Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
perchking

Anybody watch the Town Hall Meeting last night?

24 posts in this topic

I am typically not critical in public forums but NoBama got owned last night.  When CNN and Anderson C calls it a tough night, you know it wasn't good.  Public speaking should be a prerequisite for a Commander and Chief, without a teleprompter and a script he was an absolute train wreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, perchking said:

I am typically not critical in public forums but NoBama got owned last night.  When CNN and Anderson C calls it a tough night, you know it wasn't good.  Public speaking should be a prerequisite for a Commander and Chief, without a teleprompter and a script he was an absolute train wreck.

CNN did have some pretty good question "askers" from the crowd.  Legit, hard questions.  I don't believe it but Obama almost seemed to not have prepared for the tough questions.  The best speaker in the world isn't very good when he's unprepared and/or wrong on an issue.  His knew action wouldn't have stopped any recent shootings and he's used the new shootings as the basis for implementing it.  Tough for anyone to explain that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Town Hall"  meetings aren't invitation only.  But it sure sounds good. Just sayin'... 

That's as bad as the DNR and their "roundtable" dog and pony show. 

From what I watched it was fairly balanced and wasn't completely staged with ringers in the audience, but there were a lot of questions that could have, and should have, been asked if they really wanted to have an honest discussion. 

But, the gun grabbers don't want an honest discussion because they know their position is based on lies and hyperbole and completely indefensible, only to be believed by their useful idiots/LIVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so called prez is circling the bowl...

Edited by atvlaska
Down2Earth likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take anyone of the republican candidates that isn't a career politician .  Give me term limits and a budget to pay off the debt without raising taxes or you're all fired, plus any laws passed you all live by.

Edited by Down2Earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Down2Earth said:

I'll take anyone of the republican candidates that isn't a career politician .  Give me term limits and a budget to pay off the debt without raising taxes or you're all fired, plus any laws passed you all live by.

So, Trump or Carson? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Down2Earth said:

a budget to pay off the debt without raising taxes.

Does anybody actually believe the debt is going to be paid off, raised taxes or not?  Cuz I don't.  It's going to be ridden out until the current financial system no longer applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.  If inflation is 3% (yeah I know the target is 2%), in 20 years or so the debt is reduced by half, as a portion of GDP.   That's how we got rid of the LBJ guns and butter debt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Nah.  If inflation is 3% (yeah I know the target is 2%), in 20 years or so the debt is reduced by half, as a portion of GDP.   That's how we got rid of the LBJ guns and butter debt.  

 

If the debt is reduced by inflation, then buying power is also reduced by a proportionate percentage, so where's the gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Nah.  If inflation is 3% (yeah I know the target is 2%), in 20 years or so the debt is reduced by half, as a portion of GDP.   That's how we got rid of the LBJ guns and butter debt.  

I don't even really understand what that means, but I bet you could have said it 20 years ago and it didn't happen then either.

Edited by bobbymalone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the principle behind it, usually not a doom and gloomer, but it assumes that we will continue to not expand spending and continue to see growth......two things that are currently, IMO, rather suspect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is some inflation, say 3%, the GDP will typically go up by at least 3% in dollar terms. 

The face value of the bonds outstanding doesn't go up at all.  So if there are bonds outstanding equal to the GDP, after one year if no more bonds are sold they well be only 97% of the GDP, after 2 years 94% and after some more years only 50%.

If growth is present so much the better.  Low growth, no inflation or actual deflation, large defecits bad combination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I had to think about it.  I'm not an economist. 

I guess I don't see how that's much different than just sitting on it until the current financial system no longer applies.  

I feel like just sitting on it until the current financial system no longer applies is like kick the can down the road until the road ends.   Sit on it and let inflation decrease the relative % of GDP is kick the can the down the road, but cross your fingers while you're doing it and hopefully your foot gets so big that kicking the can is no BFD.  

I lack faith.

 

 

Edited by bobbymalone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pushbutton said:

I get the principle behind it, usually not a doom and gloomer, but it assumes that we will continue to not expand spending and continue to see growth......two things that are currently, IMO, rather suspect. 

 

Two things that actually are not happening, in fact.

Median family income in 1996 was about 35K.  Twenty years later, it is about 53K.  Meanwhile, the national debt has risen from about 5.3 trillion to 18 or 19 trillion.

