9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Since Reagan the Republican strategy has been to cut taxes, increase spending, and blame the deficits on the Democrats.  The Republican base loves it, and turns on Republican leaders who deviate from it, such as George Bush Sr.  So I don't expect the Republicans to change, they will remain the party of borrow, spend and deflect.

Well, so far at least, this is a bi-partisan pact.  Why do you feel the need to jump in and give me a one sided version of events. I lived through these years. You think I don't know who did what?

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

This is the first time I've read that capital gains taxes from the internet bubble made a significant portion of the US Federal budget during the Clinton administration.  Do you have a source for that? 

 

Why didn't capital gains taxes from the much larger Bush Jr administration keep the deficit down?  Oh wait, tax cuts and two wars funded off-budget.

 

The scary thing is not too long ago we thought Bush was the worst President ever.  He doesn't seem that bad now.

 

Wars, yes.  Because the latter part of the Bush Jr. era had even more capital gains income from the housing boom, which got pissed away in the Middle East.

 

 https://taxfoundation.org/great-recession-and-volatility-sources-personal-income

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

No he had them all rolling in from the real estate bubble. 

 

In his latter years, yes.

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

But but but but but but but but Obama!

No, that's not a "but Obama". I've decided to use "the Obama Recovery" as my new phrase for anyone giving credit to an administration (from either party) for all that's good and ignoring all that's bad. Likeliving your life with blinders on. It's not a partisan thing, it has more to do with someone's self worth.

15 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I wonder what universe (Dems. and Reps.) of this horrible new budget pact live in? Used to be that politicians of goodwill (more or less) of differing parties could hammer out a budget where each gave up something and nobody was completely happy. Those are the best deals  Ever since Reagan a succession of governments have movedto the "I'll give you what you want, if you give me what I want" style of negotiations and consequently both deficits and the national debt have spiraled up.

 

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

Well, so far at least, this is a bi-partisan pact.  Why do you feel the need to jump in and give me a one sided version of events. I lived through these years. You think I don't know who did what?

Because your version of events was one-sided in what it omits.  When it comes to tax cuts that cause the deficit to explode, the Republicans never give. 

 

Your original post also implied that blame for spending and deficit increases that will occur in the Senate bill should be shared equally.  With a Republican majority in the House and Senate and a (sort of) Republican in the White House, it's fair to give the Republicans the majority of the responsibility.

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Because your version of events was one-sided in what it omits.  When it comes to tax cuts that cause the deficit to explode, the Republicans never give. 

I'd say that's true, except for maybe Bush 1 who famously raised taxes when he said he wouldn't.  But given that the tax cuts (not defending it, mind you) are known, isn't it incumbent on Congress to draft a budget that takes into account those lower expected revenues?  Not to go on spending irresponsibly. I'm not talking about who did what, like Republicans loving the military and Democrats loving entitlement programs. I'm talking about the fact there is less money to spend for whichever program and budgets need to reflect that fact.

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I'd say that's true, except for maybe Bush 1 who famously raised taxes when ne said he wouldn't.  But given that the tax cuts (not defending it, mind you) are known, isn't it incumbent on Congress to draft a budget that takes into account those lower expected revenues?  Not to go on spending irresponsibly. I'm not talking about who did what, like Republicans loving the military and Democrats loving entitlement programs. I'm talking about the fact there is less money to spend for whichever program and budgets need to reflect that fact.

I'm not a Bush Sr fan, but I give him credit for doing something politically unpopular when it was good for the country.  I can't think of any politicians like that currently in office.

 

The only spending cuts that can overcome deficits of these magnitudes would have to come from defense or entitlement programs.  Non-military discretionary spending makes up only 14% of the federal budget  http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate    That covers stuff like courts and penitentiaries, highways (infrastructure), FAA, veterans, etc.  There isn't enough there to cut our way out of the deficit, and in many of these areas we need more spending, not less.

 

That leaves cutting entitlements (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) or Defense.  Even Republicans, with few exceptions, don't want to cut entitlements that overwhelmingly favor seniors, especially in an election year.  And even Democrats aren't calling for cuts in military spending with a belligerent Russia, China in an expansionary mood, and chaos in the Middle East and Afghanistan. 

 

So the alternative to cutting spending is raising taxes.  At the very least they should not be cut, especially when the economy is strong and the deficit is rising.  But Republicans are a one-trick party, they always cut taxes when they can and never consider raising them.  Regardless of the consequences.

 

I'll throw out one other crazy idea:  Get US healthcare spending, currently at 17.8% of the economy, down to the level of the other developed countries, none of which exceed 12% of the GDP and most (all?) of which provide better health care than the US.  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS/   This would shift spending out of unproductive parts of the economy (the 5% to 7% of excessive healthcare spending), free up established industries from the legacy costs of health care promises made to union members decades ago, give workers the freedom to move to better jobs without losing healthcare, and many other benefits.  All the savings and efficiencies could help put a dent in the deficit.

 

I don't see this administration doing any of that.  Prepare for rising deficits and national debt.  Hopefully sanity will prevail before ruin.

