2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Brian?

TheDoctor wrote: »

VP Debate - 4 Oct
2nd Pres Debate - 9 Oct
3rd Pres Debate - 19 Oct

The VP debate is going to be a snoozefest. I can't think of 2 less interesting character than Mike Pence and that fella who occasionally shows up with Hillary.

Black Swan

Clinton was her unimaginative, bureaucratic, and boring speaker self during the debate, while Donald Trump repeated his performances that occurred during the Republican primary debates by not answering direct questions from moderator, rambling a lot, not respecting time allotments, and frequently interrupting Clinton while she was speaking, so no surprises with either candidate. Of course the Clinton supporters will claim victory, as will the Trump supporters, no surprises there either.

Upon reflection both choices for president are terribly poor indeed, and to claim that one is substantially a better choice than the other, or even a lesser of evils, requires a leap of faith and not one of reason, and certainly not supported by their respective track records in either politics or business, and clearly not supported by the contents or dynamics of this first debate. What a sad commentary this debate was regarding the 2-party system of government in America, given that they have about 318 million people, and they cannot produce more qualified and inspiring candidates than these two terribly below quality nominees for their highest office.

After the debate news media reporters were asking the candidates if they would respect the outcome of the 8 November 2016 election. Regardless of what either of them said, no matter who wins of these two jokers, I personally cannot respect either. What a total craic this presidential election has been.

TheDoctor

God Bless America

RobertKK

Black Swan wrote: »

Clinton was her unimaginative, bureaucratic, and boring speaker self during the debate, while Donald Trump repeated his performances that occurred during the Republican primary debates by not answering direct questions from moderator, rambling a lot, not respecting time allotments, and frequently interrupting Clinton while she was speaking, so no surprises with either candidate. Of course the Clinton supporters will claim victory, as will the Trump supporters, no surprises there either.

Upon reflection both choices for president are terribly poor indeed, and to claim that one is substantially a better choice than the other, or even a lesser of evils, requires a leap of faith and not one of reason, and certainly not supported by their respective track records in either politics or business, and clearly not supported by the contents or dynamics of this first debate. What a sad commentary this debate was regarding the 2-party system of government in America, given that they have about 318 million people, and they cannot produce more qualified and inspiring candidates than these two terribly below quality nominees for their highest office.

After the debate news media reporters were asking the candidates if they would respect the outcome of the 8 November 2016 election. Regardless of what either of them said, no matter who wins of these two jokers, I personally cannot respect either. What a total craic this presidential election has been.

I would call that a fair assessment.

Christy42

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-won-the-debate-which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/

This raises a good point. If voters don't care about her opponent going into meltdown in the first debate and she doesn't gain in the polls then Hillary is in trouble.

Hillary's performance was by no means perfect but she was well prepared for Trump's debating "style" and was confident of her claims. Trump on the other hand went into meltdown mode. Admitting he doesn't pay tax. Claiming that racially harassing the president for his birth cert was a good thing. He set Clinton up for sound bites ("I am prepared to be president") and had no response to Clinton powering through his (generally wrong) interruptions. That is without mentioning his campaign deleting his tweets that he was contradicting on stage.

If none of that helps Clinton in the polls then nothing in the future debates will.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

New poll for Minnesota, moves from Clinton to a toss up

Clinton 43%
Trump 43%

I see you didn't include the link, so I googled it. Yep... Breitbart. You're taking your news literally from Trump's campaign.

Now you're going to say "oh no, it was Gravis Marketing!" But there is a problem there... Gravis Marketing are run and sponsored by Breitbart.



Try 44 - 38 instead: http://www.startribune.com/tracking-presidential-polls-in-minnesota/392909811/

Billy86

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Agreed, Trump did start well, but I fell asleep so didn't see the end, but have seen a recap.

Pity, when is the next debate ?

Oct 9th, CNN, moderated by Anderson Cooper.

RobertKK

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Nate Silver says Clinton won and it likely means she will gain in the polls.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-won-the-debate-which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/

Currently Nate Silver says the chances of winning are
Clinton 55%
Trump 45%

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

I see you didn't include the link, so I googled it. Yep... Breitbart. You're taking your news literally from Trump's campaign.

