The Republican Thread

[EvilMonkey]

The deficit is shrinking? How so. I thought it gets bigger every day and is soon to cripple us from what they're saying. it will be the end of us when it reaches a certain number he said.

All what SS means is that he is still spending more than we take in, just doing it at a slightly lower rate. Still can't balance a budget. Still adding to the amount we all owe.

[StrangeSox]

All what SS means is that he is still spending more than we take in, just doing it at a slightly lower rate. Still can't balance a budget. Still adding to the amount we all owe.

What I mean is that the deficit now is less than what the deficit was i.e. the deficit is shrinking.

[Chisoxfn]

You know what I have a problem with...the government sector. And this is unfair and I realize many in the government sector took the jobs they did because of the benefits available, but it seems crazy to me when I pay the taxes I do and work in the private sector, yet, the public sector has benefits that people in the private sector could only dream of, and the reality is, the best thing for the economy is when private sector jobs grow (in my humble opinion). I know their is not a fair way of doing it and unions have gotten control of anything, but how about that as a real issue in this country.

 

Cost of college tuition skyrockets every time lending on student loans get higher. Education doesn't improve and I don't know that teachers even necessarily get more...money just gets "poured" into new facilities that probably weren't necessary. What this government needs is a real shrewd like me who is overly stingy with money. Think of all the money that gets "spent" that never turns into anything. 10 billion dollar to study impacts of X / Y. If you could just cut government waste by a small percentage and adjust the entitlement program, we'd have quality programs for the poor and lower taxes. Of course you'd never get elected.

[Balta1701]

All what SS means is that he is still spending more than we take in, just doing it at a slightly lower rate. Still can't balance a budget. Still adding to the amount we all owe.

"Slightly lower rate"

 

If I use the phrase "Adam LaRoche is hitting HR at a slightly lower rate than last year", the dropoff in the budget deficit is still larger.

[EvilMonkey]

"Slightly lower rate"

 

If I use the phrase "Adam LaRoche is hitting HR at a slightly lower rate than last year", the dropoff in the budget deficit is still larger.

Has he passed a balanced budget or is he spending beyond our means?

 

[caulfield12]

You know what I have a problem with...the government sector. And this is unfair and I realize many in the government sector took the jobs they did because of the benefits available, but it seems crazy to me when I pay the taxes I do and work in the private sector, yet, the public sector has benefits that people in the private sector could only dream of, and the reality is, the best thing for the economy is when private sector jobs grow (in my humble opinion). I know their is not a fair way of doing it and unions have gotten control of anything, but how about that as a real issue in this country.

 

Cost of college tuition skyrockets every time lending on student loans get higher. Education doesn't improve and I don't know that teachers even necessarily get more...money just gets "poured" into new facilities that probably weren't necessary. What this government needs is a real shrewd like me who is overly stingy with money. Think of all the money that gets "spent" that never turns into anything. 10 billion dollar to study impacts of X / Y. If you could just cut government waste by a small percentage and adjust the entitlement program, we'd have quality programs for the poor and lower taxes. Of course you'd never get elected.

 

 

Every year, it's the same thing. Cut government waste. Cut foreign aid. Help our own people, etc.

 

The fact of the matter is that numbers aren't going to be adding up over the next 15-25 years with entitlement programs. Other than raising taxes or raising retirement ages, how are you going to control costs when a higher percentage are retired than working? There's a saying, reforming entitlements is the third rail of American politics...and anyone who runs on raising taxes (Mondale/Dukakis) or actually does it (Bush Sr.) gets crucified eventually.

 

Lots of super rich people think it's basically ridiculous they still receive social security, but try taking it away. Indexing that in terms of net worth would be one step, but even progressive moves like that aren't palatable.

 

Obamacare was our effort to reign in medical care costs, which continue to skyrocket (especially compared to countries like Norway, Finland and Sweden that do it much more cost-effectively with outcomes that are often better despite our spending 2-3x as much.)

