America - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

Do you really think the Republican Party has it in them to revoke, remove or supersede the twenty-second amendment? Let us not forget that it was the Republican Party who proposed, drafted, amended and introduced the twenty-second amendment as a response to FDR exceeding the two-term "limit" which was, at that time, merely an unwritten gentleman's agreement.

I wouldn't want to paint it only as the Republicans spiting a four-term Democrat, other Republican Presidents like Ulysses Grant and Teddy Roosevelt attempted and/or considered to run for a third term, but them introducing it to spite a Democrat President given that FDR hadn't actually broken any laws and and hypothetically editing it to satiate a Republican President would be highly... coincidental.

Some 19th century figures such as President James Madison and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton did favour winning the Presidency being a for-life appointment. Others were vehemently against it as being tantamount to an elective monarchy.

If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact, become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance

 

[Danoff]

I assumed that Trump was dumbing-it-down for average joe when he talked about refinancing the federal debt. Clearly he meant deficit, sortof, rather, financing the deficit at a low interest rate initially, and refinancing some small portion of the overall debt that came to maturity under lower interest rates right? Right?

I actually read an article explaining what they think he actually means by this. Which is that he thinks the federal debt is basically a mortgage that can be paid off and re-borrowed. Which is just... I mean if he really thinks that... how can I have a better understanding of how the federal government issues debt and the ways in which it cannot be "refinanced" that the President of the United States? That's just so... profoundly stupid I can almost not believe it. Even now, I'm re-reading that tweet looking for signs of life - "start" to refinance. Maybe that means the portion that comes to maturity. Even with that kind of benefit of the doubt it's still wildly misleading to the public.

Of course he supports negative interest btw, "how about you pay the government for interest on government debt?"

 

[Liquid]

Is calling people "boneheads" really what the President feels he has to do on 11th September? Surely he could have given it a rest for one day.

 

[SestoScudo]

Trump is the gift that keeps on giving please let him be president for ever from boneheads to memes the guy has it all not mention he was featured in Wwe once by battling vince mcmahon.

 

[Dotini]

Do you really think the Republican Party has it in them to revoke, remove or supersede the twenty-second amendment?

Some 150 of Trumps' conservative federal judge nominations have been confirmed by the Senate. He recently received a 7-2 ruling in his favor from the now clear majority conservative Supreme Court. Nationalistic populism fervor is still running high. Liberals are in mental and emotional disarray and in circular firing squad mode. Republicans may choose to strike while the iron is hot if they can get enough conservative state legislatures and gubernatorial winners next election. Anything can happen at a constitutional convention, the agenda is wide open and not limited to as to anything.

 

[Liquid]

It should be said that there are Democrats who are also in favour of repealling the 22nd; it's undemocratic to deny the electorate the chance to vote for the candidate they feel should not be excluded from continuing to hold office, if s/he is doing a good enough job the electorate will reflect that.

 

[Dotini]

It should be said that there are Democrats who are also in favour of repealling the 22nd; it's undemocratic to deny the electorate the chance to vote for the candidate they feel should not be excluded from continuing to hold office, if s/he is doing a good enough job the electorate will reflect that.

I've always thought Trump to be a loudmouth New York playboy billionaire off on lark that can't possibly last. But he may well be the orange moron nazi a lot of folks think. He may be a satanic reptilian alien on mission from God. Whatever. Doesn't matter. All Trump needs to do is sit the high chair and appoint conservative judges who serve for life. He is like Midas with the golden touch as far as Republicans are concerned. They are on their way to the veranda of limitless mint juleps. Nothing succeeds like success.

 

[Liquid]

appoint conservative judges who serve for life.

Great point; the President has term limits but almost no other office does.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I assumed that Trump was dumbing-it-down for average joe when he talked about refinancing the federal debt. Clearly he meant deficit, sortof, rather, financing the deficit at a low interest rate initially, and refinancing some small portion of the overall debt that came to maturity under lower interest rates right? Right?

