Trump's Russian Collusion

[Peter Brown]

https://www.businessinsider.com/nationa ... on-2019-11

The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially seem. A different picture emerges when you look under the hood.

From the article -

There is a key distinction separating the circumstances behind Trump and Obama's debt figures. Trump inherited an economy undergoing its longest sustained expansion. Obama, on the other hand, entered the White House as the nation veered into a recession that sparked massive stimulus spending and a bailout of the auto industry.

So BHO started out with 2 outs and 2 strikes, while Trump started out on 2nd base.

Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.

Correct. So why is the opposite happening?

Marc Goldwein, the policy chief for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Business Insider that there had been a substantial shift in Washington's approach to federal spending in the past several years. Under Obama, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility and called to reduce the deficit — now they've largely tossed it aside.

Agreed. Hypocrite Rs finally prove that they are not fiscally conservative.

To your last point, I do not agree. Most of my peers are republican (from what I can gather), and all of them are concerned about deficits; but like my point to a fan, this is a much more complicated topic than simply saying 'I am for' or 'I am against'.

Perhaps a longer view is necessary to make such judgments. If the economy continues to roar for the next ten years, and if Republicans controlled Congress and the office of POTUS, I'd be willing to bet a sizable sum that deficit reduction would come to fruition. It doesn't do you much good to come into DC and massively cut spending, flat-line the economy, then get kicked out after 4 years, does it?

What we know for certain is the average Democrat desires more government in your life, at almost every level. We know that the average Democrat trusts government far more than the average Republican. The takeaway from those two common sense observations is that Democrats, left to their own devices (with no opposition), would in fact massively enlarge government, raise taxes, and generally chase away much of the creation of real wealth. IE: Socialism, a fan's dreaded word. Leading to economic ruin, as has been shown throughout human history.

[foreverlax]

https://www.businessinsider.com/nationa ... on-2019-11

The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially seem. A different picture emerges when you look under the hood.

From the article -

There is a key distinction separating the circumstances behind Trump and Obama's debt figures. Trump inherited an economy undergoing its longest sustained expansion. Obama, on the other hand, entered the White House as the nation veered into a recession that sparked massive stimulus spending and a bailout of the auto industry.

So BHO started out with 2 outs and 2 strikes, while Trump started out on 2nd base.

Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.

Correct. So why is the opposite happening?

Marc Goldwein, the policy chief for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Business Insider that there had been a substantial shift in Washington's approach to federal spending in the past several years. Under Obama, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility and called to reduce the deficit — now they've largely tossed it aside.

Agreed. Hypocrite Rs finally prove that they are not fiscally conservative.

To your last point, I do not agree. Most of my peers are republican (from what I can gather), and all of them are concerned about deficits; but like my point to a fan, this is a much more complicated topic than simply saying 'I am for' or 'I am against'.
As a fiscal conservativer, I see little difference between Rs and Ds when it comes to spending - the only real difference is tax policy, Rs cut and spend, Ds tax and spend.

Perhaps a longer view is necessary to make such judgments. If the economy continues to roar for the next ten years, and if Republicans controlled Congress and the office of POTUS, I'd be willing to bet a sizable sum that deficit reduction would come to fruition. It doesn't do you much good to come into DC and massively cut spending, flat-line the economy, then get kicked out after 4 years, does it?
You don't have to wait a decade, just look at the Clinton's 2nd term....4 years of surplus. Followed by tax cuts and "unfunded" military spending by W.

What we know for certain is the average Democrat desires more government in your life, at almost every level. We know that the average Democrat trusts government far more than the average Republican. The takeaway from those two common sense observations is that Democrats, left to their own devices (with no opposition), would in fact massively enlarge government, raise taxes, and generally chase away much of the creation of real wealth. IE: Socialism, a fan's dreaded word. Leading to economic ruin, as has been shown throughout human history.
Your assertion has some validity, and yet in reality, government has NOT gotten smaller under Rs or Ds.
The one difference between your average Rs and Ds - Ds believe that government has a role, while Rs don't believe, but still want the benefits.

