my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 4 of 27

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

THG

Monday, April 8, 2019 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

military
severely reduce military overseas
abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option
maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent

environment
commit to significant greenhouse gas reductions; stump the country for it to create popular pressure in Congress so Congress will pass the Paris Accord

economy
stump for a 'fair deal' economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn a living wage

I wish you luck comrade kiki. I hope Putin doesn't kill you with poison or something for running against him.

T

RUE

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

military
severely reduce military overseas
abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option
maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent

environment
commit to significant greenhouse gas reductions; stump the country for it to create popular pressure in Congress so Congress will pass the Paris Accord

economy
stump for a 'fair deal' economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn a living wage

I wish you luck comrade kiki. I hope Putin doesn't kill you with poison or something for running against him.

T

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF, it seems an article of faith with you that we must reduced the deficit and pay down the debt, and that this be done, not by increasing taxes but by reducing expenditures.

So, OOC, is there ANY level of debt that you find acceptable, or ANY justification that you find allowable?

Are there ANY programs that justify an increase in taxes, or must government spending always be reduced?

Why, or why not? I intend to pursue this train of thought thru a series of "why" questions until I feel that I understand your position, I hope you stick with this line of questioning, thanks.

PS: So I'm prepared to say that the current debt and its growth are unsustainable.

No matter how much we raise Taxes, Congress Spends more.

At this point where Debt exceeds GDP, we need to get or have a plan to reduce the Debt to half of GDP, like it was about 12 years ago. WE should get lower than that, in times of prosperity, but on the road to 1/2 we should learn some things which we have never learned before. Those new lessons can be used to application towards far lower Debt. USA accomplished about 150 years without sustained Debt, we should return to that. Paying less interest and being no longer owned by Foreigners should reap great benefits.

WWIII is the only excuse for spending more than we intake in Revenues. Once we have a Balanced Budget for at least a year, more folk will be on board for selective additions to spending. That is the point where eveybody's pet project or Budget Item will get negotiated.

Spending our way to prosperity has never worked, and we should stop trying it.

RUE

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 3:48 AM

Hi JSF. Thanks for answering Signy's questions. Those were mine as well.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:02 AM

Quote:
JSF, it seems an article of faith with you that we must reduced the deficit and pay down the debt, and that this be done, not by increasing taxes but by reducing expenditures.
So, OOC, is there ANY level of debt that you find acceptable, or ANY justification that you find allowable?
Are there ANY programs that justify an increase in taxes, or must government spending always be reduced?
Why, or why not? I intend to pursue this train of thought thru a series of "why" questions until I feel that I understand your position, I hope you stick with this line of questioning, thanks.
PS: So I'm prepared to say that the current debt and its growth are unsustainable. - SIGNY

No matter how much we raise Taxes, Congress Spends more.
At this point where Debt exceeds GDP, we need to get or have a plan to reduce the Debt to half of GDP, like it was about 12 years ago. WE should get lower than that, in times of prosperity, but on the road to 1/2 we should learn some things which we have never learned before. Those new lessons can be used to application towards far lower Debt. USA accomplished about 150 years without sustained Debt, we should return to that. Paying less interest and being no longer owned by Foreigners should reap great benefits.
WWIII is the only excuse for spending more than we intake in Revenues. Once we have a Balanced Budget for at least a year, more folk will be on board for selective additions to spending. That is the point where eveybody's pet project or Budget Item will get negotiated.
Spending our way to prosperity has never worked, and we should stop trying it.

I was prepared to read that all government spending is bad, that people should not become dependent on government, that taxation is coercive ... the libertarian angle. Some of which I agree with, BTW.

But it sounds to me like you're primarily concerned about TOO MUCH debt, not debt at any level, government spending generically, taxation, or the existence of government itself. In other words, practical considerations, not ideological.