 

As far as government workers vs. private, how do you propose to find a balance when so much of compensation is tied to stock options/ipos/capital gains....often for financial services companies/banks that bring about moral hazard with their reckless behavior, and who are eventually bailed out by those same middle class workers who pay higher tax rates than Warren Buffett. So they want to take away pensions from government workers...what are private workers willing to surrender? High risk, high reward. Is it fair that the private sector never seems to pay the consequences for risky behavior...that the Enrons of the world are few and far between, and, even then, most high level officials escape any real consequences (Mozilo/Countrywide Loans, for example) over abd over again.

 

If you want to cut waste, why don't you take on all the churches/charities/501 c 3's who take in billions of dollars and spend it on executive salaries, fundraising, posh dinners and congratulating themselves when the lion's share of money isn't going into direct services that are beneficial to everyday people? If you held them accountable and actually withdrew their tax exempt status in the case of poorly run organizations, you'd probably be more effective than trying to reform the government.

[Balta1701]

Has he passed a balanced budget or is he spending beyond our means?

The debt to GDP ratio is not projected to increase until after ~2025 and that is improving every year as the Affordable Care Act's effectiveness in controlling costs becomes more obvious. So basically, we are not "spending beyond our means" and we've improved the long-term budgetary situation over the next 15+ years. By the time the full cost control measures of the Affordable Care Act take hold (the "Cadillac Tax and the hugely important Independent Payment Advisory Board have yet to be implemented) there is a good chance that the long term budget issues have been completely dealt with during the Obama Administration, barring additional tax cuts or another economic collapse. It will just be a matter of putting money where it needs to go to meet the current obligations.

[greg775]

Seems a bit harsh when "policy proposals" are usually pie in the sky dreams that they have no hope or actual desire to see implemented.

 

Demeanor is often a key characteristic. Does he/she look/act/sound "presidential" or not. Sure, basing it on that ALONE would be silly, but I don't see why that can't be factor or even a significant factor.

Thank you, sir. Great post.

 

Every year, it's the same thing. Cut government waste. Cut foreign aid. Help our own people, etc.

 

The fact of the matter is that numbers aren't going to be adding up over the next 15-25 years with entitlement programs. Other than raising taxes or raising retirement ages, how are you going to control costs when a higher percentage are retired than working?

 

Lots of super rich people think it's basically ridiculous they still receive social security, but try taking it away. Indexing that in terms of net worth would be one step, but even progressive moves like that aren't palatable.

 

If you want to cut waste, why don't you take on all the churches/charities/501 c 3's who take in billions of dollars and spend it on executive salaries, fundraising, posh dinners and congratulating themselves when the lion's share of money isn't going into direct services that are beneficial to everyday people? If you held them accountable and actually withdrew their tax exempt status in the case of poorly run organizations, you'd probably be more effective than trying to reform the government.

College sports shouldn't be tax exempt, that's for sure. It's totally big business. Churches? I don't know if you are right there. As far as raising retirement ages, that'd be fine if any business besides fast food would hire somebody over 50. It's all about young, cheap labor now.

[caulfield12]

The U.S. has one big advantage over the rest of the world, our university system/higher education.

 

Something like 22-23% of all foreign students choose the U.S., led by Chinese, Indian and South Koreans.

 

Yet you don't hear many besides Thomas Friedman of the NY Times pushing for more "high quality" legal immigration of those students post-graduation, because it's anathema to U.S. workers/labor unions and it's not somewhere the GOP is likely to go either, with all of the anti-China rhetoric.

 

However, losing all of that talent puts more and more pressure on those in their 20's and 30's to work longer and harder. Something has to give eventually, either higher taxes (simply assuming enough revenue from economic productivity/efficiency and GDP growth going from 2 to 3.5/4% won't do it alone), more immigrants entering the country to balance the labor pool's imbalance or "the Baby Boom Generation" showing more willingness to give back to Gen X/Y (rich/elites foregoing social security or having benefits shrunk).

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-says-h...6838527651.html

 

The odds of Trump actually wiining the nomination just went from negligible to a fighting chance...