Now you're going to say "oh no, it was Gravis Marketing!" But there is a problem there... Gravis Marketing are run and sponsored by Breitbart.



Try 44 - 38 instead: http://www.startribune.com/tracking-presidential-polls-in-minnesota/392909811/

When I posted I didn't know who did the poll, just heard it on TV.

Though in other polls, the trend in Minnesota has been towards Clinton losing support/Trump gaining, as she was double digits ahead.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

When I posted I didn't know who did the poll, just heard it on TV.

Though in other polls, the trend in Minnesota has been towards Clinton losing support/Trump gaining, as she was double digits ahead.

Robert, I already provided the link. Here is a screenshot.

RobertKK

It has still tightened in Minnesota.

Billy86

Her polling numbers are almost identical in Minnesota now to what they were at the start of the month.

gosplan

Count Dooku wrote: »

and if despite this Clinton is "not 50 points ahead" Trump, it can mean only that she is least electable POTUS candidate and must resign immediately
Problem is not that Trump is bad, problem is that Clinton is not any better or sometimes even worse that him. At least Trump has some chances to propose something new, while Clinton will continue with failed policies of Obama

I get what you're saying but I think the writings in the wall as regards who and what trump is and what kind of president he would be.

Of course people suffering want something new but are we saying ANYTHING new is good?

Clinton may be the useless status quo but I think it's obvious at this stage that Trump would more than likely be a disaster.

conditioned games

Obama has already been a disaster. Now 23 trillion in debt and no way out. Trump is their last hope.

B_Wayne

conditioned games wrote: »

Obama has already been a disaster. Now 23 trillion in debt and no way out. Trump is their last hope.

Trump's wall alone is considered his fiscally insane. He's expected to be far more damaging for the US economy. So he's an odd choice to reduce the debt that has constantly increased since world war 2 with some exceptions.

conditioned games

B_Wayne wrote: »

Trump's wall alone is considered his fiscally insane. He's expected to be far more damaging for the US economy. So he's an odd choice to reduce the debt that has constantly increased since world war 2 with some exceptions.

The debt has doubled in the last 8 years alone, every 12 months over a trillion debt is added. They need to go back to basics and become more competitive domestically rather than relying on debt to maintain their consumer driven economy. The wall is a metaphor for self sufficiency and independence. Continue on the same path is not an option.

Christy42

conditioned games wrote: »

The debt has doubled in the last 8 years alone, every 12 months over a trillion debt is added. They need to go back to basics and become more competitive domestically rather than relying on debt to maintain their consumer driven economy. The wall is a metaphor for self sufficiency and independence. Continue on the same path is not an option.

Donald Trump was not using a metaphor when talking about the wall or the rest of his ridiculous budget.

The fact that even his supporters have to presume his plans aren't real to make him in any way electable speaks volumes.

B_Wayne

conditioned games wrote: »

The debt has doubled in the last 8 years alone, every 12 months over a trillion debt is added. They need to go back to basics and become more competitive domestically rather than relying on debt to maintain their consumer driven economy. The wall is a metaphor for self sufficiency and independence. Continue on the same path is not an option.

The wall is a planned wall actually. A very expensive wall...

Quin_Dub

conditioned games wrote: »

Obama has already been a disaster. Now 23 trillion in debt and no way out. Trump is their last hope.

Whilst still a huge number it's actually 19.5T

conditioned games wrote: »

The debt has doubled in the last 8 years alone, every 12 months over a trillion debt is added. They need to go back to basics and become more competitive domestically rather than relying on debt to maintain their consumer driven economy. The wall is a metaphor for self sufficiency and independence. Continue on the same path is not an option.

From here

Yes , the debt has almost doubled in the last 8 years , in the teeth of the worst recession in the better part of a 100 years.

The debt in Sept 2008 was 10.6T , in Sept 2012 is was 16T and today it's 19.5T , so the rate of increase is slowing down..

