And, for the love of god, never, EVER listen to another Republican talk about the deficit again without laughing in their face. That charade is over and done. The deficit is a cudgel they now wield to make your retirement as horrible as humanly possible.
For good reason, as many economists and analysts have pointed out. We've already seen that trickle down economics is not good for the economy (see: Reaganomics, see: Brownback in Kansas).
Despite what you said earlier, I think we have a fairly good idea of what this bill will do, and it won't be pretty.
For good reason, as many economists and analysts have pointed out. We've already seen that trickle down economics is not good for the economy (see: Reaganomics, see: Brownback in Kansas).
Despite what you said earlier, I think we have a fairly good idea of what this bill will do, and it won't be pretty.
But they're going to invest all that money in new businesses and hire more workers.......no, no they won't do that. The money going to the top will sit in banks and on Wall Street. Where it won't be is in circulation. It won't be being used to purchase anything, doing absolutely nothing for the only thing that requires new workers, which is demand. Notice what tax never gets cut?? Payroll taxes. Oh wait, Obama and the Democrats cut those significantly in the stimulus bill. Silly me.
For good reason, as many economists and analysts have pointed out. We've already seen that trickle down economics is not good for the economy (see: Reaganomics, see: Brownback in Kansas).
Despite what you said earlier, I think we have a fairly good idea of what this bill will do, and it won't be pretty.
But they're going to invest all that money in new businesses and hire more workers.......no, no they won't do that. The money going to the top will sit in banks and on Wall Street. Where it won't be is in circulation. It won't be being used to purchase anything, doing absolutely nothing for the only thing that requires new workers, which is demand. Notice what tax never gets cut?? Payroll taxes. Oh wait, Obama and the Democrats cut those significantly in the stimulus bill. Silly me.
Indeed. This is what happened the last time(s) anyone set out to do anything like this. No sense in expecting it to be any different this time.
Actually, it might be used for one thing - to buy back stocks.
I've been ready since the media told me it was supposed to happen every day Trump's been in office.
Trump's impact on the economy this year has been relatively minimal. He's been riding on and taking credit for Obama's coattails, and you know it.
It's also fallacious to attempt to extend the past year into next year and beyond. The difference between this year and next year is the tax "reform," which will have a significant impact on the economy. The Republican majority and Trump have done very little to the economy this year. They're going to continue to turn it upside down into the next year, as Paul Ryan and several others have openly stated.
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
Well I'll give him some credit on the economy because it's been doing well in spite of and in conjunction with his antics and actions.
So will people start being affected by failing services and oversight? Will they notice things getting worse? Remains to be seen. But yeah Reaganomics and Brownback failed spectacularly. Why would it work this time?
I think they don't really care, they just want to reward their donors and get theirs. Everyone else doesn't matter.
Sorry if you lose your health care because of this scam. It's not right.
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
Bush and Obama's war blew the deficit out of the water.
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
Only one side has ever claimed the importance of keeping it down at the expense of everything else. They just blew a 1.5 trillion dollar hole in it. They will now try patch that hole with the benefits you have been earning since your first paycheck. One party wants and will attempt to do this, and one will stand against it. That's the way it is. If you care AT ALL about Social Security or Medicare, voting for a Republican is like lighting that money on fire.
Keeping the deficit down makes a great talking point when you're trying to prevent the Democrats from achieving anything when they're in power.
So now we have this cycle of Republicans trash the economy, Democrats fix it, Republicans trash it again, Democrats fix it again. Now we're back to Republicans trash it again.
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
Bush and Obama's war blew the deficit out of the water.
Both parties share the blame i agree.
Obama's war?? Iraq?? What a joke......try this on someone who forgot how this went down, not me.
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
Only one side has ever claimed the importance of keeping it down at the expense of everything else. They just blew a 1.5 trillion dollar hole in it. They will now try patch that hole with the benefits you have been earning since your first paycheck. One party wants and will attempt to do this, and one will stand against it. That's the way it is. If you care AT ALL about Social Security or Medicare, voting for a Republican is like lighting that money on fire.
