The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[huskeR32]

You may have me on this point. Was it set to expire?

From my reading, the original act was set to expire when the initial funding ran out, or when three years had passed, whichever occurred first. In 2017, the three years part was removed, leaving the act to expire whenever the money runs out.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Do you really not see that what Trump did was take a stable & expanding economy & further goose it by lowering tax rates & interest rates. The result was an exploding deficit at a time when the deficit & the national debt should have been going down. Fiscal responsibility? Trump didn't care at all, because his only concern was looking good & trying to get growth rates above 2%. He has zero interest in the longer term ramifications of his policies. And the GOP - you know the Obama-deficit-hating GOP - followed him without a word.

Now that Covid has ravaged the economy, the US is printing money & increasing its indebtedness in a way that dwarfs what Obama did during the Great Recession. It will have consequences for the US economy far into the future.

Just like with Reagan, lower unemployment means more taxpayers. Clinton actually had a budget surplus because of Reagan's tax cuts. But it takes time.

Covid derailed Trump's economic plans. But covid will end and the economy will recover in Trump's second term.

From my reading, the original act was set to expire when the initial funding ran out, or when three years had passed, whichever occurred first. In 2017, the three years part was removed, leaving the act to expire whenever the money runs out.

I would have thought, essentially giving retired vets medicare, would have been cheaper than treating them through the VA. That being said, I know the VA is geared towards the special needs some vets have so it should stay.

 

[huskeR32]

I would have thought, essentially giving retired vets medicare, would have been cheaper than treating them through the VA. That being said, I know the VA is geared towards the special needs some vets have so it should stay.

We weren't debating whether it should exist or not. When he took credit for it, he lied to us, and you helped spread the lie here. Between this and you professing to not know anything about Roger Stone, I'm left wondering what efforts, if any, you make to actually find the facts behind anything Trump or the GOP does these days. And with the answer to that seemingly "not much," it makes your constant berating of "fake news" and uninformed "lefties" pretty hypocritical.

 

[Biggles]

Just like with Reagan, lower unemployment means more taxpayers. Clinton actually had a budget surplus because of Reagan's tax cuts. But it takes time.

Here's the US unemployment rate over the last 70 years. It shows cyclical changes under various presidents. Low unemployment gives way to higher unemployment according to general economic conditions. So Bush senior, following Reagan, sees a rise in unemployment, while Clinton sees unemployment drop dramatically. It increases again after the tech bubble bursts & 911, goes down as the economy is goosed with lowered taxes & lowered interest rates ... but then shoots up during the the financial crisis under Bush junior & gradually but steadily goes down under Obama & continues under Trump ... until the next crisis hits.

What is a constant, except for a few years under Clinton, is the deficit. It goes up in times of an economic downturn. In the case of Trump, it increased during an economic upturn & now with another economic crisis it has gone through the roof.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Here's the US unemployment rate over the last 70 years. It shows cyclical changes under various presidents. Low unemployment gives way to higher unemployment according to general economic conditions. So Bush senior, following Reagan, sees a rise in unemployment, while Clinton sees unemployment drop dramatically. It increases again after the tech bubble bursts & 911, goes down as the economy is goosed with lowered taxes & lowered interest rates ... but then shoots up during the the financial crisis under Bush junior & gradually but steadily goes down under Obama & continues under Trump ... until the next crisis hits.

What is a constant, except for a few years under Clinton, is the deficit. It goes up in times of an economic downturn. In the case of Trump, it increased during an economic upturn & now with another economic crisis it has gone through the roof.

View attachment 945909

View attachment 945910

Yup, the boom bust cycle. Unless our politicians have the spine to not give into the demands of big business ("corporate socialism", massive deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, etc), the boom bust cycle will always be the norm for the US economy. Recession and high unemployment, then stock market growth and lower unemployment, and then recession and high unemployment, rinse and repeat.

