PDA

View Full Version : Surprise, surprise, surpise....ok, not really.


Totenkopf
05-16-2011, 02:15 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110516/ts_yblog_theticket/trump-announces-he-will-not-run-for-president

Guess he didn't want the pay cut. :xp: Still, I half expected him to drag the spectacle along a little further (early/mid-June or so) before inevitably throwing in the towel...

Sabretooth
05-16-2011, 02:55 PM
Well, that's unfortunate. Sarah Palin is still running though, isn't she?

purifier
05-16-2011, 03:32 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110516/ts_yblog_theticket/trump-announces-he-will-not-run-for-president

Guess he didn't want the pay cut. :xp: Still, I half expected him to drag the spectacle along a little further (early/mid-June or so) before inevitably throwing in the towel...


Aaaahh damn! I was looking forward to being called apprentice instead of U.S. citizen from here on out.

Yep! Really crushed my friggin' dreams man. :dozey:

mimartin
05-16-2011, 04:21 PM
Why not drop, I had a better chance of being President than him, at least I have never filed for bankruptcy?

Totenkopf
05-16-2011, 04:46 PM
Not sure any serious players actually expected him to stick it out. Just get a bump for his show and some gums flapping/toungues wagging. Maybe the Press Corps dinner actually got under his apparently thin skin and quashed even any fanciful political aspirations. As to bankruptcy, the current govt of the US is speeding down that path now anyway.......maybe you should throw your hat in. :xp:

purifier
05-16-2011, 05:05 PM
Lol, for some reason, Trump kept reminding me of Ross Perot, I don't know why. But seriously, I don't think he intended to actually run, just probably wanted the publicly. And he pretty much got it, didn't he?

mimartin
05-16-2011, 05:48 PM
As to bankruptcy, the current govt of the US is speeding down that path now anyway.......maybe you should throw your hat in. :xp:
The last administration was spending down that path too. So has ever administration since Reagan with the only exception being Slick Willie.

And for the record I could balance the budget in the first 10 mins as President without touching social security. However, I would not get a second term. I should say I could submit a balance budget in the first 10 mins, but Congress would never approve it.

Primogen
05-16-2011, 06:31 PM
And for the record I could balance the budget in the first 10 mins as President without touching social security. However, I would not get a second term. I should say I could submit a balance budget in the first 10 mins, but Congress would never approve it.

Of course you could, but the politicians we have don't give a damn as long as the house of cards they've been building doesn't collapse while they're still in office - as long as they aren't in the room when someone breathes hard enough to topple it, they'll escape wrath until after they're dead and dust, and even then people will argue about it. The only way we're ever going to balance the budget is by cutting spending and cutting a -lot- of it, and that's not going to happen for a long, long time.

Tommycat
05-16-2011, 07:24 PM
The last administration was spending down that path too. So has ever administration since Reagan with the only exception being Slick Willie.
Nope, he was still down the same path.. He just assumed that job growth for the next 10 years would be at the unsustainable levels of the 90's. It was Enron Accounting claiming a surplus in 10 years. They never balanced the books, just predicted a possible future where the books could maybe sorta be balanced if the improbable happened.

Besides, it was (then senator) Obama who claimed that such spending was irresponsible and dangerous. Though I guess to him it is only so if the other side is doing it.


At any rate, I think I mentioned that I didn't think Trump was running. Most people I know didn't expect him to do much more than make a show of it.

mimartin
05-16-2011, 07:58 PM
The only way we're ever going to balance the budget is by cutting spending and cutting a -lot- of it, and that's not going to happen for a long, long time.No, you could cut spending all day long and not balance the budget unless you are willing to cut the golden cows, defense, medicare and social security.

Nope, he was still down the same path.. He just assumed that job growth for the next 10 years would be at the unsustainable levels of the 90's. It was Enron Accounting claiming a surplus in 10 years. They never balanced the books, just predicted a possible future where the books could maybe sorta be balanced if the improbable happened.


:lol: so-called conservatives (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/05/yes.php?ref=fpblg)

Primogen
05-16-2011, 09:07 PM
Yeah, Defense would be my first target. The United States needs to scale back from wartime military readiness, the Cold War has been over for twenty years.

Totenkopf
05-16-2011, 10:57 PM
The last administration was spending down that path too. So has ever administration since Reagan with the only exception being Slick Willie.