This has been tried before, and it only leads to a collapse in the currency in the end.  The government cannot spend the country into prosperity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing has changed in the last year. And it is more obvious than ever that we are getting near the end of the current road we are on. Economies need to breath, devolve, contract, occasionally dramatically so, which would have occurred if the big banks were broken up and GM was allowed to fail. This old growth has to periodically be allowed to fall all the way to the ground to create what economist Jim Grant called "the forest floor" from which vibrant new growth can occur. Modern people have become so far removed from reality, to the point that they have become unaware of the natural state of ecosystems, which are based on sustainability and scarcity. Nature and economies are beholden to the same rules set in place by God, inherent in physics and thermodynamics, and will not bend for long to the feeble constructs of ego dependent man in his vain attempts to bend the rules in his favor toward ever increasing comfort and equal outcomes. There is a majority of voters now that will not support politicians who they don't think will deliver on promises to take care of all their "needs."  This has allowed politicians, steeped in social justice, and the academics at the Fed, steeped in Keynes to collude to embark on a unprecedented monetary and fiscal path which has undoubtably hurt savers, pulled demand from the future, while simultaneously funding Styer, Soros, Buffet, et al at zero, created legions of people totally dependent on government, and created bubbles everywhere including a huge commodity bubble that has popped. Burgeoning student debt and stock market bubbles are also at risk now of rather dramatic shifts toward their equilibrium. Further stimulus will be necessary sooner than later, and will be just another band aide, but the underlying infection is undoubtedly growing more critical. In fact Fischer at the Fed just gave a speech priming the pump for negative interest rates. 

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, gloom and doom on Monday morning... 

A couple of points that maybe are worth considering.   First, population growth in the developed world has basically ceased.  Go look at birth rates in the various countries in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.  As a result, the population in those countries is increasing in average age, which is what would be expected when there are fewer children born.  As people age they need less stuff. 

Second, there are many workers world wide and especially in the developed world for whom there are no jobs, either due to lack of training or ability or due to sheer numbers.  Automation is reducing the demand for labor of all kinds. 

As I have said before to those who rail against government spending, what is the solution for dealing with large numbers of people who don't and will probably never have any realistic chance of employment? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

Ah, gloom and doom on Monday morning... 

A couple of points that maybe are worth considering.   First, population growth in the developed world has basically ceased.  Go look at birth rates in the various countries in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.  As a result, the population in those countries is increasing in average age, which is what would be expected when there are fewer children born.  As people age they need less stuff. 

Second, there are many workers world wide and especially in the developed world for whom there are no jobs, either due to lack of training or ability or due to sheer numbers.  Automation is reducing the demand for labor of all kinds. 

As I have said before to those who rail against government spending, what is the solution for dealing with large numbers of people who don't and will probably never have any realistic chance of employment? 

 

 

Ah...socialist utopia, perhaps?...

The real question is, why does socialist utopia require deficit spending?  If it is indeed, sustainable?

Edited by swamptiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

 

Ah...socialist utopia, perhaps?...

The real question is, why does socialist utopia require deficit spending?

I don't know.   Deficit spending is not required whatever the policies, however a certain amount of government bonds seem to be useful in the financial system.  

Socialism implies government ownership.  No sane person wants that, although there are some things that are "natural monopolies" that need something resembling it, classic examples being utility distribution infrastructure such as natural gas lines or electrical distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't know.   Deficit spending is not required whatever the policies, however a certain amount of government bonds seem to be useful in the financial system. 

 

If the system is truly sustainable, there should be no need for deficit spending, however it is the nature of politicians to promise more than they can actually physically deliver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Nah.  If inflation is 3% (yeah I know the target is 2%), in 20 years or so the debt is reduced by half, as a portion of GDP.   That's how we got rid of the LBJ guns and butter debt.  

Del is absolutely correct, inflation is how they plan to "reduce" the debt.  This is the plan held by even the most "conservative" of republicans out there in the house budget resolutions I've read.  Check the "path to prosperity" for details, but the gist is that debt is expected to increase, but at a much lower rate than it is today (and lower than inflation).  Since GDP growth will (in theory) outpace debt growth, their idea of "reducing" debt is only a facade -- they reduce it not in total dollars but as a percent of GDP.  Here's a couple highlights that I pulled, and a link to the entire thing:

https://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy15_blueprint.pdf

 

prosperity.jpg

 

prosperity2.jpg

 

 

Notice in the bottom picture how they plan to "reduce" it from 73% of GDP to 56% in the first decade of GDP inflation.  They plan to spend 2 decades more letting GDP inflate to where debt is down around 30%, according to the chart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Del is absolutely correct, inflation is how they plan to "reduce" the debt.  This is the plan held by even the most "conservative" of republicans out there in the house budget resolutions I've read.

 

Which Republicans are the "most conservative"?

 

 

I guess it could be these guys:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/27-gop-senators-disapprove-of-their-own-vote-on-the-debt-ceiling

Edited by swamptiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swampy if you notice I put conservative in quotes, because none of them are conservative.  If they were, they wouldn't be talking about growing the debt and later claiming it's shrinking only because its growth has been reduced to a rate slower rate than projected inflation.  There are a few that are more "conservative" than others, but none serious efforts are being made anywhere for actually balancing budgets or (heaven forbid) paying down the debt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aanderud said:

Swampy if you notice I put conservative in quotes, because none of them are conservative.  If they were, they wouldn't be talking about growing the debt and later claiming it's shrinking only because its growth has been reduced to a rate slower rate than projected inflation.  There are a few that are more "conservative" than others, but none serious efforts are being made anywhere for actually balancing budgets or (heaven forbid) paying down the debt.  

Agreed.  Not happening, and not going to happen in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0