Ok, needs more thought on my part and right now too busy for follow-up but thanks for the reply!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
JSF, it seems an article of faith with you that we must reduced the deficit and pay down the debt, and that this be done, not by increasing taxes but by reducing expenditures.
So, OOC, is there ANY level of debt that you find acceptable, or ANY justification that you find allowable?
Are there ANY programs that justify an increase in taxes, or must government spending always be reduced?
Why, or why not? I intend to pursue this train of thought thru a series of "why" questions until I feel that I understand your position, I hope you stick with this line of questioning, thanks.
PS: So I'm prepared to say that the current debt and its growth are unsustainable. - SIGNY

No matter how much we raise Taxes, Congress Spends more.
At this point where Debt exceeds GDP, we need to get or have a plan to reduce the Debt to half of GDP, like it was about 12 years ago. WE should get lower than that, in times of prosperity, but on the road to 1/2 we should learn some things which we have never learned before. Those new lessons can be used to application towards far lower Debt. USA accomplished about 150 years without sustained Debt, we should return to that. Paying less interest and being no longer owned by Foreigners should reap great benefits.
WWIII is the only excuse for spending more than we intake in Revenues. Once we have a Balanced Budget for at least a year, more folk will be on board for selective additions to spending. That is the point where eveybody's pet project or Budget Item will get negotiated.
Spending our way to prosperity has never worked, and we should stop trying it.

I was prepared to read that all government spending is bad, that people should not become dependent on government, that taxation is coercive ... the libertarian angle. Some of which I agree with, BTW.

But it sounds to me like you're primarily concerned about TOO MUCH debt, not debt at any level, government spending generically, taxation, or the existence of government itself. In other words, practical considerations, not ideological.

Ok, needs more thought on my part and right now too busy for follow-up but thanks for the reply!

Mostly correct.
IDeally, I'd prefer years of Surplus and occasional Debt to mostly alternate.
But we are a long way from being Debt-free. That goal is a long mountain of climbing from now. Cutting the Debt in half is just a start. By the time that milestone is achieved, further methods will be learned. But the ship must be turned around now.
I am willing to engage with the Libertarian track in this common pursuit. The Libertarian view has been a major pulling draw for The Tea Party. I have voted for Libertarian Presidential candidates ever since Perot.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business.
I did look into that a bit. The surpluses were as calculated by the CBO according to some websites. The deficits were as calculated by the US Treasury according to others. But nobody provided active links that I looked at, and going to the respective websites there was either literally no information for the years I looked at, or no report. I'm not trying to be either Mulder or Scully, just looking for information.

Also, why 2006? What's special about that year?

FY2006.
From October 2005 to September 2006.
In November 2006 the Rock-The-Vote Election swept Democrats into Congress. They started mangling the FY2008 Budget, which took effect October 2007. By the end of October 2007 the Economy and Markets ceased their upward trajectory, hit their peaks, and began the tailspin of the Rock-The-Vote Recession, with Markets bottoming out in March 2009.
FY2006 was the last sustainable Budget spending profile, unmolested so that it did not instigate Economic Tailspin.
Starting with the Democrat Spendaholic FY2008 Budget, devaluation, skyrocketing spending and Debt bloated all reasonable Budget Items beyond recognition. Everything from that point is chasing our own tail in terms of Budget control.

The more years that pass by with ballooning spending makes this target appear more drastic. But using bloated figures as excuse or basis to bloat more is just insane.

Let's assume you are interested in this method, but find it too drastic. You might consider that, since Obama increased the Budget by 33%, the target of all facets of the 2006 Budget could be increased by 10% or 16% across the board, and that would be the amount to freeze at. This could appear more palatable to reluctant spendaholics, but pretending that a higher level is acceptable is just setting these failures in concrete.