Surely they won't come after Medicare. Old people vote, that's one thing they surely must know. They can't be that stupid.
That wasn't a dare but they seem to be headed towards that cliff anyway.
Give rich people massive tax cuts. Shift more of the tax burden to the poor and also cut benefits to the poor and middle class. Doesn't seem like a solid plan but they are going for it anyway.
Maybe they'll blame President Hillary Clinton administration. Sadly that works for a lot of fox news victims.
Or they don't care they just assume their gerrymandering will carry them? I don't get it. Never have, never will.
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
@vanatos you said that coalitions were bad as a simple statement. In principle I prefer a system which forces coalition government. That can cause problems (Italy for example has had periods of weak government as a result), but in general I think it results in both more stable government and a better representation of the will of the people - avoiding the worst excesses of the sort of partisanship currently seen in the US. Why do you dislike coalitions - particularly given that you seem to believe the parties should co-operate in passing legislation even in a 2-party system?
I made the point yesterday that US politics was partly of interest due to the international ramifications. There has been lots of discussion in this thread about the domestic impact of the tax bill, but I don't think the international aspects have been explored - and there are some major issues there. For instance the bill proposes to reduce the tax paid by exporters - that's almost certain to be found in breach of WTO rules on the grounds of unfair competition and will no doubt lead to arguments between countries for years to come. Earlier drafts of the bill also contained provisions to tax goods moving between subsidiaries across borders, which would make the sort of manufacturing processes now routinely employed in the EU (and US/Mexico) much more expensive. Given the lack of discussion of the bill though I don't know if that provision has survived (and the likelihood is that even if it has larger companies will be able to avoid its effects by paying tax advisers to find a way round it).
I've been a strict vegetarian for 45 years. Without being preachy about it I'd just reinforce the point already made that being healthy on a vegetarian diet requires absolutely no special attention - you just need to eat a decent range of food (which you should also do even if you eat meat of course).
The monthly average premium for family health insurance in the US is $833/month, which is essentially $10,000/year. The repeal of the mandate is projected to raise those premiums by at least 10%. Which means that family plan just went up $1000. Good luck making that up with the temporary middle-class cuts that range from $60-900, at least until 2027, when we all start paying for a permant 15% corporate boondoggle. Then add in Medicare cuts of $25 billion from this bill alone. Then add in 13 million without insurance subject to bankruptcy at any moment from sickness. Ripple effects will be massive.
@vanatos you said that coalitions were bad as a simple statement. In principle I prefer a system which forces coalition government. That can cause problems (Italy for example has had periods of weak government as a result), but in general I think it results in both more stable government and a better representation of the will of the people - avoiding the worst excesses of the sort of partisanship currently seen in the US. Why do you dislike coalitions - particularly given that you seem to believe the parties should co-operate in passing legislation even in a 2-party system?
Because coalitions in practice create Governments that devolve into infighting, this on top of the usual inefficiency, no one likes Coalitions, thats why people are so against it in the UK, Australia and India.
In principal, if the multiple parties worked together in good faith, in fact it would be a great thing, but the opposite is actually true.
Coalitions historically are actually more corrupt.
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
Your articles are before Obama finished his term, 2008 is pretty early, Obama and Bush ran the biggest deficit in American history.
The 2008 article is about Bill Clinton. Maybe reading it might help? Heck, reading the link might help on account of it saying "the budget and deficit under Clinton."
Also, Obama added a lot to the national debt but the debt and the deficit are two different things, and complaining about the national debt under Obama is kind of hypocritical because Republicans exist. However, Obama reduced the deficit by half by the time he left office. Here's another source:
The 2008 article is about Bill Clinton. Maybe reading it might help? Heck, reading the link might help on account of it saying "the budget and deficit under Clinton."
Also, Obama added a lot to the national debt but the debt and the deficit are two different things, and complaining about the national debt under Obama is kind of hypocritical because Republicans exist. However, Obama reduced the deficit by half by the time he left office. Here's another source:
No he didn't, Deficits are measured by the yearly budget, in 2 of Obama's years he blew it out with 1+ Trillion budget deficits, and i am being generous not including his first year because that was set by the prior administration.
