Political Roundtable Part XIII

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

Hannity looked like he was about to cry.

Hannity is probably the dumbest man on TV

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

Don't think I've ever heard of that source...

[AFM]

I wouldn't necessarily balance the budget. For reasons I've explained before we can have a deficit of about $200 billion without increasing our debt to GDP ratio. But we do need to get that ratio down from 100% to 70%, so we'll have to cut corners.

Yup, this is a hard concept. I think around 50% but I can understand 70%. Either way - we are headed toward 200+% and that is all but unworkable.

First thing I would do is cut the military's budget in half, then I would dramatically increase rich people's contribution to medicare and I would increase the retirement cutoff for social security to be equal to the average US life expectancy, plus I would increase the salary cutoff for contributing to SS. I would raise tax revenue by eliminating subsidies for oil production and other corporate tax subsidies.

And you would have both sides screaming. And that is why this has to be a bipartisan approach. Move back retirement cutoffs and Pelosi is going to cry CUTS, CUTs, CUTs. Same with the defense hawks.

Sadly we haven't had one of those approaches since a couple of administrations back...

It's really simple to say what has to happen to balance the budget. No one has the cojones to actually *do* it. There's no point in arguing what has to be done - big expenditures have to go down, revenues have to go up. The big ticket items are the military, healthcare expenditures, and social security. The big leakages on the revenues side are the tax cuts over the past 30 years and the maintenance of various tax subsidy handouts to big oil and such.

Although I would point out - we are still at around 20% of GDP for revenue. So, our spending problem >>>>>> than our revenue problem.

Thought you'd enjoy this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-26/nightmare-scenario-gop-funding-hole-much-2-trillion-bigger

[sfam]

I wouldn't necessarily balance the budget. For reasons I've explained before we can have a deficit of about $200 billion without increasing our debt to GDP ratio. But we do need to get that ratio down from 100% to 70%, so we'll have to cut corners.

Yup, this is a hard concept. I think around 50% but I can understand 70%. Either way - we are headed toward 200+% and that is all but unworkable.

First thing I would do is cut the military's budget in half, then I would dramatically increase rich people's contribution to medicare and I would increase the retirement cutoff for social security to be equal to the average US life expectancy, plus I would increase the salary cutoff for contributing to SS. I would raise tax revenue by eliminating subsidies for oil production and other corporate tax subsidies.

And you would have both sides screaming. And that is why this has to be a bipartisan approach. Move back retirement cutoffs and Pelosi is going to cry CUTS, CUTs, CUTs. Same with the defense hawks.

Sadly we haven't had one of those approaches since a couple of administrations back...

It's really simple to say what has to happen to balance the budget. No one has the cojones to actually *do* it. There's no point in arguing what has to be done - big expenditures have to go down, revenues have to go up. The big ticket items are the military, healthcare expenditures, and social security. The big leakages on the revenues side are the tax cuts over the past 30 years and the maintenance of various tax subsidy handouts to big oil and such.

Although I would point out - we are still at around 20% of GDP for revenue. So, our spending problem >>>>>> than our revenue problem.

Thought you'd enjoy this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-26/nightmare-scenario-gop-funding-hole-much-2-trillion-bigger

This is a good read, but I think gives too much credit to the Trump/Ryan team for rational planning. I don't think there was ever a viable plan to get to 4% growth, but that article makes it sound like if Ryan's horrifically horrendous health plan passed, then they could get to 4% growth with the savings from killing off seniors. That seems a pretty big stretch. They were at the outer limit of rosy forecasts with what they could do.

Now, as the article points out, even their rosy forecasts have to be thrown out.

[sfam]

Its always great to see our incoming Air Force Secretary breaking their ties with Gazprom before taking office. Always a good sign.

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

Free and fair elections, folks.

The proliferation of fake news, particularly via social media, has been blamed for distorting public perceptions and political debate in several western countries, while some political leaders have seized upon the term to selectively dismiss credible but critical news coverage.

OII researchers prefer the term ‘junk news’, defining it as “various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan or conspiratorial political news and information”.

Professional news, defined as political news and information by outlets that display the qualities of professional journalism, constituted another 23 per cent of the links tweeted by the Michigan group, suggesting that this content was no more likely to be shared than fake news.

The researchers also categorised links to Russian-origin news stories and unverified WikiLeaks content. Taken together with fake news, content in these three categories was shared more widely overall than professional news.

[Induveca]

Its always great to see our incoming Air Force Secretary breaking their ties with Gazprom before taking office. Always a good sign.

Read on Twitter

FYI, I've owned stock in Gazprom since 2001 via funds. You may as well. Divesting means selling your stock.

Gazprom is in the top 50 of the global Fortune 500 and a staple of asset management all around the world. Your 401k, if you've indicated foreign stocks 100% has Gazprom in its portfolio.

[bealwithit]

Its always great to see our incoming Air Force Secretary breaking their ties with Gazprom before taking office. Always a good sign.

FYI, I've owned stock in Gazprom since 2001 via funds. You may as well. Divesting means selling your stock.

