The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

[GRtak]

The spending just became far more wasteful because more money will have to be borrowed to cover the shortfall in tax revenue. So we will borrow a larger amount of money, have to pay more interest on that money, and then rinse and repeat. Despite the Republican mantra to reduce spending, they never do. So we get tax less, spend the same, and then wonder why the deficit continues to rise.

 

[LeVeL]

.

 

[GRtak]

 

[prizrak]

The spending just became far more wasteful because more money will have to be borrowed to cover the shortfall in tax revenue. So we will borrow a larger amount of money, have to pay more interest on that money, and then rinse and repeat. Despite the Republican mantra to reduce spending, they never do. So we get tax less, spend the same, and then wonder why the deficit continues to rise.

Sure but the problem is not lowering of taxes it's the spending, granted neither side can claim any kind of high ground on that but if we are going to have a deficit either way I'd prefer to keep a tiny bit more of my money.

 

[Blind_Io]

Trump's greatest achievement is getting democrats to worry about the deficit.

So his greatest achievement is driving the budget off the nearest cliff? This is getting back to that question of scope from a few pages ago; you are literally arguing that his shortsightedness is his greatest asset. Tump wants to build his wall throw money after things that won't make a difference, his infrastructure plan is a joke for anyone who isn't IBTTA. At the same time, the GOP is drilling holes in the ship so they have an excuse to "reform" (cut) social programs - programs that we know are cheaper to have in the long run. (I've already posted multiple citations to this effect, we have a huge body of research to support this claim.)

 

[LeVeL]

.

 

[prizrak]

So his greatest achievement is driving the budget off the nearest cliff? This is getting back to that question of scope from a few pages ago; you are literally arguing that his shortsightedness is his greatest asset. Tump wants to build his wall throw money after things that won't make a difference, his infrastructure plan is a joke for anyone who isn't IBTTA. At the same time, the GOP is drilling holes in the ship so they have an excuse to "reform" (cut) social programs - programs that we know are cheaper to have in the long run. (I've already posted multiple citations to this effect, we have a huge body of research to support this claim.)

Well if we want to go back to the idea of long term vs short term, his short sightedness might actually be good in the long term if it gets people to pay more attention to politics and budgets.

 

[Blind_Io]

Since you're not addressing the topic anymore, are you backing off the argument that the so-far-very-brief market downturn is somehow Trump's fault?

As far as the budget goes, there's little to be said. You and I have a fundamental disagreement on this topic. I believe in lowering both taxation and spending and you believe in raising both. We won't come to an agreement so I'm not going to argue about this yet again.

It isn't about belief, it's about evidence. Funding healthcare and social programs costs less than the health and poverty crisis that would follow if we didn't.

You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't make it factual. Show me some evidence to support your position. I've cited multiple studies that support mine, it's your turn.

 

[GRtak]

Since you're not addressing the topic anymore, are you backing off the argument that the so-far-very-brief market downturn is somehow Trump's fault?

As far as the budget goes, there's little to be said. You and I have a fundamental disagreement on this topic. I believe in lowering both taxation and spending and you believe in raising both. We won't come to an agreement so I'm not going to argue about this yet again.

Once again you missed the whole point of my original post and the follow ups on this topic. It was not to lay literal blame on Trump for this, but since he was taking credit for the rise of the market that started before he was even President, he can take the blame for the drop too.

 

[Cryptopygia]

It was not to lay literal blame on Trump for this, but since he was taking credit for the rise of the market that started before he was even President, he can take the blame for the drop too.

Trump, meanwhile, is busy blaming the drop on the media. Because of course he would.

 

[LeVeL]

.

 

[GRtak]

What you mean by reduce spending and what the Republicans do is drastically different


What did I miss Level?. Trump has touted what the market has done as his accomplishment. I get that this is not the dive of 2007/8, but it was still a drop.


Oh, have a nice vacation.

 

[GRtak]

[No message]

 

[calvinhobbes]

So you saying we should subsidize wasteful spending?

Sorry, but what do you even mean? What spending do you define as wasteful and where did you get the idea that I am in favour of it?

 

[prizrak]

Sorry, but what do you even mean? What spending do you define as wasteful and where did you get the idea that I am in favour of it?

Any unnecessary spending would be wasteful, TSA, war on drugs and a good portion of defense spending come to mind immediately. That's just the broad strokes that don't include many inefficiencies inherent in how things tend to be budgeted at governmental levels. You are suggesting that cutting taxes is wrong due to the deficit, meaning you are in favor of subsidizing wasteful spending.

 

[Blind_Io]

It's truly incredible that after I, priz, and others have explained time and time again what we mean when we call for lower spending, all you get out of it is "hurr durr you want the sick to die in the streets". I don't know how many times I've posted here that I don't want to cut out social programs but it keeps flying right over your head.



It is also incredible that you seemingly haven't read any of my posts so far on this topic. Or you did read them but you just don't get it. Or you're pretending not to get it.


This is, once again, like arguing with a wall. I'm taking another hiatus from this idiotic thread.

Then why do you keep defending a party, president, and their transparent plan to do exactly that? They are cutting taxes while wanting to funnel more money to the military, a pointless border wall, a futile enforcement approach to substance use, and Trump's nearly weekly travel to his resorts? That money has to come from somewhere, you oppose deficit spending, but somehow don't think that the deficit will go up because of this. The only other option is to take money from social services.

You can say whatever you want when backed into a corner, but the fact is that you do support cutting social services because you are supporting a plan that leaves no other option; you support a party that has made it abundantly clear that they want to do away with social programs despite all the evidence that they are cheaper than the alternative. Let's look at drug policy: the policy makers you support are using the same approach that tried and failed in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s - and it will fail again. About 115 people die every day due to opioid addiction, drug manufacturers have shipped over 20 million pills to some small towns, cheap Chinese Fentanyl has flooded the market (50-100 times stronger than morphine and 30-50 times stronger than heroin), but Trump has stated that he wants to "get tough with the drug pushers on the streets" instead of funding recovery programs, prevention programs, prison diversion programs, or any of the other solutions we know are actually effective.

Put your money where your mouth is - if you really don't want to defund social programs then stop fucking supporting people who do!

 

[calvinhobbes]

You are suggesting that cutting taxes is wrong due to the deficit,

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

meaning you are in favor of subsidizing wasteful spending.

...and who could argue with that sort of logic? :lol:

I'm afraid that you haven't even begun to understand why I have a problem with Trump's tax cuts. I'm also not at all sure that you actually want to.

 

[Firecat]

Just my personal experience regarding the economy. In the food business in Orlando. 2016 was by far the worst year on record in the last 10 years and that carried on to about mid-2017. Since that time, we’ve seen increases of 20-29%. Part of that is probably because 2016 and early 2017 was so bad, so we are bouncing back from that.

 

[LeVeL]

.

 

[prizrak]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.


...and who could argue with that sort of logic? :lol:

I'm afraid that you haven't even begun to understand why I have a problem with Trump's tax cuts. I'm also not at all sure that you actually want to.

Considering that you put all of two sentences together to "explain" your position it's not exactly clear to anyone who does not posses telepathic abilities to even begin to understand what you are trying to say. Making me think that you are the one who doesn't want people to understand what your position is. Or perhaps you simply want an easy way out of your argument by claiming "that's not what I meant".