Trumponomics

[SpeareChucker]

Well, the state legislatures ain't exactly paragons of fiscal responsibility either!

That is a deflection.
Some states are, but this isn't a discussion of state finances.

 

[Adre]

Records revenues don't offset record breaking spending.

Remember what he said when Trump signed the tax bill? That the only reason he was signing was because we needed to fund the military and that if it weren't for that he'd veto it because of all the pork spending in the bill?

The spending isn't Trump's fault. Blame Congress.

Funny, no one said that when the black guy was in charge.

 

[Kirkrapine]

That is a deflection.
Some states are, but this isn't a discussion of state finances.

Of course it's relevant, if you're arguing election of senators should have been left with the legislatures.

 

[RobDownSouth]

What's that have to do with anything?

The glibertarian Housesquaw has devoted his life to two core tenets: 1) The poor must be fucked over as often as possible as punishment for their lack of success and 2) #ThosePeople need to have their voting rights severely curtailed to ensure the continuation of the increasingly minority White Bitter Clingers.

Repealing the 17th amendment goes a long way towards achieving goal #2, it puts a disproportionate amount of political power in the hands of aging white Bitter Clingers and bolster "states rights", which would in turn allow legally sanctions against #ThosePeople

 

[SpeareChucker]

Of course it's relevant, if you're arguing election of senators should have been left with the legislatures.

Not really.
One of the sophisms used in enacting the 17th was the "corruption" of the legislatures.
The legislatures of the states may have been in the hands of the mob, but most were bicameral in imitation of the Founders. The difference is, that before the 17th, the Senators did have to answer to the legislature every six years and not the mob; it was designed to be an indirect election. The legislature that they might be facing after six years very well might not be the one that chose them, so they had, to keep their position be more aligned to the long-term needs of their state over the immediate needs of the general population of their state.

 

[TalkRadio1]

But, but Obamacare! But, but Bailouts!

Obamacare...monthly insurance premiums equal to or greater than a mortgage payment & annual family deductibles equal to or greater than the cost of a used car.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Yeah

 

[Kirkrapine]

Not really.
One of the sophisms used in enacting the 17th was the "corruption" of the legislatures.
The legislatures of the states may have been in the hands of the mob, but most were bicameral in imitation of the Founders. The difference is, that before the 17th, the Senators did have to answer to the legislature every six years and not the mob; it was designed to be an indirect election. The legislature that they might be facing after six years very well might not be the one that chose them, so they had, to keep their position be more aligned to the long-term needs of their state over the immediate needs of the general population of their state.

And what makes you think the "mob" is any worse?

 

[SpeareChucker]

I don't think you really have a firm grasp on the natures of the House and Senate as designed.

 

[coati]

I dunno. I just report the news!

But if history is a lesson, the Trump Business Model is to borrow as much money as possible, then leave someone else holding the bag.

Get ready for the next crash, which will affect the entire stock market bubble.

The inflated stock market has been treated like a high-interest rate bank by gullible mom-and-pop investors, who don't think about the fact that stock increases since the last crash have been fueled by borrowing, low Fed rates, and tax cuts for the rich. Most of that cheap money was plowed back into the stock market pyramid. Gotta do something with it!

With the deficits climbing under the "party of fiscal responsibility", the tools for a bailout during the next crash will not be available to the degree they were in 2008.

What's in your wallet?

 

[HisArpy]

Get ready for the next crash, which will affect the entire stock market bubble.

The inflated stock market has been treated like a high-interest rate bank by gullible mom-and-pop investors, who don't think about the fact that stock increases since the last crash have been fueled by borrowing, low Fed rates, and tax cuts for the rich. Most of that cheap money was plowed back into the stock market pyramid. Gotta do something with it!

With the deficits climbing under the "party of fiscal responsibility", the tools for a bailout during the next crash will not be available to the degree they were in 2008.

What's in your wallet?

This will happen no matter who is in the White House. It's the nature of the market to go up and down. Sometimes very dramatically, but it will always do so regardless of who is administering the government.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't think you really have a firm grasp on the natures of the House and Senate as designed.

He doesn't. It's that "more than 1 party" thing. I think it's because there are too many moving parts to shove against the wall and execute in the dark of night.

 

[coati]

This will happen no matter who is in the White House. It's the nature of the market to go up and down. Sometimes very dramatically, but it will always do so regardless of who is administering the government.

Oh, so it does not matter at all that the Repugnicans control all four branches of the federal government, which played a huge role in both the revenue and spending decisions that contribute to the current and projected deficit?

Interesting. I guess we have no control or accountability for anything. The "nature" of the stock market is making all the decisions.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Get ready for the next crash, which will affect the entire stock market bubble.

Happens regularly and is a great opportunity to make mo' money!!!

With the deficits climbing under the "party of fiscal responsibility", the tools for a bailout during the next crash will not be available to the degree they were in 2008.

Good, about time people start paying the consequences of fucking up.

What's in your wallet?

Like 7 ID's and a debt card.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh, so it does not matter at all that the Repugnicans (#1) control all four branches of the federal government, which played a huge role in both the revenue and spending decisions that contribute to the current and projected deficit?(#3)

Interesting. I guess we have no control or accountability for anything. The "nature" of the stock market is making all the decisions.(#4)

Whooo Hoo. Boy are you good, 3 in one post.

15 fallacies

 

[Kirkrapine]

He doesn't. It's that "more than 1 party" thing.

Parties were not part of the original conception.

 

[HisArpy]

Parties were not part of the original conception.

You are correct. Just as our Federal representatives were never supposed to be chosen by the citizenry.

Something happened along the way that changed both of those things.

