Kamala Harris critics corner

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, tkhayes said:

stop pretending that you actually care about deficits ir debts when it is apparent you do not understand debt or how it works. 

I think anyone who talks like national debt is a real thing that has to be dealt with doesn’t understand how it works. So the problem is that Biden threw $1.9T in stimulus at the economy? Well, the US national debt is something like $35T, but you can still find a couple more trillion to spend whenever the heck you want. So who cares, really? It’s never going to be paid off, it’s not even real money in the sense that you and I can count the currency in our accounts. 
 

Might have been Warren Buffet who said something like ‘If you owe the bank $100 you’ve got a big problem, if you owe the bank $100M they’ve got a big problem.” You guys owe $35T? You’re golden.

[tkhayes 348]

58 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

We did have deficits under both Democrat and Republican administrations but we did not have generationally high inflation until Bidenomics, which is costing the average American household $10,000+ a year.

 

But we had high inflation under other republican presidents, yet you are silent on that.

Thanks for confirming exactly what I said.  and 'generationally high inflation' is just inflation..... any inflation is generational, you do not add anything to the argument by adding fancy characteristics that are meaningless.

I could say we had 'generationally high levels of sedition' under Trump..... it would be just as meaningless and does nothing to offer any insight or perspective to your argument.

[tkhayes 348]

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

I think anyone who talks like national debt is a real thing that has to be dealt with doesn’t understand how it works. So the problem is that Biden threw $1.9T in stimulus at the economy? Well, the US national debt is something like $35T, but you can still find a couple more trillion to spend whenever the heck you want. So who cares, really? It’s never going to be paid off, it’s not even real money in the sense that you and I can count the currency in our accounts. 
 

Might have been Warren Buffet who said something like ‘If you owe the bank $100 you’ve got a big problem, if you owe the bank $100M they’ve got a big problem.” You guys owe $35T? You’re golden.

We owe the money to ourselves.  And no one is ever going to get a bill for it, yet the anti-deficit folks keep talking in terms of 'our great grand children will still be paying for this'.  And while it is a risk to the economy, any debt is manageable as long as the country's GDP, currency, and production capabilities remain strong.  Which is the case for the USA.

'the country is being destroyed'. the economy is a disaster' and other such bullshit language while they take their third vacation of the year in their new $80,000 truck, towing their $40,000 camper.....

[airdvr 210]

19 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi airdvr,

60 yrs ago I voted for Pres for the first time.  I have NEVER had two good choices.  I simply voted for the best candidate.

How you and/or I see them is totally subjective.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Since you seem to not like either candidate; what have you done to get some other person[s] on the ballot?

 

I think we should nominate you Jerry :).  Of course being a Democrat you can just skip the whole procedure and be appointed.

[airdvr 210]

4 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

We owe the money to ourselves.  And no one is ever going to get a bill for it, yet the anti-deficit folks keep talking in terms of 'our great grand children will still be paying for this'.  And while it is a risk to the economy, any debt is manageable as long as the country's GDP, currency, and production capabilities remain strong.  Which is the case for the USA.

'the country is being destroyed'. the economy is a disaster' and other such bullshit language while they take their third vacation of the year in their new $80,000 truck, towing their $40,000 camper.....

Apr 4, 2024
In 2023, the federal government spent $658 billion on net interest costs on the national debt. That total, which grew by 38 percent from $476 billion in 2022, was the largest amount ever spent on interest in the budget and totaled 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Pretty sure we could do a lot of good with an extra half trillion every year.

[ryoder 1,590]

If we are going to squabble about debt, let's talk about Dubya and St Ronnie, as well.

Source: Growth in the national debt of the United States from 1969 to 2023, by president

 

[normiss 798]

14 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I think we should nominate you Jerry :).  Of course being a Democrat you can just skip the whole procedure and be appointed.

I thought that was how the Trumpster was selected.

[tkhayes 348]

54 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Apr 4, 2024
In 2023, the federal government spent $658 billion on net interest costs on the national debt. That total, which grew by 38 percent from $476 billion in 2022, was the largest amount ever spent on interest in the budget and totaled 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Pretty sure we could do a lot of good with an extra half trillion every year.

yes we could, and to do that, we would have to increase taxes  (brenthutch says that's bad) or cut the programs that people DIRECTLY benefit from..... so the cost of the deficit is at least in part due to the benefits we allow society to enjoy.

If I didn't have a mortgage, I would also pocket hundreds of dollars each month that I am paying in interest.  But I DO IN FACT have a mortgage, with the goal of enjoying home ownership someday and part of the equation of building wealth.

That does not in any way mean that the mortgage is bad, as it is part of a greater plan.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

You mean trump’s money party? You know, the bigger one?

