Donald Trump

[Dr. Gonzo]

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fox-and-friends-cohen-manafort-impeachment-tv-shows-1087243

you can't make this stuff up

[Honey Honey]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The bigger the US treasury deficit is, the more they're in debt to themselves (and other countries & whoever might be a U.S. Bond holder).

If you can do that you never had to tax people in the first place, you can buy whatever you want to buy where the consequences are based on inflation caused and price stability. It begs the question why do we continue believing in tax and spend? Is it that the knowledge of such would cause people to vote for whoever will give them the most free stuff? 

The United States has a AA+ credit rating but like most major economies it really is insolvent  

If a government controls its own currency it can at worst trash its economy but it can't go bust.

[Dr. Gonzo]

36 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

If you can do that you never had to tax people in the first place, you can buy whatever you want to buy where the consequences are based on inflation caused and price stability. It begs the question why do we continue believing in tax and spend? Is it that the knowledge of such would cause people to vote for whoever will give them the most free stuff? 

The United States has a AA+ credit rating but like most major economies it really is insolvent  

If a government controls its own currency it can at worst trash its economy but it can't go bust.

I doubt the US could just go into debt if they had no tax revenue though. Like if I were some credit card company and you had no income, I probably wouldn't issue a credit card to you - although, I don't think countries & their income and debt are really that similar to individuals/corporations in regards to their income and debt though.

I also don't think the US would be able to operate with it's massive debt if the interest on that debt was anywhere near the levels of Greece's - and one reason that the interest rates are low is because when you people buy US Bonds they are confident the US government will be able to pay them back. That's why US Bondholders skyrocketed during the 2008 recession, even though the US's economy was literally tanking. Going back to the Greece comparison, you'd be a lot less confident that Greece will ever pay you back considering they've got major debts.

Tax and spend isn't going to go anywhere just because the US operates with a huge debt. The US national debt does pose some real issues that will face America in the decades to come if it isn't addressed - a part of the debt is made up of money from the US's social security fund that's effectively had the money taken out of that fund, as it's been borrowed in the form of interest free loans in the 90s... but every President since Clinton has borrowed from the social security fund. The issue here is that this money is meant to be paid back out to the baby boomers who've paid into it... and the fund can't cover that amount if ever baby boomer just decided to retire today. This either means more debt for the US, higher taxes, or the social security age is increased. There's probably other issues as well but that's the only one I know of.

[Azeem]

Is Trump likely to run for president again after his term ends ?

[Harry]

Ity's pretty normal to do so. Not that that means anything. 

[Burning Gold]

1 hour ago, Devon Von Devon said:

Is Trump likely to run for president again after his term ends ?

I'm pretty sure he's spoken about his intention to do so, although he hasn't officially declared it.

Of course, a lot depends on how this term ends. If he's impeached, he may be unable to run again.

[SirBalon]

I'm sure the whole world is hoping and wishing he runs again, I know I am.  Never had such a laugh with politics coupled with Brexit of course.

[Azeem]

His slogan for next campaign 

Keep America Great Again 

[Azeem]

40 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

I'm pretty sure he's spoken about his intention to do so, although he hasn't officially declared it.

Of course, a lot depends on how this term ends. If he's impeached, he may be unable to run again.

the best thing to happen is for him to continue and finish up his term an impeachment or even talks about Impeachment will make him a hero and will energize his base.

I actually don't think he'll run for re-election

[Azeem]

I don’t think him being impeached will necessarily be best for the US in the long run..... it will open a can of worms where the losing party in presidential elections will continually try to impeach the president. 

[SirBalon]

8 minutes ago, Devon Von Devon said:

the best thing to happen is for him to continue and finish up his term an impeachment or even talks about Impeachment will make him a hero and will energize his base.

I actually don't think he'll run for re-election

I also don't think he'll run again. He's all about himself and his persona... He's done that job now considering his narcissism.

[Fairy In Boots]

lol they turned “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” John McCain’s funeral into a Trump roast  

if they had just left him to it he’d have hung himself by now, instead they play into his hands st every turn. 

[Storts]

Cicero has had an absolute stinker in this thread. #TeamGonzo 

[Honey Honey]

On 24/08/2018 at 01:33, Dr. Gonzo said:

I doubt the US could just go into debt if they had no tax revenue though. Like if I were some credit card company and you had no income, I probably wouldn't issue a credit card to you - although, I don't think countries & their income and debt are really that similar to individuals/corporations in regards to their income and debt though.