[ToastDunk]

Some of you will need to get past the fact this comes from Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Once you do, listen. And then we can discuss. I think he’s making a very solid argument against Trump’s defense.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari ... 7659717524

Great points - url has the basic point, along with the idea that when Hunter Biden was actually appointed to the Burisma board the Rs controlled both the House and Senate. No investigations then, and no concerns expressed.

Yup. "...retroactively reverse engineered solely for political purposes."

[ToastDunk]

It doesn't do you much good to come into DC and massively cut spending, flat-line the economy...

So this was the Republicans goal for the sequestration back in 2013?

[Kismet]

Funny Pam Bondi not mentioning she was making twice as much per month from Qatar (2X more than Hunter Biden ever made) for no apparent reason. "Bondi registered in July under FARA — Foreign Agents Registration Act — as a part-time, $115,000-per-month lobbyist for Qatar."

Hypocrites!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

It was reviewed at NSC by Vindman's twin brother...

NSC aide handling book approvals is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman: Report

So this comes from a Breitbart article...With un-named sources.

Breitbart reported that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the NSC, is in charge of reviewing publications such as the book manuscript submitted to the NSC on Dec. 30 by former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The report cited a source close to the administration. The NSC had no immediate comment.

Another BB article

The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft manuscript after it was submitted for prepublication review at the end of December.

COULD HAVE seems to be enough to impeach a POTUS. All is fair in love and politics.

Let me help you out here.....Let me know if you can discern the differences....

1a) Trump "could have" said hold up the Ukraine money until they make a public announcement.

1b) Trump said hold up the money to until they make a public announcement

2a) Trump could have ordered the withholding of witness testimony and documents
2b) Trump ordered the withholding of witness testimony and documents

Do you see the difference?

[Peter Brown]

https://www.businessinsider.com/nationa ... on-2019-11

The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially seem. A different picture emerges when you look under the hood.

From the article -

There is a key distinction separating the circumstances behind Trump and Obama's debt figures. Trump inherited an economy undergoing its longest sustained expansion. Obama, on the other hand, entered the White House as the nation veered into a recession that sparked massive stimulus spending and a bailout of the auto industry.

So BHO started out with 2 outs and 2 strikes, while Trump started out on 2nd base.

Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.

Correct. So why is the opposite happening?

Marc Goldwein, the policy chief for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Business Insider that there had been a substantial shift in Washington's approach to federal spending in the past several years. Under Obama, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility and called to reduce the deficit — now they've largely tossed it aside.

Agreed. Hypocrite Rs finally prove that they are not fiscally conservative.

To your last point, I do not agree. Most of my peers are republican (from what I can gather), and all of them are concerned about deficits; but like my point to a fan, this is a much more complicated topic than simply saying 'I am for' or 'I am against'.
As a fiscal conservativer, I see little difference between Rs and Ds when it comes to spending - the only real difference is tax policy, Rs cut and spend, Ds tax and spend.

Perhaps a longer view is necessary to make such judgments. If the economy continues to roar for the next ten years, and if Republicans controlled Congress and the office of POTUS, I'd be willing to bet a sizable sum that deficit reduction would come to fruition. It doesn't do you much good to come into DC and massively cut spending, flat-line the economy, then get kicked out after 4 years, does it?
You don't have to wait a decade, just look at the Clinton's 2nd term....4 years of surplus. Followed by tax cuts and "unfunded" military spending by W.

What we know for certain is the average Democrat desires more government in your life, at almost every level. We know that the average Democrat trusts government far more than the average Republican. The takeaway from those two common sense observations is that Democrats, left to their own devices (with no opposition), would in fact massively enlarge government, raise taxes, and generally chase away much of the creation of real wealth. IE: Socialism, a fan's dreaded word. Leading to economic ruin, as has been shown throughout human history.
Your assertion has some validity, and yet in reality, government has NOT gotten smaller under Rs or Ds.
The one difference between your average Rs and Ds - Ds believe that government has a role, while Rs don't believe, but still want the benefits.

