Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.
Some eggs gonna be cracked?
Trump's favorability now 52% (52/40)
This is too damn funny
What do you suppose Paul Krugman has become now that a Republican President is about to take office?
If you said "deficit hawk" you win -- lol
Here was Krugman 5 months ago
Just five months!
Krugman is really pathetic. His on-paper credentials are obviously superb, but the guy has turned into such a partisan hack that all intellectual integrity is completely out the window for him. He is a DNC hand-puppet at this point. It's sad in a way.
By the way, in one sense, his "Time to Borrow" article has some merit to it. I don't have a problem with deficit spending on public infrastructure that's truly needed, and some of it is truly needed right now. The problem with our deficit spending over the years is that the overwhelming majority of it has been for ongoing expenses that don't have any public utility or meaningful economic use. Borrowing money to build a freeway is like borrowing money to buy a house. It's an investment that can pay off big if done intelligently and provides utility for decades. Borrowing to keep entitlement spending going is like borrowing money to buy beer. It keeps you happy for a little while, but once the money is gone and the beer is consumed, you're poorer and fatter. Not a good use of borrowed money.
I agree, and would add one thing. While borrowing for infrastructure spending is a smart, borrowing more and more without ever paying for what you borrowed in the first place is not.
'95? Is that when the Newt Gingrich and the Republican controlled Congress pushed an ACA - clone plan for healthcare?
I'd add, cutting taxes while borrowing more and more is not acceptable. We need to be looking towards a balanced budget or heaven forbid a surplus to begin paying down our debt.
I don't mind tax relief if it's part of a broader balanced budget plan. We did that in 1995, and it worked out pretty well.
Agreed. The Bush Jr. plan to give back the surplus while simultaneously conducting 2 wars was idiotic. Though I appreciated the $$, I also knew that wars cost $$$. Rather than financing the war we could have prepaid a portion of it.
Yeah, that was dumb. He should have at least scaled back the tax relief after 9/11. Nobody would have blamed him for doing so. I also think we should have raised the FICA tax to finance the Medicare Part D expansion. I think it was a bad idea, but if we were going to do it, we should have paid for it.
Yep, pay as you go for enhancements to entitlement programs. Instead, politicians play budget tricks to make the numbers appear better than they actually are.
Don't forget doling out corporate welfare to drug companies by not letting the program negotiate prices. To his credit, Trump has come out in favor of changing that rule. Of course, there's no telling how long he'll keep that position, but at least as of January 9, 2017, 7:39 p.m. Central European Time, he holds it.
To me, this is the single most important tenant of conservativism. If you don't believe in it, you aren't truly a conservative.
I'm really looking forward to the press conference this Friday. Do you think Trump will pre-empt the PC with a "dishonest media" post before the PC or wait until afterwards?
Meanwhile, let's talk about financing that wall with the hopes/plans to get Mexico to pay for it after the fact...
He'll do it afterwards.
Immigration control/limitation is one of my top 3 issues and I wholeheartedly want something done but starting the construction before they've actually enacted some of the "pay for it" mechanisms is ridiculous. I don't trust ANY politician (Dem or Rep) to follow through on the "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today" plan.
The required funding is always underestimated and inevitably means something else has to be cut. And when those cuts get "real" then all of a sudden the battle ensues and no ones pet project can be sacrificed for the greater good.
Order of precedence...
1. End birth right citizenship
2. Begin enforcing current employment laws and fining employers
3. implement some of the "Mexico pays for the wall" measures
4. Then start adding to the wall
We don't need to collect all the money up front, nor do we need to add all 700 miles in the first year. Put the building of the wall on a 6 year plan and the funding on a 10 year plan.
If we take the first two steps, the river of immigration will slow to a trickle. And guess what, they don't require billions of dollars to accomplish. They just take a political body that is finally controlled by republicans to finally take action on items they've been posturing on for years.
If there's no prospect of birthing a citizen, illegals won't come across for that. If the job market for illegal immigrants dries up, they won't come across for that....and many of the ones here already, will voluntarily go home.
Birthright citizenship is never going away. As a practical matter, you'd need a constitutional amendment to make it happen.
I'm hoping Trump get's "true" employment up and allow the citizens to spend their own money, which will help small businesses. Obama said during his first campaign that he was going to look at what we spend as a government with a fine tooth comb. He didn't do that as all and actually approve more spending like never seen before. We have to have our government stop spending. They are spending so much that they keep wanting to increase taxes. But when they do they think that means they can spend even more. We are funding so much stuff that doesn't produce revenue. We have so many more riding in the wagon than we have pulling it.
I'm certainly no legal expert but from articles I've read and bills that have been introduced it appears to me that there ways to introduce bills that define that provision differently and more narrowly than in the past, without having to have a complete constitutional amendment.
Jack Ma's 1 million job expansion is going to target the Midwest
Bi-Coastal elites on suicide watch
Some of which has already been posted here (see below)
Furthermore, this is NOT a settled legal issue - do not believe anyone who tells you that it is
This hedge must hurting poor Mark
Deutsche Bank predicts Trump Economy will more than double US GDP Growth
"President-elect Donald Trump's policies have the potential to trigger a new age in U.S. economic growth that could serve as a global template, according to a Deutsche Bank forecast.
Gross domestic product growth would be double its current level under an agenda that cuts regulations across a broad swath of critical sectors, enacts tax reform that slashes personal and corporate taxes, and calls for at least $1 trillion in improvements for bridges, roads and other public projects.
"This policy mix has the potential of reigniting productivity growth and raising U.S. growth potential," David Folkerts-Landau, chief economist at Deutsche Bank, said in a report for clients. "While Trump introduces higher uncertainty, this is better than the near certainty of the continuation of a mediocre status quo." ....."
Congress can define it any way they want. The problem is that the Supreme Court is going to look at the language in the 14th Amendment and almost surely shoot them down.
The problem is that we assert jurisdiction over illegal immigrants and their children all the time.
Small Business Optimism --
"Optimism among America’s small businesses soared in December by the most since 1980 as expectations about the economy’s prospects improved dramatically in the aftermath of the presidential election.
The National Federation of Independent Business’s index jumped 7.4 points last month to 105.8, the highest since the end of 2004, from 98.4. While seven of the 10 components increased in December, 73 percent of the monthly advance was due to more upbeat views about the outlook for sales and the economy, the Washington-based group said....."
Majority wants Obamacare ‘repealed and replaced’
(54% of likely voters)
"..... Support for repeal spikes to 70 percent when voters are told that there would be a transition period that allows consumers to keep their current coverage while a new law is implemented.
That scenario is even supported by a plurality of Democrats in the poll, of 48 percent to 43 percent....."