Donald Trump for president?

[RFKFREAK]

The point being that social issues are not going to be the faster too ruin the country.  The country is in far more jeopardy even as an independent entity because of economics.  People not using words or flying certain flags is not going to impact this nation as much as not being able to repay China and Saudia Arabia who own a ton of our foreign debt and are taking our manufacturing jobs too boot.

Again, perhaps to you, depending on what your definition of "ruin the country," and how wide or limited that definition is.

I don't doubt that to many fiscal and foreign policy issues are their gravest concerns but I also don't think that just because those individuals believe that that it makes it truth.

[newtogolf]

I completely disagree with this.

Social issues might not be big issues to you or as important as fiscal and monetary ones but their importance is somewhat dependent on what point of view you're looking at them from.  To some, they're equally as important and to minimize one over the other could speak more as to which rung you might be on a hypothetical ladder for each issue.

The country will likely be $20T in debt by the time Obama leaves office, our military is depleted, social security is just about wiped out for anyone under 40, cities are going bankrupt, banks are facing another crisis due to mass default of student loans, oil companies are going bankrupt and ACA is causing health care costs to skyrocket for everyone.

While issues like gay marriage, climate change, abortion and other social issues are important, they will be meaningless if we suffer an economic collapse or lack the funds to protect ourselves in a global war.

[Golfingdad]

That's very possible but it seems like the public sentiment, combined with social media is putting more pressure on career politicians than there was in the past.  I know our political views differ but I'd hope you're also tired of the corruption associated with career politicians.

Agreed. (For once) :P

[acerimusdux]

The country will likely be $20T in debt by the time Obama leaves office, our military is depleted, social security is just about wiped out for anyone under 40, cities are going bankrupt, banks are facing another crisis due to mass default of student loans, oil companies are going bankrupt and ACA is causing health care costs to skyrocket for everyone.

Federal interest costs as a % of GDP are the lowest they've been since 1973, our military is as dominant as pretty much any time in history, social security is fiscally in the best shape it's ever been, the ACA has been a huge success, insuring 15 million more people while lowering costs, and health care costs for this decade are now projected to be nearly $2T less than they were projected in 2010 ( link ). And I'm not terribly worried about banks and oil companies surviving, either.

It's funny, fiscal and monetary issues are very important to me, and they're one of the big reasons I would have trouble supporting any Republican.  Republicans tend to be weak on macroeconomics, and thus support things like balanced budget mandates, which gets fiscal policy completely backwards (they support cuts when spending is needed, and spending when cuts are needed). And they tend to also favor too tight a monetary policy, which chokes off economic growth in order to prevent wage increases, leaves America uncompetitive, and inflates asset bubbles.

[Gator Hazard]

The country will likely be $20T in debt by the time Obama leaves office, our military is depleted, social security is just about wiped out for anyone under 40, cities are going bankrupt, banks are facing another crisis due to mass default of student loans, oil companies are going bankrupt and ACA is causing health care costs to skyrocket for everyone.

While issues like gay marriage, climate change, abortion and other social issues are important, they will be meaningless if we suffer an economic collapse or lack the funds to protect ourselves in a global war.

Could not have said it better myself.  I'll be back, I have to check the news on the Kardashians and Jenners.

[Gator Hazard]

Federal interest costs as a % of GDP are the lowest they've been since 1973, our military is as dominant as pretty much any time in history, social security is fiscally in the best shape it's ever been, the ACA has been a huge success, insuring 15 million more people while lowering costs, and health care costs for this decade are now projected to be nearly $2T less than they were projected in 2010 (link). And I'm not terribly worried about banks and oil companies surviving, either.

It's funny, fiscal and monetary issues are very important to me, and they're one of the big reasons I would have trouble supporting any Republican.  Republicans tend to be weak on macroeconomics, and thus support things like balanced budget mandates, which gets fiscal policy completely backwards (they support cuts when spending is needed, and spending when cuts are needed). And they tend to also favor too tight a monetary policy, which chokes off economic growth in order to prevent wage increases, leaves America uncompetitive, and inflates asset bubbles.

I am not exactly sure where you are getting your information on SS:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/08/social-security-may-be-in-worse-shape-than-you-think.html.

ACA is very young, so we don't know what the full impact of it is going to be.  So far I have heard people complaining about their deductibles and insurance premiums.  Yes, it has lowered health care costs for some, for many others it has made it more expensive (myself included).  Not only that, ACA has provided less coverage with their plans, so everything is relative when they start swapping out plans and then say "but we are saving you money".  I think it is still too early to tell what the financial impact of ACA is going to be, but I don't think it is going to be good in the long run unless they start getting some other things under control such as tort laws, malpractice etc.  If everyone who brought a frivilous lawsuit had to pay the attorneys fees when they lost as in other countries, we would have a whole lot less of them.