[EvilMonkey]

The debt to GDP ratio is not projected to increase until after ~2025 and that is improving every year as the Affordable Care Act's effectiveness in controlling costs becomes more obvious. So basically, we are not "spending beyond our means" and we've improved the long-term budgetary situation over the next 15+ years. By the time the full cost control measures of the Affordable Care Act take hold (the "Cadillac Tax and the hugely important Independent Payment Advisory Board have yet to be implemented) there is a good chance that the long term budget issues have been completely dealt with during the Obama Administration, barring additional tax cuts or another economic collapse. It will just be a matter of putting money where it needs to go to meet the current obligations.

So the answer is 'no'.

[EvilMonkey]

1) Every year, it's the same thing. Cut government waste. Cut foreign aid. Help our own people, etc.

 

2) The fact of the matter is that numbers aren't going to be adding up over the next 15-25 years with entitlement programs. Other than raising taxes or raising retirement ages, how are you going to control costs when a higher percentage are retired than working? There's a saying, reforming entitlements is the third rail of American politics...and anyone who runs on raising taxes (Mondale/Dukakis) or actually does it (Bush Sr.) gets crucified eventually.

 

3) Lots of super rich people think it's basically ridiculous they still receive social security, but try taking it away. Indexing that in terms of net worth would be one step, but even progressive moves like that aren't palatable.

 

4)0Obamacare was our effort to reign in medical care costs, which continue to skyrocket (especially compared to countries like Norway, Finland and Sweden that do it much more cost-effectively with outcomes that are often better despite our spending 2-3x as much.)

 

5) As far as government workers vs. private, how do you propose to find a balance when so much of compensation is tied to stock options/ipos/capital gains....often for financial services companies/banks that bring about moral hazard with their reckless behavior, and who are eventually bailed out by those same middle class workers who pay higher tax rates than Warren Buffett. So they want to take away pensions from government workers...what are private workers willing to surrender? High risk, high reward. Is it fair that the private sector never seems to pay the consequences for risky behavior...that the Enrons of the world are few and far between, and, even then, most high level officials escape any real consequences (Mozilo/Countrywide Loans, for example) over abd over again.

 

6) If you want to cut waste, why don't you take on all the churches/charities/501 c 3's who take in billions of dollars and spend it on executive salaries, fundraising, posh dinners and congratulating themselves when the lion's share of money isn't going into direct services that are beneficial to everyday people? If you held them accountable and actually withdrew their tax exempt status in the case of poorly run organizations, you'd probably be more effective than trying to reform the government.

1) YEs, do it now

 

2) You are correct, trying to fix a system that is broke somehow becomes political suicide. We need someone not interested in reelection to even have a shot. BUt two-termers are more worried about their 'legacy'.

 

3) Same as #2, however you can't do nothing. Cut programs where you can. So what is the saving is 'only' $50 millions. Cut enough and it will eventually add up to something. Every damn agency should have to start with zero budget accounting and have to justify their budget every year. None of this 'spend it or lose it next year', no automatic increases. They should all get an immediate 10% cut, actual cut as opposed to reduction in increase, and then go from there. And if the agencies decide to teach us a lesson by laying off people that would be the most painful instead of the 4 buddies who have corner offices and don't do s***, well, you fire those directors immediately. You can't do nothing because it, by itself, won't solve things.

 

4) So we spend 2x-3x more than other countries on education and still suck at it. You want government to try that with healthcare, which according to you is already at that ratio of suckage?

 

5) Most private workers don't have pensions anymore, so those are already sacrificed. With the job security they have, do they really need to have such high end retirement systems in place? Why is SS not good enough for government employees? Seriously, why are they not on it like everyone else?

 

6) I don't have a problem making churches pay taxes. As long as you also apply that to all the damn 'foundations' out there sitting on billions in cash. But once the churches pay tax, look for them to get even more involved in politics. With no tax exempt status to worry about, can catholic churches start pushing catholic politicians to go pro-life? Sure can. As for other 501-c3's, by all means audit them. Most are poorly run as most of the money brought in goes for overhead, salaries and fundraising.

[greg775]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-says-h...6838527651.html

 

The odds of Trump actually wiining the nomination just went from negligible to a fighting chance...

 

Why would that one issue matter?