I also don't think the US would be able to operate with it's massive debt if the interest on that debt was anywhere near the levels of Greece's - and one reason that the interest rates are low is because when you people buy US Bonds they are confident the US government will be able to pay them back. That's why US Bondholders skyrocketed during the 2008 recession, even though the US's economy was literally tanking. Going back to the Greece comparison, you'd be a lot less confident that Greece will ever pay you back considering they've got major debts.

Tax and spend isn't going to go anywhere just because the US operates with a huge debt. The US national debt does pose some real issues that will face America in the decades to come if it isn't addressed - a part of the debt is made up of money from the US's social security fund that's effectively had the money taken out of that fund, as it's been borrowed in the form of interest free loans in the 90s... but every President since Clinton has borrowed from the social security fund. The issue here is that this money is meant to be paid back out to the baby boomers who've paid into it... and the fund can't cover that amount if ever baby boomer just decided to retire today. This either means more debt for the US, higher taxes, or the social security age is increased. There's probably other issues as well but that's the only one I know of.

Sorry missed this. Only just noticed now the thread got bumped.

Currency issuing governments don't need anyone's money. They don't need to issue bonds or collect taxes to pay for anything including to pay for interest rates or what they currently owe in their own currency. Bonds are a monetary policy technique used by central banks to suck reserves out of the system for inflation and interest rate purposes. All the piling into Bonds post 2008 that you mentioned is in large part so that the central bank / government can pull the reserves sitting in rich people's bank accounts and move it elsewhere in the economy, negating forecasted inflationary consequences from just electronically issuing more currency. Remember that analysts on the whole were panicking about inflationary risks from QE and large budget deficits at the time. Whether they were right to issue so many bonds or not is highly questionable. When a government wants to increase its deficit it will issue the amount of bonds the central bank calculates will ensure inflation targets are met. Not how much money it needs to make to pay for the deficit.

Telling people that we "can't afford to..." makes them believe that the economy isn't good enough for them to have cancer treatment. That we have to get deficits down, we'd have to run a big surplus, we'd have to tax more. It's hiding the full picture. That is that you can't have cancer treatment because the central bank is frantically trying to control the economy based on its own largely unaccountable underlying set of assumptions. 

Once we start recognising the game we are playing we can start changing the tactics to suit. Post 2008 the tactics were changed primarily to the benefit of the asset holding class, why not change the rules to the benefit of those denied cancer treatment for not having insurance?

[Cicero]

2 hours ago, Storts said:

Cicero has had an absolute stinker in this thread. #TeamGonzo 

[Harry]

On 25/08/2018 at 01:32, Devon Von Devon said:

I don’t think him being impeached will necessarily be best for the US in the long run..... it will open a can of worms where the losing party in presidential elections will continually try to impeach the president. 

That's been the case since Clinton mate. Cigars, birth certificates,  foundations. Portrayed to be so sinister that consecutive enquiries are required each time. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

43 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

Sorry missed this. Only just noticed now the thread got bumped.

Currency issuing governments don't need anyone's money. They don't need to issue bonds or collect taxes to pay for anything including to pay for interest rates or what they currently owe in their own currency. Bonds are a monetary policy technique used by central banks to suck reserves out of the system for inflation and interest rate purposes. All the piling into Bonds post 2008 that you mentioned is in large part so that the central bank / government can pull the reserves sitting in rich people's bank accounts and move it elsewhere in the economy, negating forecasted inflationary consequences from just electronically issuing more currency. Remember that analysts on the whole were panicking about inflationary risks from QE and large budget deficits at the time. Whether they were right to issue so many bonds or not is highly questionable. When a government wants to increase its deficit it will issue the amount of bonds the central bank calculates will ensure inflation targets are met. Not how much money it needs to make to pay for the deficit.

Telling people that we "can't afford to..." makes them believe that the economy isn't good enough for them to have cancer treatment. That we have to get deficits down, we'd have to run a big surplus, we'd have to tax more. It's hiding the full picture. That is that you can't have cancer treatment because the central bank is frantically trying to control the economy based on its own largely unaccountable underlying set of assumptions. 

Once we start recognising the game we are playing we can start changing the tactics to suit. Post 2008 the tactics were changed primarily to the benefit of the asset holding class, why not change the rules to the benefit of those denied cancer treatment for not having insurance?

I don’t disagree with anything you said, just the rule changing would require a hell of a lot of changes to a lot of things... that I don’t think will ever change. I guess that’s a pessimistic attitude that just might be holding things back.

[Dr. Gonzo]

 

Today Manafort plead guilty, joining 4 other high ranking members of his campaign... and Manafort was campaign manager.

 

[Tommy]

 

[Kowabunga]

 

[Harry]

Was I the only one who’s interest was piqued by Nikki Haleys decision to step down from the UN Ambassador role?

