2024 Presidential Election thread

[gehringer_2]

42 minutes ago, 1776 said:

We as a nation will suffer the consequences. My point in bringing this up is that neither party will even broach the topic because of the hard choices that it would require. There have been a handful of congress people that are voicing urgency here but the top of the ticket should be a part of the game. 
The debt you refer to is a two party issue. There has to be a national conversation on this. Instead the two candidates, who should be leading the conversation here won’t touch it. They’re more interested in buying votes with more promises (spending). 
Unfortunately for most Americans, this 
Is the ultimate out of sight-out of mind situation. 
 

but how can you blame anyone in DC? People generally respond rationally to the incentives they face. I have highlighted the dishonesty of the GOP in particular but both parties absolutely demagogue on debt control strictly when it's the other party's priorities they want to see cut - so there is no honesty  or good faith available in the debate, so no-one sees any profit in going there, and with a media environment where there are no voices of enough authority to hold the sides accountable across the whole body politic to where the game playing has political cost,  there you are.

again, in the real world, since the Dems want to spend program money, they actually have a higher level of consciousness about what the cost of debt service does to their ability to spend on their program priorities, so as practical matter, I think that is one of the reasons Dem admins have been more the more responsible in recent years.

Edited October 9, 2024 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Hopefully the elevated early return rate by the Democrats is more an indication of an increase in D voters overall, than it is an indication of the same number of D voters just getting in their same number of D ballots faster this time around.

 

Well Biden won Pennsylvania in a high turnout election, I'll take matching Biden's numbers.

[chasfh]

59 minutes ago, 1776 said:

We as a nation will suffer the consequences. My point in bringing this up is that neither party will even broach the topic because of the hard choices that it would require. There have been a handful of congress people that are voicing urgency here but the top of the ticket should be a part of the game. 
The debt you refer to is a two party issue. There has to be a national conversation on this. Instead the two candidates, who should be leading the conversation here won’t touch it. They’re more interested in buying votes with more promises (spending). 
Unfortunately for most Americans, this 
Is the ultimate out of sight-out of mind situation. 
 

The main problem with the whole national debt bugaboo is that people don't see how it's affecting their everyday lives now. What people see is their economic lives, their situation, is basically the same now that the debt is $35 trillion as it was years ago when it was  $25 trillion, and when it was $15 trillion, and when it was $5 trillion. There is nothing happening to typical everyday people that they can point to and say, see, right there, this is the specific bad economic outcome that is happening to me right now because the national debt is so high. And if they can't draw that kind of direct correlation to the national debt number, how are you gonna make them quiver in fear of it? You can tell people all you want that their hair is on fire, but if they look in the mirror and can't see it, why should they reach for the fire hose?

Edited October 9, 2024 by chasfh

[Motown Bombers]

The only way to properly address the debt is to raise taxes but voters will have a meltdown if that happens. 

[chasfh]

4 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The only way to properly address the debt is to raise taxes but billionaires and megacorporations will have a meltdown if that happens. 

 

[CMRivdogs]

Folks have been decrying the debt since the Revolutionary War. Meanwhile a lot of folks have made a killing because of the debt.

[chasfh]

6 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Folks have been decrying the debt since the Revolutionary War. Meanwhile a lot of folks have made a killing because of the debt.

Just like everything else, it's a grift, and for both doves and hawks on the issue.

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Just like everything else, it's a grift, and for both doves and hawks on the issue.

the social/economic cost also depends a lot on what it gets spent on. Spend money on good infrastructure and education, you aren't going to miss that that money was spent. Buy millionz of 80MM artillery shells to blow up somewhere (or maybe even worse, never blow up) or to add the 10th lane to a 9 lane highway,  maybe not so much.

[Motown Bombers]

So there's this

 

[Motown Bombers]

Poll after poll shows this race is close.

 

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

After Reagan made the debt an issue, Clinton ran budget surpluses and paid down the debt only for Bush to come in, cut taxes, increase the debt, and crash the economy but both sides. 

I think debt is the one issue where you CAN both sides it.  Clinton was only one in my life time that balanced the budget.     

