Reply With Quote
one party rule makes robust stimulus and effective government activism possible. if Trump and the GOP don't deliver it'll be a long time before we have a government that can.
the deficits will be real. Keynesian stimulus plus tax cuts is expensive.
one party rule makes robust stimulus and effective government activism possible. if Trump and the GOP don't deliver it'll be a long time before we have a government that can.
I keep waiting, amongst all the economic sturm und drang, for some front loaded QE to pop out of the mix.
Not gonna happen, but I really want a new bike.
They have tons of goods flowing through their checkpoints.
Besides, safety and security aren't necessarily the same things.
You can be secure but still not be safe.
Ya liber s have nary room.
Your candidate just blew a billion dollars in the worst run campaign and biggest failure in the history of politics
Even many democrats will say she wasn't a great candidate but she was better than Trump to anyone paying attention and with the enough care and reason to assess the candidates honestly. Even then, she got the plurality of total votes cast but our broken election system doesn't reward that on the presidential level.Ya liber s have nary room.
Your candidate just blew a billion dollars in the worst run campaign and biggest failure in the history of politics
"Broken" by design.
I think the founding fathers would have been appalled by what happened this week.
On what do you base that opinion?
the popular vote argument is weak and intellectually dishonest. Trump wasn't campaigning to win the popular vote, he was campaigning to win 270 electoral colleges. He didn't spend any money in high population states like NY and CA because there was no reason to, but if he had spent money, popular vote is a different story.
Also in states swing so heavily in favor of one party historically, more voters would turn out if popular vote was relevant. A candidate only needs 270 votes. That's by design.
There are also fewer swing voters (i.e., voters open to hearing Trump's message in-person and changing their vote to him) in densely populated cities in NY and CA. Do you really think a true national campaign with higher voter turnout would favor Trump? But we can argue that till the cows come home.
Tocqueville's Democracy in America actually made me think the electoral college made sense for a while (because in short it emphasizes the importance of states) but I don't think that anymore. It simply makes no sense that a candidate who gets more votes loses. That's not to say Trump shouldn't be president-elect right now since those are the known rules both candidates played by, but it's a ridiculous system. It can't be good for democracy for a candidate without even a plurality of votes to regularly win if this becomes a trend.
Every heard the term "Fly over States"?
The sentiment behind that nonsense is the basis for the EC.
Except maybe Iowa, they are still fly over states in this system. Was HRC campaigning in Kansas?
Cankles "won" the popular vote by running up the score in the type of states that would vote for Hitler if he was a Democrat and kept the handouts coming in on time. And the margin of victory is so close that it's practically a statistical tie. So what if she put up more yards? Trump got into the end zone more often and that's all that matters.
New York City alone has as many people in it as all of Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, and Iowa combined. Nebraska produces more wheat than any other state. Montana has three heads of cattle per person and is a major contributor to the beef industry. Idaho produces more potatoes than any other state. Iowa is the second most agriculturally productive state in the nation. New York City produces... lawyers and degenerates. Why should the consumers in this country get all the power to choose our president just because they physically outnumber the producers? This is just another example of why we need the Electoral College to keep the system more fair and equitable.
Some would also be appalled at black people being able to vote this week.
lol when morally bankrupt trump won the "morals matter" evangelical votes just because he was running as a republican
A repeal of the ACA should help to reduce en lements spending. I like the infrastructure spending proposal if it's offset with en lement reform or reduction in military spending. Unfortunately I expect neither. It was apparent to me from the outset that neither of the candidates were going to bring a balanced budget approach or fiscally conservative policies to the office.
people only complain about the national debt when the other party is in power
That's a broad, general statement that I can specifically disprove with one fact. I care about it all the time, and I'm a person.
why? because Pete Peterson told you to care? Because Repugs care about it, at certain times?
WaPo: Trump just laid out a pretty radical student debt plan
We would cap repayment for an affordable portion of the borrower’s income, 12.5 percent, we’d cap it. That gives you a lot to play with and a lot to do,” Trump said at a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on Thursday. “And if borrowers work hard and make their full payments for 15 years, we’ll let them get on with their lives. They just go ahead and they get on with their lives.”
The terms proposed by the Republican nominee are more generous than all of the existing government programs that let borrowers cap their monthly student loan payments to a percentage of their earnings. Even the latest income-driven plan, known as Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE), forgives remaining debt after 20 years of payment, though it caps borrowers’ monthly bills to 10 percent of their income.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-draw7&wpmm=1“They are way off on their numbers,” said Jason Delisle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Ins ute, a conservative think tank. “If you were going to give loan forgiveness in 15 years, you’re going to forgive a lot more debt than you’re going to make up for in the form of the higher payments they’re proposing, by a lot. I don’t even need to run the numbers. It’s so obvious.”
Even I am against this... student loans need to be judiciously given out and need to have reasonable interest rates, but people who accept them should be responsible for them. I'm not for massive loan forgiveness programs. This is easy for me to say given that I got through college without any student debt, but this is too costly a program and not really a solution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