Trump’s one was bipartisan and widely supported, bi-partisan, saved the country from a deep recession and was demonstrably non-inflationary. The Democrat money party was partisan not necessary and highly inflationary. 

Edited August 28, 2024 by brenthutch

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I think we should nominate you Jerry :).  Of course being a Democrat you can just skip the whole procedure and be appointed.

You mean 'go back to the way we used to do it'?

You do realize that the primary process is pretty new, don't you?

It used to be caucuses and conventions. Party bosses picking who they thought would win.

 

Quote

at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who won the most primary votes, lost to fellow Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey in the delegate count. Humphrey had not run as an announced candidate in the 17 primaries, and only 38 percent of convention delegates were chosen by voters in primaries. (Republicans picked just 34 percent of delegates in primaries.)

Source:https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-presidential-primaries

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

12.6 million of Biden’s “jobs created” were simply folks returning to work, post COVID. When Trump left office, American’s back accounts were up by a trillion dollars under Biden credit card debt was more than a trillion dollars.

 

The big lie of republicans trickle down economics. Relabeling GOP failures to blame democrats, i.e. Bideneconomics.

Edited August 28, 2024 by Phil1111

[SkyDekker 1,465]

30 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Trump’s one was bipartisan and widely supported, bi-partisan, saved the country from a deep recession and was demonstrably non-inflationary. The Democrat money party was partisan not necessary and highly inflationary. 

TCJA:

The House passed the bill on November 16, 2017, on a mostly-party line vote of 227–205. No Democrat voted for the bill, while 13 Republicans voted against it.

This is Brent's understanding of bi-partisan.

I guess Americans are good at pissing, but thinking doesn't appear to be high on the list

[winsor 236]

34 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

yes we could, and to do that, we would have to increase taxes  (brenthutch says that's bad) or cut the programs that people DIRECTLY benefit from..... so the cost of the deficit is at least in part due to the benefits we allow society to enjoy.

If I didn't have a mortgage, I would also pocket hundreds of dollars each month that I am paying in interest.  But I DO IN FACT have a mortgage, with the goal of enjoying home ownership someday and part of the equation of building wealth.

That does not in any way mean that the mortgage is bad, as it is part of a greater plan.

Our debt today is like $3.52 Trillion.  Divide that by the number of taxpayers and it is around $350 Grand each. Today's 30 year mortgage rate is ~7%.  I'm kinda weak on arithmetic, but it seems that it would cost each of us over $2,050 a month just to cover the vigorish.

My guess is that handling my finances in such a manner would be a fast way to get a two digit credit score.

If you can think of a way this can end well, let me know.

In the meantime, back to your blame storming.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just now, winsor said:

Our debt today is like $3.52 Trillion.  Divide that by the number of taxpayers and it is around $350 Grand each. Today's 30 year mortgage rate is ~7%.  I'm kinda weak on arithmetic, but it seems that it would cost each of us over $2,050 a month just to cover the vigorish.

My guess is that handling my finances in such a manner would be a fast way to get a two digit credit score.

If you can think of a way this can end well, let me know.

In the meantime, back to your blame storming.

Depends. If you bought $10 trillion worth of assets with that debt, you would be doing pretty good.

Only looking at one side is pretty dumb. Actually it is very dumb.

[brenthutch 444]

13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Depends. If you bought $10 trillion worth of assets with that debt, you would be doing pretty good.

Only looking at one side is pretty dumb. Actually it is very dumb.

Where are the assets. Much of our debt is just servicing said debt. 

[tkhayes 348]

21 minutes ago, winsor said:

Our debt today is like $3.52 Trillion.  Divide that by the number of taxpayers and it is around $350 Grand each. Today's 30 year mortgage rate is ~7%.  I'm kinda weak on arithmetic, but it seems that it would cost each of us over $2,050 a month just to cover the vigorish.

My guess is that handling my finances in such a manner would be a fast way to get a two digit credit score.

If you can think of a way this can end well, let me know.

In the meantime, back to your blame storming.

but the fact is, the USA does not have a 2 digit credit score and it still the world's leading economy'

try again. 

stop the what ifs and rhetoric.  Republicans have been going on about national debt for 50 years, we are still here.  Notably, Republicans NEVER talk about it when they are the ones that raise the debt

There is NOTHING on the horizon to indicate that this is somehow going to end in catastrophe for the USA.  your math matters not, because as already stated... NO ONE gets a bill for the national debt, nor will anyone EVER get a bill for the national debt.  So it matters not how much it is per capita, because that is not how it works.  Your finances have nothing to do with national debt nor does it serve as a comparative example because they are different things.

try again 

[tkhayes 348]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Where are the assets. Much of our debt is just servicing said debt. 

the assets are the GDP and the entire production capability and the strength of the US economy which despite your doomsday predictions, is doing just fine.