And for the record I could balance the budget in the first 10 mins as President without touching social security. However, I would not get a second term. I should say I could submit a balance budget in the first 10 mins, but Congress would never approve it.


Pretty much why I didn't single out a particular party. But this current admin (as well as previous Congress) is 2Xing down on the profligate spending of its predecessors. So, what is your solution that would cost you a second term? I'm going to guess it calls in part for huge tax increases and a significant paring down of the defense budget (maybe even MC as well since you didn't include it as somehow off-limits). As for "slick willie".....he was kept somewhat in check by divided govt and an upswing in the biz cycle. I think I recall reading something where it was determined that "the Market" seemed to do best w/a Dem Prez and Rep Congress.

Tommycat
05-17-2011, 12:34 PM
No, you could cut spending all day long and not balance the budget unless you are willing to cut the golden cows, defense, medicare and social security.



:lol: so-called conservatives (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/05/yes.php?ref=fpblg)

For the first point: I agree. Our military budget is large enough that it could sustain half the world's military(or more). But then the military budget also includes defense research and pays for a whole lot of jobs. Cut it and several companies that have hundreds of thousands of employees can suffer. Possibly enough to affect the market to the point that it makes the recession deeper. Not to mention the lost revenue from all those employees....

For the second point: Not a shocker. But then I wouldn't mind seeing where they did their calculations from. And if they did the calculations out to 10 years with the built in increases that were eliminated or if they just took last years budget and applied it to the next 10 years.

Liverandbacon
05-17-2011, 12:54 PM
For the first point: I agree. Our military budget is large enough that it could sustain half the world's military(or more). But then the military budget also includes defense research and pays for a whole lot of jobs. Cut it and several companies that have hundreds of thousands of employees can suffer. Possibly enough to affect the market to the point that it makes the recession deeper. Not to mention the lost revenue from all those employees....

This. Defense cuts are only a good idea if they're done in a careful, thought-out, manner. Starting with implementing an "is this a stupid and/or pointless idea" check on all expensive projects. As things stand, many things that would actually help national defense aren't getting funding, while pointless pet projects often are.

Of course, that's not going to happen any time soon.

mimartin
05-17-2011, 12:56 PM
Still you can not balance the budget without cuts in those sectors.

http://vis.berkeley.edu/courses/cs294-10-fa07/wiki/images/3/3a/FederalBudgetPieChart.jpg

Cutting out foreign aid sounds great to many Americans as a way to balance the budget, but given that it is only about 1% of our budget it is not going to get us where we want to go. The only way to balance the budget is to make cuts into our golden calves.

As to cutting defense spending I would cut stupid ideas first. Things like blocking a bullet with a bullet (Star Wars) and then not allowing Congress to give the military equipment the Pentagon did not request. The first priority should be the equipment to protect the men and women in the field, not the campaign contributions given to congress by defense contractors.

JediMaster12
05-17-2011, 02:09 PM
mimartin I believe you couldn't put it any better in regards to the national budget. Somehow I do believe we spend too much on dumb ideas for the military.

As to the article posted, nothing more than a publicity stunt methinks. As you said, you have a better snowball's chance in hell at being president. I think Trump wanted to air his two cents worth at what he thinks is being good politics.

Totenkopf
05-17-2011, 02:20 PM
Missing from that graph is the explanation of "discretionary" funding. Wasn't initially obvious from that graph what the defense outlays were as a % of total budget. That said, you could make reasonable cuts in the DoD budget, but that still doesn't get you close enough to sealing the hole left by burdgeoning entitlements and costs of increasingly expansive bloated govt. http://moneyandrisk.moneyandrisk.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/total-budget.jpg
Even if you removed the entire DoD budget (unrealistic, sure), you'd still have a shortfall of ~$400 Billion for 2011 alone. You also have to eliminate redundant social programs and subsidies (for almost all recipients, including business) as well. No country can tax itself into economic health....or the Soviet bloc countries would have been "1st" world too.

mimartin
05-17-2011, 02:28 PM
Of course you can not tax your way to economic health, but you can not spend and burrow your way to economic health either. Until this country learns "voodoo economics" does not work we are doomed. President George Bush was right, President George H Bush that is.

never wrote or implied that cutting stupid stuff out of the military budget would balance the budget, that was just where I would start. For some reason I believe you should cut giving rich people more money before cutting off little juniors school lunch. However, that is just silly me talking. :xp:

Primogen
05-17-2011, 02:31 PM
One thing that would be high on my list of things to cut would be not having so many/any damn bases overseas, these shutdowns obviously being slowed a bit until the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are resolved. Much as I don't like us being there, walking away while it's still a crisis zone would be even worse. Americans would balk at having other nation's military based on our soil, why should the reverse be any different?