Oil companies are multi-national conglomerates so not even sure how they weigh in on this discussion.   And are you making an argument that its okay to be carrying the amount of federal debt that we are because as it stands we are getting a good interest rate?  As bipartisan as I am I have noticed that in general this country used to run best (with emphasis on used to) when no single party had control of all the reins.  I have seen republicans spend like they are democrats and very seldom see democrats stop spending, they just want to shift and add more dollars to the types of progams they want to spend on.

[newtogolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerimusdux

Federal interest costs as a % of GDP are the lowest they've been since 1973, our military is as dominant as pretty much any time in history, social security is fiscally in the best shape it's ever been, the ACA has been a huge success, insuring 15 million more people while lowering costs, and health care costs for this decade are now projected to be nearly $2T less than they were projected in 2010 ( link ). And I'm not terribly worried about banks and oil companies surviving, either.

It's funny, fiscal and monetary issues are very important to me, and they're one of the big reasons I would have trouble supporting any Republican.  Republicans tend to be weak on macroeconomics, and thus support things like balanced budget mandates, which gets fiscal policy completely backwards (they support cuts when spending is needed, and spending when cuts are needed). And they tend to also favor too tight a monetary policy, which chokes off economic growth in order to prevent wage increases, leaves America uncompetitive, and inflates asset bubbles.

I'm not sure where you get your news from but here's a assessment on our military, it's overall grade is "weak". http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-military-power-marginal/2015/02/24/id/626696/

Quote:

The Army’s readiness was determined to be "weak" because, as the Army itself admitted last October, only 12 out of a total 38 brigade combat teams "were ready for action at the end of FY 2014."  Heritage scored the Army’s capability as "marginal," but the sub-category of "capability of equipment" was judged "weak," with the report noting that "much of the Army’s equipment was originally designed in the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s."

The U.S. Navy is assessed as "weak" on capability, "marginal" on capacity, but "strong" on readiness. The current intent to reach a total of 30 attack submarines is "well short of the 48 attack submarines the Navy requires."

More qualified good news came from the Air Force, where both capacity and readiness were found "strong," but capability was "marginal." In the sub-category of "capability of equipment," however, Heritage scored the Air Force "weak."

Marine Corps capacity was judged "weak," while its capability and readiness were scored "marginal." The Corps is expected to reach an end strength of 182,100 active personnel during the current fiscal year. But in 2010, the Marines "determined that its ideal force size would be 186,800."

The U.S. nuclear arsenal might be the most disturbing of all the areas examined in the report. On the modernization of both warheads and delivery systems, test readiness, and the facilities where nuclear weapons are made and serviced, the score was "weak" all around.

[jamo]

I'm not sure where you get your news from but here's a assessment on our military, it's overall grade is "weak".  [URL=http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-military-power-marginal/2015/02/24/id/626696/]http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-military-power-marginal/2015/02/24/id/626696/[/URL]

Per the Heritage Foundation.

[Elmer]

As opposed to Biden?  Neither picked a very good running mate.  The difference being that when Biden says something stupid or completely sexist or whatever the press covers up for him, guffaws and says "awe, hahaha, look at that, that ol Joe, he is such a kidder!!!"  But Palin, oh my god, she was as dumb as he was and a republican woman, so she had to be crucified.  You can't be a woman, and republican and be in that office, no way!!!  She is a horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, candidate though and I agree in general, but I don't put Biden too far ahead of her.  McCain should never have caved, and in all actuality he should have asked Joe Liebermann to be his running mate.  I think that would have been a slam dunk ticket, darned near ironcland and bulletproof as in "you want bipartisan leadership, here it is, vote it, and lets get some good legislation passed".  Obama had many of his own dumb slogans including the tried and true "Immotep" zombie chant about change.  Any time you can't beat your opponent, fall back on the one thing that is old but sounds new "change".

Palin speaking to a child on what the VP does...."They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."

I have to disagree, I'd love to see Biden and Palin take an IQ test as I doubt either could score over 100.  Biden for the most part kept a low profile and his mouth shut while Palin was making the all the media rounds and insisting the proximity of Russia to Alaska qualified her as having foreign policy experience.

Palin was a mess, from her horrible media interviews, misuse of her expense accounts, her hard right religious positions and the complete hypocrisy of them within her own family.  I'd almost believe the Republican party hated McCain so much that they sabotaged him by forcing Palin as his running mate.

Biden knows how to be an electable politician!