Gazprom is in the top 50 of the global Fortune 500 and a staple of asset management all around the world. Your 401k, if you've indicated foreign stocks 100% has Gazprom in its portfolio.

No wonder you love Wikileaks so much!

[gtn130]

Its always great to see our incoming Air Force Secretary breaking their ties with Gazprom before taking office. Always a good sign.

FYI, I've owned stock in Gazprom since 2001 via funds. You may as well. Divesting means selling your stock.

Gazprom is in the top 50 of the global Fortune 500 and a staple of asset management all around the world. Your 401k, if you've indicated foreign stocks 100% has Gazprom in its portfolio.

No wonder you love Wikileaks so much!

[dckingsfan]

I wouldn't necessarily balance the budget. For reasons I've explained before we can have a deficit of about $200 billion without increasing our debt to GDP ratio. But we do need to get that ratio down from 100% to 70%, so we'll have to cut corners.

Yup, this is a hard concept. I think around 50% but I can understand 70%. Either way - we are headed toward 200+% and that is all but unworkable.

First thing I would do is cut the military's budget in half, then I would dramatically increase rich people's contribution to medicare and I would increase the retirement cutoff for social security to be equal to the average US life expectancy, plus I would increase the salary cutoff for contributing to SS. I would raise tax revenue by eliminating subsidies for oil production and other corporate tax subsidies.

And you would have both sides screaming. And that is why this has to be a bipartisan approach. Move back retirement cutoffs and Pelosi is going to cry CUTS, CUTs, CUTs. Same with the defense hawks.

Sadly we haven't had one of those approaches since a couple of administrations back...

It's really simple to say what has to happen to balance the budget. No one has the cojones to actually *do* it. There's no point in arguing what has to be done - big expenditures have to go down, revenues have to go up. The big ticket items are the military, healthcare expenditures, and social security. The big leakages on the revenues side are the tax cuts over the past 30 years and the maintenance of various tax subsidy handouts to big oil and such.

Although I would point out - we are still at around 20% of GDP for revenue. So, our spending problem >>>>>> than our revenue problem.

Thought you'd enjoy this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-26/nightmare-scenario-gop-funding-hole-much-2-trillion-bigger

Yup, solid analysis. This is why they wanted to take on the ACA first.

You can't pass a bill without 60 votes in the senate that would have an impact on the deficit. By collecting up the $1T from the ACA repeal first, they could revamp the tax code and make it revenue neutral. (BTW, they did tricks to get ACA through by putting in taxes and penalties that they never collected - and now the Rs would get a tax benefit on those same taxes that were never collected - hahaha).

Streamlining the tax code (if done right) would produce increased growth. (why we tax overseas profits - smh - that would be a lot of investment $$s coming back into the economy - even the most progressive states don't do this). To that end, Ryan had it right.

Of course if either side tries to fix anything will be evil grandma/baby killers. It is going to be fascinating watching Ryan try to explain what is happening to our budget. All the other side has to do is yell - your taking food out of xxx's mouth!!!

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Induveca]

Its always great to see our incoming Air Force Secretary breaking their ties with Gazprom before taking office. Always a good sign.

FYI, I've owned stock in Gazprom since 2001 via funds. You may as well. Divesting means selling your stock.

Gazprom is in the top 50 of the global Fortune 500 and a staple of asset management all around the world. Your 401k, if you've indicated foreign stocks 100% has Gazprom in its portfolio.

No wonder you love Wikileaks so much!

Merely trying to educate, divest is the opposite of invest. In other words the person sold off Gazprom stock in his/her emerging market bond fund.

This is how ridiculous things have become. Every single emerging market fund has many major Russian firms, hence emerging markets. Billions exchange hands everyday by hundreds of thousands of Americans who divert a portion of their income into 401ks. If you ever checked that "emerging market" box (or energy focused funds) while choosing your 401k. You own Gazprom (and likely Lukoil, also Russian, and also have gas stations of the same name all over Jersey at least)

But of course, the majority have zero clue how the markets work, and fall for the headlines. Ignorance isn't bliss, but it can certainly be convenient.

And yes, I do support Wikileaks. ::drumroll::

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

I hate wikileaks when they post stuff about Dems but love them when they leak things about Trump.

[Wizardspride]

I hate wikileaks when they post stuff about Dems but love them when they leak things about Trump.

[Induveca]

I hate wikileaks when they post stuff about Dems but love them when they leak things about Trump.

+1 for the honesty. I have zero issue if/when they dump data on Trump.

[dckingsfan]

I hate wikileaks when they post stuff about Dems but love them when they leak things about Trump.

+1 for the honesty. I have zero issue if/when they dump data on Trump.

They are holding that until they can maximize the damage to us...

[Induveca]

I hate wikileaks when they post stuff about Dems but love them when they leak things about Trump.

+1 for the honesty. I have zero issue if/when they dump data on Trump.

They are holding that until they can maximize the damage to us...

Agreed. Or more likely like most they didn't think he'd actually win, like the majority so the real digging/leaks started around November.

Considering the guy never had a pc on his desk, likely more difficult. But it's out there on his staff without question.