FYI - The Debt was 5.5T in in 2000 and 10.6T in 2008 so it doubled under GWB as well...(it Tripled under Reagan!)

To say that Obama specifically is responsible for the US issues with Debt is disengenuous at best..

The US (not unlike many governments to be fair) has shown itself to be completely incapable of balancing it's books, that has been the case for many decades not just in the lifetime of a specific administration.

Also - Given that Trump would add an additional 5T+ to the debt over a similar period suggesting that he is somehow the economic saviour is a very dubious claim indeed.

Pro Hoc Vice

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Whilst still a huge number it's actually 19.5T



From here

Yes , the debt has almost doubled in the last 8 years , in the teeth of the worst recession in the better part of a 100 years.

The debt in Sept 2008 was 10.6T , in Sept 2012 is was 16T and today it's 19.5T , so the rate of increase is slowing down..

FYI - The Debt was 5.5T in in 2000 and 10.6T in 2008 so it doubled under GWB as well...(it Tripled under Reagan!)

To say that Obama specifically is responsible for the US issues with Debt is disengenuous at best..

The US (not unlike many governments to be fair) has shown itself to be completely incapable of balancing it's books, that has been the case for many decades not just in the lifetime of a specific administration.

Also - Given that Trump would add an additional 5T+ to the debt over a similar period suggesting that he is somehow the economic saviour is a very dubious claim indeed.

The funny thing the last president to balance the books and reduce the national debt in that he ran 3 surpluses plus set up the first year of the next president for a surplus, was and wait for the drum roll, Bill Clinton.

Black Swan

conditioned games wrote: »

Trump is their last hope.

The president does not legislate debt, the US Congress does. So precisely what past and verifiable experience does Donald Trump have in working with the US Congress in terms of the federal budget, taxation, federal deficit, etc.? Not what comes solely out of Trump's MOUTH, rather verifiable past experience?

Suryavarman

conditioned games wrote: »

Obama has already been a disaster. Now 23 trillion in debt and no way out. Trump is their last hope.

The debt has become more affordable under Obama. The nominal value of the debt is irrelevant.

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

The debt has become more affordable under Obama. The nominal value of the debt is irrelevant.

Only if you believe that interest rates are fixed at this level into perpetuity.

Which, if wrong, would be an exceptionally expensively bad mistake.

pumpkin4life

Suryavarman wrote: »

The debt has become more affordable under Obama. The nominal value of the debt is irrelevant.

The distribution of risk is the key problem here and that is the big problem with increased debt. The nominal value of the debt is anything but irrelevant. Also, the debt being affordable effect has been minuscule.

Countries moving away from the petrodollar.

Velocity of money.

Increase in interest rates.

Any of these happen and the debt is going to nuke the United States, especially with the compounded cost of Obamacare in recent years.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

Only if you believe that interest rates are fixed at this level into perpetuity.

Which, if wrong, would be an exceptionally expensively bad mistake.

Even in the unlikely scenario that interest rates increase massively in the next few years the debt is still affordable.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The distribution of risk is the key problem here and that is the big problem with increased debt. The nominal value of the debt is anything but irrelevant. Also, the debt being affordable effect has been minuscule.

Interest payments on the debt have more than halved as a proportion of GDP.

Countries moving away from the petrodollar.

Isn't going to happen.

Velocity of money.

If the velocity falls then the money supply can just be expanded.

Increase in interest rates.

Even if interest rates increase then the debt is still affordable.

Any of these happen and the debt is going to nuke the United States, especially with the compounded cost of Obamacare in recent years.

The US has a very low tax burden. Even if interest rates increased fivefold the US could easily raise enough taxes to pay for it.

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

Even in the unlikely scenario that interest rates increase massively in the next few years the debt is still affordable.

I agree. That's not the point I rebutted though.
This was

Suryavarman wrote: »

The debt has become more affordable under Obama. The nominal value of the debt is irrelevant.

