OT: USA 2024 Elections Thread Part # 2 (November 5th is Election Day!)

[robillionaire]

Yup, who’s the coward. I know you can’t articulate yourself live, it’s ok. You can write left propaganda but can’t debate your points live without a keyboard. Coward.

I am putting my shoes on to go to work and I have a life, I don’t want to interact with some weird fascist debate bro. This is my final reply, go be weird with someone else

The only people who need to debate in-person and can't defend their ideas through written words are the ones who are just gonna shout over you and gish gallop

It's like how Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk can look good when "debating" freshmen in college off the street, but the moment they go up against an adult who actually knows what they're talking about, they get humiliated. Ben Shapiro's complete meltdown on the BBC is the prime example.

I’m just not interested. I would much rather prefer to speak to like-minded people about how we survive this after it’s done. Probably dipping from these conversations after this as I’ve said all I want on the topic

[dakomish23]

Aug 10th - a neo Nazi group, Blood Tribe, protests about the influx of LEGAL Haitian immigrants into Springfield
Aug 16th - an AMERICAN BORN woman eats a cat in Canton
Aug 27th - the leader of Blood Tribe makes a bigoted speech at the Springfield city meeting
Sep 9th - Vance tweets that Haitian ILLEGALS are eating people’s pets
Sep 10th - Trump screams they’re eating the pets on the debate stage
Following weeks - over 33 bomb threats called in

“STOP CALLING US NAZIS YOU JUST DONT GET COMEDY!!!”

[spree8]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

[dakomish23]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

I know how we don’t do it

Read on Twitter

[spree8]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

I know how we don’t do it

Read on Twitter

True. Is he right about drilling tho? I’ve seen other experts talking about energy being the only viable way to get ourselves out.

[dakomish23]

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I think people like you are a part of the problem. You post on a basketball forum about this hysteria 24/7 and watch propaganda news all day and post things proven to be false. You also accuse others with opposing viewpoints as feeling superior when all you do is condescend and hurl personal attacks. You need to seriously look in the mirror, or maybe go outside for a change and get some fresh air. The world out there isn’t as combative as it is in here. You’re becoming unhinged dude.

The road to fascism is paved with people telling you you’re over reacting. Yet another example of the gaslighting after we just watched a nazi rally at msg. I don’t think I’m better than anybody. I’ve looked at history and see what this is and it’s terrifying

Shut up about fascism and a Nazi rally. As a Jewish person, it is beyond offensive to call this a nazi rally. RFJ, Elon, Tulsi are all Nazis? Enough is enough. Do you even hear yourself.

Please go outside and experience the real world. This realgm thread is like a CNN or MSNBc broadcast totally void of any reality.

I wish we can debate this LIVE, let’s see how well you can articulate yourself on the spot? I would shred you full stop

Being a pick me doesn't change the reality of what it was. A Nazi rally.

[rajajackal]

Cool, I don’t see non Kamala voters as morally superior to Trump voters either since they are taking direct actions to enable fascism so it is what it is. Good luck in the wasteland

i believe third party votes will probably help kamala more than trump tbh. a lot of what got trump into the white house in 2016 was the disgruntled protest vote. now there are clearer alternatives to express that, specifically on the topic of whether ethnic cleansing sponsored by the united states is a red line or not

I mean at the end of the day I agree with your position re: Palestine and even support using leverage with an arms embargo to stop it, I just don’t think that this action to elect Trump is good from a strategic standpoint even if that was the only thing I care about, which it isn’t. Also Netanyahu is refusing a ceasefire strictly to help elect Trump. This isn’t about the election I’m just articulating my position

i don't think it elects trump because 1. i live in new york city, 2. i think protest votes take away from trump, not kamala. kamala has the unanimous support of complacent voters. like i said before, those protest votes that got trump past the finish line in 2016 are being decentralized by the offering of clear-cut pro-palestine candidates

my vote is not concerned with kamala or trump. my goal is to contribute to a notable collective statement by the electorate that committing genocide will cost votes. i feel it would be cowardly to leave muslims on their own in that endeavor. it is essential that the results of this election reflect the will of the people. we are left with a variation of "nazi", if we are using that word liberally, in office regardless

[Stannis]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

Apply for a bunch of new credit cards that offer balance transfer sign-up bonuses.