Totenkopf
05-17-2011, 02:42 PM
Of course you can not tax your way to economic health, but you can not spend and burrow your way to economic health either. Until this country learns "voodoo economics" does not work we are doomed. President George Bush was right, President George H Bush that is.

Problem is that dems also borrow like crazy...in addition to heavily taxing...to attempt to sate their nearly insatiable hunger for govt growth uber alles. That's just their variation on "voodoo economics".



never wrote or implied that cutting stupid stuff out of the military budget would balance the budget, that was just where I would start. For some reason I believe you should cut giving rich people more money before cutting off little juniors school lunch. However, that is just silly me talking. :xp:

Never said you did. Even agreed that reasonable cuts in DoD budget made sense. Fact is, though, if you cut back the size of govt, you don't need as much $$ to run it and therefore not as much tax revenue or borrowing to sustain it. :carms:

mimartin
05-17-2011, 02:47 PM
Yeah, them damn Dems caused all of this. The economy did not collapse until socialist Obama got into the White House. The current economic state also has nothing to do with not having enough regulators of the banking industry or the fact we deregulated it and Bush never proposed bailing them out before he left office.

Totenkopf
05-17-2011, 02:52 PM
You always go back to party. :p I already stated that I didn't lay specific blame on just one group (govt is made up of BOTH dems & reps, in case you forgot :D ).

Jae Onasi
05-19-2011, 11:52 AM
The Dem field so far: Obama is the hands down favorite, unless he completely botches the fragile semi-recovery in the economy (hint to Obama--the high gas prices are not helping one bit) and/or fails to get the housing market out of the worst slump I've ever seen it. Clinton's looking at 2016 if she's smart. I think she likes being Sec'y of State, too. Joe "I'm trying to be another Dan Quayle but more drunk" Biden is unelectable as President, and I will seriously facepalm if the Dems ever try to run him in anything after VP in the next election cycle.

The GOP field:
No surprise that Trump is out. He would have had to disclose his financial dealings, including 8 bankruptcies with some very questionable positive outcomes for himself. The Dems would have been drooling over that, and rightly so: "Can you trust a guy to make positive changes in gov't spending after _8_ business failures and possible fraud?" He would have been ripped apart in the press. Everything Trump does is to promote Trump, and while I have no illusions about other politicians and their self-promotion, Trump is the best/worst at it, depending on your point of view. My guess is that Trump a. saw this as a self-promotion opportunity until the heat got turned up ("Oh, crap, yeah, forgot I'll have to reveal what I'm really worth, which is probably not the billions I say I am"), and b. a way to light a fire under the GOP because he sees the recession hurting his business and sees Obama and the Dems as the major cause.

I don't believe Palin will run, nor is she, in my opinion, electable. She appeals strongly to the very conservative wing of the GOP, but she turns off the far right completely, and even conservative Dems are very gun-shy about her (no pun intended). She's currently more useful to the GOP as a fundraiser and someone who 'rallies the troops'.

Huckabee's out--he was never a really viable candidate on either of the coasts, as popular as he is in the center of the country. The fact that he raised a lot of taxes in AR as governor wouldn't have helped him win the GOP nod.

The dark horses might have been Christie and Ryan, but both have said they absolutely are not running, and frankly, they need to season quite a bit more before running. I see them possibly in the race far down the road, 2016 or 2020, but not right now. Ryan's said he's not even running for senator in WI--he's chair of the House Budget committee now, so he wants to stay put there.

Gingrich killed his own campaign right out of the starting gate last week by criticizing Ryan's budget plan--that was political suicide. I don't see him staying in the race after doing the GOP equivalent of the Dean Scream.

