their selfishness.
Boomers; the no accountability generation.
You still have not identified what "benefits" you are talking about, so it is hard to answer you.
As for SS; the funding formulas have changed over time, the rates have been increased, and the taxable wage base increases every year. I assume you know this. The problem is not necessarily the funding, the problem is BIG government took the money from the trust and spent it on deficit spending. You can blame who you want for that, but that is the problem.
If you ever took the time to run the math on your own wage history, by year, x 6.2%, x 2 (employer match), and add in some type of annual rate of return, compounded over a lifetime of working, you will see a VAST account balance available at age 65. From that balance, pull out the annual earnings plus a little bit of the principle to live off of, and after doing that for 20 years and then dying, your heirs will be left a large windfall. [Instead, today big government gets that windfall, except they already spent it]. -
sleeper
QuakerOats;1789834 wrote:You still have not identified what "benefits" you are talking about, so it is hard to answer you.
As for SS; the funding formulas have changed over time, the rates have been increased, and the taxable wage base increases every year. I assume you know this. The problem is not necessarily the funding, the problem is BIG government took the money from the trust and spent it on deficit spending. You can blame who you want for that, but that is the problem.
If you ever took the time to run the math on your own wage history, by year, x 6.2%, x 2 (employer match), and add in some type of annual rate of return, compounded over a lifetime of working, you will see a VAST account balance available at age 65. From that balance, pull out the annual earnings plus a little bit of the principle to live off of, and after doing that for 20 years and then dying, your heirs will be left a large windfall. [Instead, today big government gets that windfall, except they already spent it].
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. The Boomers did nothing to address the obvious under funding of the 3 programs and instead said "Nope, we paid for it, please send us checks for the next 40 years of retirement!!"
Reality says: No you did not pay for 40 years of checks, you paid for 20. When are Boomers going to grow up and realize they didn't pay enough into the system?
Boomers the no accountability generation. -
sleeper
And whether the government took money from one fund to another is irrelevant. The BOOMERS got stuff they did not pay for, either in FICA taxes or income taxes. It doesn't matter where it came from.
Boomers were under taxed most of their live and they need to pay their fair share. -
QuakerOatssleeper;1789832 wrote:Also selling federal assets isn't going to make a dent in a Trump budget that calls for increased expenditures in Homeland Security(the wall/immigration) and increased defense spending.
Let me know when Trump wants to raise taxes, cut entitlements, and cut defense spending. That's the only real way to fix the budget deficit and the corresponding national debt. Sorry reality doesn't jive with your delusional view on the world. Thanks Obama!
I would estimate that the federal government owns trillions of dollars worth of land, property, buildings, and equipment. Much of it they have no business owning. When the time comes to pay the piper, this would be the route to go, not to print more money and further impoverish The People. True "entitlements" (which would not include SS [except certain SS disability which is being highly abused]) could, and should, be slashed immediately by 30% --- there would hardly be a whimper. We could easily cut 5-10% everywhere else, again without nary a person noticing, and then institute a 5 year freeze from that point forward. The private sector takes these steps every day, unfortunately the public NEVER does. The jig is up. -
QuakerOatssleeper;1789835 wrote:Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. The Boomers did nothing to address the obvious under funding of the 3 programs and instead said "Nope, we paid for it, please send us checks for the next 40 years of retirement!!"
Reality says: No you did not pay for 40 years of checks, you paid for 20. When are Boomers going to grow up and realize they didn't pay enough into the system?
Boomers the no accountability generation.
Do you want me to provide you with an Excel spreadsheet that would clearly show most people would have accumulated far more in SS assets by age 65, than they will ever pull out? -
sleeper
Good luck. This country has already sealed its fate.QuakerOats;1789838 wrote:I would estimate that the federal government owns trillions of dollars worth of land, property, buildings, and equipment. Much of it they have no business owning. When the time comes to pay the piper, this would be the route to go, not to print more money and further impoverish The People. True "entitlements" (which would not include SS [except certain SS disability which is being highly abused]) could, and should, be slashed immediately by 30% --- there would hardly be a whimper. We could easily cut 5-10% everywhere else, again without nary a person noticing, and then institute a 5 year freeze from that point forward. The private sector takes these steps every day, unfortunately the public NEVER does. The jig is up.
Thanks Boomers! -
QuakerOats
Simply incorrect.sleeper;1789836 wrote:And whether the government took money from one fund to another is irrelevant. The BOOMERS got stuff they did not pay for, either in FICA taxes or income taxes. It doesn't matter where it came from.
Boomers were under taxed most of their live and they need to pay their fair share.