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Poll after poll shows this race is close.

 

the GOP weakness in special elections is one incontrovertible fact that forces one to wonder if the polls are going to end up missing by a mile, or maybe it's just that GOP voters refuse to go to the polls more than once every 4 yrs. If that is true now, it certainly didn't used to be.

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think debt is the one issue where you CAN both sides it.  Clinton was only one in my life time that balanced the budget.     

And really not sure if you can call it Clinton's doing, GHWB passed the tax increase that cost him the election but set Clinton up to achieve that balanced budget.

Edited October 9, 2024 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

23 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

And really not sure if you can call it Clinton's doing, GHWB passed the tax increase that cost him the election but set Clinton up to achieve that balanced budget.

Clinton raised taxes. It was literally called The Deficit Reduction Act. Within 5 years the government had a budget surplus. Dems got killed in the midterms over it and Bush undid the Clinton tax hikes and, well, crashed the economy. 

Edited October 9, 2024 by Motown Bombers

[Motown Bombers]

23 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think debt is the one issue where you CAN both sides it.  Clinton was only one in my life time that balanced the budget.     

Biden has reduced the deficit. Once again, a democrat had to come in and clean up the mess left behind by a Republican. 

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Biden has reduced the deficit. Once again, a democrat had to come in and clean up the mess left behind by a Republican. 

Technically, yes, but it's misleading.  

[gehringer_2]

51 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Clinton raised taxes. It was literally called The Deficit Reduction Act. Within 5 years the government had a budget surplus. Dems got killed in the midterms over it and Bush undid the Clinton tax hikes and, well, crashed the economy. 

I've seen estimates that the Clinton increases were about 80B/yr. We can't actually compare the relative scale to Bush's rate increases because the economy went into recession and revenues actually fell at first. Today totally federal taxes as a % of GDP are lower today than under Clinton. They reached ~19% under Clinton, we are sitting somewhere around 16% today. Since the economy boomed under Clinton, you can't very well argue increasing the total take back to closer to 19% would tank the economy, and 3% of GDP today raises an additional raises $750B, so you'd cut the annual deficit growth about in half. Not sure how fast the Biden infrastructure spending will start rolling off the books, but that should reduce another big chunk a few years out. 

It's not the economics that are broken, just the politics.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Edited October 9, 2024 by gehringer_2

[1776]

I am frankly surprised to see this headline. 
 

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/more-americans-identify-as-republican-than-democrat-heres-what-that-means-for-the-election-150e12ae?mod=mhp

[Edman85]

20 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

I'm going to have to post this thread every day until Nov 5 aren't I:

 

[romad1]

tell me if you think will have any impact

It seems like self-serving garbage.  

[Motown Bombers]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I've seen estimates that the Clinton increases were about 80B/yr. We can't actually compare the relative scale to Bush's rate increases because the economy went into recession and revenues actually fell at first. Today totally federal taxes as a % of GDP are lower today than under Clinton. They reached ~19% under Clinton, we are sitting somewhere around 16% today. Since the economy boomed under Clinton, you can't very well argue increasing the total take back to closer to 19% would tank the economy, and 3% of GDP today raises an additional raises $750B, so you'd cut the annual deficit growth about in half. Not sure how fast the Biden infrastructure spending will start rolling off the books, but that should reduce another big chunk a few years out. 

It's not the economics that are broken, just the politics.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Bush set up Clinton to have a balanced budget in Clinton’s second term, five years after the Deficit Reduction Act and eight years after Bush raised taxes. The Deficit Reduction Act raised the taxes Bush raised even higher. Clinton only balanced the budget because the economy boomed under Clinton. 

[Motown Bombers]

11 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I'm going to have to post this thread every day until Nov 5 aren't I:

 

I’m going to have to post early voting data everyday until November 5th aren’t I?

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, romad1 said:

tell me if you think will have any impact

It seems like self-serving garbage.  

Whitmer won big without the Arab vote. 

[romad1]

4 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Whitmer won big without the Arab vote. 

The handwringy NYT looking for ways to make their readers more nervous.  

[Motown Bombers]