Mitt Romney seems to be the front runner right at the moment. I'm not sure he has the charisma to take on Obama, however. His main appeal would be the more liberal portion of the GOP and to independents, which he absolutely would have to pull in to win. He'd have to pick up a conservative running mate to have a chance. I don't sense that he has that same broad appeal to many Americans, either.

While Obama is beatable due to the severity of the recession, he is still going to be extremely difficult to defeat. He has the single best grass-roots fundraising and support team that I have ever seen in all the elections I've followed. His goal is to raise a Billion dollars for fundraising for this next election cycle--and it's very doable for him. He who raises the most money usually wins. Even with a bad economy and his abysmal approval rating, I think he's still going to get re-elected.

I also think the GOP is weighing that--do they want to spend a ton of money on a candidate if Obama is unbeatable? Not really--they'd rather put their fundraising into electing more Senate and House members at that point. If that's the case, we'll see a throwaway like Dole or Mondale. If the economy takes a downturn, the GOP will have an opportunity to win. However, they'll need to find someone who can create the kind of support juggernaut that Obama has. That will be an extraordinarily difficult task. I don't see anyone in the GOP at this point who is capable of doing that.

purifier
05-19-2011, 12:07 PM
Gingrich killed his own campaign right out of the starting gate last week by criticizing Ryan's budget plan--that was political suicide. I don't see him staying in the race after doing the GOP equivalent of the Dean Scream.


^Some political anaylist seem to think that little incident will improve his popularity ratings. I don't know why, but that's what they say.

What about Michelle Bachmann and Mitch Daneils? Didn't see you mention anything about them, they're not in yet, but there is a strong indication they will be.

mimartin
05-19-2011, 12:54 PM
What about Michelle Bachmann

Jae covered Michelle Bachmann under throwaway candidates.

Compared to Bachamann, even Palin and Trump are not joke candidates. Would love to see her on the ballot though, it would be interesting to see a third party candidate place second.

If she got the Republican nomination (which is a HUGE IF) I could see Ron Paul as the Libertarian nominee.

purifier
05-19-2011, 01:17 PM
Jae covered Michelle Bachmann under throwaway candidates.

Wait-a-minute. Why would she be a "throwaway candidate"?

Compared to Bachamann, even Palin and Trump are not joke candidates. Would love to see her on the ballot though, it would be interesting to see a third party candidate place second.

I really don't know about her myself, but some think she would get the Huckabee votes now. So she must have some favor with the Republicans.

mimartin
05-19-2011, 02:35 PM
Bachmann makes Palin look intelligent and Trump look sane.

But I'll Ms. Bachmann defend herself:
''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''

''There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.''

''I don't know where they're going to get all this money because we're running out of rich people in this country.''

''This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.''

''We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.''

''I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence.''

“Lady Liberty and Sarah Palin are lit by the same torch.”

“Carbon dioxide is natural, it is not harmful, it is a part of Earth's lifecycle. And yet we're being told that we have to reduce this natural substance, reduce the American standard of living, to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in Earth."

“The President of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day.”

“I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'm not a scientist.”
''(Gay marriage) is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.''

''I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?''
''I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.”

“But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” Sure she will appeal to some Americans such as the tea ****** because they admire her intelligences.

Sabretooth
05-19-2011, 02:57 PM
Bachmann/Palin 2012 go!

purifier
05-19-2011, 03:36 PM
Bachmann makes Palin look intelligent and Trump look sane.

But I'll Ms. Bachmann defend herself:
Sure she will appeal to some Americans such as the tea ****** because they admire her intelligences.

Yeah I see what you mean by throw-away candidate.
Thanks Mimartin.

Michelle Bachmann: ''If we took away the minimum wage if conceivably it was gone we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''


WOW! I can't make out the logic in this statement. Don't see how that would stop unemployment.

ChAiNz.2da
05-19-2011, 03:48 PM
Bachmann/Palin 2012 go!

I think they based a movie off of that...

http://www.jumpstationz.com/gallery/random/DumbDumber_PalinBachmann.png

Primogen
05-19-2011, 05:52 PM
I believe Bachmann's point is that if you remove minimum wage laws, Corporations can start hiring people at $0.05 an hour. Presumably, she hasn't considered the reason that people -work- is so that they can eat and have a place to sleep.

