|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 12 2017 17:01 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, does anyone think we'll ever have a president who reduces the national debt? Or are we going to increase debt-to-GDP in perpetuity until the country starts to be owned by China?
Do you think we'll ever have a congress that seriously reduces the national debt? Do you think we'll have a civics-educated population that wants to reduce the debt?
There's no pressure on politicians to propose adequate funding and plans for all these proposed entitlements, just like with past entitlements. I expect they'll carry on just like in the past.
|
On March 12 2017 20:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 17:01 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, does anyone think we'll ever have a president who reduces the national debt? Or are we going to increase debt-to-GDP in perpetuity until the country starts to be owned by China? Do you think we'll ever have a congress that seriously reduces the national debt? Do you think we'll have a civics-educated population that wants to reduce the debt? There's no pressure on politicians to propose adequate funding and plans for all these proposed entitlements, just like with past entitlements. I expect they'll carry on just like in the past.
Honest question, what would be the functional difference if we cut the debt in half. Like how would things be different. Ignoring how the debt was cut, just what would having half the debt be like functionally vs what we have now?
|
On March 12 2017 15:20 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 14:12 Danglars wrote:
Who needs to make any argument when people prefer to talk about Y when I comment on X? I find it extremely troubling to always deflect to Y when X is brought up, so I'm forced to believe that X is far too damaging to admit that whataboutism enters in. Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 14:31 a_flayer wrote:
Based on responses such as "I can't believe I actually agree with a_flayer", I'm pretty sure everyone just outright dismisses my views unless they explicitly state otherwise. I don't think there is any worth in discussing anything with people who make up things that the other person did not say in order to score cheap points. Which is probably also why nobody wants to talk about X with you, Danglars. Do have a nice day.
Uh, to clarify, people have actually said that about something else I said in another thread. Not in relation to my post on the media. I'm just saying that its silly to suggest people agree with me when they don't explicitly state so themselves.
+ Show Spoiler +Don't drink and post, people.
|
On March 12 2017 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 20:53 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 17:01 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, does anyone think we'll ever have a president who reduces the national debt? Or are we going to increase debt-to-GDP in perpetuity until the country starts to be owned by China? Do you think we'll ever have a congress that seriously reduces the national debt? Do you think we'll have a civics-educated population that wants to reduce the debt? There's no pressure on politicians to propose adequate funding and plans for all these proposed entitlements, just like with past entitlements. I expect they'll carry on just like in the past. Honest question, what would be the functional difference if we cut the debt in half. Like how would things be different. Ignoring how the debt was cut, just what would having half the debt be like functionally vs what we have now?
You just wait until interest rates invariably have to rise and the US Treasury has to put up higher yields on their bonds. It's not sustainable. The only reason Japan gets away with it (and their 25 year record is abysmal by the way, but at least they haven't defaulted) for instance is because they have one of the highest savings rates in the entire world. The US is debt laden from the average individual all the way up the Government chain to DC. The Fed cannot keep interest rates at 0-.25% for ever. CPI is such a joke anyways. If we could halve the debt the interest would be more manageable, but still painful, but good luck getting anyone to cut anything lmao.
|
|
|
On March 12 2017 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 20:53 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 17:01 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, does anyone think we'll ever have a president who reduces the national debt? Or are we going to increase debt-to-GDP in perpetuity until the country starts to be owned by China? Do you think we'll ever have a congress that seriously reduces the national debt? Do you think we'll have a civics-educated population that wants to reduce the debt? There's no pressure on politicians to propose adequate funding and plans for all these proposed entitlements, just like with past entitlements. I expect they'll carry on just like in the past. Honest question, what would be the functional difference if we cut the debt in half. Like how would things be different. Ignoring how the debt was cut, just what would having half the debt be like functionally vs what we have now?
current debt service payments are ~ 223 billion dollars a year. that's how much is spent each year on paying the interest on prior borrowing.
so if the debt was cut in half, we'd have an extra 111 billion dollars to work with.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
|
On March 12 2017 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 20:53 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 17:01 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, does anyone think we'll ever have a president who reduces the national debt? Or are we going to increase debt-to-GDP in perpetuity until the country starts to be owned by China? Do you think we'll ever have a congress that seriously reduces the national debt? Do you think we'll have a civics-educated population that wants to reduce the debt? There's no pressure on politicians to propose adequate funding and plans for all these proposed entitlements, just like with past entitlements. I expect they'll carry on just like in the past. Honest question, what would be the functional difference if we cut the debt in half. Like how would things be different. Ignoring how the debt was cut, just what would having half the debt be like functionally vs what we have now?