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

I'll throw out one other crazy idea:  Get US healthcare spending, currently at 17.8% of the economy, down to the level of the other developed countries, none of which exceed 12% of the GDP and most (all?) of which provide better health care than the US.  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS/   This would shift spending out of unproductive parts of the economy (the 5% to 7% of excessive healthcare spending), free up established industries from the legacy costs of health care promises made to union members decades ago, give workers the freedom to move to better jobs without losing healthcare, and many other benefits.  All the savings and efficiencies could help put a dent in the deficit.

 

\

That's a good one and one I have long favored. It requires putting private corporations out of business which I also favor in this instance. I'm afraid it won't be tackled until some kind of campaign finance and lobby reform takes place first.

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

\

That's a good one and one I have long favored. It requires putting private corporations out of business which I also favor in this instance. I'm afraid it won't be tackled until some kind of campaign finance and lobby reform takes place first.

True.  The over-priced, under-performing healthcare industry in the US will fight (lobby) tooth and nail to avoid shrinking.

Trump’s approval rating tops Obama’s at same point in presidency

 

Quote

Until late last week, his disapproval rate has been above 50 percent every day for 10 months. But Thursday marked the fifth consecutive day his approval rating was 48 percent or 49 percent, after sometimes dipping into the 30s.

 

And this week’s Rasmussen numbers even top Mr. Obama’s comparable figures.

On Feb. 8, 2010, Mr. Obama had a clear majority disapproving of his performance as president — 54 percent versus just 46 percent approval.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/8/trump-approval-rating-tops-obamas-same-point-presi/?__twitter_impression=true

 

Aaaaaand let the denial ensue. 

1 hour ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Trump’s approval rating tops Obama’s at same point in presidency

 

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/8/trump-approval-rating-tops-obamas-same-point-presi/?__twitter_impression=true

 

Aaaaaand let the denial ensue. 

Well, maybe if you were both  a dyslexic and had no acquaintance with the quality of various pollsters you might actually believe this. Here are the first 3 paragraphs from the article you cited. Read them several times until you get the gist:

"President Trump’s approval rating in one of the major daily tracking polls has improved significantly and is now higher than President Barack Obama’s on the same date of his first term.

The Rasmussen Reports daily survey released Thursday shows that Mr. Trump’s approval rating is at 48 percent, statistically tied with his disapproval rating of 50 percent.

Until late last week, his disapproval rate has been above 50 percent every day for 10 months. But Thursday marked the fifth consecutive day his approval rating was 48 percent or 49 percent, after sometimes dipping into the 30s."

That was Rasmussen, one of the least statistically sound polls out here.

Here is a link to a composite of all the major polls.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Obama is still well ahead of Trump.

Trump’s approval rating tops Obama’s at same point in presidency

 

Until late last week, his disapproval rate has been above 50 percent every day for 10 months. But Thursday marked the fifth consecutive day his approval rating was 48 percent or 49 percent, after sometimes dipping into the 30s.
 
And this week’s Rasmussen numbers even top Mr. Obama’s comparable figures.
On Feb. 8, 2010, Mr. Obama had a clear majority disapproving of his performance as president — 54 percent versus just 46 percent approval.

 
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/8/trump-approval-rating-tops-obamas-same-point-presi/?__twitter_impression=true
 
Aaaaaand let the denial ensue. 
Just the facts.
Rasmussen is well known to usually being an extreme right wing outlier in results.

Such polls are used for propaganda.


Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

The reality t.v. "president" spawns a real reality t.v. spinoff.

Meet Omarosa -- from the White House to Big Brother Celebrity Edition.

 

Quote

 

“It’s going to not be OK. It’s not.”

 

 

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The reality t.v. "president" spawns a real reality t.v. spinoff.

Meet Omarosa -- from the White House to Big Brother Celebrity Edition.

 

 

 

As bad as it is all going to be, I'm guessing it will be just a little bit less bad with her gone.

On 2/5/2018 at 4:53 PM, Jingthing said:

Yep. Many of the most passionate anti-"trump" people are conservatives and republicans. To assert it is only liberals and leftists opposing him is totally false. But sadly most of the republican party elected representatives have now been been owned by 45. Sometimes to the point of absurdity such as what's happening now in Arizona.

 

In an Arizona primary, Republicans debate who is more loyal to one man: Trump

 

http://www.standard.net/National/2018/02/04/In-an-Arizona-primary-Republicans-debate-who-is-more-loyal-to-one-man-Trump

 

 

 

 

 

Loyalty to "the man" is banana republic/dictatorship while loyalty to rule of law (U.S. Constitution) is democracy.

On 2/5/2018 at 8:48 PM, heybruce said:

Intelligent conservatives and Republicans who aren't running for office are embarrassed by Trump and would love to see him out of office.  Republicans in Congress, who have to go through Primary elections where the die-hard, pro-Trump base will determine who goes to the general election, have to pretend to support him.

Pretend?  Yea maybe they think dismally a/b this pathetic individual but their actions totally support/enable him.  Generally, words - as the liar in chief repeatedly shows - are largely insignificant, but actions are real. 

