Who here thinks that the GOP congress will build Trump's wall?
I say there is no way in hell the GOP will let this happen. Like health care, the GOP are obligated to tow the DNC platform because there really is no difference between the two.
The other scenario would be if the GOP knew in advance that the court system would stop him, they might vote to build the wall knowing that it would be stopped anyway. At least, that is how they stood on health care. They voted to repeal Obamacare knowing Obama would veto it so they could get votes later on. However, with Trump there to sign the legislation they fail to repeal it again knowing that John McCain could take the fall since he is on his death bed anyway.
I think I'm getting the knack for how Washington works.
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyI think Washington has a knack for knowing how you think.
Who here thinks that the GOP congress will build Trump's wall?
I say there is no way in hell the GOP will let this happen. Like health care, the GOP are obligated to tow the DNC platform because there really is no difference between the two.
The other scenario would be if the GOP knew in advance that the court system would stop him, they might vote to ...[text shortened]... since he is on his death bed anyway.
I think I'm getting the knack for how Washington works.
25 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @finneganWhat do they care what I think?
I think Washington has a knack for knowing how you think.
They obviously don't.
Of course, they desire as many people to agree with them as possible, so as to try and legitimize their power, but it is not needed.
Things off the table and will never be touched are:
1. Health care. They will eventually go single payer.
2. Border wall. They won't build one. The only way it gets built is if the US becomes so oppressive they need one to keep its citizens inside the country, much like the former USSR that built a wall across the entire European continent.
3. Deficit spending. No balanced budget, let alone paying down the $20 trillion debt.
Anyone who opposes these things will be crushed under the massive weight of the centralized leviathan that was once based upon a limited government.
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyIf the US "paid down" $20trillion of debt that would suck $20trillion out of the US economy.
What do they care what I think?
They obviously don't.
Of course, they desire as many people to agree with them as possible, so as to try and legitimize their power, but it is not needed.
Things off the table and will never be touched are:
1. Health care. They will eventually go single payer.
2. Border wall. They won't build one. The only wa ...[text shortened]... r the massive weight of the centralized leviathan that was once based upon a limited government.
Interesting to speculate how that would work out.
Of course "they" care what you think. "They" spent an awful lot getting you to think that way.
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @finneganThe first order of business is a balanced budget, then they can move on to paying down the debt.
If the US "paid down" $20trillion of debt that would suck $20trillion out of the US economy.
Interesting to speculate how that would work out.
Of course "they" care what you think. "They" spent an awful lot getting you to think that way.
Of course, you would argue that this would "suck out" money from the US economy as well. So is there no economic problem with trillion dollar deficits? Do you agree with Dick Cheney, the Pube who once said that Reagan proved that deficits no longer matter? Is it really all monopoly money? Does the level of debt never matter?
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyIf the US gov't accepts a commitment to pay the bearer of government bonds a sum of money then that is a budget commitment and it matters.
The first order of business is a balanced budget, then they can move on to paying down the debt.
Of course, you would argue that this would "suck out" money from the US economy as well. So is there no economic problem with trillion dollar deficits? Do you agree with Dick Cheney, the Pube who once said that Reagan proved that deficits no longer matter? Is it really all monopoly money? Does the level of debt never matter?
If the US gov't enters into such debt and spends the funds on warfare and weapons piles, then it is not going to generate revenues to repay the debt.
If the gov't uses that debt to subsidise the Israeli economy, then the Israeli economy will benefit, but not repay anything, so there is again no revenue stream to justify the debt.
If the US government were to invest in productive assets such as a decent healthcare system or a better education system or scientific research or improved infrastructure or even investment in industries likely to provide American jobs, then arguably the resulting improved revenue streams would more than justify the investment and any relevant borrowing would be repaid or at least funded by the revenue generated. All the evidence is that this would work.
It's not what the US government does though. The US government provides subsidies to Israelis that are not provided to Americans. (Also other dictatorships of course like Egpyt). It borrows to bomb people and accumulates insane arsenals of useless weapons. So its debt escalates and its revenue streams are thinning out.
Your choice, mate.
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyHow much of your paycheck would you be willing to give up for a wall that does little to nothing to deter migrants and merely provides a photo-op for Donald Trump?
Who here thinks that the GOP congress will build Trump's wall?