Unfunded liabilities and the tax and spend nature of government (combined with citizen cluelessness) would make it balloon quickly back out in short order. If we cut the debt to your own name, you might not feel it either.
|
On March 12 2017 22:32 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 15:20 Aquanim wrote:On March 12 2017 14:12 Danglars wrote:
Who needs to make any argument when people prefer to talk about Y when I comment on X? I find it extremely troubling to always deflect to Y when X is brought up, so I'm forced to believe that X is far too damaging to admit that whataboutism enters in. On March 12 2017 14:31 a_flayer wrote:
Based on responses such as "I can't believe I actually agree with a_flayer", I'm pretty sure everyone just outright dismisses my views unless they explicitly state otherwise. I don't think there is any worth in discussing anything with people who make up things that the other person did not say in order to score cheap points. Which is probably also why nobody wants to talk about X with you, Danglars. Do have a nice day. Uh, to clarify, people have actually said that about something else I said in another thread. Not in relation to my post on the media. I'm just saying that its silly to suggest people agree with me when they don't explicitly state so themselves. + Show Spoiler +Don't drink and post, people.
I mean granted Doodsmack is a troll and will ignore posts entirely, as did and as Aquanim missed (or saw and ignored, I don't know what his level of engagement truthfully is). I thought it'd be an interesting exercise to see if he'd ever commit to an actual response and not babbling on about what he'd rather talk about (You're posting about something that isn't Trump? I'm going to argue not mentioning Trump is astounding!). I've had enough feeding of trolls for one week. Aquanim can take it to PMs if he wants to listen and learn.
In actual news, a new surrogate is rising in Trump admin.
Faced with aggressive on-air questioning about the president's wiretapping claims, Sarah Huckabee Sanders didn't flinch, she went folksy.
Speaking to George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America," she pulled out a version of an old line from President Lyndon Johnson: "If the president walked across the Potomac, the media would be reporting that he could not swim."
The 34-year-old spokeswoman for President Donald Trump was schooled in hardscrabble politics - and down-home rhetoric - from a young age by her father, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Her way with a zinger - and her unshakable loyalty to an often unpredictable boss - are big reasons why the deputy press secretary is a rising star in Trump's orbit.
In recent weeks, Sanders has taken on a notably more prominent role in selling Trump's agenda, including on television and at White House press briefings. As White House press secretary Sean Spicer's public profile has fluctuated in recent weeks amid criticism of his performance, Sanders has increasingly become a chief defender of Trump in some of his toughest moments.
Sanders' rise has fueled speculation that she's becoming the president's favored articulator, a notion she disputes. "It's hard for any one person to maintain a schedule of being the singular face all day every day," she said. She argued that more than one press aide spoke for President Barack Obama.
"When Eric Schultz went on TV did anybody say Josh Earnest is getting fired?" Sanders asked. "Was that story ever written?"
Spicer echoed that message: "My goal is to use other key folks in the administration and the White House to do the shows."
Indeed, speaking on behalf of this president is a challenging and consuming job.
Trump often presents his own thoughts directly on Twitter in the early hours of the morning and is known to closely follow his surrogates on television, assessing their performances. He has been happy with Sanders' advocacy, said Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to the president.
AP
|
On March 12 2017 15:48 Wegandi wrote:Seems like you haven't lived in Florida for long. As a native, everything under the sun happens in Florida.
Been living in Miami most of my life, moved out after Uni to San Francisco, then back to Orlando, then back to the MIA.
On March 12 2017 15:55 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:considering it's miami and road rage happens I don't see that being too crazy. A massive overreaction yes, but not that crazy. wasn't the guy who wanted to blow up target to tank their stocks from florida?
Yea he was, like mid florida.
The stats aren't what's scary, it's what's been actually going on. First the "terrorist" attack in FLL airport - then, the crazy guy in mid fl trying to blow up target... the next one is in Feb, we had a massive shooting in the "projects" for Black History Month parades, and that was pretty close to me. I'm not worried about the crime stats, imo, I'm more worried that with the lack of mental healthcare, FL is definitely going to be seeing more, and more out of the ordinary crazy news stories like that.
|
EDIT: this just wasn't worth it
As for the debt issue, eventually I expect it will become a problem - but until it absolutely can't be avoided I fully expect every government to kick the problem along to the next one.
|
On March 12 2017 20:35 farvacola wrote:
Other than Trump's firing of Preet Bharara and the slow burn undergirding the failed healthcare bill, the news cycle is pretty quiet this weekend.
I mean we have things like
Turkish president Erdogan calls on international organizations to impose sanctions on the Netherlands
etc, but I'm not sure you guys are getting coverage of that in the US.
|
Oh yeah, that's definitely been the highlight among good international media, I should have clarified that I was referring to US news.
|
oh yeah that much was clear and what I posted obviously isn't related to this thread at all (US politics), it's just that if it makes big waves News-wise there might just be time missing you'd otherwise spend on the daily clownshow
|
On March 12 2017 17:01 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, does anyone think we'll ever have a president who reduces the national debt? Or are we going to increase debt-to-GDP in perpetuity until the country starts to be owned by China?