I do think he's a lock to win the nomination at least. Virtually all the Rebub candidates besides Trump are despised by the masses. Not one of them can possibly pass Trump who has the name recognition.

Then Trump just gets blistered in the general election and we have Hillary for 8 years.

I think women's hatred of Trump would turn the election into a Hilly landslide for certain. Women aren't going to pick the somewhat slimy Trump over the first woman president.

[caulfield12]

Why would that one issue matter?

I do think he's a lock to win the nomination at least. Virtually all the Rebub candidates besides Trump are despised by the masses. Not one of them can possibly pass Trump who has the name recognition.

Then Trump just gets blistered in the general election and we have Hillary for 8 years.

I think women's hatred of Trump would turn the election into a Hilly landslide for certain. Women aren't going to pick the somewhat slimy Trump over the first woman president.

 

The fact that he's actually in the process of formulating something that could be loosely called a platform, with at least a little bit of substantive policy formulation/thought put into it. Most never thought he would do that.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Why would that one issue matter?

I do think he's a lock to win the nomination at least. Virtually all the Rebub candidates besides Trump are despised by the masses.

 

That's not even close to correct.

 

Most of the GOP candidates are simply not known by the masses. They elicit neither a strong positive nor negative reaction.

Trump has name recognition, which has resulted in the most early GOP support, but he's also one of the most hated.

[greg775]

That's not even close to correct.

 

Most of the GOP candidates are simply not known by the masses. They elicit neither a strong positive nor negative reaction.

Trump has name recognition, which has resulted in the most early GOP support, but he's also one of the most hated.

Somebody quoted him as recently saying Heidi Klum is not a 10 anymore. No women are gonna vote for Trump. He's doomed; Hilly in a landslide.

[Jake]

It's worth bearing in mind that while you hear about most foreign aid as a dollar figure, much of it is actually distributed as American-made goods. For instance, there was a lot of chatter about American funding of Egypt a few years ago and how it should stop. The fact was that the $X we were "giving" Egypt came in the form of tanks made by a private contractor in the US, meaning the money was going to support a US company and the government was just deciding what to do with the goods produced from that support.

 

With that said, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to reconsider some of the funds. The jobs justification only kind of works, since for the amount of money being spent in the previous example you were getting a tiny number of jobs compared to what you'd have if you specifically earmarked the same dollar amount for creating middle class jobs from public works projects or some such. At the same time, it's worth bearing in mind that you can buy compliance and to a lesser extent good will in foreign countries and you can do so with amounts of money that seem tiny in the context of the federal budget. So you have to consider what sorts of foreign policy implications you'd face and whether it's a better idea to just throw a little money away in the name of stability. Every situation is so unique and idiosyncratic that there's no way to say that all of the aid or none of the aid should be cut.

[caulfield12]

It's worth bearing in mind that while you hear about most foreign aid as a dollar figure, much of it is actually distributed as American-made goods. For instance, there was a lot of chatter about American funding of Egypt a few years ago and how it should stop. The fact was that the $X we were "giving" Egypt came in the form of tanks made by a private contractor in the US, meaning the money was going to support a US company and the government was just deciding what to do with the goods produced from that support.

 

With that said, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to reconsider some of the funds. The jobs justification only kind of works, since for the amount of money being spent in the previous example you were getting a tiny number of jobs compared to what you'd have if you specifically earmarked the same dollar amount for creating middle class jobs from public works projects or some such. At the same time, it's worth bearing in mind that you can buy compliance and to a lesser extent good will in foreign countries and you can do so with amounts of money that seem tiny in the context of the federal budget. So you have to consider what sorts of foreign policy implications you'd face and whether it's a better idea to just throw a little money away in the name of stability. Every situation is so unique and idiosyncratic that there's no way to say that all of the aid or none of the aid should be cut.

 

 

Not to mention public works projects in this economy are very rarely going to provide skill sets/training that are necessary for permanent employment in a knowledge-based economy.

 

In that sense, the government would be better off using AmeriCorps national service volunteers (let's sat Hillary does win) in technology-driven mini "think tanks" working on apps and programs to cut government waste and improve efficiency in terms of resource allocation.