Yes, the democrats did better in handling Joe and telling him to STFU.  I agree, he did enough damage already.  But what you explained is exactly the problem, the media had the presidential election be about Obama versus Palin, because Obama versus the real candidate McCain was a much closer race.  What has Biden done as VP?  What would Palin have done as VP?  Nothing!!  But at that point in time the media wanted you to think Palin would be running the country, and it worked!

Would Trump's VP be able to keep his/her mouth shut?  Would a woman agree to be his running mate after his well documented sexist attitude?

If anyone has a chance to see the movie "Game Change" I recommend it. The movie based on the book, written by 2 jounalist who interviewed the parties involved with McCain/Palin, including the campaign manager.

Really interesting to see how clueless she was to national politics.

To bring this back to DT. I have to imagine the 1st time the VP candidate goes off message DT will fire them.

I also think if DT loses the election he would thrown the VP under the bus as it could not possibly be DT's fault as he DOES NOT LOSE!!!!

[acerimusdux]

I am not exactly sure where you are getting your information on SS:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/08/social-security-may-be-in-worse-shape-than-you-think.html.

I did overstate it a bit on SS, but it's not going to be wiped out, either. Basically, in 1982, the SS trust fund was projected to run out in 1983. That's the last time they made significant changes. Since then, the SS trust fund has been building up a large surplus. By one key measure of solvency, the asset to cost ratio, it is in the best shape ever (or was in 2011, when it peaked at 402%; now at 362%).

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/images/chartE.jpg

So with that massive $2.7T surplus still there, it's not all that hard to fix long term solvency issues if Congress acts soon.  Basically, raise the retirement age 2 years, raise the ceiling for the SS tax to $200k, and cut benefits across the board 10%, and it's done.  And yes, if something had been done 20 years ago, that all would have been less painful. Even if they do nothing though, someone who is 30 today would still be getting about 75% of benefits. It's just that a 10% cut now might be less painful than a 25% cut 20 years from now.

[jcjim]

Per the Heritage Foundation.

What else would you expect from the heritage foundation...the far right wing wacko's...........We spend more on military than all other large countries

COMBINED $500 BILLION ....HERATIGE FOUND. is another group of war mongers....

[RFKFREAK]

The country will likely be $20T in debt by the time Obama leaves office, our military is depleted, social security is just about wiped out for anyone under 40, cities are going bankrupt, banks are facing another crisis due to mass default of student loans, oil companies are going bankrupt and ACA is causing health care costs to skyrocket for everyone. While issues like gay marriage, climate change, abortion and other social issues are important, they will be meaningless if we suffer an economic collapse or lack the funds to protect ourselves in a global war.

[quote name="acerimusdux" url="/t/82688/donald-trump-for-president/600_100#post_1193157"] Federal interest costs as a % of GDP are the lowest they've been since 1973, our military is as dominant as pretty much any time in history, social security is fiscally in the best shape it's ever been, the ACA has been a huge success, insuring 15 million more people while lowering costs, and health care costs for this decade are now projected to be nearly $2T less than they were projected in 2010 ([URL=http://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/the-latest-health-spending-projections/?slide=6]link[/URL]). And I'm not terribly worried about banks and oil companies surviving, either.  It's funny, fiscal and monetary issues are very important to me, and they're one of the big reasons I would have trouble supporting any Republican.  Republicans tend to be weak on macroeconomics, and thus support things like balanced budget mandates, which gets fiscal policy completely backwards (they support cuts when spending is needed, and spending when cuts are needed). And they tend to also favor too tight a monetary policy, which chokes off economic growth in order to prevent wage increases, leaves America uncompetitive, and inflates asset bubbles.  [/quote] [quote name="Gator Hazard" url="/t/82688/donald-trump-for-president/600_100#post_1193184"] I am not exactly sure where you are getting your information on SS: [URL=http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/08/social-security-may-be-in-worse-shape-than-you-think.html]http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/08/social-security-may-be-in-worse-shape-than-you-think.html[/URL].   ACA is very young, so we don't know what the full impact of it is going to be.  So far I have heard people complaining about their deductibles and insurance premiums.  Yes, it has lowered health care costs for some, for many others it has made it more expensive (myself included).  Not only that, ACA has provided less coverage with their plans, so everything is relative when they start swapping out plans and then say "but we are saving you money".  I think it is still too early to tell what the financial impact of ACA is going to be, but I don't think it is going to be good in the long run unless they start getting some other things under control such as tort laws, malpractice etc.  If everyone who brought a frivilous lawsuit had to pay the attorneys fees when they lost as in other countries, we would have a whole lot less of them. Oil companies are multi-national conglomerates so not even sure how they weigh in on this discussion.   And are you making an argument that its okay to be carrying the amount of federal debt that we are because as it stands we are getting a good interest rate?  As bipartisan as I am I have noticed that in general this country used to run best (with emphasis on used to) when no single party had control of all the reins.  I have seen republicans spend like they are democrats and very seldom see democrats stop spending, they just want to shift and add more dollars to the types of progams they want to spend on. [/quote] [quote name="newtogolf" url="/t/82688/donald-trump-for-president/600_100#post_1193209"]I'm not sure where you get your news from but here's a assessment on our military, it's overall grade is "weak".  [URL=http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-military-power-marginal/2015/02/24/id/626696/]http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-military-power-marginal/2015/02/24/id/626696/[/URL] [/quote] [quote name="jamo" url="/t/82688/donald-trump-for-president/600_100#post_1193211"] Per the Heritage Foundation.[/quote] [quote name="acerimusdux" url="/t/82688/donald-trump-for-president/600_100#post_1193262"] I did overstate it a bit on SS, but it's not going to be wiped out, either. Basically, in 1982, the SS trust fund was projected to run out in 1983. That's the last time they made significant changes. Since then, the SS trust fund has been building up a large surplus. By one key measure of solvency, the asset to cost ratio, it is in the best shape ever (or was in 2011, when it peaked at 402%; now at 362%). [URL=http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/images/chartE.jpg]http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/images/chartE.jpg[/URL] So with that massive $2.7T surplus still there, it's not all that hard to fix long term solvency issues if Congress acts soon.  Basically, raise the retirement age 2 years, raise the ceiling for the SS tax to $200k, and cut benefits across the board 10%, and it's done.  And yes, if something had been done 20 years ago, that all would have been less painful. Even if they do nothing though, someone who is 30 today would still be getting about 75% of benefits. It's just that a 10% cut now might be less painful than a 25% cut 20 years from now.   [/quote] [quote name="jcjim" url="/t/82688/donald-trump-for-president/600_100#post_1193277"] What else would you expect from the heritage foundation...the far right wing wacko's...........We spend more on military than all other large countries COMBINED $500 BILLION ....HERATIGE FOUND. is another group of war mongers.... [/quote] Which goes to what I said earlier, what might be an important or troubling issue to one person doesn't necessarily mean it is to another person or that it supersedes other issues on the scale of importance to the nation.