Increasing the debt is a requirement of continued worldwide capital accumulation. There is no "will be owned by China." But nobody wants to risk another great depression by attempting to balance the budget.
|
On March 12 2017 23:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 22:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 12 2017 15:20 Aquanim wrote:On March 12 2017 14:12 Danglars wrote:
Who needs to make any argument when people prefer to talk about Y when I comment on X? I find it extremely troubling to always deflect to Y when X is brought up, so I'm forced to believe that X is far too damaging to admit that whataboutism enters in. On March 12 2017 14:31 a_flayer wrote:
Based on responses such as "I can't believe I actually agree with a_flayer", I'm pretty sure everyone just outright dismisses my views unless they explicitly state otherwise. I don't think there is any worth in discussing anything with people who make up things that the other person did not say in order to score cheap points. Which is probably also why nobody wants to talk about X with you, Danglars. Do have a nice day. Uh, to clarify, people have actually said that about something else I said in another thread. Not in relation to my post on the media. I'm just saying that its silly to suggest people agree with me when they don't explicitly state so themselves. + Show Spoiler +Don't drink and post, people. I mean granted Doodsmack is a troll and will ignore posts entirely, as did and as Aquanim missed (or saw and ignored, I don't know what his level of engagement truthfully is). I thought it'd be an interesting exercise to see if he'd ever commit to an actual response and not babbling on about what he'd rather talk about (You're posting about something that isn't Trump? I'm going to argue not mentioning Trump is astounding!). I've had enough feeding of trolls for one week. Aquanim can take it to PMs if he wants to listen and learn. In actual news, a new surrogate is rising in Trump admin. Show nested quote +Faced with aggressive on-air questioning about the president's wiretapping claims, Sarah Huckabee Sanders didn't flinch, she went folksy.
Speaking to George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America," she pulled out a version of an old line from President Lyndon Johnson: "If the president walked across the Potomac, the media would be reporting that he could not swim."
The 34-year-old spokeswoman for President Donald Trump was schooled in hardscrabble politics - and down-home rhetoric - from a young age by her father, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Her way with a zinger - and her unshakable loyalty to an often unpredictable boss - are big reasons why the deputy press secretary is a rising star in Trump's orbit.
In recent weeks, Sanders has taken on a notably more prominent role in selling Trump's agenda, including on television and at White House press briefings. As White House press secretary Sean Spicer's public profile has fluctuated in recent weeks amid criticism of his performance, Sanders has increasingly become a chief defender of Trump in some of his toughest moments.
Sanders' rise has fueled speculation that she's becoming the president's favored articulator, a notion she disputes. "It's hard for any one person to maintain a schedule of being the singular face all day every day," she said. She argued that more than one press aide spoke for President Barack Obama.
"When Eric Schultz went on TV did anybody say Josh Earnest is getting fired?" Sanders asked. "Was that story ever written?"
Spicer echoed that message: "My goal is to use other key folks in the administration and the White House to do the shows."
Indeed, speaking on behalf of this president is a challenging and consuming job.
Trump often presents his own thoughts directly on Twitter in the early hours of the morning and is known to closely follow his surrogates on television, assessing their performances. He has been happy with Sanders' advocacy, said Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to the president. AP
Sorry to tell you that when you're speaking of the Trump Russia allegations, Trump is relevant and may be brought up.
|
Trump has been awfully quiet since the wiretap lie. I wonder if he received counsel that his media interactions really were jeopardising his own interests. That The unforced errors needed to stop.
|
On March 13 2017 03:20 Doodsmack wrote:Trump has been awfully quiet since the wiretap lie. I wonder if he received counsel that his media interactions really were jeopardising his own interests. That The unforced errors needed to stop. https://twitter.com/20committee/status/840562144039043073
Probably the same thing as his silences during the campaign.
They took his phone away.
He will no doubt steal it back at 4 am and go on a rampage.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm mean it's Steve king, the guy who said this " What I’ve said is that we need to respect humans more than we do animals. Whenever we start elevating animals up to above that of humans, we’ve crossed a moral line. For example, if there’s a sexual predator out there who has impregnated a young girl, say, a 13-year-old girl — and that happens more times in America than you and I would like to think — that sexual predator could pick that girl up off the playground at the middle school, and haul her across the state line and force her to get an abortion to eradicate the evidence of his crime, and bring her back and drop her off at the swing set, and that’s not against the law in the United States.”
The guy is obviously beyond comprehension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
