Debate thread (Sept. 10)

[Didba 5,510]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

If I vote for him at this point, I have the satisfaction of knowing it cancels your vote for Harris here in Texas. 

Too bad, I also live in Texas😉

[wdefromtx 3,611]

5 minutes ago, Didba said:

Too bad, I also live in Texas😉

Already planned for this scenario. I am getting my dog registered and I will show him the debate footage and he will definitely vote for Trump. 

Edited September 14 by wdefromtx

[alanevans 259]

59 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m actually your neighbor. I know more about you than you know.

If you are in fact his neighbor, then please cut his internet so we can all have some peace 

[RunInRed 18,383]

Re: The Deficit, ganked from LinkedIn, found it to be insightful …

At the debate on Tuesday, Kamala Harris referenced a study by the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM): “What the Wharton School has said is Donald Trump’s plan would actually explode the deficit.” 

The Washington Post fact-checked this as  “correct,” but pointed out that the PWBM also estimated that Harris’s economic plan would increase the deficit too. 

The PWBM estimates that Trump’s policies would add $5.8 trillion to the deficit over ten years following a conventional analysis. Even when dynamic feedback effects are included, Trump’s policies would still add $4.1 trillion. 

This compares to the PWBM’s analysis of Harris’s policies which it estimates would add $1.2 trillion on a conventional basis and $2.0 trillion using a dynamic methodology.  

Thus it is fair to say that Trump’s plan would add at least $2 trillion more to the deficit over a ten-year horizon than Harris’s plan.

Perhaps more importantly to those who care about economic equality, the gains under Harris’s plan would be much more equitably distributed than Trump’s. The PWBM finds that “Low,  middle, and high-income households in 2026 and 2034 all fare better under [Trump’s] campaign proposals on a conventional basis.” The biggest winners over a ten year period would be those in the top .01 percent who would see wealth gains of approximately $375,000. Gains for all other income groups are significantly less.  

The Harris plan would more equitably benefit lower-, middle-, and even most upper-income citizens — in the range of $1500 to $4000 over ten years. (Only the top 95-99.9% are worse off, and the top .01% still still gain the most: more than $100,000). 

At the debate, Trump responded to Harris’s reference to Wharton by saying: “I went to the Wharton School of finance, and many of those professors, the top professors, think my plan is a brilliant plan.”  It’s true that Trump attended Wharton, but it is unclear who Trump is referring to. The Washington Post contacted the campaign for names of the “top professors” Trump claims and got no response.  

Bottom line: According to my reading of the PWBM reports, Trump and Harris both propose to increase the federal deficit, but Trump by at least twice as much. Both plan to adopt policies to benefit most income brackets in the shorter term. Trump’s plan would most benefit the super-rich, and gains under Harris’s plan would be shared more equally.

As yet also, the Trump campaign has not named any Wharton professors who call his plan “brilliant,” and none seem to have stepped forward to confirm that they’ve given this assessment. 

[See references in comments.]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-orts?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

And one of the comments in the post …

[JMWATS 280]

19 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Re: The Deficit, ganked from LinkedIn, found it to be insightful …

At the debate on Tuesday, Kamala Harris referenced a study by the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM): “What the Wharton School has said is Donald Trump’s plan would actually explode the deficit.” 

The Washington Post fact-checked this as  “correct,” but pointed out that the PWBM also estimated that Harris’s economic plan would increase the deficit too. 

The PWBM estimates that Trump’s policies would add $5.8 trillion to the deficit over ten years following a conventional analysis. Even when dynamic feedback effects are included, Trump’s policies would still add $4.1 trillion. 

This compares to the PWBM’s analysis of Harris’s policies which it estimates would add $1.2 trillion on a conventional basis and $2.0 trillion using a dynamic methodology.  

Thus it is fair to say that Trump’s plan would add at least $2 trillion more to the deficit over a ten-year horizon than Harris’s plan.

Perhaps more importantly to those who care about economic equality, the gains under Harris’s plan would be much more equitably distributed than Trump’s. The PWBM finds that “Low,  middle, and high-income households in 2026 and 2034 all fare better under [Trump’s] campaign proposals on a conventional basis.” The biggest winners over a ten year period would be those in the top .01 percent who would see wealth gains of approximately $375,000. Gains for all other income groups are significantly less.  