I actually read an article explaining what they think he actually means by this. Which is that he thinks the federal debt is basically a mortgage that can be paid off and re-borrowed. Which is just... I mean if he really thinks that... how can I have a better understanding of how the federal government issues debt and the ways in which it cannot be "refinanced" that the President of the United States? That's just so... profoundly stupid I can almost not believe it. Even now, I'm re-reading that tweet looking for signs of life - "start" to refinance. Maybe that means the portion that comes to maturity. Even with that kind of benefit of the doubt it's still wildly misleading to the public.

Of course he supports negative interest btw, "how about you pay the government for interest on government debt?"

Could the government reduce the interest rate to zero, issue a massive amount of long term (100 year bonds) debt and then use the proceeds to buy back a ton of higher yielding bonds? I don't think China, for instance, would be too keen to sell their debt back to the US in exchange for...well...nothing. I also don't think investors would be quite jumping at the opportunity to buy zero-interest debt offerings as Trump thinks they would. I have an infantile understanding of how all this works. At least I'm not the president.

 

[Danoff]

Could the government reduce the interest rate to zero, issue a massive amount of long term (100 year bonds) debt and then use the proceeds to buy back a ton of higher yielding bonds? I don't think China, for instance, would be too keen to sell their debt back to the US in exchange for...well...nothing. I also don't think investors would be quite jumping at the opportunity to buy zero-interest debt offerings as Trump thinks they would. I have an infantile understanding of how all this works. At least I'm not the president.

No, the government can't buy back the bonds. The bond holder gets to hold the bond to maturity if they want to. They're not "callable". If the treasury wants to flood the market with debt, they can do that (it'll hurt the value), but they can't then turn around and offload existing debt with it. They have to wait until the bonds expire.

There is a certain amount of turnover at all times that can be "converted" to lower interest rate by issuing a lower yield bond when an existing one expires. But the concept of a "refinance" of the debt is not really possible.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

No, the government can't buy back the bonds. The bond holder gets to hold the bond to maturity if they want to. They're not "callable". If the treasury wants to flood the market with debt, they can do that (it'll hurt the value), but they can't then turn around and offload existing debt with it. They have to wait until the bonds expire.

There is a certain amount of turnover at all times that can be "converted" to lower interest rate by issuing a lower yield bond when an existing one expires. But the concept of a "refinance" of the debt is not really possible.

That makes sense. Who in their right mind would buy a bond if the issuer could just take it back whenever they wanted to - it defeats the purpose. Yeah. Trump is a complete moron.

 

[DK]

Great point; the President has term limits but almost no other office does.

In fairness, none of those other offices concentrate a whole branch of government into one person.

 

[Exorcet]

It should be said that there are Democrats who are also in favour of repealling the 22nd; it's undemocratic to deny the electorate the chance to vote for the candidate they feel should not be excluded from continuing to hold office, if s/he is doing a good enough job the electorate will reflect that.

Those are pretty much my thoughts on the subject. A term limit is an indirect solution that can just as easily turn around and end up causing damage. If there is a need to fight corruption in an office, then the relevant laws should target corruption or abuse of power directly. It would be truly painful to see an extraordinary president come along only to be forced out of the position and potentially replaced by someone incompetent. I'm sure some people feel like that has happened already.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sure some people feel like that has happened already.

(ok, I dunno about extraordinary, but certainly by comparison)

 

[McLaren]

In fairness, none of those other offices concentrate a whole branch of government into one person.

Which is funny given that one person right now had promised to look at introducing term limits in other branches for “fresh ideas”. Was one of his actually good ideas.

 

[Liquid]

At least in my lifetime, had the twenty-second amendment not been introduced I think that Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama each could have secured a third term had they sought it.

Further back, I would also hypothesise that had Watergate not been uncovered that Richard Nixon might also have won a third term if a lid could have been kept on everything.

Yes, what ifs are redundant and open to infinite speculation.

 

[UKMikey]

At least in my lifetime, had the twenty-second amendment not been introduced I think that Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama each could have secured a third term had they sought it.

Further back, I would also hypothesise that had Watergate not been uncovered that Richard Nixon might also have won a third term if a lid could have been kept on everything.

Yes, what ifs are redundant and open to infinite speculation.