The nominal value of the debt is not irrelevant. It is extremely relevant, as is a large determinant of the servicing costs.

conditioned games

Quin_Dub wrote: »

conditioned games wrote: »

Obama has already been a disaster. Now 23 trillion in debt and no way out. Trump is their last hope.

Whilst still a huge number it's actually 19.5T

conditioned games wrote: »

The debt has doubled in the last 8 years alone, every 12 months over a trillion debt is added. They need to go back to basics and become more competitive domestically rather than relying on debt to maintain their consumer driven economy. The wall is a metaphor for self sufficiency and independence. Continue on the same path is not an option.

From here

Yes , the debt has almost doubled in the last 8 years , in the teeth of the worst recession in the better part of a 100 years.

The debt in Sept 2008 was 10.6T , in Sept 2012 is was 16T and today it's 19.5T , so the rate of increase is slowing down..

FYI - The Debt was 5.5T in in 2000 and 10.6T in 2008 so it doubled under GWB as well...(it Tripled under Reagan!)

To say that Obama specifically is responsible for the US issues with Debt is disengenuous at best..

The US (not unlike many governments to be fair) has shown itself to be completely incapable of balancing it's books, that has been the case for many decades not just in the lifetime of a specific administration.

Also - Given that Trump would add an additional 5T+ to the debt over a similar period suggesting that he is somehow the economic saviour is a very dubious claim indeed.

Obama is responsible for the debt getting worse and worse. Bush was bad but Obama is worse. He came in with a promise of hope but during his time the middle class got poorer and the wealthy banking elite got richer. The country is worse off after he leaves than when he started.

They reinflated the popped bubbles of 2008 with a bigger government debt and dollar bubble that is not too far away from popping as well. Trump is willing to make America great again, taking back the jobs, producing goods in America, eliminate tax loopholes for large multi nationals. If he could make America stand on its feet again they would not need to keep creating debt to fund their consumer economy. Its all heading for a disaster and Obama has played his part in it.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

The debt has become more affordable under Obama. The nominal value of the debt is irrelevant.

What planet do you live on? Interest on our debt will be about $280 Billion in 2016. By 2021 it is forecast to exceed defense spending and non-defense spending. And by 2025 it is expected to reach almost $800 Billion. Wonderful legacy Obama will leave us with all that accumulation of debt he incurred on us with little to show for it.

conditioned games

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Whilst still a huge number it's actually 19.5T



From here

Yes , the debt has almost doubled in the last 8 years , in the teeth of the worst recession in the better part of a 100 years.

The debt in Sept 2008 was 10.6T , in Sept 2012 is was 16T and today it's 19.5T , so the rate of increase is slowing down..

FYI - The Debt was 5.5T in in 2000 and 10.6T in 2008 so it doubled under GWB as well...(it Tripled under Reagan!)

To say that Obama specifically is responsible for the US issues with Debt is disengenuous at best..

The US (not unlike many governments to be fair) has shown itself to be completely incapable of balancing it's books, that has been the case for many decades not just in the lifetime of a specific administration.

Also - Given that Trump would add an additional 5T+ to the debt over a similar period suggesting that he is somehow the economic saviour is a very dubious claim indeed.

The funny thing the last president to balance the books and reduce the national debt in that he ran 3 surpluses plus set up the first year of the next president for a surplus, was and wait for the drum roll, Bill Clinton.

I assume you are taking the piss. The baby boomers came along combined with low interest rates led to massive consumer spending in America giving marginal surpluses during Bill's time. That was the time to take advantage and reinvest back in to the country building up its infrastructure which Clinton didn't do.

Christy42

conditioned games wrote: »

Obama is responsible for the debt getting worse and worse. Bush was bad but Obama is worse. He came in with a promise of hope but during his time the middle class got poorer and the wealthy banking elite got richer. The country is worse off after he leaves than when he started.

They reinflated the popped bubbles of 2008 with a bigger government debt and dollar bubble that is not too far away from popping as well. Trump is willing to make America great again, taking back the jobs, producing goods in America, eliminate tax loopholes for large multi nationals. If he could make America stand on its feet again they would not need to keep creating debt to fund their consumer economy. Its all heading for a disaster and Obama has played his part in it.

And you want to vote for the man who has promised to make this worse? You can't criticise Obama on the debt and support Trump. It makes no sense as he will increase the debt far more than Obama did.

Pro Hoc Vice

conditioned games wrote: »

I assume you are taking the piss. The baby boomers came along combined with low interest rates led to massive consumer spending in America giving marginal surpluses during Bill's time. That was the time to take advantage and reinvest back in to the country building up its infrastructure which Clinton didn't do.

So can we make up our mind in national debt rising a good or a bad thing? Bush during a boom increased National debt did he do the right thing? Did Obama spending and increasing national debt during the worst collapse in a hundred years, do a good thing?

And no I was not taking the ****ing piss, I simply reported a statement of fact! Did I make any editorial comment, so what in my statement was a piss take.

conditioned games

Christy42 wrote: »

conditioned games wrote: »

Obama is responsible for the debt getting worse and worse. Bush was bad but Obama is worse. He came in with a promise of hope but during his time the middle class got poorer and the wealthy banking elite got richer. The country is worse off after he leaves than when he started.

They reinflated the popped bubbles of 2008 with a bigger government debt and dollar bubble that is not too far away from popping as well. Trump is willing to make America great again, taking back the jobs, producing goods in America, eliminate tax loopholes for large multi nationals. If he could make America stand on its feet again they would not need to keep creating debt to fund their consumer economy. Its all heading for a disaster and Obama has played his part in it.

And you want to vote for the man who has promised to make this worse? You can't criticise Obama on the debt and support Trump. It makes no sense as he will increase the debt far more than Obama did.

I never voted for Obama who made it worse. I would vote for Trump who would try and make it better. Trump would try and make America competitive again, building an economy that actually makes something instead of borrowing money to maintain wasteful spending. Under Obama and Clinton this sharade of a so called recovery will continue until confidence in the US dollar is gone. I'm sure that will end well.

conditioned games

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

conditioned games wrote: »

I assume you are taking the piss. The baby boomers came along combined with low interest rates led to massive consumer spending in America giving marginal surpluses during Bill's time. That was the time to take advantage and reinvest back in to the country building up its infrastructure which Clinton didn't do.

So can we make up our mind in national debt rising a good or a bad thing? Bush during a boom increased National debt did he do the right thing? Did Obama spending and increasing national debt during the worst collapse in a hundred years, do a good thing?

And no I was not taking the ****ing piss, I simply reported a statement of fact! Did I make any editorial comment, so what in my statement was a piss take.

Both Bush and Obama were bad presidents. Clinton is a continuation of Obama. The American people now deserve better. I think Trump is their last hope.

Pro Hoc Vice

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So can we make up our mind in national debt rising a good or a bad thing? Bush during a boom increased National debt did he do the right thing? Did Obama spending and increasing national debt during the worst collapse in a hundred years, do a good thing?

And no I was not taking the ****ing piss, I simply reported a statement of fact! Did I make any editorial comment, so what in my statement was a piss take.

As always it's a textured and nuanced question.

Deficits which are investment-geared in nature can and do have multiplicative effects for economies, expanding them beyond their previous growth paths. Building Infrastructure for $$$$$ that costs $$ each year into perpetuity to maintain but also increase revenues by $$$$ (through higher taxes take & 'profit' of servicing) into perpetuity can pay for themselves over time.

Deficits which are geared towards covering current expenditure are far more dangerous and self-immolating, as you are borrowing from tomorrow's people to pay for today's running. This is almost always a bad idea as we have seen just how difficult it is (in Ireland) to close current deficits when they get out of hand. Running up a $$$ expense that also includes a promise to spend that same $$$ each year forever does not have the same multiplier effect towards GDP growth.

Deficit = Good & Deficit = Bad are both far too simplistic in nature.

