Totenkopf Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 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. Still, I half expected him to drag the spectacle along a little further (early/mid-June or so) before inevitably throwing in the towel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Well, that's unfortunate. Sarah Palin is still running though, isn't she? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purifier Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Why not drop, I had a better chance of being President than him, at least I have never filed for bankruptcy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purifier Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 As to bankruptcy, the current govt of the US is speeding down that path now anyway.......maybe you should throw your hat in. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primogen Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 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. so-called conservatives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primogen Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. so-called conservatives 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverandbacon Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Still you can not balance the budget without cuts in those sectors. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primogen Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 You always go back to party. 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 ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purifier Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.