Trump states that this is the time to increase the national debt

[PolishHeadlock]

TBH not all that many people who scream about the debt are fiscal conservatives. All they know is that it's a buzzword to hit Obama with which sounds like a criticism of "liberal policies" to those who don't understand anything about economics.

The thing is most people think of national debt as credit card debt. So it makes sense that people who are fiscally responsible in their personal lives would look at our national debt and think "WTF?!?!"

They see all the memes with "You make $30K a year and $1,000,000 in credit card debt."

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

The thing is most people think of national debt as credit card debt. So it makes sense that people who are fiscally responsible in their personal lives would look at our national debt and think "WTF?!?!"

They see all the memes with "You make $30K a year and $1,000,000 in credit card debt."

 

[Jack V Savage]

The debt hysteria we saw from Republicans while Dems were trying to get us out of the GFC was pretense. The debt is very low on Republicans' list of concerns. Cutting rich people's taxes is a lot more important.

It's a deeper process. Slash revenue by cutting taxes on rich people (often sold with much smaller cuts that affect regular people), watch deficits rise, claim that high deficits are a result of a too-generous safety net, call for cuts to the safety net (often in sadness--it would be nice if we could ensure that kids don't starve, but we just can't afford it). To Trump's credit, despite his idiotic comments about eliminating the debt, he never seemed to buy any part of it but the initial cuts. Another reason why his support proves that the GOP base really only cares about identity politics (and the capitulation of GOP elites proves that they really only care about tax cuts for the rich).

Anyway, good to see Trump get one issue sort of right.

 

[Tekk]

You're a liberal who is inept at using logic.

Mr. Trump's policy on debt is based on a principle he created called Schrödinger's Debt. Simply put (for your liberal pea brain), under Mr. Trump's plan, the debt can be both paid off and increased at the same time and its quantum state can change based on when policy is being interpreted by Mr. Trump. Its not a contradiction. Last week, his policy would have eliminated the debt in 8 years. That was true. This week, it will increase the national debt. This is also true. Next week, it may be deficit neutral and neither increase nor decrease the national debt. Its complex physics but the math works because Republican concern over the national debt is also a quantum state that changes based on who is President.

Seriously had me for a second.
You win sherdog post of the day.

 

[ehtheist]

Ha ha... Hillary wants to raise taxes on the middle class and Trump wants to increase the debt. Boy are these two going to confuse the pop-economic voter base.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

It's a deeper process. Slash revenue by cutting taxes on rich people (often sold with much smaller cuts that affect regular people), watch deficits rise, claim that high deficits are a result of a too-generous safety net, call for cuts to the safety net (often in sadness--it would be nice if we could ensure that kids don't starve, but we just can't afford it). To Trump's credit, despite his idiotic comments about eliminating the debt, he never seemed to buy any part of it but the initial cuts. Another reason why his support proves that the GOP base really only cares about identity politics (and the capitulation of GOP elites proves that they really only care about tax cuts for the rich).

Anyway, good to see Trump get one issue sort of right.

Yup, just like claiming "government doesn't work", understaffing regulatory agencies, and then citing a public problem as evidence that the government is too big and spending needs to be cut.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ha ha... Hillary wants to raise taxes on the middle class and Trump wants to increase the debt. Boy are these two going to confuse the pop-economic voter base.

Clinton has no plan to raise taxes on the middle class (a mistake, IMO). And the "pop-economic voter base" doesn't give a shit about the debt.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Lol I can't believe nobody has defended him yet.

I'll try

"These proposals will be watered down once he's in office, like everything else"

And

"Hillary would be worse, she'll get us nuked by terrorists"

Do I win?

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

Seriously had me for a second.
You win sherdog post of the day.

Lol agreed. Great post.

 

[Fawlty]

You're a liberal who is inept at using logic.

Mr. Trump's policy on debt is based on a principle he created called Schrödinger's Debt. Simply put (for your liberal pea brain), under Mr. Trump's plan, the debt can be both paid off and increased at the same time and its quantum state can change based on when policy is being interpreted by Mr. Trump. Its not a contradiction. Last week, his policy would have eliminated the debt in 8 years. That was true. This week, it will increase the national debt. This is also true. Next week, it may be deficit neutral and neither increase nor decrease the national debt. Its complex physics but the math works because Republican concern over the national debt is also a quantum state that changes based on who is President.

Awesome. His net worth seems to work the same way.

 

[Fatchops]

You're a liberal who is inept at using logic.