Question answered.  

[brenthutch 444]

26 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

TCJA:

The House passed the bill on November 16, 2017, on a mostly-party line vote of 227–205. No Democrat voted for the bill, while 13 Republicans voted against it.

This is Brent's understanding of bi-partisan.

I guess Americans are good at pissing, but thinking doesn't appear to be high on the list

I was referring to the Payment Protection Plan. The vote was 388 to 5.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Where are the assets. Much of our debt is just servicing said debt. 

Look around your country...If you think it is without assets, I guess you have been pissing too much.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I was referring to the Payment Protection Plan. The vote was 388 to 5.

Yup, that was a good bill, even if misused by many. But the cost was less than a trillion and the benefit immense. That's not a money party.

The TCJA is a money party for the rich and cost tax payers close to $5 trillion. You are so concerned about wealth transfers, but that is exactly what your boys' TCJA is. Specially since 3 years later the economy cratered, 12 million jobs were lost and the government actually had to step in.

Amazing how you support $5 trillion cost to help millionaires and billionaires make a few more dollars, but oppose spending less when the country actually needed help.

 

[airdvr 210]

1 hour ago, tkhayes said:

yes we could, and to do that, we would have to increase taxes  (brenthutch says that's bad) or cut the programs that people DIRECTLY benefit from..... so the cost of the deficit is at least in part due to the benefits we allow society to enjoy.

If I didn't have a mortgage, I would also pocket hundreds of dollars each month that I am paying in interest.  But I DO IN FACT have a mortgage, with the goal of enjoying home ownership someday and part of the equation of building wealth.

That does not in any way mean that the mortgage is bad, as it is part of a greater plan.

That analogy only works if you're paying down your debt.

[tkhayes 348]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

That analogy only works if you're paying down your debt.

incorrect.  In the case of many companies and individuals, it can also mean refinancing endlessly until end of life as long as the wealth continues to build.  The size of the American economy is growing, not shrinking.  The debt is growing as well, even though the deficit is reducing.  If the rate of growth exceeds the rate of debt increase then you are still ahead.

nonetheless, the core argument I am making is that you keep bringing up examples of personal debt which has NOTHING to do with the debt of a country.  Personal debt is owed to someone that CAN COLLECT by force if needed and people do not have the ability to print their own money, write their own laws nor set their own interest rates.

So stop talking about personal debt comparisons, I have yet to see one that is remotely valid to what the country has or does with its money or its debt.

 

address the issues that I brought up.... the economy is still growing, the economy is currently good, republicans complain endlessly for decades about national debts, except when they cause them, and the amount per capita is NOT relevant as no one gets a bill for it.

So tell me in realistic economic terms what the downside of our debt is and some scholarly or external reference to back up your points other than more of the same rhetoric. 

And for a fact, the times when the democrats have been in power are also the times of deficit reduction.... not sure why you would not be cheering that on and voting for Kamala given your obvious support for that.

[winsor 236]

53 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Depends. If you bought $10 trillion worth of assets with that debt, you would be doing pretty good.

Only looking at one side is pretty dumb. Actually it is very dumb.

The upside being?

[airdvr 210]

2 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

incorrect.  In the case of many companies and individuals, it can also mean refinancing endlessly until end of life as long as the wealth continues to build.  The size of the American economy is growing, not shrinking.  The debt is growing as well, even though the deficit is reducing.  If the rate of growth exceeds the rate of debt increase then you are still ahead.

nonetheless, the core argument I am making is that you keep bringing up examples of personal debt which has NOTHING to do with the debt of a country.  Personal debt is owed to someone that CAN COLLECT by force if needed and people do not have the ability to print their own money, write their own laws nor set their own interest rates.

So stop talking about personal debt comparisons, I have yet to see one that is remotely valid to what the country has or does with its money or its debt.

 

address the issues that I brought up.... the economy is still growing, the economy is currently good, republicans complain endlessly for decades about national debts, except when they cause them, and the amount per capita is NOT relevant as no one gets a bill for it.

So tell me in realistic economic terms what the downside of our debt is and some scholarly or external reference to back up your points other than more of the same rhetoric. 

And for a fact, the times when the democrats have been in power are also the times of deficit reduction.... not sure why you would not be cheering that on and voting for Kamala given your obvious support for that.

You're the one who made the mortgage comparison.

In the case of many companies and individuals, it can also mean refinancing endlessly until end of life as long as the wealth continues to build. 

Guess you weren't around for 2008

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, winsor said:

The upside being?

A more well rounded understanding, with a lower perception of being a bit of a biased hack.