Pro Hoc Vice

conditioned games wrote: »

I never voted for Obama who made it worse. I would vote for Trump who would try and make it better. Trump would try and make America competitive again, building an economy that actually makes something instead of borrowing money to maintain wasteful spending. Under Obama and Clinton this sharade of a so called recovery will continue until confidence in the US dollar is gone. I'm sure that will end well.

http://m.industryweek.com/competitiveness/top-10-manufacturing-countries-2020#slide-0-field_images-192471

While China overtook America a few years ago as you can see above USA is predicted to to regain top slot by 2020 and that has nothing todo with Trump or Clinton.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf

Pro Hoc Vice

conditioned games wrote: »

Both Bush and Obama were bad presidents. Clinton is a continuation of Obama. The American people now deserve better. I think Trump is their last hope.

The funny thing is everyone I have asked gives different reason why the like trump, the funny thing is many give contradictory reasons. Trump may be a great president but he nor any president can solve Americas or the worlds ills. He may if he is lucky do good in a couple of areas but saying he is americas last hope is just silly, contrary to what some believe America is a country ahead of most on any issue.

Pro Hoc Vice

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As always it's a textured and nuanced question.

Deficits which are investment-geared in nature can and do have multiplicative effects for economies, expanding them beyond their previous growth paths. Building Infrastructure for $$$$$ that costs $$ each year into perpetuity to maintain but also increase revenues by $$$$ (through higher taxes take & 'profit' of servicing) into perpetuity can pay for themselves over time.

Deficits which are geared towards covering current expenditure are far more dangerous and self-immolating, as you are borrowing from tomorrow's people to pay for today's running. This is almost always a bad idea as we have seen just how difficult it is (in Ireland) to close current deficits when they get out of hand. Running up a $$$ expense that also includes a promise to spend that same $$$ each year forever does not have the same multiplier effect towards GDP growth.

Deficit = Good & Deficit = Bad are both far too simplistic in nature.

Exactly but reading some on here you would think it's a black or white issue. All I did was in response to another poster point out a fact.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree. That's not the point I rebutted though.
This was


The nominal value of the debt is not irrelevant. It is extremely relevant, as is a large determinant of the servicing costs.

The nominal value at any one time is irrelevant. The only thing that ever matters is the cost of servicing the debt. The nominal value has no impact on servicing costs. The only thing that matters is the Government's ability to meet interest payments which the US Government can easily do, even under the worst case scenarios.

Amerika wrote: »

What planet do you live on? Interest on our debt will be about $280 Billion in 2016. By 2021 it is forecast to exceed defense spending and non-defense spending. And by 2025 it is expected to reach almost $800 Billion. Wonderful legacy Obama will leave us with all that accumulation of debt he incurred on us with little to show for it.

Nominal values don't matter.

And yes Obama has left a good legacy. Avoiding a second Great Depression is an impressive achievement.

Overheal

conditioned games wrote: »

I never voted for Obama who made it worse. I would vote for Trump who would try and make it better. Trump would try and make America competitive again, building an economy that actually makes something instead of borrowing money to maintain wasteful spending. Under Obama and Clinton this sharade of a so called recovery will continue until confidence in the US dollar is gone. I'm sure that will end well.

Do you think Obama did not try to make it better? That he did not try to make America competitive again? Because I seem to remember that the banking system got a bailout, the auto industry got bailed out, and we're also seeing the growth of alt energy and alt driven cars, we've also seen the private space industry unfold, and still continue to albeit with mixed feelings, produce a lot of military industrial goods at home. The DOW has also nearly tripled since the crash, and recovered and grown from prior to that.

We still produce quite a number of goods in the United States. I'm not sure how you believe that the current POTUS was somehow trying to sabotage that?

Also again, the President doesn't spend money: congress does.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Also again, the President doesn't spend money: congress does.

Indeed. It seems that many folks fail to understand this fact. The president does not legislate, the US Congress does. If elected president, Donald Trump cannot legislate change. He has the power to sign or veto legislation, but he cannot lower or raise taxes no matter what promises he makes to his followers while campaigning. He can propose a budget to the US Congress, but Congress decides the budget through legislation, not the president. Donald Trump may have experience in business, but in governance he has ZERO experience.