Totenkopf
05-19-2011, 06:25 PM
Part of the problem w/the minimum wage situation is that there are a lot of jobs that people work well past high school/college/entry level that now have come to rely on that income that would be hurt by having to take a cut. Seriously, though, no corporation in America is going to try to pay Americans $2-3/hour (never mind a sarcastic figure of 5 cents :xp: ) as a "living wage" (postions relying on tips notwithstanding) b/c virtually no one would do it. Part of the reason illegals are such a problem. IIRC, there was a raid a few years ago on a meat packing company in the midwest that collared on the order of about 1300+/- illegals, which the company quickly replaced with Americans @ a wage several $$s an hour higher. It might become necessary to peg a minimum wage to a sliding scale...much like the "progressive" tax code we now have...depending on a person's age,type of employment (ie if you're child and living at home or work in an industry or field where the profit margins are very slim, like many small businesses) or even location (living wage in NYC MUCH dif from Kansas City or Biloxi). The only other alternative is to have fewer people gainfully employed and more on some kind of govt assistance..

Liverandbacon
05-19-2011, 11:22 PM
I can't see any of the current GOP frontrunners beating Obama unless he manages to make a major screwup sometime between now and elections. I'm thinking if the GOP has any intention of winning the presidency, they've got to get some new faces in the game. I've been wrong in the past though, and it's still early days.

Bachmann/Palin 2012 go!

Ann Coulter needs to get in on that action too, in some capacity.

purifier
05-19-2011, 11:41 PM
I believe Bachmann's point is that if you remove minimum wage laws, Corporations can start hiring people at $0.05 an hour. Presumably, she hasn't considered the reason that people -work- is so that they can eat and have a place to sleep.



Not sure your comment is even close to what she's saying there Primogen. But just for ****s and giggles, lets say your right, still...how is that gonna "virtually wipe out unemployment completely" like she's saying in her statement?

There will always be unemployment, some people choose not to work for their own reasons, right?

Sabretooth
05-20-2011, 12:19 AM
Ann Coulter needs to get in on that action too, in some capacity.

Done, she's secretary of state.

Doesn't get more female-power than this, folks!

Not sure your comment is even close to what she's saying there Primogen. But just for ****s and giggles, lets say your right, still...how is that gonna "virtually wipe out unemployment completely" like she's saying in her statement?
By killing off all those sorry bastards working at $0.5.

Totenkopf
05-20-2011, 03:23 AM
Not sure your comment is even close to what she's saying there Primogen. But just for ****s and giggles, lets say your right, still...how is that gonna "virtually wipe out unemployment completely" like she's saying in her statement?

There will always be unemployment, some people choose not to work for their own reasons, right?

Two things. One, she probably means that the more flexibility there is in pay rates that employers can hire more people. Two, she seems at least "intelligent enough" to say virtually, recognizing that some people may not be able to work or choose not to work, but that there'd be ample jobs for almost everyone. Of course, if you drive out the illegal population, there'd be several million more jobs available for Americans. That old bit about they only take away jobs most people won't work anyway is largely BS. I've seen illegals work a range of jobs people'd take at a slightly higher wage than the illegals get (the meat packing plant, for instance). They're not all picking fruit, btw.

purifier
05-20-2011, 08:49 AM
By killing off all those sorry bastards working at $0.5.

B-B-But they're about to get a raise and start make $.06 pretty soon. You gotta give them more time Sabre, you just gotta.....:eyes3:


Two things. One, she probably means that the more flexibility there is in pay rates that employers can hire more people. Two, she seems at least "intelligent enough" to say virtually, recognizing that some people may not be able to work or choose not to work, but that there'd be ample jobs for almost everyone. Of course, if you drive out the illegal population, there'd be several million more jobs available for Americans. That old bit about they only take away jobs most people won't work anyway is largely BS. I've seen illegals work a range of jobs people'd take at a slightly higher wage than the illegals get (the meat packing plant, for instance). They're not all picking fruit, btw.

Yeah I figured that was what she was trying to say. Just couldn't figure out her clear meaning when she use the words "virtually" and "completely" in the same sentence, when they don't exactly mean the same thing. Using the word "virtually" in a sentence, like she did, means to me: almost or nearly. But then she also said "completely" which threw my primitive mind for a loop.



Anyway, I figured she had to know that it wouldn't erase unemployment completely, so if she would have left that word out of her statement, then it would have made more sense to me I guess.