 

Even vocational training programs for two years are often leaving students well short of the expertise in computers/tech to do much of anything but work in a help desk position.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning...d-say-scholars/

This article touches on what is really needed...improved day care, Head Start, after school programming/enrichment activities, summer/weekend tutoring in STEM subjects as well as SAT/ACT, etc.

 

Does the political will exist, though, for more government investment...? The private solutions work for 10-25% of Americans, but it leaves a minimumof 75% of the country hopelessly behind and undereducated.

 

 

[greg775]

Slow news week for Trump which is probably a good thing. I just picture a scenario in which his 15 minutes of (political) fame are up and the public/press will move on. This thing is all timing. He needs to lay off for a bit then hit it hard again at some point.

[Balta1701]

It was a while ago in this thread but I'm posting this LAT article here because it was posted here and someone specifically asked about the "don't these hunts support these populations in the wild" part of the Lion/Big Game hunting case. This is a really good article from the LA Times looking at the science behind these hunts. They strongly suggest that the areas where these hunts happen the most are the ones where the populations are the most endangered and that because the hunters want the biggest male lion as a trophy they're doing much more damage.

A 2009 study by Packer and other scientists concluded that areas "with the highest intensity of sport hunting have shown the steepest population declines in African lions … over the past 25 years." A 2011 study he carried out called for reductions in lion hunting quotas, saying that "the intensity of trophy hunting was the only significant factor" in declines in male trophy lions.

 

Packer's reports led the Tanzanian government to cut hunting quotas and introduce a law against shooting immature males, but he said the law has rarely been enforced because of widespread corruption in the industry.

 

The global population of lions has dropped from 100,000 in the 1980s to an estimated 30,000, but could be much lower.

This doesn't reflect things like the 60 minutes report about the hunting farms in Texas, but it makes a strong case that these hunts really are decimating the population.

[greg775]

Did anyone see the compiled list of quotes out of one of Trump's books? Hilarious. I wonder if Kelly will bring up some of his comments in the debates vs. Hilly.

 

One was tweeted, then deleted: "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

 

He said while his bride was walking down the aisle he thought, "What am I doing here? She's not good enough for me."

He also talked about how he can get any woman, just a list of crazy comments.

 

He said, "If I were running The View, I'd fire Rosie. I mean, I'd look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I'd say, 'Rosie, you're fired.' We're all a little chubby, but Rosie's just worse than most of us."

He said: "All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected."

 

http://theweek.com/articles/569725/123-thi...p-actually-said

 

America is crazy at this point in time. People love the fact Trump is non PC and saying all this crazy stuff. Yet they are the first to be outraged at any non PC comment by anybody else. So America do you want to be PC all the time or not? If not ... elect Mr. Trump. He's nuts (in a good, cocky way).

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm surprised I haven't seen more talk about Trump threatening a 3rd party run. For the Republicans, that is a death sentence for their Presidential aspirations.

 

[southsider2k5]

I hadn't heard this story, or a rebuttal to it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/01..._n_8071696.html

 

In what could prove something of a pot hole for current readings of Islamic history, a carbon test carried out on a Koranic manuscript recently discovered in England reveals the book is likely older than Muhammad, the founder of the Islamic faith.

 

The test used a piece of the ancient parchment, discovered in Birmingham University library in July, with scientists dating the tome from between 568 and 645AD.

 

Islamic scholars believe Muhammad lived between 570 and 632AD, and that he founded Islam after 610AD. The first Muslim community was founded in Medina in 622AD. This means the Birmingham text was likely compiled either before the Prophet’s birth or during his childhood.

[Balta1701]

Something must be wrong there because the error bars on the age measurement includes "13 years after the year we're giving as his purported death and 22 years after the date we're giving for when the first Muslim community was founded" and yet for some reason they're saying it was compiled during his childhood?

[CrimsonWeltall]

I hadn't hear this story, or a rebuttal to it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/01..._n_8071696.html

 

Seems like a non-issue unless one ignores that the carbon dating provided a 77 year range rather than a single date.