FA Hayek

Suryavarman wrote: »

And yes Obama has left a good legacy. Avoiding a second Great Depression is an impressive achievement.

Obama alone has raised the debt more by all other presidents combined. That buck will be passed onto the next generation. The can has just been kicked down the road. Anyone who is a fiscal conservative or veers anywhere libertarian, should be seething about this. We have gone over this before but the mantra that avoiding another Depression was avoided without cost should be challenged.

The only thing that matters is the Government's ability to meet interest payments which the US Government can easily do, even under the worst case scenarios.

That is plainly false. You yourself have admitted that current entitlements will be bankrupt in the medium term.

As per servicing the debt...



Again, we have gone over this before and after a brief tussle you dropped your argument like a hot potato.
Last post from me was here, which you did not respond to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101041187&postcount=1044

Overheal

Could you link to the CBO report that graph is pulled from or otherwise explain how they infer that the cost of servicing the debt will shoot skyward faster than Al Gore on a scissor lift?

Brian?

FA Hayek wrote: »

Obama alone has raised the debt more by all other presidents combined. That buck will be passed onto the next generation. The can has just been kicked down the road. Anyone who is a fiscal conservative or veers anywhere libertarian, should be seething about this. We have gone over this before but the mantra that avoiding another Depression was avoided without cost should be challenged.



That is plainly false. You yourself have admitted that current entitlements will be bankrupt in the medium term.

As per servicing the debt...



Again, we have gone over this before and after a brief tussle you dropped your argument like a hot potato.
Last post from me was here, which you did not respond to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101041187&postcount=1044

"Projected" based on what? A sharp straight line seems a little unbelievable.

Overheal

Did some looking and the CBO projected by Jan 2016 the rate would be 4%. Obviously that hasn't panned out. For whatever reason in both cases they always project a dramatic shift immediately after actual figures.

http://crfb.org/blogs/moving-interest-costs-cbo-baseline

While the CBO is non partisan that still begs context and math behind it.

Suryavarman

FA Hayek wrote: »

Obama alone has raised the debt more by all other presidents combined. That buck will be passed onto the next generation. The can has just been kicked down the road. Anyone who is a fiscal conservative or veers anywhere libertarian, should be seething about this. We have gone over this before but the mantra that avoiding another Depression was avoided without cost should be challenged.

Libertarians and fiscal conservatives probably will get worked up over this. That is because they are ideologues and if something conflicts with their worldview then they will be angry regardless of it is a good thing.

That is plainly false. You yourself have admitted that current entitlements will be bankrupt in the medium term.

I said they pose a problem in the long term and action should be taken now to avoid that problem.

As per servicing the debt...

The US is a low tax economy. It can afford those repayments.

Again, we have gone over this before and after a brief tussle you dropped your argument like a hot potato.
Last post from me was here, which you did not respond to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101041187&postcount=1044

That's because there was nothing new or anything worth responding to in it.

Suryavarman

GAry Johnson's position as a joke candidate solidifies as he fails to name a foreign leader he admires.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

And yes Obama has left a good legacy. Avoiding a second Great Depression is an impressive achievement.

Give me a break. A 'second great depression' was never in the cards. Or is there some magical revelation you’d like to bestow upon us?

TheDoctor

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Trumps disaster of a first debate is beginning to take effect.
Florida has tilted back to Hillary and Nevada nearly also gone.

Clinton 290 - 248 Trump

Billy86

TheDoctor wrote: »

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Trumps disaster of a first debate is beginning to take effect.
Florida has tilted back to Hillary and Nevada nearly also gone.

Clinton 290 - 248 Trump

But but but... Trump 'won' the debate? An anonymous online poll totally not manipulated by 4chan or the_Donald subreddit told me so.

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Trumps disaster of a first debate is beginning to take effect.
Florida has tilted back to Hillary and Nevada nearly also gone.

Clinton 290 - 248 Trump

We all love fact checkers these days, right? It’s all the rage I hear.

So, where does FIVETHIRTYEIGHT stand in regards to Media Bias/Fact Check?



LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

SURPRISE!