 

[Que]

Bullshit. If he saw the spending as excessive, he could have vetoed it, sent it back and held their feet to the fire. Instead, because his party was the one who voted for it, he used the dodge of 'Well we have to fund the military' to sign it into law. The budget has two responsible parties: the members in congress who voted for it and the president who signed it into law. Neither party gets a free pass because of an excuse that doesn't hold water. So yes it is at least 50% his fault if not more, because he had the power to force congress to trim it or get the votes to pass it over his veto and didn't use it. It's as simple as that.




I never understood this and probably never will. The conservatives, when not in power, rail against the "tax and spend" liberals insisting that most taxes are bad, all tax cuts are good, cuts in spending is an absolute necessity, and an increase in the deficit no matter how small will bring our country to it's knees. Sounds logical right? It does to me. Decreasing the deficit while decreasing the tax burden on the people is a good thing.

The problem comes in when they do get to power. What happens? First, tax cuts, that's good. Next, reduction in spending to balance the budget and start to reduce the deficit. All of sudden things hit a snag. All that prior talk of reducing spending goes right out the window when they are faced with cutting things out of the budget. Couple that with pork barrel increases in their favorite programs and all of a sudden the fucking deficit sky rockets.

So while the conservatives call the liberals "tax and spend" politicians, they turn out to be "Reduce taxes and increase spending anyway" politicians.

In a nut shell: for years the Republicans have railed against taxes, spending and an increased deficit, promising that when we put them in power they WILL do something about all three. Now that they have the power, they come through with one out of three. So is defaulting on 2/3rds of a promise lying? Or partial lying (if there is such a thing)? Or just shoveling political bullshit to get to power? They haven't done a damn thing about the deficit or overall spending. Why is that?


Comshaw

What's to understand? They are hypocrites and not at all conservative.

The House has the power (and responsibility) of the purse. The Democrats had the courage of their convictions to pass the wildly unpopular (and idiotic) Obamacare, but they had the power to do so and they acted upon it. They also brought the Vietnam War to an end by refusing to fund it.

Republicans are so worried about being blamed for a government shut-down (which they would be, regardless of who 8s being intransigent) that they won't even try to prioritize spending.

If Trump does not veto the next budget, ye will not be re-elected. It would be pointless.

I would be outraged, but it is far too late to matter anyway.

 

[coati]

What's to understand? They are hypocrites and not at all conservative.

The House has the power (and responsibility) of the purse. The Democrats had the courage of their convictions to pass the wildly unpopular (and idiotic) Obamacare, but they had the power to do so and they acted upon it. They also brought the Vietnam War to an end by refusing to fund it.

Republicans are so worried about being blamed for a government shut-down (which they would be, regardless of who 8s being intransigent) that they won't even try to prioritize spending.

If Trump does not veto the next budget, ye will not be re-elected. It would be pointless.

I would be outraged, but it is far too late to matter anyway.

Que, you can't expect the party of fiscal responsibility to balance the budget. Their former conservatives only control the executive branch, the judicial branch, the House, and the Senate. They only have the tools to take credit for "victories", but will have no accountability at all when things go south.

 

[bigsly]

Parties were not part of the original conception.

Wrong. The Anti-Federalists and Federalists existed and were politically fighting for political control before the Constitution was even ratified. The first two Presidents under the new Constitution were Federalists.

You are correct. Just as our Federal representatives were never supposed to be chosen by the citizenry.

Something happened along the way that changed both of those things.

Wrong. US Representatives were specifically constituted to be elected by the citizenry, as they still are today.

 

[bigsly]

all four branches of the federal government

the executive branch, the judicial branch, the House, and the Senate.

The House and the Senate, in congress, comprise just 1 branch of the federal government.

The Constitution allows only 3 branches of federal government: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary.

 

[coati]

The House and the Senate, in congress, comprise just 1 branch of the federal government.

The Constitution allows only 3 branches of federal government: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary.

You are right about the 3 branches.

However, the Senate has Constitutional powers of advise and consent that are distinct from the House, and that is why the Republicans were able to stack the federal Judiciary branch with members of their party.

 

[cowslinger64]

What's to understand? They are hypocrites and not at all conservative.

The House has the power (and responsibility) of the purse. The Democrats had the courage of their convictions to pass the wildly unpopular (and idiotic) Obamacare, but they had the power to do so and they acted upon it. They also brought the Vietnam War to an end by refusing to fund it.

Republicans are so worried about being blamed for a government shut-down (which they would be, regardless of who 8s being intransigent) that they won't even try to prioritize spending.

If Trump does not veto the next budget, ye will not be re-elected. It would be pointless.

I would be outraged, but it is far too late to matter anyway.

They did.. and thankfully, MILLIONS now have access to health care.. Not having to suffer and die, which was the gop plan.

Where does YOUR healthcare come from? Are you another asshole like botanydummy that gets uncle sugar to pay for it, yet want no one else to have access?


You stupid fucks can say whatever you want about the ACA, doesn't make it bad, doesn't make your stupid comments about it true.. Not perfect, but you can thank the people you keep voting for, that we don't have single payer.

 

[Kirkrapine]

If Trump does not veto the next budget, ye will not be re-elected. It would be pointless.

Wait, what? Why does he have to veto the budget? One passed by Pubs?

 

[bigsly]

You are right about the 3 branches.

However, the Senate has Constitutional powers of advise and consent that are distinct from the House

"distinct from"? The House has no such advise and consent constitutional powers at all.

and that is why the Republicans were able to stack the federal Judiciary branch with members of their party.

Just as Democrats do each time they hold majority control of the Senate. Your point?