Mr. Trump's policy on debt is based on a principle he created called Schrödinger's Debt. Simply put (for your liberal pea brain), under Mr. Trump's plan, the debt can be both paid off and increased at the same time and its quantum state can change based on when policy is being interpreted by Mr. Trump. Its not a contradiction. Last week, his policy would have eliminated the debt in 8 years. That was true. This week, it will increase the national debt. This is also true. Next week, it may be deficit neutral and neither increase nor decrease the national debt. Its complex physics but the math works because Republican concern over the national debt is also a quantum state that changes based on who is President.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Awesome. His net worth seems to work the same way.

Everything works that way to him:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/

 

[ehtheist]

Clinton has no plan to raise taxes on the middle class (a mistake, IMO). And the "pop-economic voter base" doesn't give a shit about the debt.

Oh, my bad. And here I thought politicians practically trip over themselves to make the claim “I’ve lowered the debt/deficit” or promise that they will lower the debt/deficit (most people think they’re the same thing) because the voter base thinks it’s just peaches and cream to do so. Silly me!

Curious, have you ever asked the average, relatively uninformed voter “do you think it’s better to raise or lower national debt” before?... I find it's one of the few economic issues that voters actually care about, even if they don't understand why they care about it. They all but titter with joy when they hear analogies about credit cards and house budgets and whatnot.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

You're a liberal who is inept at using logic.

Mr. Trump's policy on debt is based on a principle he created called Schrödinger's Debt. Simply put (for your liberal pea brain), under Mr. Trump's plan, the debt can be both paid off and increased at the same time and its quantum state can change based on when policy is being interpreted by Mr. Trump. Its not a contradiction. Last week, his policy would have eliminated the debt in 8 years. That was true. This week, it will increase the national debt. This is also true. Next week, it may be deficit neutral and neither increase nor decrease the national debt. Its complex physics but the math works because Republican concern over the national debt is also a quantum state that changes based on who is President.

Quoted because this post should be on every page of this thread lol

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh, my bad. And here I thought politicians practically trip over themselves to make the claim “I’ve lowered the debt/deficit” or promise that they will lower the debt/deficit (most people think they’re the same thing) because the voter base thinks it’s just peaches and cream to do so. Silly me!

Curious, have you ever asked the average, relatively uninformed voter “do you think it’s better to raise or lower national debt” before?... I find it's one of the few economic issues that voters actually care about, even if they don't understand why they care about it. They all but titter with joy when they hear analogies about credit cards and house budgets and whatnot.

Voters don't care about the debt. The media cares, and right-wing donors care, and so politicians talk about it. But rising or falling debt has no effect on voters' perceptions. Indeed, voters don't even know. They generally assume that debt is rising if they don't like the president or falling if they do, regardless of facts (for example, most Republican voters think that deficits rose under Clinton, even when they fell to surpluses).

Also, no "my bad" on the other thing?

 

[ehtheist]

Voters don't care about the debt. The media cares, and right-wing donors care, and so politicians talk about it. But rising or falling debt has no effect on voters' perceptions. Indeed, voters don't even know. They generally assume that debt is rising if they don't like the president or falling if they do, regardless of facts (for example, most Republican voters think that deficits rose under Clinton, even when they fell to surpluses).

Also, no "my bad" on the other thing?

Meh, as you like it. Voters lap up talk about lowering debt because they oftentimes look at state debt in terms of household debt and you get a lot of people who think that the goal should be to eliminate the debt. So politicians think it's important to voters, the media does, but according to you, voters don't actually care? Have you ever asked a voter? It's hardly the pivotal point of an election but to say "voters don't care about debt" is... Well, whatever. At this point I think you just like to be contrary when I say something.

"An overwhelming majority of Americans, 82 percent, say the long-term national debt is an important factor when it comes to deciding how they will vote in the November midterm elections, according to a new poll released today by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation."

http://www.pgpf.org/press-release/m...ctor-in-deciding-their-vote-this-election-day

And what's the "other thing"? My reference a rather funny Freudian slip/blunder that Hillary made?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Meh, as you like it. Voters lap up talk about lowering debt because they oftentimes look at state debt in terms of household debt and you get a lot of people who think that the goal should be to eliminate the debt. So politicians think it's important to voters, the media does, but according to you, voters don't actually care? Have you ever asked a voter? It's hardly the pivotal point of an election but to say "voters don't care about debt" is... Well, whatever. At this point I think you just like to be contrary when I say something.

Damn, you're defensive and paranoid, huh? I've made this point several times before you ever showed up here, and it's pretty widely known among political scientists. As I said, voters don't even know the basic facts about debt. The media openly roots for the right on the issue, and Republican donors care (and, as dumb as it is, I think it's genuine--I hear a lot of smart, wealthy finance types make anti-debt comments privately).

"An overwhelming majority of Americans, 82 percent, say the long-term national debt is an important factor when it comes to deciding how they will vote in the November midterm elections, according to a new poll released today by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation."

Yeah, Pete Peterson's life mission is to convince politicians to try to reduce the debt (only in ways friendly to the right, though, of course--not like he advocates tax hikes). No one takes that kind of thing seriously. As I noted, most Republican voters think that deficits rose under both Clinton and Obama. Even here in the WR, where people presumably follow politics much more closely than the average voter, you see idiots who think that Obama caused debt to rise.

And what's the "other thing"? My reference a rather funny Freudian slip/blunder that Hillary made?

I see, so it was just a "joke" not a lie or mistake. And, actually, there was no slip or blunder--it was just the Trump campaign lying. Interesting that you're repeating it...

 

[ehtheist]

Damn, you're defensive and paranoid, huh? I've made this point several times before you ever showed up here, and it's pretty widely known among political scientists. As I said, voters don't even know the basic facts about debt. The media openly roots for the right on the issue, and Republican donors care (and, as dumb as it is, I think it's genuine--I hear a lot of smart, wealthy finance types make anti-debt comments privately).

I never said voters knew much about debt. In fact, I pretty clearly said they don't understand the difference between debt and differences. But go figure, I provide a poll showing that as recently as 2014 a significant group of voters said it was an important issue. Now, before you start in with polls showing that it is not the top issues, that's never the claim that was made. Many voters consider debt an important issue, though sometimes they'll take a stance of "It's important, but in a weak economy job creation is moreso."

So, to recap, I provide a poll showing that voters consider debt to be important. Not the most important issue, not something they have a firm understanding of, or even something they follow - but important. Your response is to ramble on, with no sources contradicting the poll I presented, about voters not understanding it? Presumable with you being ignorant of you rambling on about a different claim than the one I made?...

Yeah, Pete Peterson's life mission is to convince politicians to try to reduce the debt (only in ways friendly to the right, though, of course--not like he advocates tax hikes). No one takes that kind of thing seriously. As I noted, most Republican voters think that deficits rose under both Clinton and Obama. Even here in the WR, where people presumably follow politics much more closely than the average voter, you see idiots who think that Obama caused debt to rise.

Do you actually have a substantiated position here, or is this just another edition of "because Jack said so"? The voter not having a damned clue about what's actually happening with the debt doesn't change that they think it's important. This is hardly a debt specific phenomenon.

I see, so it was just a "joke" not a lie or mistake. And, actually, there was no slip or blunder--it was just the Trump campaign lying. Interesting that you're repeating it...

I was repeating a very funny blunder on her part... Could you explain how this is interesting? If I were to make a comment about Trump saying "titties" in one of his speeches, would this also be "interesting" to you? I just spent half my morning grilling Hans on what the hell he expects to happen if Trump gets in - but let me guess, you either didn't see that or choose to ignore it in the face of my rampant pro-Trump bias? Besides, can't I just completely ignore parts of your posts like you frequently do to mine?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So, to recap, I provide a poll showing that voters consider debt to be important. Not the most important issue, not something they have a firm understanding of, or even something they follow - but important. Your response is to ramble on, with no sources contradicting the poll I presented, about voters not understanding it? Presumable with you being ignorant of you rambling on about a different claim than the one I made?...

Your source is someone who has made debt his life's mission. It's obviously misleading and out of line with the majority of work done on the subject.

Here's a more balanced (and much-better-argued) piece on the issue:

http://themonkeycage.org/2010/06/do_americans_really_want_to_cu/

And, again, that's widely known.

Do you actually have a substantiated position here, or is this just another edition of "because Jack said so"? The voter not having a damned clue about what's actually happening with the debt doesn't change that they think it's important. This is hardly a debt specific phenomenon.

Apologies for assuming you had some knowledge that you don't have. As I said, it's pretty widely known by people who really care about this issue, but obviously not everyone does.

I was repeating a very funny blunder on her part... Could you explain how this is interesting?

Because there was no blunder. There was just Trump's campaign deliberately misquoting a speech (of which video is actually available!). It's interesting because sometimes you pretend to be some kind of moderate with no preference in the election but other times you're openly repeating dishonest campaign claims from one party.

And I don't know, if I made a false claim and someone corrected it, I'd feel an obligation to acknowledge that (at least a "thanks" or something). I guess different people hold themselves to different moral standards, though.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Is this the general election pivot we've been waiting for?