I say there is no way in hell the GOP will let this happen. Like health care, the GOP are obligated to tow the DNC platform because there really is no difference between the two.
The other scenario would be if the GOP knew in advance that the court system would stop him, they might vote to ...[text shortened]... since he is on his death bed anyway.
I think I'm getting the knack for how Washington works.
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @finneganI see, so the issue is not how much debt the government incurs, the issue is making sure that the US government does not spend the money on the US military or Israel.
If the US gov't accepts a commitment to pay the bearer of government bonds a sum of money then that is a budget commitment and it matters.
If the US gov't enters into such debt and spends the funds on warfare and weapons piles, then it is not going to generate revenues to repay the debt.
If the gov't uses that debt to subsidise the Israeli economy, ...[text shortened]... s weapons. So its debt escalates and its revenue streams are thinning out.
Your choice, mate.
Thanks for that.
25 Aug 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAll he has to do is line it with solar panels.
How much of your paycheck would you be willing to give up for a wall that does little to nothing to deter migrants and merely provides a photo-op for Donald Trump?
It will eventually pay for itself. It will also decrease carbon emissions.
Or are you a climate denier? ðŸ˜
Won't you help Trump save mother nature, or do you hate the environment?
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyAll he has to do is line it with solar panels.
All he has to do is line it with solar panels.
It will eventually pay for itself. It will also decrease carbon emissions.
Or are you a climate denier? ðŸ˜
Won't you help Trump save mother nature, or do you hate the environment?
It will eventually pay for itself. It will also decrease carbon emissions.
That would do nothing to pay for the wall.
How much of your paycheck would you be willing to give up to pay for this wall?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWait....wut?
[b]All he has to do is line it with solar panels.
It will eventually pay for itself. It will also decrease carbon emissions.
That would do nothing to pay for the wall.
How much of your paycheck would you be willing to give up to pay for this wall?[/b]
Solar panels do not pay for themselves? Last I checked they generate electricity that people pay for.
What am I missing here?
I assume then that you are a climate denier and hate the environment.
Shame
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyInsofar as investing in solar panels recoups the investment, it is the investment into solar panels, not in walls that have nothing to do with them. The wall will not provide a significant boost to the efficiency of a solar panel farm.
Wait....wut?
Solar panels do not pay for themselves? Last I checked they generate electricity that people pay for.
What am I missing here?
I assume then that you are a climate denier and hate the environment.
Shame
How much of your paycheck would you be willing to give up in order to fund this wall?
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSo you are on record as saying that solar technology is not financially beneficial nor does it effect the environment in any significant way.
Insofar as investing in solar panels recoups the investment, it is the investment into solar panels, not in walls that have nothing to do with them. The wall will not provide a significant boost to the efficiency of a solar panel farm.
How much of your paycheck would you be willing to give up in order to fund this wall?
Duly noted.
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyI identified two issues.
I see, so the issue is not how much debt the government incurs, the issue is making sure that the US government does not spend the money on the US military or Israel.
Thanks for that.
Firtly, paying down debt would suck demand out of the economy - a neat inversion of what Obama's administration attempted, destroying jobs in the way Obama created or protected jobs.
Secondly, it is important to understand the relevance of how borrowed money is spent. You may welcome foreign wars as much as you wish but the price of war remains immense and it does not generate a return on investment from which to repay debt. Now if you wish to tell me that spending megabucks on yet more nuclear weapons is beneficial for the US economy feel free to do that. Obviously, there is work to be done building those missiles and there is therefore some economic benefit, but is it proportionate to the spending and how does it compare with the return on investment in - for example - scientific research or education? You tell me.
25 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyLet me illustrate this apparently difficult point with an example.
So you are on record as saying that solar technology is not financially beneficial nor does it effect the environment in any significant way.
Duly noted.
Suppose that (using hypothetical numbers) I can build a solar panel for $1000, and it yields $100 worth of electricity per year. Now I use these proceeds over 20 years to purchase $1000 worth of dildos as well as recouping my initial investment. Did the dildos "pay for themselves"? No, the dildos have nothing to do with the solar panels. Likewise, any profits derived from solar panels placed on a wall would have been received by just placing the solar panels on a solar farm and not building the wall (thus saving the construction and maintenance costs of the wall).
How much of your paycheck would you be willing to give up to pay for this wall?