Can only see 3 possible reasons why. 1. Private falling out with Trump that somehow didn’t make it out to the press; 2. Private sector money; 3. To get the breathing space required to make a run for President in 2020.

I cant see 2 being realistic. If you’ve served as a governor, and UN ambassador you dont give up that career path for more money. There are different things driving you.

I think 1 would be pretty unlikely too, given how much inside information leaks out of the White House. Perfect evidence being every other departure from Trumps administration thus far which have come as no surprise.

That leaves 3. She’s already ruled out a run for 2020, and says she’ll be backing trump. So I’d gather she’s not planning to run against trump, and surely he wouldn’t be so naive as to send her on her way with his platitudes if he thought that were so. But I think Trump would genuinely be wondering what’s in it for him to run again and pursue 4 more years as president. He’s already proved people wrong, and he clearly has no policy ambitions. He’s just a guy doing whatever the fuck. And from a reputation perspective he runs the risk of running and getting defeated, or being pursued by a hostile congress for 4 years if the balance of power shifts. If he leaves on his terms he bows out undefeated.

If he steps aside and backs Haley as his successor it will be interesting. She’s a pretty popular member of the republican side of politics and with neutrals.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Was I the only one who’s interest was piqued by Nikki Haleys decision to step down from the UN Ambassador role?

Can only see 3 possible reasons why. 1. Private falling out with Trump that somehow didn’t make it out to the press; 2. Private sector money; 3. To get the breathing space required to make a run for President in 2020.

I cant see 2 being realistic. If you’ve served as a governor, and UN ambassador you dont give up that career path for more money. There are different things driving you.

I think 1 would be pretty unlikely too, given how much inside information leaks out of the White House. Perfect evidence being every other departure from Trumps administration thus far which have come as no surprise.

That leaves 3. She’s already ruled out a run for 2020, and says she’ll be backing trump. So I’d gather she’s not planning to run against trump, and surely he wouldn’t be so naive as to send her on her way with his platitudes if he thought that were so. But I think Trump would genuinely be wondering what’s in it for him to run again and pursue 4 more years as president. He’s already proved people wrong, and he clearly has no policy ambitions. He’s just a guy doing whatever the fuck. And from a reputation perspective he runs the risk of running and getting defeated, or being pursued by a hostile congress for 4 years if the balance of power shifts. If he leaves on his terms he bows out undefeated.

If he steps aside and backs Haley as his successor it will be interesting. She’s a pretty popular member of the republican side of politics and with neutrals.

She resigned the day after reports of her accepting free travel from lobbyists that weren't on her financial disclosures. If I had to make my biggest guess... I think that's the reason she's left. Because for some reason, if you resign after ethical wrongdoing, that ends all ethical investigations in U.S. politics. This preserves her political career for the future without too much scrutiny of corruption in the immediate aftermath.

[Harry]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

She resigned the day after reports of her accepting free travel from lobbyists that weren't on her financial disclosures. If I had to make my biggest guess... I think that's the reason she's left. Because for some reason, if you resign after ethical wrongdoing, that ends all ethical investigations in U.S. politics. This preserves her political career for the future without too much scrutiny of corruption in the immediate aftermath.

That's interesting. I hadn't seen anything of that reported in my usual news outlets. 

I cant see why the left wingers wouldn't continue to pursue it given she is bound to be in the frame for 2024 and wouldn't be a pushover opponent. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

This is hilarious. It's also why trump won. "Who cares about Kentucky and Indiana" "Women who vote trump are stupid" "Hang on to your 68 year old audience" this kind of contempt for the 99% is why the left will never remain on top. The left will always have reasonable progression in it's arsenal to incite change from time to time when needed but winning any battle breeds entitlement. Whenever the right wins the culture war the status quo doesn't change. Whenever the left do they get greedy, pushy and outright outrageous by the standards of regular, centerist rational people. The left will never stay up for long while they treat the common white man as a villain.

t

[Dr. Gonzo]

13 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

This is hilarious. It's also why trump won. "Who cares about Kentucky and Indiana" "Women who vote trump are stupid" "Hang on to your 68 year old audience" this kind of contempt for the 99% is why the left will never remain on top. The left will always have reasonable progression in it's arsenal to incite change from time to time when needed but winning any battle breeds entitlement. Whenever the right wins the culture war the status quo doesn't change. Whenever the left do they get greedy, pushy and outright outrageous by the standards of regular, centerist rational people. The left will never stay up for long while they treat the common white man as a villain.

t

Yes, as opposed to those totally non-greedy and non-pushy and non-outrageous conservatives that profit off disaster capitalism  - it's not even contempt for the 99%, it's more contempt for the electoral system in America, where land is more valuable than human beings considering that the majority of voters picked the loser.