His subsequent years after his blowup 2 years he didn't do as bad, about half a trillion each year, him slashing the deficit is him comparing to himself on his worst years.
Overall in his term entire, he and Bush and i believe one wartime President had the biggest overall deficits in American history.
And your article doesn't help your case, it actually argues against it.
The monthly average premium for family health insurance in the US is $833/month, which is essentially $10,000/year. The repeal of the mandate is projected to raise those premiums by at least 10%. Which means that family plan just went up $1000. Good luck making that up with the temporary middle-class cuts that range from $60-900, at least until 2027, when we all start paying for a permant 15% corporate boondoggle. Then add in Medicare cuts of $25 billion from this bill alone. Then add in 13 million without insurance subject to bankruptcy at any moment from sickness. Ripple effects will be massive.
I haven't validated your claim, but the premiums were projected to rise by 40%+ before, so your argument is actually complementary to the Trump administration.
The 2008 article is about Bill Clinton. Maybe reading it might help? Heck, reading the link might help on account of it saying "the budget and deficit under Clinton."
Also, Obama added a lot to the national debt but the debt and the deficit are two different things, and complaining about the national debt under Obama is kind of hypocritical because Republicans exist. However, Obama reduced the deficit by half by the time he left office. Here's another source:
No he didn't, Deficits are measured by the yearly budget, in 2 of Obama's years he blew it out with 1+ Trillion budget deficits, and i am being generous not including his first year because that was set by the prior administration.
His subsequent years after his blowup 2 years he didn't do as bad, about half a trillion each year, him slashing the deficit is him comparing to himself on his worst years.
Overall in his term entire, he and Bush and i believe one wartime President had the biggest overall deficits in American history.
And your article doesn't help your case, it actually argues against it.
It doesn't. It describes in detail that the deficit was reduced during Obama's terms as president. It's not kind to Obama's record but I never said Obama had a great record.
Obama having a large deficit does not mean he did not reduce the deficit. Here's a handy chart:
The monthly average premium for family health insurance in the US is $833/month, which is essentially $10,000/year. The repeal of the mandate is projected to raise those premiums by at least 10%. Which means that family plan just went up $1000. Good luck making that up with the temporary middle-class cuts that range from $60-900, at least until 2027, when we all start paying for a permant 15% corporate boondoggle. Then add in Medicare cuts of $25 billion from this bill alone. Then add in 13 million without insurance subject to bankruptcy at any moment from sickness. Ripple effects will be massive.
I haven't validated your claim, but the premiums were projected to rise by 40%+ before, so your argument is actually complementary to the Trump administration.
10% more. Which you know. And I don't suppose the instability of the markets based on months upon months of trying to kick people off health insurance would have any impact on those increases at all. Your boy bas been in office for a year. Time for some responsibility.
It doesn't. It describes in detail that the deficit was reduced during Obama's terms as president. It's not kind to Obama's record but I never said Obama had a great record.
Obama having a large deficit does not mean he did not reduce the deficit. Here's a handy chart:
Notice that the deficit drops from $1.4 trillion in 2009 to $585 billion in 2016.
The 1+ trillion deficit is Obama, as was the next year, he dropped to half a trillion in his subsequent years so he 'reduced' how much deficit he normally did, in other words he compared to himself.
His overall deficit as president is one of the biggest in history.
10% more. Which you know. And I don't suppose the instability of the markets based on months upon months of trying to kick people off health insurance would have any impact on those increases at all. Your boy bas been in office for a year. Time for some responsibility.
the projection of 40% happened at the end of obama's term, which he intentionally put off as coming into force after he left office.
Obama essentially left a big ticking time bomb for the Trump administration.
Democratic process doesn't work outside 2 party system, no ones found a better one.
I would disagree with this. When a third party (even if it's a 'fringe' party) holds the balance of power they can easily upset the applecart. Here in the UK, the threat of UKIP forced the EU referendum and even now, as we're in the process of leaving the EU, it's the DUP that hold the veto over the terms of our exit.