 

[Northstar]

Unless our politicians have the spine to not give into the demands of big business

Honestly, I don't even think I can get mad at them for doing that since people keep re-electing them instead of holding them accountable. It's like getting mad that your kid is stealing cookies from the jar but not taking the step of actually punishing them, there comes a point where you can't really blame the kid for doing it.

This is one of the main reasons I hate the whole "voting 3rd party is just wasting your vote" line because in reality it's a vote for competence over corruptness. (this bit isn't directed at you and is just an in-general ranting).

 

[Danoff]

Yup, the boom bust cycle. Unless our politicians have the spine to not give into the demands of big business ("corporate socialism", massive deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, etc), the boom bust cycle will always be the norm for the US economy. Recession and high unemployment, then stock market growth and lower unemployment, and then recession and high unemployment, rinse and repeat.

...and you think this is because of tax cuts and bailouts? Citation needed.

 

[McLaren]

Trump is calling Nevada's decision to allow mail-in voting a "coup" & will "make it impossible" for Republicans to win. He says "see you in court", but isn't each state allowed to implement voting as they see fit?

 

[GranTurNismo]

...and you think this is because of tax cuts and bailouts? Citation needed.

From the Brookings Institute:

"Tax cuts will also hamper the ability to fight recessions in other ways. With higher deficits, political leaders will be more reluctant to engage in discretionary stimulus programs to boost the economy. By making some typical instruments, such as expensing, part of the tax code, the tax cuts reduce the number of tools that policymakers can use to fight downturns. A recent paper by two economists with the Joint Committee on Taxation shows that the subsidies for foreign derived intangible income operates in a procyclical fashion by rising during booms and falling during recessions, precisely the opposite of how automatic fiscal stabilization should work".

As I understand it, one of the purpose of tax cuts is to stimulate spending which obviously, results in short term economic growth. The same can be said for lower interest rates. The problem with this is, it will inevitably lead to an ever-expanding government debt, a main cause of a recession. And what usually happens during a period of economic downturn? Billions, if not trillions of dollars are given to save big businesses from completely collapsing. Tax and interest rates, as well as regulations, would be heightened after a recession, but eventually reduced again mainly as a result of lobbying.

 

[Danoff]

From the Brookings Institute:

"Tax cuts will also hamper the ability to fight recessions in other ways. With higher deficits, political leaders will be more reluctant to engage in discretionary stimulus programs to boost the economy. By making some typical instruments, such as expensing, part of the tax code, the tax cuts reduce the number of tools that policymakers can use to fight downturns. A recent paper by two economists with the Joint Committee on Taxation shows that the subsidies for foreign derived intangible income operates in a procyclical fashion by rising during booms and falling during recessions, precisely the opposite of how automatic fiscal stabilization should work".

As I understand it, one of the purpose of tax cuts is to stimulate spending which obviously, results in short term economic growth. The same can be said for lower interest rates. The problem with this is, it will inevitably lead to an ever-expanding government debt, a main cause of a recession. And what usually happens during a period of economic downturn? Billions, if not trillions of dollars are given to save big businesses from completely collapsing. Tax and interest rates, as well as regulations, would be heightened after a recession, but eventually reduced again mainly as a result of lobbying.

Looking at your sources here. First you have quotes which suggest that tax cuts will result in higher deficits, and the deficits will make policy makers less likely to engage in stimulus spending. First of all, the beginning assumption is not true. Tax cuts do not necessarily result in higher deficits, and can actually increase revenue. So that's bad economic juju from the start. The second part is that deficits make policy makers less likely to engage in stimulus spending. But that's also a function of spending. So this suggests that decreasing spending is actually "counter cyclical". Exactly what you were trying to argue against.

The other source is the paper. The paper focuses very narrowly on a provision within the Trump tax cut. And that paper's conclusion is actually somewhat taken out of context. What the paper is complaining about is that there are instances where during economic contraction, tax rates can increase for a business rather than decrease due to the way the tax code is set up. This is what they're calling "pro cyclical". So the conclusion from the paper is not actually that tax cuts are pro cyclical, is that's regressive taxes... wait that term gets misused by people who don't understand it... what I mean is tax rates that themselves increase as income decreases are pro cyclical. That's a far cry from "tax cuts" are pro cyclical.