As I recall that was one of the premises of the comic Watchmen. Woodward and Bernstein were found assassinated somewhere and Nixon repealed the amendment and remains in office until the mid-eighties.

 

[Dotini]

If it weren't for voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, Nixon would have handily defeated Kennedy in 1960. So magnify your nostalgia for lost authoritarian father figures who might have served 6 consecutive terms in your imaginary universe.

 

[Rallywagon]

At least in my lifetime, had the twenty-second amendment not been introduced I think that Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama each could have secured a third term had they sought it.

Further back, I would also hypothesise that had Watergate not been uncovered that Richard Nixon might also have won a third term if a lid could have been kept on everything.

Yes, what ifs are redundant and open to infinite speculation.

I'd bet that both Bush's could have pulled another term or two as well. Term limits are hard thing though. For high positions I agree with them. Presidents, Congress and house representatives, State governors. But, I think there are not enough people in the country that are both willing and qualified to make all elected positions termed. Hell, there are positions on the Mi ballot that had only one candidate.

If it weren't for voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, Nixon would have handily defeated Kennedy in 1960. So magnify your nostalgia for lost authoritarian father figures who might have served 6 consecutive terms in your imaginary universe.

Do you know what that word, nostalgia, means? Cause I see no one fondly reminiscing over the idea of any of those presidents having a longer term. You've complained about how your posts dont get likes. Maybe if your prose wasn't so vapid and dishonest your posts might be better received. I mean you do often string together a solid sounding tangent. Its just so hard to get behind the assininity and often flip floppiness of the context.

 

[mustafur]

I'd bet that both Bush's could have pulled another term or two as well.

Even though Snr got beaten by Clinton when trying to go for his Second term?

 

[Rallywagon]

Even though Snr got beaten by Clinton when trying to go for his Second term?

Did he? Huh. Could have sworn he went two terms. Must have been misremembering his VP term as his first term. Regardless, I thing Obama would have been hard pressed to defeat W back in 08.

 

[McLaren]

Did he? Huh. Could have sworn he went two terms. Must have been misremembering his VP term as his first term. Regardless, I thing Obama would have been hard pressed to defeat W back in 08.

You're on the right state of mind. He served two terms as Vice President under Reagan, so he "kind of" went through 3 terms.

 

[Biggles]

Did he? Huh. Could have sworn he went two terms. Must have been misremembering his VP term as his first term. Regardless, I thing Obama would have been hard pressed to defeat W back in 08.

By the fall of 2008 W's approval ratings were around 25%. The only President in the last 50 years with a lower approval rating was Nixon just before his resignation.

 

[Northstar]

By the fall of 2008 W's approval ratings were around 25%. The only President in the last 50 years with a lower approval rating was Nixon just before his resignation.

Oddly he also holds the accolade of having one of the highest approval ratings of any president (about 86% right after 9/11).

Talk about a fall from grace.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

No way was Bush beating Obama in '08. Even Texans were getting sick of him.

 

[Biggles]

Oddly he also holds the accolade of having one of the highest approval ratings of any president (about 86% right after 9/11).

Talk about a fall from grace.

Yeah - but I don't know if that high approval rating, immediately in the aftermath of 911, is a very meaningful rating. As the Iraq war turned into a mismanaged fiasco W's ratings slipped lower & lower. I don't know where Rallywagon gets the impression that he could have beaten Obama in 2008.

 

[DK]

A repeat of 2000, perhaps?

 

[Northstar]

Yeah - but I don't know if that high approval rating, immediately in the aftermath of 911, is a very meaningful rating.

Of course it's not, I just found it interesting that someone managed to go from one of the highest approval ratings (no matter the circumstances) to one of the lowest.

 

[McLaren]

Oddly he also holds the accolade of having one of the highest approval ratings of any president (about 86% right after 9/11).

Talk about a fall from grace.

I've got a pretty good idea of how he shot from 51% to 86%, but what caused the 58% to 71%? That's a healthy jump.

 

[Northstar]

but what caused the 58% to 71%? That's a healthy jump.

The initial invasion of Iraq. The spike later in the year is from the capture of Saddam.