The Harris plan would more equitably benefit lower-, middle-, and even most upper-income citizens — in the range of $1500 to $4000 over ten years. (Only the top 95-99.9% are worse off, and the top .01% still still gain the most: more than $100,000). 

At the debate, Trump responded to Harris’s reference to Wharton by saying: “I went to the Wharton School of finance, and many of those professors, the top professors, think my plan is a brilliant plan.”  It’s true that Trump attended Wharton, but it is unclear who Trump is referring to. The Washington Post contacted the campaign for names of the “top professors” Trump claims and got no response.  

Bottom line: According to my reading of the PWBM reports, Trump and Harris both propose to increase the federal deficit, but Trump by at least twice as much. Both plan to adopt policies to benefit most income brackets in the shorter term. Trump’s plan would most benefit the super-rich, and gains under Harris’s plan would be shared more equally.

As yet also, the Trump campaign has not named any Wharton professors who call his plan “brilliant,” and none seem to have stepped forward to confirm that they’ve given this assessment. 

[See references in comments.]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-orts?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

And one of the comments in the post …

Yes .  By all means continue with a Democrat controlled President and Senate and they will continue literally dropping spending packages on the US House's back doorstep the night before a government shutdown.

 

We are already seeing the US Treasury auctions where the longer duration bonds can't find buyers, so the Fed forces the banks to buy and hold them on their Balance Sheet. We saw what happened to Silicon bank and several other banks. It wasn't Silicon's poor credit lending practices, it was large holdings of long duration bonds that lost value when market rates increased. Basically, our borrowing rates have increased because we have higher credit risk from all the uncontrolled spending and debt.

 

Anyway, anyone thinking Democrats will help this situation must have just fallen out of a coconut tree.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

Just now, JMWATS said:

Yes .  By all means continue with a Democrat controlled President and Senate and they will continue literally dropping spending packages on the US House's back doorstep the night before a government shutdown.

 

We are already seeing the US Treasury auctions where the longer duration bonds can't find buyers, so the Fed forces the banks to buy and hold them on their Balance Sheet. We saw what happened to Silicon bank and several other banks. It wasn't Silicon's poor credit lending practices, it was large holdings of long duration bonds that lost value when market rates increased. Basically, our borrowing rates have increased because we have higher credit risk from all the uncontrolled spending and debt.

 

Anyway, anyone thinking Democrats will help this situation must have just fallen out of a coconut tree.

Trump has zero interest in debt reduction. He would cut every tax just to get cheers at rallies. Republicans truly interested in debt reduction are powerless. In a close electorate, Democrats have to keep up and so everyone is courting voters with tax cuts and NO ONE is addressing the deficit. With Trump there can be no sober conversation about anything. He’s not interested.

[JMWATS 280]

Fact. Neither party has a true interest in debt reduction. 

[RunInRed 18,383]

7 minutes ago, JMWATS said:

Yes .  By all means continue with a Democrat controlled President and Senate and they will continue literally dropping spending packages on the US House's back doorstep the night before a government shutdown.

 

We are already seeing the US Treasury auctions where the longer duration bonds can't find buyers, so the Fed forces the banks to buy and hold them on their Balance Sheet. We saw what happened to Silicon bank and several other banks. It wasn't Silicon's poor credit lending practices, it was large holdings of long duration bonds that lost value when market rates increased. Basically, our borrowing rates have increased because we have higher credit risk from all the uncontrolled spending and debt.

 

Anyway, anyone thinking Democrats will help this situation must have just fallen out of a coconut tree.

You do realize what Trump did to the national debt in his first term, correct?

But besides the historical data, what plans has he put forth that gives you confidence it will not be more of the same in his next term, especially after the analysis of his tax proposal projects to be more of the same of exploding the deficit?

[TexasTiger 14,310]

Just now, JMWATS said:

Fact. Neither party has a true interest in debt reduction. 

They did. Until Dubya blew up the budget with tax cuts and more spending. After that, Obama had to deal with near economic collapse. If the economy was as great as folks think under Trump, why wasn’t the defict at least significantly reduced?

[JMWATS 280]

20 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

They did. Until Dubya blew up the budget with tax cuts and more spending. After that, Obama had to deal with near economic collapse. If the economy was as great as folks think under Trump, why wasn’t the defict at least significantly reduced?