Oh look this thread has turned into a conservative hate thread coupled with calling millions of Americans dumb and uninformed. 

 

There is a SEVERE echo-chamber going on in here. 

 

Liberals gonna liberal. Situation normal. 

2 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Oh look this thread has turned into a conservative hate thread coupled with calling millions of Americans dumb and uninformed. 

 

There is a SEVERE echo-chamber going on in here. 

 

Liberals gonna liberal. Situation normal. 

 

And Trumpsters are gonna hate

2 minutes ago, isaanbanhou said:

 

And Trumpsters are gonna hate

 

Nah, it’s always good to see the hypocrisy and irony of self proclaimed tolerant/moral liberals being nastier and more bigoted than the people they wave their fingers at. 

 

 

 

 

So the minority of people polled don’t want trump to finish his first term.

 

And the minority basically thinks that the majority is wrong/uninformed/dumb/uneducated and have the most posts In here. 

 

Eco-chamber confirmed. 

24 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Oh look this thread has turned into a conservative hate thread coupled with calling millions of Americans dumb and uninformed. 

 

There is a SEVERE echo-chamber going on in here. 

 

Liberals gonna liberal. Situation normal. 

You got it all wrong, which is no big surprise. I (and I think I speak for practically all the people on the forum who are against the man-child) have nothing against conservatives per se. I am a social liberal but fiscal conservative myself. What I do detest are the people who support the amoral, vindictive, stupid bag of pus (and I'm being polite here) currently desecrating the office of the POTUS.

I want Trump to stay in office, about as much as I want ebola.

 

On the other hand, each week he's in office, is another week for Republicans to further soil themselves - by showing what they really believe: Full support for the rich, while everyone else should be happy with their yellow liquid 'trickle down.'

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Becker said:

You got it all wrong, which is no big surprise. I (and I think I speak for practically all the people on the forum who are against the man-child) have nothing against conservatives per se. I am a social liberal but fiscal conservative myself. What I do detest are the people who support the amoral, vindictive, stupid bag of pus (and I'm being polite here) currently desecrating the office of the POTUS.

 

So you speak for the minority. Gotcha. 

 

And you openly state that you detest the majority of Thaivisa posters who support trump and want to see him finish his first term. Yep buddy that’s called bigotry. Grade A bigotry. And hate. Can probably call it hate speech too. It’s also called hypocrisy, considering you are a so-called social liberal. 

Stop the presses!  I just saw something painfully disturbing.  You may want to prepare yourself because this is not for the faint of heart.....

 

http://metro.co.uk/video/video-trump-boarding-plane-shows-bald-patch-1623486/

11 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

So the minority of people polled don’t want trump to finish his first term.

 

And the minority basically thinks that the majority is wrong/uninformed/dumb/uneducated and have the most posts In here. 

 

Eco-chamber confirmed. 

A majority of 5, for most of this thread its been sitting at 60/40 the other way.

I would be interested to see how many votes are coming from the same IP address or newly created profiles, on either side of the vote.

4 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

A majority of 5, for most of this thread its been sitting at 60/40 the other way.

I would be interested to see how many votes are coming from the same IP address or newly created profiles, on either side of the vote.

 

LOL no it hasn’t it’s maintained this majority for at least a week, maybe longer. 

 

And now you wanna contest the vote count LOL because those results couldn’t possibly be true. 

 

Sour grapes are sour aren’t they. 

23 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

So the minority of people polled don’t want trump to finish his first term.

 

And the minority basically thinks that the majority is wrong/uninformed/dumb/uneducated and have the most posts In here. 

 

Eco-chamber confirmed. 

Trust me, when you deduct the hundreds of illegal posters casting votes, you will see that not only do 'Trump out' posters win the electoral college poll but also the majority poll by the largest margin ever. It has been confirmed.

1 minute ago, Briggsy said:

Trust me, when you deduct the hundreds of illegal posters casting votes, you will see that not only do 'Trump out' posters win the electoral college poll but also the majority poll by the largest margin ever. It has been confirmed.

 

Sounds like an excellent reason for Voter “IP” laws, doesn’t it. 

 

Oh wait, it’s only ok when liberals want it though. When conservatives want it it’s the most racist thing ever literally hitler. 

 

Sounds about right eh? 

1 minute ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Sounds like an excellent reason for Voter “IP” laws, doesn’t it. 

 

Oh wait, it’s only ok when liberals want it though. When conservatives want it it’s the most racist thing ever literally hitler. 

 

Sounds about right eh? 

Deport the illegal posters to PattayaAddicts.

28 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

So the minority of people polled don’t want trump to finish his first term. And the minority basically thinks that the majority is wrong /uninformed/dumb/uneducated and have the most posts In here. Eco-chamber confirmed. 

In late-30's Germany, the majority of Germans wanted a loud self-aggrandizing man to lead them. Look how well that turned out.  As far as I've heard, Hitler didn't abuse women and didn't lie constantly.   As for Trump (in the comparison) to his credit, he doesn't kill people on a large scale.  ....not yet, anyway, other than a few bombs dropped in the Middle East.  Hopefully, the US won't go to war needlessly during Trump's time near the Football.