For that second point regarding Clinton, who controlled Congress after his first two years and constrained his spending impulses?

None of us know much about the deals that have been cut in the past to get budgets passed. But I know this: deals were cut. I think we may have entered into a bad direction in this country with POTUS' seemingly doing what they want, and with no approved budget (hence the automatic rollovers).

If one party could control all levers for ten straight years, I would bet Republicans would ultimately seek to control spending whereas Democrats would blow past all limits. This is the fundamental divide between the two parties; it is in fact baked into their platforms. And if the Bernie and AOC wing end up with control (which I believe will occur), watch out.

[foreverlax]

https://www.businessinsider.com/nationa ... on-2019-11

The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially seem. A different picture emerges when you look under the hood.

From the article -

There is a key distinction separating the circumstances behind Trump and Obama's debt figures. Trump inherited an economy undergoing its longest sustained expansion. Obama, on the other hand, entered the White House as the nation veered into a recession that sparked massive stimulus spending and a bailout of the auto industry.

So BHO started out with 2 outs and 2 strikes, while Trump started out on 2nd base.

Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.

Correct. So why is the opposite happening?

Marc Goldwein, the policy chief for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Business Insider that there had been a substantial shift in Washington's approach to federal spending in the past several years. Under Obama, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility and called to reduce the deficit — now they've largely tossed it aside.

Agreed. Hypocrite Rs finally prove that they are not fiscally conservative.

To your last point, I do not agree. Most of my peers are republican (from what I can gather), and all of them are concerned about deficits; but like my point to a fan, this is a much more complicated topic than simply saying 'I am for' or 'I am against'.
As a fiscal conservativer, I see little difference between Rs and Ds when it comes to spending - the only real difference is tax policy, Rs cut and spend, Ds tax and spend.

Perhaps a longer view is necessary to make such judgments. If the economy continues to roar for the next ten years, and if Republicans controlled Congress and the office of POTUS, I'd be willing to bet a sizable sum that deficit reduction would come to fruition. It doesn't do you much good to come into DC and massively cut spending, flat-line the economy, then get kicked out after 4 years, does it?
You don't have to wait a decade, just look at the Clinton's 2nd term....4 years of surplus. Followed by tax cuts and "unfunded" military spending by W.

What we know for certain is the average Democrat desires more government in your life, at almost every level. We know that the average Democrat trusts government far more than the average Republican. The takeaway from those two common sense observations is that Democrats, left to their own devices (with no opposition), would in fact massively enlarge government, raise taxes, and generally chase away much of the creation of real wealth. IE: Socialism, a fan's dreaded word. Leading to economic ruin, as has been shown throughout human history.
Your assertion has some validity, and yet in reality, government has NOT gotten smaller under Rs or Ds.
The one difference between your average Rs and Ds - Ds believe that government has a role, while Rs don't believe, but still want the benefits.

For that second point regarding Clinton, who controlled Congress after his first two years and constrained his spending impulses?
The Rs had control of both houses....the trend downward started in the last year of Bush 41 and continued until Bush 43 took office.

None of us know much about the deals that have been cut in the past to get budgets passed. But I know this: deals were cut. I think we may have entered into a bad direction in this country with POTUS' seemingly doing what they want, and with no approved budget (hence the automatic rollovers).
Agreed...in the past there was a desire to find common ground and to help those across the aisle get the pork they want, so they in turn would reciprocate

If one party could control all levers for ten straight years, I would bet Republicans would ultimately seek to control spending whereas Democrats would blow past all limits. This is the fundamental divide between the two parties; it is in fact baked into their platforms. And if the Bernie and AOC wing end up with control (which I believe will occur), watch out.

[seacoaster]

Some of you will need to get past the fact this comes from Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Once you do, listen. And then we can discuss. I think he’s making a very solid argument against Trump’s defense.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari ... 7659717524

Heard this (via radio) yesterday, and I agree: he basically distills it and nails it. And in the process, he kind of murders Dershowitz's argument that "abuse of power" is too "subjective and politically malleable" -- because when it is buttressed by facts, as all such place-names for misdeeds must be, it is use of the power of government to carry out something improper, or something improperly.