Whilst this situation does not by any means exemplify the wonderful world of democracy (whatever that might be) it does show that a multiparty system can split the vote sufficiently that the ruling party doesn't have an absolute majority.
@vanatos you said that coalitions were bad as a simple statement. In principle I prefer a system which forces coalition government. That can cause problems (Italy for example has had periods of weak government as a result), but in general I think it results in both more stable government and a better representation of the will of the people - avoiding the worst excesses of the sort of partisanship currently seen in the US. Why do you dislike coalitions - particularly given that you seem to believe the parties should co-operate in passing legislation even in a 2-party system?
Because coalitions in practice create Governments that devolve into infighting, this on top of the usual inefficiency, no one likes Coalitions, thats why people are so against it in the UK, Australia and India.
In principal, if the multiple parties worked together in good faith, in fact it would be a great thing, but the opposite is actually true.
Coalitions historically are actually more corrupt.
Systems which discourage coalitions between parties tend to encourage parties which function as umbrella organisations for competing internal factions. The LDP in Japan have been compared to a bunch of groups fighting each other under the same flag. They're also an example that systems which produce a consistent incumbent party (due to weighting toward rural constituencies) are even more corrupt than when there are no competitors about.
In the case of the UK the first past the post system arguably hinders reconfiguration of the political landscape to reflect the electorate. The Conservative and Labour Parties are badly split over Brexit but it is very difficult for new parties to coalesce or existing ones to alter due to the first past the post system. An previous attempt to form a centrist party was made in the 1980s but:
"In the 1983 general election, the SDP–Liberal Alliance won more than 25% of the national vote, close behind Labour's 28%, but well behind the 44% secured by the Conservatives. However, because of the first-past-the-post electoral system used in the United Kingdom, only 23 Alliance MPs were elected, six of whom were members of the SDP."
Labour on the other hand got 209 seats with 28%. So that's how the system works against new parties (and special interests like the Greens / UKIP).
Since Brexit has been described as the Conservative Party's internal politics being played out on an international stage I think it would be fair to say that this system has developed a few flaws after a good run of 80 years of Con v Lab elections. Though recently it's pretty hard to even get a majority without a coalition ironically enough...
Comments
Despite what you said earlier, I think we have a fairly good idea of what this bill will do, and it won't be pretty.
Actually, it might be used for one thing - to buy back stocks.
It's also fallacious to attempt to extend the past year into next year and beyond. The difference between this year and next year is the tax "reform," which will have a significant impact on the economy. The Republican majority and Trump have done very little to the economy this year. They're going to continue to turn it upside down into the next year, as Paul Ryan and several others have openly stated.
So will people start being affected by failing services and oversight? Will they notice things getting worse? Remains to be seen. But yeah Reaganomics and Brownback failed spectacularly. Why would it work this time?
I think they don't really care, they just want to reward their donors and get theirs. Everyone else doesn't matter.
Sorry if you lose your health care because of this scam. It's not right.
Both parties share the blame i agree.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Both Clinton and Obama reduced the deficit.
So now we have this cycle of Republicans trash the economy, Democrats fix it, Republicans trash it again, Democrats fix it again. Now we're back to Republicans trash it again.
That wasn't a dare but they seem to be headed towards that cliff anyway.
Give rich people massive tax cuts. Shift more of the tax burden to the poor and also cut benefits to the poor and middle class. Doesn't seem like a solid plan but they are going for it anyway.
Maybe they'll blame President Hillary Clinton administration. Sadly that works for a lot of fox news victims.