[Capn'O]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

I'd love to hear an analysis of the potential impacts of the two candidates' proposals if you have it.

[Iamphilhughes]

Yup, who’s the coward. I know you can’t articulate yourself live, it’s ok. You can write left propaganda but can’t debate your points live without a keyboard. Coward.

I am putting my shoes on to go to work and I have a life, I don’t want to interact with some weird fascist debate bro. This is my final reply, go be weird with someone else

The only people who need to debate in-person and can't defend their ideas through written words are the ones who are just gonna shout over you and gish gallop

It's like how Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk can look good when "debating" freshmen in college off the street, but the moment they go up against an adult who actually knows what they're talking about, they get humiliated. Ben Shapiro's complete meltdown on the BBC is the prime example.

I wouldn’t shout or call anyone names. I’d be respectful. May I ask why you automatically assume I’d “Gish gallop”? I’ve only watched a handful of Charlie Kirk on YT but I agree, he’s annoying and grating.

Respectfully, your post seems to be making quite a bit of generalizations but I do appreciate the somewhat civil discourse

[St Knick]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

Apply for a bunch of new credit cards that offer balance transfer sign-up bonuses.

LOL now that was funny, and relatable

[DOT]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

I'd love to hear an analysis of the potential impacts of the two candidates' proposals if you have it.

If you actually want some detailed analysis, here you go:

https://www.crfb.org/papers/fiscal-impact-harris-and-trump-campaign-plans

Basically, the deficit is going up no matter who wins, but Kamala's plans will add less because she's offsetting them with tax increases on billionaires. Meanwhile Trump's plans would rely on cutting necessary social services as well as being solely reliant on tariffs, which is a tax on the middle and lower class (and this isn't getting into the further economic ramifications of those tariffs which would be disastrous because we know for a fact you can't fund the government from tariffs, we've tried that in the past and it was awful)

To oversimplify it, the debt will go up either way, but who benefits changes. Under Trump, it will be the rich, under Kamala, it will still be the rich but also the middle and lower classes to a degree

Trump's just another spend-and-don't-tax Republican, he wants to increase spending on stuff we don't need while not compensating for it. To put it simply, while you could not describe either candidate as fiscally conservative, Kamala's overall plan is significantly closer to being fiscally conservative than Trump's, if we agree that "fiscally conservative" means reducing spending and increasing funding, and not "whatever I need to justify voting Republican".

[spree8]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

I'd love to hear an analysis of the potential impacts of the two candidates' proposals if you have it.

I wish… all I hear tho is that economists say that Trump’s would kill us and Kamala’s would be great. I dunno what Kamala’s plan even is. I just hear her praise Bidenomics, price controls (which might backfire) and offer 25k for first time home buyers (which is a great idea but dunno how that helps with the debt). Trump I just hear his tax cuts for business owners/the rich and drilling.

There’s obviously so much more to it but we’ll never hear all those details (like all the money that just disappeared at the Pentagon recently or even back when Rumsfeld admitted to not being able to track 2.3 trillion).

[St Knick]

Non-partisan advice: buy and invest (long term) in Bitcoin, which should continue to rise in value as our gov't continues to inflate our money.

[Stannis]

Read on Twitter

[Capn'O]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

I'd love to hear an analysis of the potential impacts of the two candidates' proposals if you have it.

If you actually want some detailed analysis, here you go:

https://www.crfb.org/papers/fiscal-impact-harris-and-trump-campaign-plans

Basically, the deficit is going up no matter who wins, but Kamala's plans will add less because she's offsetting them with tax increases on billionaires. Meanwhile Trump's plans would rely on cutting necessary social services as well as being solely reliant on tariffs, which is a tax on the middle and lower class (and this isn't getting into the further economic ramifications of those tariffs which would be disastrous because we know for a fact you can't fund the government from tariffs, we've tried that in the past and it was awful)

To oversimplify it, the debt will go up either way, but who benefits changes. Under Trump, it will be the rich, under Kamala, it will still be the rich but also the middle and lower classes to a degree

Trump's just another spend-and-don't-tax Republican, he wants to increase spending on stuff we don't need while not compensating for it. To put it simply, while you could not describe either candidate as fiscally conservative, Kamala's overall plan is significantly closer to being fiscally conservative than Trump's, if we agree that "fiscally conservative" means reducing spending and increasing funding, and not "whatever I need to justify voting Republican".