So I'm rejecting your sources as a basis for your conclusion.

Tax cuts are not supposed to stimulate spending, although that may occur. Tax cuts are supposed to stimulate growth. And growth could be considered either pro cyclical or counter cyclical, depending on how you view it. Growth itself makes an economy more robust (counter cyclical). But you can't contract an economy unless it has grown. So growth makes an economy more likely to contract, but that's also a good thing. And this is the real problem with your post, which is that cyclical economics is not necessarily a problem, as long as the cycle is trending upward.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Looking at your sources here. First you have quotes which suggest that tax cuts will result in higher deficits, and the deficits will make policy makers less likely to engage in stimulus spending. First of all, the beginning assumption is not true. Tax cuts do not necessarily result in higher deficits, and can actually increase revenue. So that's bad economic juju from the start. The second part is that deficits make policy makers less likely to engage in stimulus spending. But that's also a function of spending. So this suggests that decreasing spending is actually "counter cyclical". Exactly what you were trying to argue against.

The other source is the paper. The paper focuses very narrowly on a provision within the Trump tax cut. And that paper's conclusion is actually somewhat taken out of context. What the paper is complaining about is that there are instances where during economic contraction, tax rates can increase for a business rather than decrease due to the way the tax code is set up. This is what they're calling "pro cyclical". So the conclusion from the paper is not actually that tax cuts are pro cyclical, is that's regressive taxes... wait that term gets misused by people who don't understand it... what I mean is tax rates that themselves increase as income decreases are pro cyclical. That's a far cry from "tax cuts" are pro cyclical.

So I'm rejecting your sources as a basis for your conclusion.

Tax cuts are not supposed to stimulate spending, although that may occur. Tax cuts are supposed to stimulate growth. And growth could be considered either pro cyclical or counter cyclical, depending on how you view it. Growth itself makes an economy more robust (counter cyclical). But you can't contract an economy unless it has grown. So growth makes an economy more likely to contract, but that's also a good thing. And this is the real problem with your post, which is that cyclical economics is not necessarily a problem, as long as the cycle is trending upward.

Okay, fine. I genuinely have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m just going to casually admit it rather than continue to propose an argument in which I do not even understand what I’m proposing. I’m going to take AP Macro and Microeconomics this year so maybe that would help increase my knowledge when it comes to this topic. But like many other political issues I’ll look at a meme on some echo-chamberish leftist subreddit and assert far too much from it. It’s almost as if I’m programmed to believe that deregulation and low taxes on corporations is bad without knowing the nuances behind these issues. But from now on if I’m involved in a political conversation in which I don’t really have a strong grasp on what I’m talking about, I’ll admit it beforehand.

 

[mustafur]

Tax cuts without big reduction in spending increases deficts yes, the evidence that it could increase revenue shows it's possible but I'm yet to see anything proving it's happened.

It usually increases economic output but not at the rate to ever increase taxation revenue, only decline it.

 

[Danoff]

Tax cuts without big reduction in spending increases deficts yes, the evidence that it could increase revenue shows it's possible but I'm yet to see anything proving it's happened.

It usually increases economic output but not at the rate to ever increase taxation revenue, only decline it.

Actually showing it occurring is quite difficult, because there are a million factors in play, including that fact that a "tax cut" often includes "tax increases" within the "tax cut", as was the case with Trump's. There is also of course a balance with corporate vs. personal income tax. But economic theory is pretty important to recognize. This is the laffer curve, which can get plotted in different ways to make the peak show up at higher or lower tax rates. But the principle is that there is a point at which a tax cut will increase revenue (all other things being equal).

This driver doesn't just vanish in reality.