Or they don't care they just assume their gerrymandering will carry them? I don't get it. Never have, never will.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
2001 (127,276,000,000) [surplus]
2000 (236,917,000,000) [surplus]
1999 (124,360,000,000) [surplus]
1998 (69,242,000,000) [surplus]
1997 21,957,000,000
1996 107,431,000,000
1995 163,952,000,000
1994 203,186,000,000
1993 255,051,000,000
1992 290,321,000,000
1991 269,238,000,000
1990 221,036,000,000
1989 152,639,000,000
1988 155,178,000,000
1987 149,730,000,000
1986 221,227,000,000
1985 212,308,000,000
1984 185,367,000,000
1983 207,802,000,000
1982 127,977,000,000
1981 78,968,000,000
1980 73,830,000,000
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-has-presided-over-5-6-largest-deficits-us-history
@vanatos you said that coalitions were bad as a simple statement. In principle I prefer a system which forces coalition government. That can cause problems (Italy for example has had periods of weak government as a result), but in general I think it results in both more stable government and a better representation of the will of the people - avoiding the worst excesses of the sort of partisanship currently seen in the US. Why do you dislike coalitions - particularly given that you seem to believe the parties should co-operate in passing legislation even in a 2-party system?
I made the point yesterday that US politics was partly of interest due to the international ramifications. There has been lots of discussion in this thread about the domestic impact of the tax bill, but I don't think the international aspects have been explored - and there are some major issues there. For instance the bill proposes to reduce the tax paid by exporters - that's almost certain to be found in breach of WTO rules on the grounds of unfair competition and will no doubt lead to arguments between countries for years to come. Earlier drafts of the bill also contained provisions to tax goods moving between subsidiaries across borders, which would make the sort of manufacturing processes now routinely employed in the EU (and US/Mexico) much more expensive. Given the lack of discussion of the bill though I don't know if that provision has survived (and the likelihood is that even if it has larger companies will be able to avoid its effects by paying tax advisers to find a way round it).
I've been a strict vegetarian for 45 years. Without being preachy about it I'd just reinforce the point already made that being healthy on a vegetarian diet requires absolutely no special attention - you just need to eat a decent range of food (which you should also do even if you eat meat of course).
In principal, if the multiple parties worked together in good faith, in fact it would be a great thing, but the opposite is actually true.
Coalitions historically are actually more corrupt.
Also, Obama added a lot to the national debt but the debt and the deficit are two different things, and complaining about the national debt under Obama is kind of hypocritical because Republicans exist. However, Obama reduced the deficit by half by the time he left office. Here's another source:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-10-02/former-president-barack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
His subsequent years after his blowup 2 years he didn't do as bad, about half a trillion each year, him slashing the deficit is him comparing to himself on his worst years.
Overall in his term entire, he and Bush and i believe one wartime President had the biggest overall deficits in American history.
And your article doesn't help your case, it actually argues against it.
Obama having a large deficit does not mean he did not reduce the deficit. Here's a handy chart:
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
Notice that the deficit drops from $1.4 trillion in 2009 to $585 billion in 2016.
His overall deficit as president is one of the biggest in history.
Obama essentially left a big ticking time bomb for the Trump administration.
State by state breakdown, projections at Oct 2016 for 2017, before Trump was President and for his first term, 30-40% generally.
http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-price-increases-2017-states/
Whilst this situation does not by any means exemplify the wonderful world of democracy (whatever that might be) it does show that a multiparty system can split the vote sufficiently that the ruling party doesn't have an absolute majority.
In the case of the UK the first past the post system arguably hinders reconfiguration of the political landscape to reflect the electorate. The Conservative and Labour Parties are badly split over Brexit but it is very difficult for new parties to coalesce or existing ones to alter due to the first past the post system. An previous attempt to form a centrist party was made in the 1980s but:
(cut & paste from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK))
"In the 1983 general election, the SDP–Liberal Alliance won more than 25% of the national vote, close behind Labour's 28%, but well behind the 44% secured by the Conservatives. However, because of the first-past-the-post electoral system used in the United Kingdom, only 23 Alliance MPs were elected, six of whom were members of the SDP."
Labour on the other hand got 209 seats with 28%. So that's how the system works against new parties (and special interests like the Greens / UKIP).
Since Brexit has been described as the Conservative Party's internal politics being played out on an international stage I think it would be fair to say that this system has developed a few flaws after a good run of 80 years of Con v Lab elections. Though recently it's pretty hard to even get a majority without a coalition ironically enough...