[rkim291968]

Which goes to what I said earlier, what might be an important or troubling issue to one person doesn't necessarily mean it is to another person or that it supersedes other issues on the scale of importance to the nation.

I think many of us would agree to that.   Trump has done a good job picking the issues (e.g, illegal immigration) that matters to a part of republicans.

[newtogolf]

Obama keeps smacking the hornets nest yet is surprised that he can't get anything passed in Congress.  Was changing the name of Mt. McKinley (named after a Republican President that was assassinated) really a priority when the stock market and global economy are tanking?  Worked out well for Trump who jumped right on it and promised to change the name back.

[Elmer]

Obama keeps smacking the hornets nest yet is surprised that he can't get anything passed in Congress.  Was changing the name of Mt. McKinley (named after a Republican President that was assassinated) really a priority when the stock market and global economy are tanking?  Worked out well for Trump who jumped right on it and promised to change the name back.

" I t neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg ." - T Jefferson

[k-troop]

Obama keeps smacking the hornets nest yet is surprised that he can't get anything passed in Congress.  Was changing the name of Mt. McKinley (named after a Republican President that was assassinated) really a priority when the stock market and global economy are tanking?  Worked out well for Trump who jumped right on it and promised to change the name back.

But what would the point be in that?  I think the primary argument against changing the name is waste of time, distraction, and obfuscation from real issues; it will still be those things when the next President takes office.

That's my primary argument, anyway.  There's no point in changing the name of the mountain when it's on fire.

[RFKFREAK]

Obama keeps smacking the hornets nest yet is surprised that he can't get anything passed in Congress.  Was changing the name of Mt. McKinley (named after a Republican President that was assassinated) really a priority when the stock market and global economy are tanking?  Worked out well for Trump who jumped right on it and promised to change the name back.

Was there a particular reason you included the fact that McKinley was a Republican in your post? I doubt this really had anything to do with needling the Republicans. Changing it back to a Native American name isn't a big deal to me and I don't believe it's a heavy lift he's expending political capital on. To be honest, there really wouldn't be a good time to do it over the course of the less than a year and a half of his presidency.

[Elmer]

But what would the point be in that?  I think the primary argument against changing the name is waste of time, distraction, and obfuscation from real issues; it will still be those things when the next President takes office.

That's my primary argument, anyway.  There's no point in changing the name of the mountain when it's on fire.

Could not agree more with this point.

But I will add I dont recall there being a big uproar when Washington National Airport ; was renamed Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in 1998, seems they all had better things to do..

But really, how insignificant is McKinley? is this really worthy of outrage?