[SCLaxAttack]

From PB’s post above:

“If one party could control all levers for ten straight years, I would bet Republicans would ultimately seek to control spending whereas Democrats would blow past all limits. This is the fundamental divide between the two parties; it is in fact baked into their platforms. And if the Bernie and AOC wing end up with control (which I believe will occur), watch out.”

I disagree. Not about your fear of Bernie and AOC, but about the Republicans.

The Ds and Rs - TAATS! They just have different priorities on who should benefit from their budget.

Spending won’t come under control until a new political party comes on the scene due to a massive economic failure because of it. Unless that massive economic failure happens, both parties will continue to overspend to the benefit of their respective constituencies.

If we never have that collapse I’ll be very happy to admit those of us who are economically conservative were wrong.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I disagree. Not about your fear of Bernie and AOC, but about the Republicans.

The Ds and Rs - TAATS! They just have different priorities on who should benefit from their budget.

Spending won’t come under control until a new political party comes on the scene due to a massive economic failure because of it. Unless that massive economic failure happens, both parties will continue to overspend to the benefit of their respective constituencies.

If we never have that collapse I’ll be very happy to admit those of us who are economically conservative were wrong.

Clinton had a surplus

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.businessinsider.com/nationa ... on-2019-11

The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially seem. A different picture emerges when you look under the hood.

From the article -

There is a key distinction separating the circumstances behind Trump and Obama's debt figures. Trump inherited an economy undergoing its longest sustained expansion. Obama, on the other hand, entered the White House as the nation veered into a recession that sparked massive stimulus spending and a bailout of the auto industry.

So BHO started out with 2 outs and 2 strikes, while Trump started out on 2nd base.

Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.

Correct. So why is the opposite happening?

Marc Goldwein, the policy chief for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Business Insider that there had been a substantial shift in Washington's approach to federal spending in the past several years. Under Obama, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility and called to reduce the deficit — now they've largely tossed it aside.

Agreed. Hypocrite Rs finally prove that they are not fiscally conservative.

To your last point, I do not agree. Most of my peers are republican (from what I can gather), and all of them are concerned about deficits; but like my point to a fan, this is a much more complicated topic than simply saying 'I am for' or 'I am against'.
As a fiscal conservativer, I see little difference between Rs and Ds when it comes to spending - the only real difference is tax policy, Rs cut and spend, Ds tax and spend.

Perhaps a longer view is necessary to make such judgments. If the economy continues to roar for the next ten years, and if Republicans controlled Congress and the office of POTUS, I'd be willing to bet a sizable sum that deficit reduction would come to fruition. It doesn't do you much good to come into DC and massively cut spending, flat-line the economy, then get kicked out after 4 years, does it?
You don't have to wait a decade, just look at the Clinton's 2nd term....4 years of surplus. Followed by tax cuts and "unfunded" military spending by W.

What we know for certain is the average Democrat desires more government in your life, at almost every level. We know that the average Democrat trusts government far more than the average Republican. The takeaway from those two common sense observations is that Democrats, left to their own devices (with no opposition), would in fact massively enlarge government, raise taxes, and generally chase away much of the creation of real wealth. IE: Socialism, a fan's dreaded word. Leading to economic ruin, as has been shown throughout human history.
Your assertion has some validity, and yet in reality, government has NOT gotten smaller under Rs or Ds.
The one difference between your average Rs and Ds - Ds believe that government has a role, while Rs don't believe, but still want the benefits.

For that second point regarding Clinton, who controlled Congress after his first two years and constrained his spending impulses?

None of us know much about the deals that have been cut in the past to get budgets passed. But I know this: deals were cut. I think we may have entered into a bad direction in this country with POTUS' seemingly doing what they want, and with no approved budget (hence the automatic rollovers).

If one party could control all levers for ten straight years, I would bet Republicans would ultimately seek to control spending whereas Democrats would blow past all limits. This is the fundamental divide between the two parties; it is in fact baked into their platforms. And if the Bernie and AOC wing end up with control (which I believe will occur), watch out.