From a quick google search, it looks like there are historical examples of huge tax cuts without a noticeable drop in revenue (hard to tell whether it was a real increase, it keeps getting plotted as a function of GDP - which is normalizing the increased revenue against increase growth, which can be attributed in part to the tax cut, so that normalization is unwarranted). And there are examples where tax increases correspond to dropped revenue, and examples where tax decreases correspond to dropped revenue. Mostly increased revenue looks like it's driven by overall economic growth. And tax cuts are a long play for economic growth. Certainly the laffer curve above indicates that below a certain point, a tax cut will decrease revenue.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I am only posting this for the video.

This is Sydney Powell, Flynn's attorney.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

 

[UKMikey]

Democrats are courting the radical vote? Then why did they field Biden?

I didn't realise #WalkAway was still a thing. It's a PAC, funded by five large donors. Funny... that chick's accent didn’t sound Russian...

I can understand why people vote Independent but can't understand why this is being framed solely as a slam on the Democrats. Perhaps because somebody wants to make the implication that the GOP isn't as bad.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I didn't realise #WalkAway was still a thing. It's a PAC, funded by five large donors. Funny... that chick's accent didn’t sound Russian...

What evidence do you have to impune her integrity?

 

[UKMikey]

I didn't realise #WalkAway was still a thing. It's a PAC, funded by five large donors. Funny... that chick's accent didn’t sound Russian...

What evidence do you have to impune her integrity?

And I'm supposed to be the one without a sense of humour.

If #WalkAway are so full of integrity why do their supporters use stock images to advertise their campaign?

 

[NotThePrez]

And I'm supposed to be the one without a sense of humour.

If #WalkAway are so full of integrity why do their supporters use stock images to advertise their campaign?

Those images (or to giver it a better name, propaganda) are honestly some of the most insulting pieces of crap I've ever seen.

 

[jjaisli]

Democrats are courting the radical vote? Then why did they field Biden?

I didn't realise #WalkAway was still a thing. It's a PAC, funded by five large donors. Funny... that chick's accent didn’t sound Russian...

Yes, I agree. In fact, it's a bit ridiculous. At one point there were, what, more than 20 serious potential candidates running for the Democrat primary nomination? And in the end, voters chose.... Joe Biden. Probably the most bland and centrist of the entire lot. I'm sure not every Democrat wanted Joe Biden. But en masse, he was the winner. So collectively, there you go. But GOP PAC groups still want to try this scare mongering tactic of firing up their base that the Democrats are a bunch of communists? I mean, is he "sleepy/low energy Joe" or is he "radical left, marxist Joe"? Or maybe even something in between.

Frankly, I always thought Biden had the best chance of winning the general election simply because he IS such a moderate. And he has the potential to pull a lot of voters away from Trump who would never have voted for say, Elizabeth Warren.

 

[Dotini]

Yes, I agree. In fact, it's a bit ridiculous. At one point there were, what, more than 20 serious potential candidates running for the Democrat primary nomination? And in the end, voters chose.... Joe Biden. Probably the most bland and centrist of the entire lot. I'm sure not every Democrat wanted Joe Biden. But en masse, he was the winner. So collectively, there you go. But GOP PAC groups still want to try this scare mongering tactic of firing up their base that the Democrats are a bunch of communists? I mean, is he "sleepy/low energy Joe" or is he "radical left, marxist Joe"? Or maybe even something in between.

Frankly, I always thought Biden had the best chance of winning the general election simply because he IS such a moderate. And he has the potential to pull a lot of voters away from Trump who would never have voted for say, Elizabeth Warren.

The thinking is the Democrats will campaign to the center but govern to the left. Since Biden is a rapidly emptying husk, your first clue will be the VP nomination. If it is Rice, then perhaps we can hope for more neoliberalism. If it is Abrams, Harris, Warren or the like, we will have a leftist regime come 2021.

 

[jjaisli]

That's a stretch. Biden can't wait to announce his VP pick until after the election. And he would be taking a huge risk alienating those primary voters by choosing a vice president who is very far removed from his own political views.

 

[McLaren]

I would still like to see Biden nominate Gabbard, but because she's been open about reaching across the aisle, I feel both bases won't see that as a positive for their side.

 

[Joey D]

Imagine if you looked at how many people have walked away from the Republican party solely because of Trump's handling of the pandemic. I bet I could make a catchy meme using stock images too.

 

[UKMikey]

Imagine if you looked at how many people have walked away from the Republican party solely because of Trump's handling of the pandemic. I bet I could make a catchy meme using stock images too.

How dare you "impune" Trump's integrity!!!1!!1!

 

[PeterJB]

Interesting. So, as we all know, black people who don't vote for Biden are just closet whites apparently, but then since they now also all think the same I guess they are all genuinely black if they unanimously vote Biden, or African-Americans don't actually exist and are just a figment of our imagination.



This is gonna be a very interesting election.

 

[Joey D]

Interesting. So, as we all know, black people who don't vote for Biden are just closet whites apparently, but then since they now also all think the same I guess they are all genuinely black if they unanimously vote Biden, or African-Americans don't actually exist and are just a figment of our imagination.



This is gonna be a very interesting election.

I think what he's trying to say is that the Latino community, for the most part, all have national identities. They're Mexican, Columbian, Puerto Rican, etc. while the Black community is more united as African Americans. I'm guessing this largely has to do with most African Americans not really knowing where in Africa their family lineage originated from. With the advent of at-home DNA kits, it's getting easier for someone to find out but for the longest time it was more of a "well, I'm the descendent of a slave" than "I'm Ghanaian American" or "I'm Maasai American".

Stil the way Biden phrased that is pretty cringy.

 

[PeterJB]

I think what he's trying to say is that the Latino community, for the most part, all have national identities. They're Mexican, Columbian, Puerto Rican, etc. while the Black community is more united as African Americans. I'm guessing this largely has to do with most African Americans not really knowing where in Africa their family lineage originated from. With the advent of at-home DNA kits, it's getting easier for someone to find out but for the longest time it was more of a "well, I'm the descendent of a slave" than "I'm Ghanaian American" or "I'm Maasai American".

Stil the way Biden phrased that is pretty cringy.

I get that, but he's phrasing it a way that looks at the way people think rather than where they're from. It's probably best if he stays away from making generalisations about racial groups, since Trump has done that enough already.

 

[DesertPenguin]

I get that, but he's phrasing it a way that looks at the way people think rather than where they're from.

That's how I saw it too. It sounds like "diverse" is being used to describe what the community does rather than the specific country they come from.

 

[Biggles]

Yes, I agree. In fact, it's a bit ridiculous. At one point there were, what, more than 20 serious potential candidates running for the Democrat primary nomination? And in the end, voters chose.... Joe Biden. Probably the most bland and centrist of the entire lot. I'm sure not every Democrat wanted Joe Biden. But en masse, he was the winner. So collectively, there you go. But GOP PAC groups still want to try this scare mongering tactic of firing up their base that the Democrats are a bunch of communists? I mean, is he "sleepy/low energy Joe" or is he "radical left, marxist Joe"? Or maybe even something in between.

Frankly, I always thought Biden had the best chance of winning the general election simply because he IS such a moderate. And he has the potential to pull a lot of voters away from Trump who would never have voted for say, Elizabeth Warren.

Republicans have been playing the "communist" card since ... well, at least since Joe McCarthy made a career of it. Republicans called Obama an extreme left winger, as they did Bill Clinton. And of course, let's not forget the commie Hillary Rodham Clinton:

https://americaswatchtower.com/2008/01/23/hillary-clinton-is-a-communist/

https://freedomoutpost.com/hillary-clinton-a-communist/

https://bwcentral.org/2016/08/hillary-clinton-connections-to-communists-and-radicals/

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur62.htm

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/hillary-clinton-socialism-transforming-america/