Thanks DOT. As I think you suspected, my question was at once academic as I have not myself done the deep dive on this issue and rhetorical/instructive. The side of politics that actually impacts people is in the details. A healthier debate arises out of fundamental understanding of these policies and a back and forth on the short and long term impacts of these respective policies on American families. I implore everyone do the policy work for matters you care about and then push candidates on either side towards outcomes that work better for you. This **** ain't easy and this idea that "anyone could do a better job" that's been floating around these days is nonsense and destructive. Policy is high level work. Getting your head around it _should_ be hard.

A lot of the "Both Sides" ism is a result of that fundamental policy illiteracy you mentioned previously. There is a fairly substantial gulf in the policy objectives of each party on each foundational issue and most media outlets spend the majority of their times discussing what they think sells the best. But the foundational information is available.


I'll take some of the hit myself. In the past I've been much more fluent in policy positions of the candidates up and down the line but with kids and new rabbits and stuff I've mostly been playing my greatest hits in these debates. Even with that, not as frequently as I would have in the past.

[Capn'O]

Read on Twitter

Well, it wasn't ours apparently. We just dropped this morning.

[robillionaire]

i believe third party votes will probably help kamala more than trump tbh. a lot of what got trump into the white house in 2016 was the disgruntled protest vote. now there are clearer alternatives to express that, specifically on the topic of whether ethnic cleansing sponsored by the united states is a red line or not

I mean at the end of the day I agree with your position re: Palestine and even support using leverage with an arms embargo to stop it, I just don’t think that this action to elect Trump is good from a strategic standpoint even if that was the only thing I care about, which it isn’t. Also Netanyahu is refusing a ceasefire strictly to help elect Trump. This isn’t about the election I’m just articulating my position

my vote is not concerned with kamala or trump

Well you don’t feel that way from your own personal moral standpoint which I accept but strictly from a material reality standpoint it does have an impact, and I have to look at the situation from the material perspective that one of them is going to be president and any action or inaction I make does have an impact on that whether I like it or not

Also we are all complicit in what’s happening over there, anybody that pays any tax dollars (everybody) is funding this, I’d have to move out of the country to stop paying taxes or self immolate. I wake up Nov 6, Trump is our Putin, votes and leverage no longer matter, what happens then

[Stannis]

Georgia (the country) just finished elections, and it looks like the Pro-Russia party won by a wide margin.

[StlHawksFan]

So for the online economic experts out here, how exactly do we get out of 35 trillion in debt?

As an actual economist, the short answer is we don't because it doesn't matter as long as we can if need be.

I know that doesn't make much sense but think about it like a mortgage. If you borrow $1,000,000 to buy a house worth $1,250,000 the bank uses the difference as equity knowing they can seize the house if you don't pay. That's what makes your debt worth something.

Likewise with a government (local, state, or federal), the debt that is issued theough bonds have value because investors trust that they will be paid off eventually. So just as with a home purchase, the important thing to maintain is value. Basically as long as the economy is growing faster than the debt is growing (i.e. the deficit) there are never going to be problems with holding that debt. And even if the debt does top gdp, that still does not automatically signal a problem to investors.

Now as to the question of how can it be paid off? Quite simple on paper but impossible legislatively:
1. Raise taxes by adding in additional brackets. Individual states that have added additional brackets have been able to reduce deficit spending.
2. Cut big ticket discretionary budget items. For example, the military budget is half of all discretionary spending in the US. In most NATO countries it's less than 2% of GDP. In the US it's roughly double that.
3. Raise the qualifying age for Social Security and Medicare to 75. The average life expectancy of a man when SS was introduced was 59.9. Full benefits kicked in at age 65. It was raised to 67 in 1983 when life expectancy was 74.5. Now it's 79.3. That's a lot of payout years on average!