This discussion belongs in the nation's financial condition thread.

Not Impeachment.

As to the substance of your "bet", I think it is reasonable to be concerned about what a far left party would do if they had full control of the government for 10 years, without any checks and balances. Including in this aspect of deficits, though I suspect what we'd see is massive wealth redistribution away from the top 10%, rather than simply deficit spending.

Likewise, I think we should be concerned about a far right domination of government for 10 years, no checks and balances.

From a more practical perspective (as hopefully neither such will occur), though I'm a life-long Republican, I simply cannot dispute that when the GOP has controlled the Presidency and at least one house of Congress in my lifetime, deficits have skyrocketed. The converse has typically been the case with Democratic control.

This does not at all fit my notion of what fiscal conservatives believe in, however that's indeed been the pattern.

[dislaxxic]

As a fiscal conservativer, I see little difference between Rs and Ds when it comes to spending - the only real difference is tax policy, Rs cut and spend, Ds tax and spend.

Nope. D's tax and spend. R's BORROW and spend. See the difference? Much more insidious, what the R's do, they get to say "we don't tax like the D's" but in reality, they are shoving us just as far down the deficit hole as their D counterparts...

..

[foreverlax]

As a fiscal conservativer, I see little difference between Rs and Ds when it comes to spending - the only real difference is tax policy, Rs cut and spend, Ds tax and spend.

Nope. D's tax and spend. R's BORROW and spend. See the difference? Much more insidious, what the R's do, they get to say "we don't tax like the D's" but in reality, they are shoving us just as far down the deficit hole as their D counterparts...

..

That was my statement...

We agree that Ds tax and spend....Rs spend and cut taxes, adding to the debt - semantics.

[MDlaxfan76]

As a fiscal conservativer, I see little difference between Rs and Ds when it comes to spending - the only real difference is tax policy, Rs cut and spend, Ds tax and spend.

Nope. D's tax and spend. R's BORROW and spend. See the difference? Much more insidious, what the R's do, they get to say "we don't tax like the D's" but in reality, they are shoving us just as far down the deficit hole as their D counterparts...

..

Just to be clear, the red was not my words.
I agree with you both.

[ggait]

If one party could control all levers for ten straight years, I would bet Republicans would ultimately seek to control spending whereas Democrats would blow past all limits.

I've posted this like a thousand times before.

If you care about debt/deficits, there is only one thing you can vote for.

1. Dem president
2. One or both chambers of congress controlled by GOP.

That avoids (i) the worst stupid tax cuts and (ii) the worst stupid spending increases. It is as close as you can come to getting the duh obvious Simpson/Bowles type policies implemented.

History shows the worst budget busting comes from giving all the keys to the GOP. Dumb tax cuts, big defense spending. Tax and spend is bad; don't tax and spend is worse.

There's literally no question about this.

[Trinity]

General John Kelly says he believes John Bolton, not the President.

[Typical Lax Dad]

If one party could control all levers for ten straight years, I would bet Republicans would ultimately seek to control spending whereas Democrats would blow past all limits.

I've posted this like a thousand times before.

If you care about debt/deficits, there is only one thing you can vote for.

1. Dem president
2. One or both chambers of congress controlled by GOP.

That avoids (i) the worst stupid tax cuts and (ii) the worst stupid spending increases. It is as close as you can come to getting the duh obvious Simpson/Bowles type policies implemented.

History shows the worst budget busting comes from giving all the keys to the GOP. Dumb tax cuts, big defense spending. Tax and spend is bad; don't tax and spend is worse.

There's literally no question about this.

No tote bag for him

[Trinity]

Bolton has powerful allies in the Gop. When the establishment finally turns on Trump it will be swift and merciless. Off-ramps are still available. Rudy Colludy says Bolton stabbed him in the back!

[ggait]

New video of Dems presentation to the Senate (sitting as a high court of impeachment):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHGAdk ... io=1&t=158