Hope that helps you understand my position.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 9:55 PM

Quote:

The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business. JSF

I did look into that a bit. The surpluses were as calculated by the CBO according to some websites. The deficits were as calculated by the US Treasury according to others. But nobody provided active links that I looked at, and going to the respective websites there was either literally no information for the years I looked at, or no report. I'm not trying to be either Mulder or Scully, just looking for information. Also, why 2006? What's special about that year? -RUE

FY2006.
From October 2005 to September 2006.
In November 2006 the Rock-The-Vote Election swept Democrats into Congress. They started mangling the FY2008 Budget, which took effect October 2007. By the end of October 2007 the Economy and Markets ceased their upward trajectory, hit their peaks, and began the tailspin of the Rock-The-Vote Recession, with Markets bottoming out in March 2009.
FY2006 was the last sustainable Budget spending profile, unmolested so that it did not instigate Economic Tailspin.- JSF

LINKS PLEASE?
As I recall, GWB did no such thing as a 'sustainable budget". He started two very expensive "boots on the ground" wars in the mideast. He signed a Medicare expansion into prescription drugs (Part D) which was a giant scandal at the time, since he hid the real actuarial calculations from Congress in order to get the bill passed, calculations which showed a deficit of over $400 billion dollars. I can't find links to the original scandal, but this one discusses the event. Look for "Bush" in the page, it will take you to the discussion.
http://stump.marypat.org/article/1041/actuarial-standards-of-practice-
on-pensions-asop-4-a-call-for-comments
Irrespective of what happened to revenues (which initally DECREASED with the tax cuts before increasing) under Bush, the deficit rose from $421 billion to over $1.6 TRILLION.

I noticed that while you blame Obama for deficits incurred under his watch (because he's a Democrat) you give GWB a "pass" for deficits incurred under HIS watch. In reality, the sitations were the same, if reversed ... Bush was President from 2000 to 2008 with a Democratic Congress beginning 2006, Obama was President from 2008 - 2016 with a Republican Congress beginning 2014. For both Presidents, Congress itself was split for some years before the opposing party taking full control in the last two years of each President's two-term time in office.

Quote:
Starting with the Democrat Spendaholic FY2008 Budget, devaluation, skyrocketing spending and Debt bloated all reasonable Budget Items beyond recognition. Everything from that point is chasing our own tail in terms of Budget control.

As I posted, the deficit increases began well BEFORE 2008 ... under GWB's watch. Because even tho revenues increased (thanks to the "big fat ugly bubble" in real estate) GWB's spending increased even faster.

Plus, I find your placing blame for the 2008 crash on the Federal deficit to be unrealistic.

It's well-known that the crash began when complex mortgage-backed "financial instruments" (collaterized debt obligations, credit default swaps, derivatives, "monoline" insurances) fell apart because the "subprime" mortgages on which they were based started falling apart. That's when banks and other real estate lending companies looked into the closet and discovered that their "assets" were based on cobwebs. https://www.thebalance.com/mortgage-crisis-overview-315684 WHY was the subprime market falling apart? Because it all depended on rapidly rising home prices. There are a number of reasons why home prices weren't rising as rapidly as before, but it could have been "loan saturation" ... banks and other lenders had pushed as many loans as they possibly could onto the market and there was no one left to len

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 10:30 PM

Wal-Mart Is Rolling Out The Robots After Raising Minimum Wage

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-09/wal-mart-rolling-out-robots-
after-raising-minimum-wage
I think that the minimum wage is too low. HOWEVER, you can't just advocate raising the minimum wage without also anticipating and accounting for the effects that would have.

Like I said, it would take an entirely different approach to the economy. If you want to raise wages, you have to (a) create jobs, and not just government-funded make-work jobs, but real jobs and (b) reduce the number of people competing for those jobs, ie. stop illegal immigration.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1:22 AM

Where I work, the recent remodel saw all of the cashier lanes but 4 replaced with scan-and-go.

There's also talk that preparations in the future are being made with the end goal being online-only shopping, and customers will only need to purchase their stuff online in advance and pick it up an hour later. The idea being that you can run the entire store with only 60 employees rather than over 220.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE