The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[PocketZeven]

By that standard do you think Obama did a good job?

Yes.

Edit: He inherited the 2008 financial crisis and after the end of his 2 Terms, there wasn't.

 

[Northstar]

Yes.

Edit: He inherited the 2008 financial crisis and after the end of his 2 Terms, there wasn't.

You may want to look at when the deficit increases the most.

https://howmuch.net/articles/usa-debt-by-president

He spent us out of the recession, so while it worked in the short term, it has screwed us in the long term.

It is very worrying that this isn't the biggest issue of the election.

 

[Dotini]

You may want to look at when the deficit increases the most.

https://howmuch.net/articles/usa-debt-by-president

He spent us out of the recession, so while it worked in the short term, it has screwed us in the long term.

It is very worrying that this isn't the biggest issue of the election.

The crux of Perot's failed campaigns was the debt. Back when it was a small handful of trillions. By the genius of white male economists, the debt has been made obsolete, magically never coming due. Genius scientists in the US Navy have patented and perhaps are flying devices that defy the law of gravity. Humans have become god-like, transcending all limitations.

 

[PocketZeven]

You may want to look at when the deficit increases the most.

https://howmuch.net/articles/usa-debt-by-president

He spent us out of the recession, so while it worked in the short term, it has screwed us in the long term.

It is very worrying that this isn't the biggest issue of the election.

I did not see any other way to get out of that recession though. What would Trump have done? My guess is blaming Bush for everything.

But that said, Trump is not reducing that deficit is he now? And he isnt even having to handle a financial crisis.

 

[Northstar]

I did not see any other way to get out of that recession though. What would Trump have done? My guess is blaming Bush for everything.

Honestly I dont know, which is why I'm in HVAC and not finance.

But that said, Trump is not reducing that deficit is he now? And he isnt even having to handle a financial crisis.

Why do you always assume that just because someone is criticizing someone that isn't Trump that they must be pro-Trump?

This is an insanely huge issue that should be priority #1 and so far it seems like every candidate is focusing on everything but the deficit apart from growing it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Honestly I dont know, which is why I'm in HVAC and not finance.




Why do you always assume that just because someone is criticizing someone that isn't Trump that they must be pro-Trump?

This is an insanely huge issue that should be priority #1 and so far it seems like every candidate is focusing on everything but the deficit apart from growing it.

You are absolutely correct in adressing my incorrect assumptions. My apology.

The deficit really isnt that big of an issue as you think. But to adress the issue nonetheless, the problem is that candidates cant advocate to raise taxes to help pay for that deficit, it will kill their election chances. People want to reduce the deficit, have a strong military, good healthcare and good education and less tax. That just doenst go together.

 

[Northstar]

The deficit really isnt that big of an issue as you think.

If we keep putting off dealing with it, it will be though.

But to adress the issue nonetheless, the problem is that candidates cant advocate to raise taxes to help pay for that deficit, it will kill their election chances. People want to reduce the deficit, have a strong military, good healthcare and good education and less tax. That just doenst go together.

We could probably have all those things and reduce the deficit if they would just get off their 🤬 and make all the government programs more efficient. Not to mention things like military could easily be reduced with minimal problems and have that money redirected into other areas that need it.

 

[PocketZeven]

If we keep putting off dealing with it, it will be though.



We could probably have all those things and reduce the deficit if they would just get off their 🤬 and make all the government programs more efficient. Not to mention things like military could easily be reduced with minimal problems and have that money redirected into other areas that need it.

The crux is in the tax. You cant have none of the above is you keep cutting it. Unless you think cutting programs for the less fortunate is preferable to higher taxes of the rich? Both is also possible, but what which alternative solution resonates most for you?

 

[Swagger897]

That only really matters if you put a moral compass ahead of ways to actually fix the problem itself...

If you believe that social welfare for the few is more important than a far more crippling problem that encompasses the whole of a population, fine. But that is going to make your job of fixing said problem that much more difficult to do without A.) Bias towards different programs and B.) Finding easier ways that reduces spending for necessary operation of a federal government.

 

[Dotini]

With the deficit now, the US is falling behind badly. Assuming it is a serious problem means reducing existing commitments, generating more tax revenue, or devaluation of the dollar. Those are the choices.

 

[PocketZeven]

With the deficit now, the US is falling behind badly. Assuming it is a serious problem means reducing existing commitments, generating more tax revenue, or devaluation of the dollar. Those are the choices.

What is going to impact the economy the least though? Higher taxes on the wealthy or budget cuts on healthcare, education and/or wellfare? Printing even more dollars will be bad for the economy? What do you think the future US administration should do?

 

[Swagger897]

The same thing that they say every four years during the election cycle (well, except for whatever Democrats are saying this year... Something has clearly gone wrong with all of them). Honestly though anything that you say you want to do however will take money in order to do it. Reduce spending? Okay, you're going to have to pay a team first off to determine what needs to not be paid for... Create efficient programs? Same thing... who is going to find out by how much certain programs need some slimming down? Doing this though may result in the loss of jobs, which is an irony in itself because then you suffer with a lack of income for the government to pull from.

But for those who think "nah, we'll just tax the '1%'... and 'corporate conglomerates' to pay us back" okay... Have fun with that making a dent towards the deficit..

 

[Dotini]

What is going to impact the economy the least though? Higher taxes on the wealthy or budget cuts on healthcare, education and/or wellfare? Printing even more dollars will be bad for the economy? What do you think the future US administration should do?

Those are very good and supremely difficult questions. Congratulations.
My personal opinion is that all options will have their respective negative effects as well as the obviously necessary benefit of avoiding default on the debt. Cuts in promised benefits to the people could cause riots in the street and politicians thrown to the curb on massive scale. If I could choose it would be higher taxes on the very wealthy, including corporations. But as you are aware, the very wealthy are in the highest positions of influence and authority and they will seriously resist any inroads into their position. Corporations will want to flee abroad. The best solution is to grow (expand) the overall economy (GDP) so that greater tax revenues accrue to the government without increasing rates. This will be very difficult to do. Currently Trump is beating on the Fed to reduce interest rates to stimulate growth, but they are resisting doing very much in that direction, fearful of facing another catastrophic recession with no ammunition with which to fight it. IMO, total catastrophe looms in the event of devaluation and massive printing. In the past, genius white male economists and central bankers have found ways to magically levitate the economy with clever and adroit machinations and sleight of hand. I hope they can do it again, but they will need bigger magic next time. We have returned to robber baron capitalism last seen in the 19th Century. We are in real trouble.

 

[mustafur]

America is in a debt trap, in order to pay it off they will have to crash their economy by either cutting spending(the amount of jobs linked to Government funds are stupid high especially the military). Or raising taxes to the point the revenue they get is enough to start taking out of the defict. The problem in that is without major cuts the taxation will be super high and be a major drag on the economy likely forcing the Fed to cut interest rates which sure they can do but there is only a tiny buffer before they are at zero again.

There is the 3rd way to pay off the debt which is inflation via QE, but then your risking the US Dollar Reserve currency status(It's already on shaky ground as China and Russia have been adding pressure to change to Gold for Trade) which America can not afford to risk at all, if that ever happens the US will experience instant Hyper inflation when you have Trillions of Dollars that where outside the domestic
system being dumped into it, this Scenario will be the worst Outcome and likely finish off America as a World leading Economy.

 

[Sander 001]

America is in a debt trap, in order to pay it off they will have to crash their economy by either cutting spending(the amount of jobs linked to Government funds are stupid high especially the military). Or raising taxes to the point the revenue they get is enough to start taking out of the defict. The problem in that is without major cuts the taxation will be super high and be a major drag on the economy likely forcing the Fed to cut interest rates which sure they can do but there is only a tiny buffer before they are at zero again.

There is the 3rd way to pay off the debt which is inflation via QE, but then your risking the US Dollar Reserve currency status(It's already on shaky ground as China and Russia have been adding pressure to change to Gold for Trade) which America can not afford to risk at all, if that ever happens the US will experience instant Hyper inflation when you have Trillions of Dollars that where outside the domestic
system being dumped into it, this Scenario will be the worst Outcome and likely finish off America as a World leading Economy.

The taxation doesn’t even need to be super high, just effective; meaning targeted well and tax avoidance, loopholes and evasion needs to be addressed. The super rich hoarding their cash only stagnates the economy.

 

[PocketZeven]

Those are very good and supremely difficult questions. Congratulations.
My personal opinion is that all options will have their respective negative effects as well as the obviously necessary benefit of avoiding default on the debt. Cuts in promised benefits to the people could cause riots in the street and politicians thrown to the curb on massive scale. If I could choose it would be higher taxes on the very wealthy, including corporations. But as you are aware, the very wealthy are in the highest positions of influence and authority and they will seriously resist any inroads into their position. Corporations will want to flee abroad. The best solution is to grow (expand) the overall economy (GDP) so that greater tax revenues accrue to the government without increasing rates. This will be very difficult to do. Currently Trump is beating on the Fed to reduce interest rates to stimulate growth, but they are resisting doing very much in that direction, fearful of facing another catastrophic recession with no ammunition with which to fight it. IMO, total catastrophe looms in the event of devaluation and massive printing. In the past, genius white male economists and central bankers have found ways to magically levitate the economy with clever and adroit machinations and sleight of hand. I hope they can do it again, but they will need bigger magic next time. We have returned to robber baron capitalism last seen in the 19th Century. We are in real trouble.

In my opinion the solution is and should be redistribution of wealth. Meaning higher taxes for the more wealthy and higher wages for the mid/lower income. This will eventually reduce goverment spending (while increase revenue). It is an unpopular opinion for many americans, but cutting programs that benefit the lower income and vulnarable will not reduce the deficit if you dont increase revenue. Fleeing abroad is what the top 1% already does, with tax havens etc. Every dollar made in the USA by an american should be taxed in the USA in my opinion and there shouldnt be any exceptions.

This will ultimately reduce government spending and will even lower taxes. Letting the rich get richer (while paying less tax then the mid/lower income in % not in absolute) does not "trickle down".

 

[Swagger897]

In my opinion the solution is and should be redistribution of wealth. Meaning higher taxes for the more wealthy and higher wages for the mid/lower income. This will eventually reduce goverment spending (while increase revenue).

How are you proposing to raise wages in the first place? Increase federal minimum wage? Have you not seen the reaction from companies when faced with this issue already? And how is it to reduce government spending by people "making" more money? This makes zero sense altogether and does not account for the jobs that will be ended due to it.

It is an unpopular opinion for many americans, but cutting programs that benefit the lower income and vulnarable will not reduce the deficit if you dont increase revenue.

Or... If you don't have said social welfare programs, or you are actually creating a program that truly benefits those who are in actual need, the reduced spending towards these programs can be put elsewhere. If you spent 5 billion/yr on social welfare programs, while say 15% of those on said programs no longer qualify for whatever reason, but are still on the plan, the removal of the participants warrants reduction of the plan. It doesn't need a surplus of funding to operate. And you say "unless you increase revenue", what difference will that make if you just allocate more funding towards these programs regardless since the current state is so poorly managed.

This will ultimately reduce government spending and will even lower taxes. Letting the rich get richer (while paying less tax then the mid/lower income in % not in absolute) does not "trickle down".

You haven't actually proposed a single thing that will reduce spending. To reduce spending, you cut down on programs, reduce the budget, and allocate funding in more efficient ways. Creating higher taxes for only a handful of people in the country while "reducing" (because we all know how well that goes over if A.) You have a Job B.) You pay taxes C.) You're not on social welfare programs) taxes for the largest pool of income that the government has at hand... doesn't solve an issue of government spending. That's down to policy.

 

[PocketZeven]

How are you proposing to raise wages in the first place? Increase federal minimum wage? Have you not seen the reaction from companies when faced with this issue already? And how is it to reduce government spending by people "making" more money? This makes zero sense altogether and does not account for the jobs that will be ended due to it.


Or... If you don't have said social welfare programs, or you are actually creating a program that truly benefits those who are in actual need, the reduced spending towards these programs can be put elsewhere. If you spent 5 billion/yr on social welfare programs, while say 15% of those on said programs no longer qualify for whatever reason, but are still on the plan, the removal of the participants warrants reduction of the plan. It doesn't need a surplus of funding to operate. And you say "unless you increase revenue", what difference will that make if you just allocate more funding towards these programs regardless since the current state is so poorly managed.


You haven't actually proposed a single thing that will reduce spending. To reduce spending, you cut down on programs, reduce the budget, and allocate funding in more efficient ways. Creating higher taxes for only a handful of people in the country while "reducing" (because we all know how well that goes over if A.) You have a Job B.) You pay taxes C.) You're not on social welfare programs) taxes for the largest pool of income that the government has at hand... doesn't solve an issue of government spending. That's down to policy.

I already said its unpopular among americans. This is my opinion with my knowledge of history and economics. You can disagree, but when there is economic growth and the deficit is growing. A lot of people are not doing their job!

The military and social security take up the majority of the US spending. Economic prosperity devided among the lower/mid incomes will reduce spending on social welfare programs. I also proposed cut back on military spending in a previous post.

That handfull of people (top 5%) posses 60% of US wealth. The top 5% dont pay a lot more per dollar tax then people think.

 

[Dotini]

I just received this disturbing news from Tulsi Gabbard's campaign:


Friend —

On June 28th, 2019 in the immediate hours following the first Democratic Presidential debate, millions of Americans were searching online for information about Tulsi Gabbard. In fact, according to multiple news reports, Tulsi was the most searched candidate on Google. Then, without any explanation, Google suspended Tulsi’s Google Ads account.

For hours, Tulsi’s campaign advertising account remained offline while Americans everywhere were searching for information about her. During this time, Google obfuscated and dissembled with a series of inconsistent and incoherent reasons for its actions. In the end, Google never explained to us why Tulsi’s account was suspended.

Google controls 88 percent of all internet search in the United States – essentially giving it control over our access to information. That’s one reason why Tulsi has been a vocal proponent of breaking up the tech monopolies. And no matter what the motivation was for doing so, Google’s arbitrary and capricious decision to suspend Tulsi’s Google Ads account during a critical moment in our campaign should be of concern to all political candidates and in fact all Americans. Because if Google can do this to Tulsi, a combat veteran and four term Congresswoman who is running for the nation’s highest office, Google can do this to any candidate, from any party, running for any office in the United States.

Big Tech’s dominance represents a clear and present danger to our democracy. That’s why Tulsi is fighting back, and has filed a lawsuit against Google in federal court. Today’s New York Times reported on the lawsuit filed by our campaign against Google.

Tulsi gave this statement to the NYT: “Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values. This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”

Please join Tulsi in her fight for our core American values of free speech and fair elections. The Big Tech companies need to be held accountable for their actions, and that’s why we need Tulsi in the White House!

We need your donation of $25, $50, $100, or whatever you can give to help Tulsi continue her fight to preserve our democracy. Thank you for your support!

-TULSI2020

 

[Swagger897]

What evidence do they have to actually show that the account was suspended?

 

[Dotini]

What evidence do they have to actually show that the account was suspended?

According to this article Google admitted it.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-over-suspended-ads/?renderMode=ie11

 

[DDastardly00]

According to this article Google admitted it.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-over-suspended-ads/?renderMode=ie11

Just posted the same thing in the First Amendment Thread. I hope she wins, not a fan of google anymore. They are cruising for the Anti-trust hammer too.


Hope she rides this wave right over google.

 

[Dotini]

Just posted the same thing in the First Amendment Thread. I hope she wins, not a fan of google anymore. They are cruising for the Anti-trust hammer too.


Hope she rides this wave right over google.

Cue The Ventures, "Wipeout". For some reason I find her seriously attractive. Uh, politically.

 

[Danoff]

What evidence do they have to actually show that the account was suspended?

According to this article Google admitted it.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-over-suspended-ads/?renderMode=ie11

Just posted the same thing in the First Amendment Thread. I hope she wins, not a fan of google anymore. They are cruising for the Anti-trust hammer too.


Hope she rides this wave right over google.

It's not a free speech issue. Google's search results are Google's speech, not hers. And they say her account was suspended because of suspicious activity, which they flagged as fraudulent. Seems legit tbh.

I think she's grandstanding to get attention. Probably smart.

 

[mustafur]

It's not a free speech issue. Google's search results are Google's speech, not hers. And they say her account was suspended because of suspicious activity, which they flagged as fraudulent. Seems legit tbh.

I think she's grandstanding to get attention. Probably smart.

At what point do we get to a situation where a Single Company that has nearly 90% of internet traffic, Blocks someone without a proven reason, do we say it's not okay.

They basically control all the speech but no rules apply to them in it, seems flawed to me.

Tulsi is a big proponent of breaking up Big tech companies, and this position she has taken is consistent with that.

 

[Danoff]

At what point do we get to a situation where a Single Company that has nearly 90% of internet traffic, Blocks someone without a proven reason, do we say it's not okay.

Whatever it takes to get people to use bing. That's the point at which it becomes not ok.

 

[Dennisch]

Whatever it takes to get people to use bing. That's the point at which it becomes not ok.

When people want to go to Bing, you remind them of the duck. duck. go.

 

[Swagger897]

Whatever it takes to get people to use bing. That's the point at which it becomes not ok.

^ This. You have a choice.

Progressives will go bat-**** crazy about this probably and yet when it comes to them and experiencing universal healthcare (which most have never) I'd love to see their faces when it doesn't work out for them.

I'll also say that Google has their back's covered on this as well. It's a legitimate concern that they may have to see if it was fraudulent or not. I doubt anything bad will come to them from this one issue. Also, on what terms of "discrimination" does she have proof of versus those who were not flagged and suspended? I know the dem's are quite diverse this cycle so it's quite comical to raise this as her issue.

 

[mustafur]

^ This. You have a choice.

Progressives will go bat-**** crazy about this probably and yet when it comes to them and experiencing universal healthcare (which most have never) I'd love to see their faces when it doesn't work out for them.

I'll also say that Google has their back's covered on this as well. It's a legitimate concern that they may have to see if it was fraudulent or not. I doubt anything bad will come to them from this one issue. Also, on what terms of "discrimination" does she have proof of versus those who were not flagged and suspended? I know the dem's are quite diverse this cycle so it's quite comical to raise this as her issue.

Have you ever used Universal healthcare, from my perspective(As someone who lives in a country with it) and basically everyone I know it's a superior system, people going bankrupt over Medical expenses sounds ridiculous.

 

[UKMikey]

Universal healthcare saved my life when I collapsed with a heart attack four years ago. No complaints so far.