Because Democrats controlled the purse strings with a House majority beginning in 2018.

[ArgoEagle 2,052]

25 minutes ago, JMWATS said:

Fact. Neither party has a true interest in debt reduction. 

Nailed it right here.   Also the average American's concerns are not cutting the deficit, and what they consider the economy is:  How much does my salary increase to keep up with inflation?  How much do I pay for groceries? How much do I pay to put gas in my car?  How much does it cost me to eat out? How much does my heating & a/c cost? How much is my rent/mortgage?

They then ask themselves:  Which candidate can i put into office to help me out the most with my cost of living expenses?

The Dems can put up all the egghead analysis of the economy, the deficit & whatever else they can think about that the common working class could really care less about.

The bottom line is Trump's policies worked to put more money in the average American's pocket.!

[TexasTiger 14,310]

20 minutes ago, JMWATS said:

Because Democrats controlled the purse strings with a House majority beginning in 2018.

What budget did he propose that that they rejected? And what about the first two years when he blew things up with Republicans in total control? 

[TexasTiger 14,310]

14 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

Nailed it right here.   Also the average American's concerns are not cutting the deficit, and what they consider the economy is:  How much does my salary increase to keep up with inflation?  How much do I pay for groceries? How much do I pay to put gas in my car?  How much does it cost me to eat out? How much does my heating & a/c cost? How much is my rent/mortgage?

They then ask themselves:  Which candidate can i put into office to help me out the most with my cost of living expenses?

The Dems can put up all the egghead analysis of the economy, the deficit & whatever else they can think about that the common working class could really care less about.

The bottom line is Trump's policies worked to put more money in the average American's pocket.!

And how will Trump do that?

And BTW, Obama had 1.4% inflation over 8 years— best since Eisenhower who dealt with 3 recessions. Want him back?

[AU9377 6,037]

9 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

Nailed it right here.   Also the average American's concerns are not cutting the deficit, and what they consider the economy is:  How much does my salary increase to keep up with inflation?  How much do I pay for groceries? How much do I pay to put gas in my car?  How much does it cost me to eat out? How much does my heating & a/c cost? How much is my rent/mortgage?

They then ask themselves:  Which candidate can i put into office to help me out the most with my cost of living expenses?

The Dems can put up all the egghead analysis of the economy, the deficit & whatever else they can think about that the common working class could really care less about.

The bottom line is Trump's policies worked to put more money in the average American's pocket.!

I am constantly reminded that some actually believe that Trump can relate to the "common working class" in some way.  He has never known a day on this earth when daddy's money couldn't pay for his mistakes.  His closest relationship with the working class was filing for bankruptcy protection to avoid paying them.

If taxes are removed for tips, overtime and Social Security and accompanied by another large corporate tax cut, the debt increases and we risk another period of higher inflation. The real consequences wouldn't be immediate, but would instead manifest a few years after the implementation.

[ArgoEagle 2,052]

49 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

And how will Trump do that?

And BTW, Obama had 1.4% inflation over 8 years— best since Eisenhower who dealt with 3 recessions. Want him back?

And Obama still runs the government.

[Leftfield 3,380]

5 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

And Obama still runs the government.

[homersapien 12,245]

On 9/14/2024 at 6:50 PM, wdefromtx said:

Already planned for this scenario. I am getting my dog registered and I will show him the debate footage and he will definitely vote for Trump. 

You sure your dog is not smarter than that? 

[homersapien 12,245]

35 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

And Obama still runs the government.

How do you feel about people taking you seriously on that post?

[TexasTiger 14,310]

It appears to be settled:

[ArgoEagle 2,052]

32 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It appears to be settled:

Yes, finally!

Trump is The G.O.A.T.

And Harris would look just like A Goat, if she had a goatee.

Thank you for posting that.

[AU9377 6,037]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

It appears to be settled:

Narcissistic personality disorder

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

[AU9377 6,037]

3 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

And Obama still runs the government.

We should be so lucky.

[ArgoEagle 2,052]

53 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

We should be so lucky.

You are for now.

[auburnatl1 6,182]

5 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

It appears to be settled:

Yep, smoked her.

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/17/harris-leads-trump-poll-after-debate-record